A64 3500+ w/ SLI BFG 6800GT OC PCI-E

[SimFan]

CPU !

 

CPU is indeed THE bottleneck.

Even an AMD64 3500+ (+GF6800GT) is not capable enough to run with all settings high.

But I sure don't complain.

If you like -a.o.- the eye candy (like me), that's what is to be expected.

NO other sim (that I know of) looks like LO.

Those trees !! Those planes !! Those lighting/weather effects !!!

I repeat, never saw the above all TOGETHER like that in any sim.

But still, I hope ED can optimize code further in 1.1.

Thanks ED.

[spearsd]

I finally have a tracking number and indications are that I should have the 6800GT OC PCI-E cards tomorrow evening (Dec 29). :) I'll post my findings ASAP.

 

 

I'll try not to get our hopes up! This morning I called the people I ordered from to confirm that I was going to receive the vid cards and was told "Yes, we have enough to fill your order". Tonight, I checked order status for a tracking number, but instead find "back-ordered" on my invoice :cry: Oh well, just one of many disappointments suffered due to A-hole bone-head e-tailers this holiday season :x

 

I'll let you know when (if) I get them; sorry about that. Hmmm... I need a cheaper hobby :!:

 

-spearsd

[Skywall23]

Yup, LOMAC is CPU-limited in most cases. I've been running some missions lately on a P4 3.0E @ 3.6Ghz and a 6800GT @ Ultra speeds, and found that while the GT does help in some cases (vs. my old Radeon 9700 Pro), especially with overcast and heat blur (both are very GPU-intensive), most everything else is CPU-limited, especially terrain and object rendering. For example, just changing my FSB leads to dramatic changes when viewing a large number of ground objects (5+ (15 to 20) FPS from 3.0 to 3.6 Ghz), while fiddling with my 6800 GT overclock does absolutely nothing in this scenario. Seems to me that triangle setup is very expensive in LOMAC, or perhaps they are not using vertex buffers optimally.. can't say without seeing the code really. Furthermore, but this is GPU-related, many of the shaders are fairly unoptimised, especially overcast.

 

You make a good point jammer. My GFTi4200 is enough to run lomac, sincerly. There are guys that say this isnt truth, that graphic cards push lomac performance, a false statement. In fact lomac uses the old DirectX8.1, and those new graphic cards like the FX 6600 GT bring the cavalary with them, most notably DirectX9 support, that when used in games that use such technology, like Far Cry or Doom 3, really push the game foward performance.

 

The fact is that, in lock on, the CPU is most required pc component. Its it that makes the game run faster or slower. The Memory RAM, as the name says, loads the textures, and LO also uses many RAM, which is understandble due to the big map of Crimea and Caucusus.

 

I have noticed the lack of optimisations of the lock on engine many times, like the labels that consume many FPS, well... even the FPS counter consumes FPS. The overcast, flares, objects and explosions are the itens that require more optimisation.

 

Requests to the devs in order to get better optimisations resulted in nothing in practice. Eagle Dynamics must be thinking that waiting for better hardware is the best solution, which i strongly disagree, if thats the reason for such lacking of optimisations.

 

Having a game with good graphics is good, but when the graphics cant be pushed to maximum in the best systems out there without maintaning at 30 FPS in overall and when even in medium settings it still consumes much, is one of the reasons why this game as been returned to the retailers by some people.

 

With Flaming Cliffs things havent notably changed in this area, which is a clear disapoitment at least for me. If you have a top machine you will like it for sure, but those that dont will continue noticing the "memory leak" problem. (I dont know if it is a memory leak, but hell, the game doesnt unload the textures and models after a mission and then s*** happens.)

[BIOLOG]

Well, I think that DVD worth of source code isn't exactly "easy" to optimise... And it's sure as hell is time consuming. They might do that for the future product... IMHO LOMAC uses parts of Flanker Source code, which wasn't fully optimised either. Which was probably due to time and/or finansial constraints.

[Jammer]

DVD worth of source code? :D

 

The biggest project I've worked on so far has roughly 1.2 million lines of source code, including blank lines, comments, and deadcode. The average PC game has roughly 700-800k lines (including blank lines, comments, and deadcode). 1.2 million lines zip down to ~30 MB.

