New to Falcon BMS
-
What is the main factor for FPS in BMS 4.32/4.33? High CPU clock speed on a single core? Increased number of cores? VRAM speed? GPU speed?
My old Q9550 with 8GB DDR2 and a GTX 760 2GB runs BMS 4.32 (under XP) with FPS ranging from 25-50 over FLOT during the first day of the Rolling Fire campaign.
(1920x1200). Using TGP will really cause the FPS to dip but even without TGP, at times I find myself in <20 FPS. Any idea what the main driver is in this, given that my rig can run newer games still quite well in 1080p. Of course none of those have such old internals like Falcon 4.0 and none of these mimic a full scale war either. -
The 120 pixel lines more than the 1080.
Adding pixel lines on the Y axis is a killer for vga’s
Also your CPU. I had a similar and when I went to a newer 2 core it was better.
sent from my mi5 using TapatalkEdit. Oh and your ddr2 ram.
Also your hdds are on sata2 logically.So all those hold it back.
With same VGA when I went from Q6600 to the 2 core and now 4 core system things where better.
The 2 core was on the same Mobo. -
Personally I prefer higher FPS for a smoother game play. However, as long as it’s above 40 in the air I’m happy. I bought into GSync technology recently which is very nice, but it’s not cheap!
-
The 120 pixel lines more than the 1080.
Adding pixel lines on the Y axis is a killer for vga’s
Also your CPU. I had a similar and when I went to a newer 2 core it was better.
sent from my mi5 using TapatalkEdit. Oh and your ddr2 ram.
Also your hdds are on sata2 logically.So all those hold it back.
With same VGA when I went from Q6600 to the 2 core and now 4 core system things where better.
The 2 core was on the same Mobo.Arty, any notable difference between 2 and 4 core?
I’m considering building a dedicated pc for BMS and wonder if I’m better off with
I3 7350(k) at stock 4,2
Or
I5 7600(k) at xtock 3,8
Initially no intention to OC. Price difference is over a 100€ here. -
What is the main factor for FPS in BMS 4.32/4.33? High CPU clock speed on a single core? Increased number of cores? VRAM speed? GPU speed?
My old Q9550 with 8GB DDR2 and a GTX 760 2GB runs BMS 4.32 (under XP) with FPS ranging from 25-50 over FLOT during the first day of the Rolling Fire campaign.
(1920x1200). Using TGP will really cause the FPS to dip but even without TGP, at times I find myself in <20 FPS. Any idea what the main driver is in this, given that my rig can run newer games still quite well in 1080p. Of course none of those have such old internals like Falcon 4.0 and none of these mimic a full scale war either.It’s a little bit of a hodgepodge when you compare 4.32 and 4.33. There are countless posts in the forums where certain people swear up and down that there are NO graphical changes from .32 -> .33 that SHOULD change your FPS or game play. But there are 4x as many posts from people who claim they experience such issues… so I try to tread lightly in this specific area. That being said, read my previous post to understand why both sides of that coin can technically be true at the same time.
Newer games that run fine do so because they leverage newer graphics APIs. As developers start to learn ins and outs of new APIs, and they get updated, developers find ways to optimize their code to work specifically with the newer APIs, which produces better performance. A lot of this has to do with the way the newer APIs talk to to newer graphics cards, how they manage the graphics pipeline, and to what extent they leverage the GPU to augment the CPU in complex math. Falcon uses an older DirectX, which is probably only about 60% as efficient as DX11, and much less so for DX12. BMS Devs are constantly adding new semi-HiRes textures (TGP and Weapon View), increasing resolution (4K wasn’t even a thought when DX9 came out), better models, more complex AI, a TON more math involved with the AFM than the basic FM, etc… and the older DX version just can’t keep up. There are reasons why Games and Applications look so much better today than they did 10-15 years ago, and it’s NOT because people lacked the artistry skill back then. DX9 (Which is what most of BMS is built around) can NOT effectively talk to newer GPUs and hardware in an efficient manner. If they changed nothing else but a DX update to 11, I would bet a year’s worth of my sizable salary that every player in the community would see a 60-70% increase in FPS just from that change alone. If they forced people to use Win10 and went DX12, it would probably be 3x that increase because DX12 will natively use multiple cores from your CPU during the render stage.
