View Full Version : Is it worth 400bucks to see new water effects?

11-15-2004, 10:37 AM

11-15-2004, 10:40 AM
No the water effect is not worth 400 bucks, but thankfully, a video card can do much more than render water.

11-15-2004, 10:40 AM
No. It is not worth 400 dollars to see water that is pretty

11-15-2004, 11:06 AM



11-15-2004, 11:08 AM
Check my post over in FB Discussion _ I got it with a Ge force FX57oo ( cost is considerably less than $400.00 ) & YES it is a great effect!!!

11-15-2004, 12:28 PM
jigga What? Geforce 5700? I thought only the 6000 geforce were able to render the water 'cause it uses PS 3.0 Right now I have the old GF4400Ti, If the 5700 is that much better, I might have to upgrade to that instead of dishing out the extra dough. For some reason I thought the 4400Ti had better performance.....

11-15-2004, 12:36 PM
I use FX 5700 Ultra 128 mb and can get good looking water under perfect with water=1 in the conf file. Its not as good as water=3 but pretty **** good.

11-15-2004, 12:39 PM
What happens with water=2? this is what I have set right now. Water looks alright when the sun reflects, other than that it looks like glass. kinda hard to judge how far you are off the deck when there's no definition to it.

11-15-2004, 12:41 PM
IMO as far as this game goes, with a 9800pro or better buying a new G-card would not be worth 400 dollers.now if you have an older gpu like anything 9500 or lower yes maby.

11-15-2004, 12:44 PM
Is water the only thing that shows up the differences in shaders 2.0 to 3.0 ? In what other graphic touches can we see the advantage of having the latest shader technology ?

11-15-2004, 12:57 PM
People sometimes think they have Water=3 sometimes because they typed it in...the game just sets it to water=2 (or 1 depending on the card).

Only the 6800 series has the ability to actually render water=3. I suspect it uses displacement mapping or a similar technique to essentially render geometry on the water that is matched with the animated textures (pixel shaded water) that is being run on the surface.

The effect is a fairly realistic impression of water...but it has quite a FPS hit and it requires a bunch of technologies to be in place. ATI cards and 5000 series of GeForce cards should also be able to do the effect given the right code is written but its probably to the point of diminishing returns. Water=0 is still the best setting for my 9700Pro simply because of performance concerns.

11-15-2004, 01:34 PM
float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

get a new vid card, it was worth it to me !

11-15-2004, 05:29 PM
my $.02 worth...
I picked up a 8x AGP 256mb DDR FX5200 at Sams Club (some off brand) for $86, and I am running water at 2 - looks fine (not the setting of 3 of course) but for the cost, and flawless FPS in the game, I feel it's better than $400 for pretty water graphics.

Of course, when the money starts sprouting off my tree in the spring, then I'm updating my system to an AMD FX-55 with a nForce4 board and dual 6800GT cards in SLI mode...! I'll let you know what water 3 looks like! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


11-15-2004, 06:43 PM
Lemme get some seeds from THAT tree!

11-15-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltorro:
Lemme get some seeds from THAT tree! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif Sorry- been cultivating this tree for 15 years now... it's my secret mix of 15 years hard sweat, painful burns, fun and frustration. Otherwise known as my 15 year anniversary with the local Fire Dept. (bless them bonuses!)


11-15-2004, 08:00 PM
I've got a 6800GT, and it do looks great with water=3 but unless you need a better card for other things i wouldn't upgrade. My old Geforce4 card broke down a couple of weeks ago, and i decided to get a good card that last for a while instead.

The water looks good with perfect setting and water=1, but there is a significant difference compared to water=3. It's more apparent in motion, in game, than it is on a screenshot.

But you won't have much use of the 6800 card if you don't have a hefty processor to go with it too. Anything below 2.5 - 3GHZ and you probably will end up not using water=3 because of low fps!!

11-15-2004, 08:10 PM
I have got to say sumin on this......

1) F16_txmx: C'mon man you show 2 diff screens with 2 diff sea states!!I wanna see 2 pci express cards on a nforce 4 m/b with 4 gigs of ram to show the reflections on that stormy sea Bra!!


2) get a median card and send the cash difference to 1C maddox and tell 'em its fer the perfect cloud department care of the cumilo nimbus crowd aka tha pilotz playground!!!

11-15-2004, 08:29 PM
I vote yes (pic from the screenshot thread)


11-15-2004, 09:15 PM
To ATI and NVIDIA it is.

11-15-2004, 09:53 PM
How does that card render the gunners AND the water.. with all the flak and smoke? And decent frames... Thats what you want to know. Water isnt everything.. but if you can get all that other stuff as well id say go for it.

11-16-2004, 05:09 AM
You get pathetic performance when enabling special effects. I have 6800u. For best deflection shooting you should avoid even water=1, water=3 is slide show. Some people claim that aniso should be disabled but it ruins quality. Developers should optimise things a bit more. Maybe SLI 2x 6800u in pci mode can deliver fps. So answer is NO, 400 bucks is not enough to play with full efects. Maybe 2x400$.

11-16-2004, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You get pathetic performance when enabling special effects. I have 6800u. For best deflection shooting you should avoid even water=1, water=3 is slide show. Some people claim that aniso should be disabled but it ruins quality. Developers should optimise things a bit more. Maybe SLI 2x 6800u in pci mode can deliver fps. So answer is NO, 400 bucks is not enough to play with full efects. Maybe 2x400$. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could someone please qualify statements like the one above? It's not that I don't appreciate the opinions and input, but...