[Dmut]

DVD worth of source code? :D

 

The biggest project I've worked on so far has roughly 1.2 million lines of source code, including blank lines, comments, and deadcode. The average PC game has roughly 700-800k lines (including blank lines, comments, and deadcode). 1.2 million lines zip down to ~30 MB.

LOL

BIOLOG most likely meant a size of "debug" folder of LO project, right? :)

[spearsd]

Guys,

It could be 250 KLOC or 1000 KLOC; it really doesn't matter. It IS true that a finite number of optimizations in Lock On MAY be identified by developer's profiling the game and concentrating their efforts in areas of code where they would see the most bang-for-buck (most amount of benefit from least amount of effort with the least amount of risk), because that's what its really about... $$$. Will we see SOME of this in 1.1? I suspect very little because 1.1 bread-and-butter is the new flyable, new features, and new bug fixes :lol:, not optimizations. Hopefully, after 1.1, the devs will have some bandwidth to investigate and optimize (fingers crossed).

 

 

PS: I want my thread back!!! :roll:

 

-spearsd

 

 

DVD worth of source code? :D

 

The biggest project I've worked on so far has roughly 1.2 million lines of source code, including blank lines, comments, and deadcode. The average PC game has roughly 700-800k lines (including blank lines, comments, and deadcode). 1.2 million lines zip down to ~30 MB.

[SimFan]

1.1 memory leaks ????

 

Skywall states that 1.1 is still in unoptimized state, with possible memory leaks. The game does not unload textures/objects after a mission ?

Where did you get that information from ? From (or being one of) the beta testers ?

That would be unthinkable.

I read some info from Beta testers saying that now the sim no longer crashes AND that it is more fluent.

Who is right here ?

:?:

[BIOLOG]

Sim is stable. As I said earlier, on my rig, which is far from the top, (P4 2.2GHz 400FSB 768 PC133 SDRAM and GF 6800GT/TD 128Mb), game only crashed when extremely high time acceleration was used in a mission with a LARGE amount of AI planes/tanks ect. ?And these crashes were because I have somewhat "weak" CPU, and "dirty" system, so My PC couldn't cope.

Generally there is quite a good leap in preformence from 1.02 to 1.1, even thou 1.1 is not yet completed. If I somehow said that 1.1 is not unstable, I appoligise, for misunderstending. What I ment to say, was that fully optimising source code, as some people want it, so there will be no bugs, ect is IMPOSSIBLE.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Guys,

PS: I want my thread back!!! :roll:

 

-spearsd

 

 

Yes, let us (continue) talking about 6800GT! I am looking forward to seeing your test results with your new video card! I am planning to assembly a similar rig as yours!

[SimFan]

SLI ?

 

Talking about 6800GT SLI - the firingsquad review has a test rig with a 4000+ CPU. Maybe it is still CPU limited with LockOn and 1 GT card ?

We know LO simply eats CPU power (as most/all sims do).

However, even the 6600 SLI has a very limited gain in MAX FPS - compared with non-SLI. Strange.

So, it seems for LO the best choise would be a single 6800GT/U, X800-850XT (PE)...

and the best AMD64 CPU money can buy.

My 6800GT-AMD64 3500+ setup is still way too slow @ highest res (which is not surprising because of the incredible eye candy etc. etc.).

So don't make that mistake: you simply can not possibly buy fast enough, only too slow.

:wink:

[Skywall23]

Re: 1.1 memory leaks ????

 

Skywall states that 1.1 is still in unoptimized state, with possible memory leaks. The game does not unload textures/objects after a mission ?

Where did you get that information from ? From (or being one of) the beta testers ?

That would be unthinkable.

I read some info from Beta testers saying that now the sim no longer crashes AND that it is more fluent.

Who is right here ?

:?:

 

Mate what I reported was from LOMAC not FC. Im not a beta tester.

 

My conclusions came from the lockonskins mini-preview, which indicated that the game didnt change much in terms of performance. Of the 3 users only 1 reported considerable changes on the performance....which is bad.

