Some FPS tests (second try)

[Zettman]

S!

 

I did some short FPS test, cause it still bugs me that I can't run BoS on ultra with constant 60 FPS.

 

What I did, was taking the average FPS I would get in Quick Mission parked on the ground, engine off. Of course all FPS are taken after I moved my head around the cockpit, so I would not get the lag/FPS drop you get when you look back for the first time after spawn.

 

For all tests:

 

Resolution: 3440x1440 (21:9)

Plane: Bf 109 F4

View: fully zoomed out, canopy open

 

1. Test

 

AA  Off, Graphic settings LOW

 

FPS looking straight ahead: 72

FPS looking back: 78

 

2. Test

 

AA x4, Graphic settings LOW

 

FPS looking ahead: 75

FPS looking back: 74

 

3. Test

 

AA x4, Graphic settings BALANCED

 

FPS looking ahead: 53

FPS looking back: 62

 

 

4. Test

 

AA x4, Graphic settings HIGH

 

FPS looking ahead: 52

FPS looking back: 55

 

5. Test

 

AA x4, Graphic settings ULTRA

 

FPS looking ahead: 54

FPS looking back: 58

 

Things I noticed during the test. I could not influence the position of the Sun in relation to parked plane, often the sun was straight ahead but not always. That may lead to small FPS fluctuations during the tests.

 

The system I used for this is the one in my signature except for the CPU. I was using a 4960X at 4.0 Ghz for the tests. All three graphic cards where under 60% usage during the tests, so no GPU limitation. Which also means that only CPU heavy changes did affect the FPS.

 

While adding x4 AA did not influence the FPS (difference between test 1 and test 2 may be due to sun and other factors), changing graphic settings from LOW to BALANCED caused a 20 FPS loss. Changing the graphic settings to HIGH and ULTRA had no further impact on the FPS compared to BALANCED.

 

This leads to my conclusion that something that get turns on by switching from LOW to BALANCED kills a lot FPS.

 

Plea to the Developers. Please give us back costume graphic settings, at least to test for ourself what is killing so many FPS between LOW and BALANCED. This would also allow these who have more than enough GPU processing power (manly high end GPUs or SLI setups), to keep the CPU bottleneck under control while utilizing as much GPU power as possible.

 

Zettman

[LizLemon]

What is your cpu usage actually like?

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

You didn't mention your nVidia CP settings.  Turn all AA to application controlled and SS to off as it will effect fps without any benefit.

 

That's on the ground, what about in the air?  Smoke altitude over Stalingrad?

 

Nice rig BTW.

[Zettman]

What is your cpu usage actually like?

 

Checked it with Widows resource monitor and it was a bit above 20% on LOW and ULTRA settings. Keep in mind that it is a 6 core processor and BoS uses only 2 or 3 cores, so you would get a higher percentage on a 4 core processor.

 

You didn't mention your nVidia CP settings.  Turn all AA to application controlled and SS to off as it will effect fps without any benefit.

 

That's on the ground, what about in the air?  Smoke altitude over Stalingrad?

 

Nice rig BTW.

 

Honestly I don't have much experience with Nvidia Control Panel and didn't change anything except for the energy setting, which are on maximum power. So I guess mine has the default settings active. Is there anything I will have to deactivate if I use default settings?

 

In the air the FPS go up fast. I don't have numbers yet, but there are around 80-90 FPS on multiplayer (still limited by the CPU, GPU usage far from 100%). If I remember correctly my overclocked I7 4820K (from my sig) gave me about 120-140 FPS at higher altitudes.

 

EDIT: Is there a way to change the language for the Nvidia CP to english, mine is on German and I don't want to look up all the function name?

 

Most are on 'application controlled' (Anwendungsgesteuert) or off. The few that are on are: AA gammacorrection, Ssadercache, triple buffering and trilinear optimizing.

 

Do I need to deactivate any of those?

 

Zettman

Edited January 21, 2015 by Zettman

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Don't know if you are aware of this but I looked up your monitor and it appears to be 60Hz LCD which means it is limited to 60 FPS max.  You will see 120-140 FPS displayed on your screen from programs showing the output from the graphics card but the monitor itself will only show 60 max anyway.

 

I would suggest to go fly and enjoy yourself.  You might pick up on low fps if it went below 30 but you will probably not notice a difference between 50-60fps. 

Edited January 22, 2015 by VR_Stick

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Here is a very good explanation of various graphic concepts and the nVidia Control Panel.  Light reading when you can't sleep.