At what resolution? At what settings? What level of FSAA, what type and level of filtering? Define "playable" and "slideshow". What does the "fps START SHOW" command actually report, min, max and average on what scenes?

It drives me nuts to see unqualified statements like the one above, because there's no way to objectively judge what the performance really is.

Some people call 35-40fps unplayable, but for a sim, that's great.

Is it giving a "slideshow" set to water=3, max FSAA and filtering at 2048x1536, or is it a slideshow at water=3, no FSAA, no filtering, and 640x480? 3D gunners on, or off?

Knowing what kind of numbers it produces at what settings makes all the difference in determining how well the card performs. Without knowing what other settings people are using, statements like "it's fast" or "it's a slideshow" are fairly worthless.

This complaint isn't directed specifically at you, Darth, but it'd be great if anyone with a 6800 series (or any other high end) card can provide actual, typical numbers along with what settings they're using as well as a list of specific video card (128/256MB 6800xx), amount of RAM and processor type.

Then we'd all have a much better idea of where these cards stand.

11-16-2004, 09:11 AM
I want to disagree- as mentioned before I don't have the latest card but only a lowly FX 58oo & probably not even set up the best either , but I am blown away by the new effects..True FPS suffer ,but they weren't good with all those ships & flak before , even on lower settings( I wish I had known how to measure them then as I do now...because I'm pretty sure during those high intensity moments when FPS was grinding along it wasn't that much better than I have now with perfect settings!) I cantell you this ( because I measured it on the Kamikazee track,)FPS rates ( on perfect settings) with water =1 or water=3 were nearly the same...both went down to 4-5 FPS during the intense anti aircraft fire as the first Bette crashes int th carrier...it didn't make much ( if any) difference what water was set on ...of course this just might be the limitations of my rig..
What I might suggest is wait to see what the upcoming patch ( due next week) will do.It is supposed to address this low FPS/ship/AA problem that apparently most of us have regardless of setting,then see what the community says re buying up on computer graphics cards..I am going to wait until Battle of Britain comes out because by then I'll bet we'll need the next generation of EVERYTHING!
Till then I am very pleased with whatever level of PERFECT I ca get :


11-16-2004, 10:18 AM
The problem is that the perfect setting brings down even the fastest video cards, with the result, that you are getting a slide show. The rest of the comp is necessary as well but from what i have read so far, nobody, even the guys with AMD Athlon 64 FX 3800+ can't run perfect absolutely smooth under all conditions with everything else set to the max. It just isn't possible yet. There are people who claim to get a smooth gameplay but these guys never post their frame rates. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Don't expect any wonders after you've bought one of the new video cards.

11-16-2004, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>can't run perfect absolutely smooth under all conditions with everything else set to the max. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But define smooth and define "everything else set to max". An unwavering 24 fps is going to be "smooth", while a steady 100fps that occasionally dips to 19 briefly won't be "smooth". A solid 40fps that only drops to 28 or 30 will be "smoother". Without numbers, these terms are relatively meaningless beyond being very broad, subjective guidelines. Again, at what resolution?

Does everything set to max include full AA and filtering? Or is it just max settings in the sim?

I'm asking because I generally get playable rates (26-30fps avg) with a Ti4200 at 1600x1200, perfect settings and water 1. That's with no FSAA though, as it's not really needed at 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor.

Turn on FSAA and it goes to "slideshow" (<1 fps) under the exact same in game settings during certain scenes.

The settings are going to make all of the difference, unless it's unplayably slow with water=3 at the lowest possible in game resolution and settings.

But I somehow doubt that's the case. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's a combination of settings out there that the card can handle at water=3. Whether or not that would be an "acceptable" level is subjective and will depend on each user. But knowing what numbers result under what conditions will make that a lot easier to determine.

11-16-2004, 11:27 AM
darthbane your 6800u is a 128 meg vid card right? not the 256 versions of GT and ULTRA. that card wont perform as well

11-16-2004, 04:22 PM
Well for the $249 that I paid at Best Buy for my 6800 OC it was worth every penny but I don't use it for just PF or any other game. For graphics work its a good card as well especially when rendering stuff in CAD.

11-16-2004, 04:31 PM
Why do the pictures of the carrier always look like the ship is sitting still on a calm pond? No bow wake whatsoever.

11-16-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
darthbane your 6800u is a 128 meg vid card right? not the 256 versions of GT and ULTRA. that card wont perform as well <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, its Leadtek 256mb ultra. I cannot stand frames under 60. I have 1gb/400 sys memory. Gotta go now, i will be hapy to read yours and add my expiriences tomorow.

11-16-2004, 05:21 PM
I get perfect water with my 9800 xt

11-16-2004, 08:24 PM
O.K. here's my input:

I have a 3.06 P4, 533fsb, 1 gig rdram, winxp, audigy 2, and a BFG factory overclocked 6800GT(66.81 drivers).

I have been playing at 1024x768 @ 32bit, 4x FSAA, 2x AA, all graphics/sound options in game maxed and here's my thoughts:

Love the water, waves and cloud reflections on the ocean surface and I have playable FPS, without a lot of action going on, around 30 fps when taking off from carrier, in landing single missions (for example). As soon as AAA starts from a big ship I get stutters. Although, it is still playable for me as the stutters are very fast occurring.

What I'm currently playing at cause I like as little slowdowns as possible when the action gets hot and heavy.

So basically if you want to do some sight seeing flights without much combat action then water=3 is possible. If you want to attack Pearl Harbor forget water=3, cause even with water=1, I get some slight stutters in this map, when the AAA starts flying over battleship row.