[SimFan]

Skywall, sorry, thought you were talking 1.1 entirely (since you mentioned supposed performance of it).

FC will be stable according to so many reports.

It would amaze me if it wouldn't. But, ED will not dissappoint us, I'm sure.

:wink:

[Skywall23]

Skywall, sorry, thought you were talking 1.1 entirely (since you mentioned supposed performance of it).

FC will be stable according to so many reports.

It would amaze me if it wouldn't. But, ED will not dissappoint us, I'm sure.

:wink:

 

Thats a roger SimFan, lets hope then. :)

[ALDEGA]

Re: 1.1 memory leaks ????

 

Mate what I reported was from LOMAC not FC. Im not a beta tester.

 

My conclusions came from the lockonskins mini-preview, which indicated that the game didnt change much in terms of performance. Of the 3 users only 1 reported considerable changes on the performance....which is bad.

Overall performance of an application like Lomac cannot be improved dramatically.

 

The terrain uses relatively high resolution textures (don't forget, doubling texture resolution results in four times the surface size, which means four times as much fill-rate required, add anisotropic filtering to this and you're killing your videocard).

 

Everybody wants a large viewdistance so that means many ground objects are visible, cities consist of hundreds of buildings, forrests consist of thousands of individual trees (although very simple geometry-wise, the sheer scale cannot be ignored). Water (on 'very high') reflects terrain and ship, the mapping must be updated each frame, which is a costly operation. There is no reason to use 'very high' water for gameplay reasons.

 

Even if the flares and smoke effects didn't cause a slowdown, you wouldn't have the Quake3 framerates that many people are looking for. You cannot have good graphics and high framerates. Select graphics options that give a balance between visual quality and performance, don't try to have everything maxed out. Some people seem upset because "my great expensive computer" cannot run Lomac maxed out.

 

Stop looking at the framerate and start flying ;)

[Skywall23]

Thats not the problem ALDEGA, I dont want to run my LOMAC at max graphics.

 

I just DONT understand how the hell, can I play IL2 with medium high graphics with few "brakes". The IL2 did cool things like not making a huge map, they didnt make real forests, but simulated them, so the performance was not affected.

 

With my system in medium graphic settings LOMAC has still low FPS, like having 20~30 FPS. What the hell is that? 20 or 30 FPS is low. I want +30, thats all. Yes I dont want 50 FPS just 30~35 always (except when there too many objects/action going on) but noooooo. No, I have to get more 512 MB for RAM more 600 MHz CPU power etc.

 

*sigh* Well least its playble isnt it?I guess I will have to keep that in mind. :?

[BIOLOG]

Because LOMAC is a proper SIMULATOR. It tries to simulate as real combat enviroment as possible, therefore having less simplifications then IL-2... Therefore requiring higher computing power... also... LOMAC and Il-2 graphics are hardly comparible...

[Skywall23]

Because LOMAC is a proper SIMULATOR. It tries to simulate as real combat enviroment as possible, therefore having less simplifications then IL-2... Therefore requiring higher computing power... also... LOMAC and Il-2 graphics are hardly comparible...

 

Hardly comparable in some areas, because LOMAC effect really "suck". Except for the heat blur, explosions and flares. The water in PF is better than the LOMAC one. LOMAC beats in the terrain although IL2 textures are more softer , it also beats in the polygon area because its engine supports more triangles...ok the cockpit in LOMAC pwn the ones of IL2 but those are 2D. (along with other things)

 

And thats a fairly pro-LOMAC comparison BIOLOG. IL2 is a proper SIMULATOR and in some areas it beats the LOMAC gameplay. We have grids on the map, coordinates, reallistic flight model, and good modeling of the planes. The physics are nice, though FC one are better.

 

Saying that IL2 isnt a proper simulator is heart killing, because that NOT true.

[S77th-GOYA]

Saying that IL2 isnt a proper simulator is heart killing, because that NOT true.

 

I don't think BIOLOG said that, or meant that. IL2 simply has less to simulate. Much less.

[Skywall23]

Ok then, but it still simulates. It doesnt simulate more because theres nothign more to simulate. (Ok maybe some ground crew would help? :D)

[ALDEGA]

The water in PF is better than the LOMAC one.

