Jump to content

Is increasing FPS a priority for ED?


Recommended Posts

Just curious if refinement of the code to obtain even beter FPS is a priority or even an objective of ED's for their future patches (or even future titles for that matter). Or is ED simply going to throw in more and more layers to their sim products while hoping the customer base will simply upgrade their hardware?

 

The reason I ask is because of the soon-to-be-released stellar-performing consoles, namely the X-Box 360 and Playstation3. Though I am not fully familiar with the specs of these consoles, my understanding is that there will be something like 3 (three) 3.5GHZ CPUs working together to produce gameplay, which as of yet, has been unrivaled in the PC market - and all for something like $450. Most of us recently spent that much or more alone for just a graphics card upgrade, which most will agree still do not provide completely fluid gameplay in Lock-on.

 

And though there "will" be some die-hard grognards who will continue to upgrade in hopes of obtaining Lock-on FPS fluidity - my thinking is: once these consoles hit the market and everyone starts seeing what's available for them, loyalty to the PC market will begin to wane, thus worsening the sales for ED - that is, unless of course, the Lock-On code (and its follow-up titles) are optimized to such an extent that they can be played, with FPS fluidity, on yesterdays hardware. That alone, I believe, will ensure the survival of ED and future Lock-On sales.

 

Just a thought I had... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said they're -not- optimized? As for consoles, we've seen hype before. And sims have traditionally brought systems of their time to their knees. Nothing new here.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is that PC sims developers are right ahead of PC hardware for gaming very cleverly, as this way their sims will extend their life. I.E Lomac, which by todays standards is already an "old" game, is still, and for the times coming, the best of the best graphically talking. Still not many PCs can manage the sim at its full potential. So, we´ll have lomac for quite a time. And I thank ED for that.

Remember F4 when it came out. Hard on graphics, and still alive those many years after, ewven though its graphics are not top quality for today.

I don´t think consoles will ever take on PC gaming. I feel there are two completely different markets, and there is place for both...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always a "priority" to optimise performance, but there are no miracle solutions. It is a constant battle between graphics detail level/code complexity and hardware power.

 

To say that a new Lomac follow-on must have state-of-the-art graphics while being playable on "yesterday´s hardware" in order for ED to stay in business, is like saying that Ferrari must continiue to push the envelope on technology, design and performance with their next model, but keep the price and fuel economy to that of a FIAT in order to survive :D

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is always a "priority" to optimise performance, but there are no miracle solutions. It is a constant battle between graphics detail level/code complexity and hardware power.

- JJ.

 

What I aske myself is: Are there options to make the "Ferrari" more efficient?

As an example: Why is the water under the land? Must it be rendered?

Or: Why is the Overcast/water that hardware hungry and a replacement from the community not (with a little less quality).

 

I do not want to bash anyone, but has the engine itself perhaps some more room for tweaking/improvement?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I aske myself is: Are there options to make the "Ferrari" more efficient?

As an example: Why is the water under the land? Must it be rendered?

Or: Why is the Overcast/water that hardware hungry and a replacement from the community not (with a little less quality).

 

I do not want to bash anyone, but has the engine itself perhaps some more room for tweaking/improvement?

 

Regards

 

 

Yes, the water must be rendered under the land - to split it up into chunks would require more processing power. And apparently the graphics on the water isn't rendered until you see it anyway.

 

Pixel shaders clash with the overcast and water - they ask too much from most graphics cards.

That's why they're an option, not a fixed quantity.

 

 

Yes, the engine has more room for improvement - but the question is whether it's more important to spend time optimising the engine for graphics performance, or adding new features.

 

So many threads in so many forums have said "OMFG Lomac = teh unoptimised hitlar I could 0pt1mi53 this in my lunch break" . . . . which IMO shows a marked lack of understanding :p

 

Further performance improvements from the engine aren't worth the time - especially with the current crop of graphics cards.

 

On the other hand . . . . . things like better AI, more features, and bug fixes ARE worth the time.

 

 

I'd question the wisdom of creating a campaign mission where the weather effects are known to clash horribly with other eye-candy effects, though. The overcast/AA/AF clashing is a true pain, and I wish they'd done it a different way - or at the very least put in a shiny warning in the readme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge performance gain if ED would improve the binary space partititioning tree to not take into account units that are nowhere near the player. Today all units are considered, even if they are on the other side of the world map.

 

But then again, let's have that in the sequel ;)

ASUS P4T533-C|P4 3.06@3.45|1024Mb Kingston 1066 rambus|ATI 9.... *EDITED* - Listen to Mods!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is a huge performance gain if ED would improve the binary space partititioning tree to not take into account units that are nowhere near the player. Today all units are considered, even if they are on the other side of the world map.

 

But then again, let's have that in the sequel ;)

 

A little bit the way F4 handles units BVR?? IIRC they call it the Bubble, or something alike...

Link to post
Share on other sites
A little bit the way F4 handles units BVR?? IIRC they call it the Bubble, or something alike...

 

Elapsed time for someone to make that comparison - 35 minutes :p

 

To be honest, I was expecting it to be less . . . . . grin.

 

 

Yes - a system like that would be A Good Idea. However, this suggestion usually degenerates into a "Why can't Lomac be just like Falcon 4?" argument . . . . . which tends to be a bit pointless, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want performance use reduced graphics effects. Obviously the higher you crank up all that lighting, haze, high water, high effect options the slower the game will run. There's a linear equation in there somewhere but the way they have it even a person on a ti4200 can still play the game on low settings while a guy with a 6800GT also gets the full features he paid for with his card.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Elapsed time for someone to make that comparison - 35 minutes :p

 

To be honest, I was expecting it to be less . . . . . grin.

 

 

Yes - a system like that would be A Good Idea. However, this suggestion usually degenerates into a "Why can't Lomac be just like Falcon 4?" argument . . . . . which tends to be a bit pointless, IMO.

 

I´ll tell you why: because F4 is graphically 6 years(?) old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess there is much more than this. A campaign like F4 one is still unsurpassed, and it might be very complicated to achieve such a level of micromanagement of it. I would pay anything for a campaign like that for Lomac/FC. It would be definetly the end of the F4 era. Wasn´t there a project of dynamic campaign called Stormin or something similar?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

A question for alfa or one of the tester team..............

what kind of hardware will it take to run black shark with all the detail maxed out at good framerates and at a resolution of maybe 1600x1200

 

would a system with a intel i7, single nvidia 280 or ati 4870 1gb, 6gb memory, vista 64 bit be likely to do it?and what spec of system would he recommend (i am particualrly interested in his recommendation for cpu and video card?assuming cost is not an issue)

Link to post
Share on other sites
A little bit the way F4 handles units BVR?? IIRC they call it the Bubble, or something alike...

 

 

Yes and buble effect is not realistic at all. At least much less than normal counted units.

Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D

ಠ_ಠ



Link to post
Share on other sites
What I aske myself is: Are there options to make the "Ferrari" more efficient?

As an example: Why is the water under the land? Must it be rendered?

Or: Why is the Overcast/water that hardware hungry and a replacement from the community not (with a little less quality).

 

I do not want to bash anyone, but has the engine itself perhaps some more room for tweaking/improvement?

 

Regards

 

Believe it or not but my FPS count seems better with Cloud values of 9 and 10 (overcast). And I still use the same CPU as I did when LO appeared!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...