 

http://www.tweakguides.com/NVFORCE_1.html

 

My GTX680 nVidia CP settings for IL-2:

Ambient Occlusion - Not Supported for this application
Anisotropic filtering - 16x
Antialiasing - FXAA - Off
Antialiasing - Gamma correction - On
Antialiasing - Mode - Application-controlled
Antialiasing - Setting - Application-controlled
Antialiasing - Transparency - Off
CUDA - GPUs - All
Maximum pre-rendered frames - 3
Multi-display/mixed GPU acceleration - Single display performance model
Power management mode - Adaptive
Shader Cache - On
Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization - Off
Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias - Clamp
Texture filtering - Quality - High Quality
Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization - On
Threaded optimization - On
Triple buffering - On
Vertical sync - Use the 3D Application setting

Virtual Reality pre-rendered frames - Use global settings (1)

[haltux]

Don't know if you are aware of this but I looked up your monitor and it appears to be 60Hz LCD which means it is limited to 60 FPS max.  You will see 120-140 FPS displayed on your screen from programs showing the output from the graphics card but the monitor itself will only show 60 max anyway.

 

I would suggest to go fly and enjoy yourself.  You might pick up on low fps if it went below 30 but you will probably not notice a difference between 50-60fps. 

 

The problem is that at 50 fps on a 60 Hz screen you have the choice between teering effects and vsync, which brings you back to 30 FPS. So basically either you are constantly over 60 FPS computed and you get a real 60 FPS on the screen, or not and you are no better than 30 FPS. Which is good but the difference in terms of comfort and smoothness is significant.

[Zettman]

S!

 

Made a quick tests with the Nvidia CP settings you posted.

 

AA x4, Graphic settings ULTRA

 

FPS looking ahead: 53

FPS looking back: 59

 

So no FPS gain sadly.

 

Zettman

[Zettman]

S!

 

I finally could get over my laziness and put the i7 4820K back in. Since I reached higher clocks with it and BoS can not utilize the 2 additional cores that the i7 4960X gave me, I expect better FPS. It is still on stock clocks, but I think I will be able to overclock it back to at least 4.6 GHz or even higher this weekend. Will do the same tests as I did with my i7 4960X and report back with the FPS I get.

 

Zettman

[SharpeXB]

The problem is that at 50 fps on a 60 Hz screen you have the choice between teering effects and vsync, which brings you back to 30 FPS. So basically either you are constantly over 60 FPS computed and you get a real 60 FPS on the screen, or not and you are no better than 30 FPS. Which is good but the difference in terms of comfort and smoothness is significant.

Try adaptive Vsync

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

The problem is that at 50 fps on a 60 Hz screen you have the choice between teering effects and vsync, which brings you back to 30 FPS. So basically either you are constantly over 60 FPS computed and you get a real 60 FPS on the screen, or not and you are no better than 30 FPS. Which is good but the difference in terms of comfort and smoothness is significant.

 

Your high fps is the root of your tearing.  Take a read through this.  You may want to limit the fps in the game to 60.  Although it may sound counter productive it will stop the tearing, probably with or without vsync.  I know vsync requires Triple Buffering to be On in nVidia CP, maybe also Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias = Clamp.  Also check out what the article says about the Adaptive setting.

 

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

And one other thought.  According to a recent article, fps is thought to be more important than resolution when gaming.  I was just wondering if turning your resolution down from 1440 to say 1200 (or whatever fits your aspect) may gain you anything.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196406-retinal-jiggles-why-your-eyes-and-brain-strongly-prefer-games-at-60-fps

Edited January 23, 2015 by VR_Stick

[Zettman]

And one other thought.  According to a recent article, fps is thought to be more important than resolution when gaming.  I was just wondering if turning your resolution down from 1440 to say 1200 (or whatever fits your aspect) may gain you anything.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196406-retinal-jiggles-why-your-eyes-and-brain-strongly-prefer-games-at-60-fps

 

S!

 

I think the CPU still needs to render everything, so it won't help. Resolutions is work for the GPU, I have more than enough GPU power.

 

Zettman

[Zettman]

S!

 

Next round now with my overclocked i7 4820K @ 4.6 GHz.

 

For all tests:

 

Resolution: 3440x1440 (21:9)

Plane: Bf 109 F4

View: fully zoomed out, canopy open

 

1. Test AA  Off, Graphic settings LOW

 

FPS looking straight ahead: 80

FPS looking back: 82

 

2. Test AA x4, Graphic settings LOW

 

FPS looking ahead: 80

FPS looking back: 77

 

3. Test AA x4, Graphic settings BALANCED

 

FPS looking ahead: 59

FPS looking back: 69

 

4. Test AA x4, Graphic settings HIGH

 

FPS looking ahead: 60

FPS looking back: 64

 

5. Test AA x4, Graphic settings ULTRA

 

FPS looking ahead: 56

FPS looking back: 63

 

So all in all only slightly better than before. Honestly I was expecting more with a 600 MHz faster CPU. I'm still not able to run constant 60 FPS on ULTRA, considering that FPS on multiplayer servers are often a bit worse. CPU usage was at about 30-35% for all tests. So if a 6 core CPU runs at 20% (a bit above maybe) and a 4 Core at 30-35%, I would guess BoS is using about 1.2 to 1.4 cores effectively.

 

Zettman