I guess you mean the SM 3.0 water that requires a GF6xxx (lomac's water works on cards that are almost three years old) and is said to be quite slow (on GF6800GT).

 

... it also beats in the polygon area because its engine supports more triangles...

IL-2 "supports" more triangles? Lomac has a signficantly higher triangle count than IL-2. IL-2 has "texture forests" and simple towns. The aircraft detail is also much lower.

 

ok the cockpit in LOMAC pwn the ones of IL2 but those are 2D. (along with other things)

Have you checked how much "3D" that I-185 cockpit is?

 

Saying that IL2 isnt a proper simulator is heart killing, because that NOT true.

IL-2 does not simulate radar, missiles, laser guided weapons etc. You have guns/cannons, bombs, rockets, that's it. They chose to go with a high number of flyables that have a table-FM with generic landing gear physics.

 

I loved IL-2, FB. AEP felt a bit "milked out". PF simply didn't appeal.

I'm looking forward to Oleg's BoB.

[Muttley]

Beforehand, I apologize for what I'm about to say.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I have the feeling it applies for a bunch of people, not only here but in thousands of forums all over the internet. For the past 10 days (today included) I have been stopping by this topic at least 3 times a day. I have waited a long time for a computing solution to run LOMAC at the level *I* want to. The market/technology is quite not there yet (dual or quad cpus with dual/quad gpus) but I decided 6 months ago (when I was first hinted about SLIs coming back) that it would be "it" for me, until maybe 2006 when my dream setup gets to market at reasonable prices.

 

Anyways, for the past 10 years all my #1 computers have been built towards air combat sims. Now, the only sim I want to play which underperforms in my system is LOMAC (F4FF3/SP4, JF-18 and others run just fine). My problem is that I can't afford to spend the kind of money for a 939 socket + SLI mobo + 2 GT6800 and realize it was a mistake (I wish I could!). If you check the web, all the SLI setup reviews cover Quake like games... we hardly see any flight sim mentioned, even less LOMAC!

 

So I found this topic (was actually thinking about starting one myself) and thought to myself, "cool, a LOMAC head will have hands-on experience in a setup similar to what I'm planning to purchase and not only is he willing to share his experiences but he's also kind enough to take test requests... wow!!!

 

I can only imagine just how frustrated he is for still no receiving his components. But then I come here, in a topic called "A64 3500+ w/ SLI BFG 6800GT OC PCI-E" just to find all kinds discussions, including wanna-be challenges about who knows which sim has a higher triangle count for the modeled aircrafts... :roll:

 

Sure, I understand (believe me!) how the discussion of graphics implementation, drivers and current technology as a whole is pertinent to overall graphics perfomance, but this topic was supposed to be simply about how LOMAC will perform in an SLI'ed A-64 3500+. That's all!! Why not start another thread to discuss poly counts and what nots???

 

Well, I'm not sure I should hit the "Submit" button now... I'll probably just start to hear some brave challenges directed at me and I'm also not helping in keeping the focus writing yet another non pertinent message here: a complaint. Moreover, this will be just a teardrop in the rain...

 

Over one thousand and one hundred views, only 46 posts and the guy hasn't even received his components!!!! Something's definitely wrong....

 

Whatever...

 

Disclaimer: This was not directed at anyone in particular. Please, feel free to ignore this brain fart.

[S77th-GOYA]

For those that haven't seen this yet, it's an SLI review that includes LOMAC.

 

http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1587

[spearsd]

Goya,

I believe you'll find this link in my VERY FIRST POST in this thread :wink:

 

-spearsd

 

For those that haven't seen this yet, it's an SLI review that includes LOMAC.

 

http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1587

[spearsd]

ALDEGA,

I did a complete reinstall of LOMAC + 1.02 patch and played back the stock Mig29 Intercept demo with your requested settings while running FRAPS but have run into a slight problem... The views don't appear to switch automatically during playback as they should. Maybe its just me being down with the flu and not thinking clearly, but I could have sworn this track worked perfectly in 1.02 last time I tried it :cry: What am I missing?

 

-spearsd