Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rivatuner and MSI Afterburner used to be for overclocking (and monitoring) the GPU which is really not needed todays as you would not gain alot, specially if the graphic crad is factory overclocked.

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Startrek66 said:

Is it possible that none of you know and use Rivatuner?  Too bad I didn't find out earlier for me.


Why don't you teach us about it? I would like to read you describing this program and advantages.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that it is a very light and non-invasive software. I'm not going to explain its characteristics, you can find them on the net. One useful feature is scansyncs, which allows for consistency of frame rate and frame time between card and monitor. All without overclocking! Great!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 9:40 AM, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Rivatuner and MSI Afterburner used to be for overclocking (and monitoring) the GPU which is really not needed todays as you would not gain alot, specially if the graphic crad is factory overclocked.

 

That is not true. I gained quite some FPS and had less stutter with my OC on GTX 1070. (1970mhz from Factory OC 1784, +400mhz on VRAM). Not every card is the same and there is usually a bit of space to push your card, if at least by increasing power limit. Of course if your bottleneck is the CPU you will not notice that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 9:40 AM, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Rivatuner and MSI Afterburner used to be for overclocking (and monitoring) the GPU which is really not needed todays as you would not gain alot, specially if the graphic crad is factory overclocked.

 

It is not true what you write. It is easily demonstrable. For example if the simulator runs at 60 fps it is NOT SURE that the frame timing is 16. 7 ms as it should be to have the right fluidity or smoothness. With Rivatuner using the Scansyncs function you can get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RTSS is a useful tool and certainly has its purpose. As does Afterburner for OC...

 

RTSS is useful for monitoring GPU/CPU/RAM for load/temps, frame times etc especially after adjusting graphics settings. I only run RTSS for testing and don't run it all the time anymore.

 

I originally used it for scan-line sync but found i had better results locking the frame rate in nvidia settings and using nvidia fast sync (I leave frame rate unlocked and v-sync off in il-2 settings).

 

IMO, this option provided better results than using RTSS for screen tearing. Frame times remain consistent. It also means i no longer need to have Afterburner/RSS running in the background anymore. (I'm sure they are very light on system resources but better to have less things running in the background when possible).

 

YMMV. 

 

Edited by itsbillyfrazier
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

RTSS is a useful tool and certainly has its purpose. As does Afterburner for OC...

 

RTSS is useful for monitoring GPU/CPU/RAM for load/temps, frame times etc especially after adjusting graphics settings. I only run RTSS for testing and don't run it all the time anymore.

 

I originally used it for scan-line sync but found i had better results locking the frame rate in nvidia settings and using nvidia fast sync (I leave frame rate unlocked and v-sync off in il-2 settings).

 

IMO, this option provided better results than using RTSS for screen tearing. Frame times remain consistent. It also means i no longer need to have Afterburner/RSS running in the background anymore. (I'm sure they are very light on system resources but better to have less things running in the background when possible).

 

YMMV. 

 

I agree with you. For now I am experimenting with rtts in the background while using the simulator and I easily found the positive result.  However, I do not exclude making a comparison with the NVIDIA panel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Startrek66 said:

I agree with you. For now I am experimenting with rtts in the background while using the simulator and I easily found the positive result.  However, I do not exclude making a comparison with the NVIDIA panel. 

 

Yes, well I did a lot of experimenting with different settings and it took me months to find a setup that works well within the limitations of my system.

 

Still, out of curiosity,  I'm interested to know if RTSS or Nvidia settings work better for you.

 

Most of the progress I made to get to a "happy place" within the sim for graphics/performance was achieved by tweaking both in game settings combined with nvidia control panel settings.

 

RTSS proved itself useful in helping to determine if the changes I made were progressive or regressive.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

 

Yes, well I did a lot of experimenting with different settings and it took me months to find a setup that works well within the limitations of my system.

 

Still, out of curiosity,  I'm interested to know if RTSS or Nvidia settings work better for you.

 

Most of the progress I made to get to a "happy place" within the sim for graphics/performance was achieved by tweaking both in game settings combined with nvidia control panel settings.

 

RTSS proved itself useful in helping to determine if the changes I made were progressive or regressive.

 

 

My PC has an I5 2400 CPU with 8Gb of ram.  The graphics card is a gtx1050 2gb.  The system is not powerful.  The graphics settings of the simulator are on balanced, vsync off and fps not limited.  The Nvidia panel is on global setting except for maximum performance power.  I use the Moscow map as a scenario, with a rapid mission consisting of eight bf109f2s and eight B25 bombers.  Briefly I tell you that with Rtts I get 60 fps and a frimetime of 17 ms.  Without rtts with vsync disabled the 60 fps are not stable and the frame time is variable with peaks of 30 ms.  However, data can be collected and tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well it's good to know RTSS has worked out well for you.

 

I achieved stable performance (FPS/Frame-time) without having to use RTSS in il-2, but i do use it in some racing sims when i struggle with stable frame times.

 

FYI - i7 6700k, gtx980ti, 32gb Ram, SSD. My system is really showing its age but it runs il-2 well for me on a single screen. All highest settings (excl. canopy reflections - off, Clouds - High, Sharpen - off).

Edited by itsbillyfrazier
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 12:52 PM, itsbillyfrazier said:

I originally used it for scan-line sync but found i had better results locking the frame rate in nvidia settings and using nvidia fast sync (I leave frame rate unlocked and v-sync off in il-2 settings).

I want to test in the Nvidia panel, how did you set the parameters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Startrek66 said:

I want to test in the Nvidia panel, how did you set the parameters?

 

image.png.5825006ce1a949eabbdffc12009c41f7.png

image.png.bbcb3da4a9ebaa824b7abed0f79848e1.png

 

***Il-2 settings***

Lock frame rate: off

Vsync: off

 

Test frame time/FPS variability with RTSS but make sure you leave frame rate unlocked in RTSS so as not to duplicate. 

 

Edited by itsbillyfrazier
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

 

image.png.5825006ce1a949eabbdffc12009c41f7.png

image.png.bbcb3da4a9ebaa824b7abed0f79848e1.png

 

***Il-2 settings***

Lock frame rate: off

Vsync: off

 

Test frame time/FPS variability with RTSS but make sure you leave frame rate unlocked in RTSS so as not to duplicate. 

 

Why is it fixed at 60 fps in the Nvidia panel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The screen I use is capable of 60hz only, so capping it at 60FPS in Nvidia control panel makes sense for my situation.

 

This ensures the GPU is not producing more frames than my monitor is capable of displaying, while keeping some GPU bandwidth in reserve for more GPU intensive scenarios the sim throws up from time to time.

 

For example; flying low over cities with lots of aerial or ground activity in the vicinity can cause frame time variation or a drop in FPS (At least on my system...). 

 

Capping FPS in Nvidia or RTSS can help mitigate against this to an extent.

 

I'm by no means an expert at optimising graphics and I'm still learning lots, but I have spent plenty of time to get il-2 to run smoothly and look its best on my system.  I am pretty content with how I have the game running on my system for now,  although I do intend building a new PC when GPU/CPU stock returns to normal.

 

I actually did a quick test out of interest to compare performance between using RTSS versus Nvidia CP settings and was getting more stable frames by using Nvidia settings (Locked @ 60FPS/Fast Sync) than letting RTSS manage FPS/Frame times on my PC.

 

But given we all have different PC specs...YMMV, so experiment and hopefully you will find what works best for you and your PC.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

The screen I use is capable of 60hz only, so capping it at 60FPS in Nvidia control panel makes sense for my situation.

 

This ensures the GPU is not producing more frames than my monitor is capable of displaying, while keeping some GPU bandwidth in reserve for more GPU intensive scenarios the sim throws up from time to time.

 

For example; flying low over cities with lots of aerial or ground activity in the vicinity can cause frame time variation or a drop in FPS (At least on my system...). 

 

Capping FPS in Nvidia or RTSS can help mitigate against this to an extent.

 

I'm by no means an expert at optimising graphics and I'm still learning lots, but I have spent plenty of time to get il-2 to run smoothly and look its best on my system.  I am pretty content with how I have the game running on my system for now,  although I do intend building a new PC when GPU/CPU stock returns to normal.

 

I actually did a quick test out of interest to compare performance between using RTSS versus Nvidia CP settings and was getting more stable frames by using Nvidia settings (Locked @ 60FPS/Fast Sync) than letting RTSS manage FPS/Frame times on my PC.

 

But given we all have different PC specs...YMMV, so experiment and hopefully you will find what works best for you and your PC.

 

 

 

 

The doubt arose because I read that fast vsync is only useful when you have a monitor that is not gsync and with a gpu capable of doing fps higher than the frequency of the monitor, so here is that blocking at 60 Fps seemed strange to me, maybe could blocking at 62fps, for example, be more useful?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe your understanding is correct.

 

However, many monitors and TV's are advertised 60hz when in fact they actually run just below at 59.xxxxx. hz. (My monitor is an example of this, it is running just below 60hz and is not g-sync compatible).

 

But we digress a little.... The proof is in the testing. With the setup I use, I get no screen tearing and my frame times are stable ~95% of the time (Map/MP dependent).

I would probably get similar results if i did run slightly higher at say 61 FPS, but there is no need to run at a higher FPS when I get stable frame rate and frame times by setting at 60. 

 

Raising the FPS would give me quicker frame times but probably at the expense of stability. My current configuration gives me a balance of performance and eye candy, this is what i want to achieve under the limitations of my hardware.

 

Were i optimising for a racing sim, i would be lowering graphic settings so i could achieve quicker and more stable frame times at higher FPS, because you know, even a hundredth of a second can count in a racing sim... but this isn't the approach i adopt for il-2....where a stable 60 FPS with lots of higher graphical settings works just fine for me.  

 

Horses for courses...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 11:32 PM, itsbillyfrazier said:

Yes, I believe your understanding is correct.

 

However, many monitors and TV's are advertised 60hz when in fact they actually run just below at 59.xxxxx. hz. (My monitor is an example of this, it is running just below 60hz and is not g-sync compatible).

 

But we digress a little.... The proof is in the testing. With the setup I use, I get no screen tearing and my frame times are stable ~95% of the time (Map/MP dependent).

I would probably get similar results if i did run slightly higher at say 61 FPS, but there is no need to run at a higher FPS when I get stable frame rate and frame times by setting at 60. 

 

Raising the FPS would give me quicker frame times but probably at the expense of stability. My current configuration gives me a balance of performance and eye candy, this is what i want to achieve under the limitations of my hardware.

 

Were i optimising for a racing sim, i would be lowering graphic settings so i could achieve quicker and more stable frame times at higher FPS, because you know, even a hundredth of a second can count in a racing sim... but this isn't the approach i adopt for il-2....where a stable 60 FPS with lots of higher graphical settings works just fine for me.  

 

Horses for courses...

 

 

I've tried this combination, and I'm not sure it's beneficial, because the fps are between 90 and 120 but I don't have a gsync monitor.  My monitor is 60hz.  I activated scansyncs and in the Nvidia panel I activated fast vsync and low latency activated.  I have turned off the fps limits everywhere.  What do you think about it?  Have you experienced it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...