For your specific instance, I would venture to guess it’s your processor that is holding you up. Changing GFX cards would likely help a little too, but my best guess is the older architecture in the Q Series processor. Newer CPUs can overcome a lot of the inefficiency in DX 9 by sheer brute force. The older CPUs just can’t manage it. The TGP tends to be one of the biggest FPS killers in the game, which makes me REALLY wonder how it’s implemented on the back side. It should not have that effect. Rendering a separate camera view to a texture, with minimal resolution, should not have such an impact on FPS. If it were being rendered to a distinct viewport outside the main window, at HiRes, then I could understand it. But for what it’s doing in the MFD window, I can’t for the life of me figure out why so many people have problems with it.
-
The resolution ain’t minimal for the mfd and it’s duplicating or triplecating independently, ain’t just the same thing but re rendering the same area with all the calculations it inherit like rendering 3 times (view-tgp-wpn) , thus the obvious frame drop. I believe any scenario or other platform with the same request would have similar impact.
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
Edit: I would say , it’s a miracle how the impact in BMS is so minimal.
-
Arty, any notable difference between 2 and 4 core?
I’m considering building a dedicated pc for BMS and wonder if I’m better off with
I3 7350(k) at stock 4,2
Or
I5 7600(k) at xtock 3,8
Initially no intention to OC. Price difference is over a 100€ here.Well 4 cores to have room for the future.
AND overclock… Life is short , gain is great, money are low.
Sure thing first: know or learn how to do it so not to spend more instead of gain.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
The resolution ain’t minimal for the mfd and it’s duplicating or triplecating independently, ain’t just the same thing but re rendering the same area with all the calculations it inherit like rendering 3 times (view-tgp-wpn) , thus the obvious frame drop. I believe any scenario or other platform with the same request would have similar impact.
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
Edit: I would say , it’s a miracle how the impact in BMS is so minimal.
You believe wrong. It’s still just a camera view, in a small texture area. It shouldn’t be that bad unless the entire scene is being rendered independently for each camera view. In which case, poor decision making is the culprit, not the amount of rendering. This is no different than a mirror reflection, or the cockpit reflection–which can be found in dozens of games with no impact at all. It’s just (Or should be) another camera view in the world, in this case being rendered to a texture instead of an independent view port (Window). And it shouldn’t be that high of resolution either.
-
U mean mirrors in DCS has zero impact?
U said it yourself “unless”, so assuming, so…sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Oh and BMS ain’t just a game. Yes in Minecraft mirrors might not have big impact. Put all the BMS calculations to Minecraft and come again.
U assume 2 much.
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk -
I assume nothing, I make statements from experience and knowledge on the mechanics of Direct3D. You assume everything based on your inexorable desire to argue with everything and make comments you can’t justify. Newsflash, if you open up the Update Distance on Minecraft past the default 16 chunks, it is much more computationally challenging than BMS, without mirrors.
Newsflash 2…DCS renders about 100x more polys per frame than BMS because the Terrain isn’t slaved to a single LOD level, is much higher resolution, and the object models are far less restrictive in design. It’s also not built on a 15 year old defunct graphics API, which is only half implemented. If you tried to run DCS on the BMS engine you would never get the 3D environment loaded. Comparing Apples to Airliners… Standard.
Do some research before you venture into topics you know nothing about, it would save us all some time…
Let’s just agree that you are content to be enamored with “What Is”, and I am driven to realize “What could be…”
EDIT: OK, you are right–I don’t want to be a liar. I ASSUMED the code was developed in a competent manner. ASSUMING it was, I have a hard time understanding why it is causing so much trouble for people. I ASSUME, there is something else going on that may be having an impact. I am CURIOUS about what that something is.
And Yes…BMS is just a game.
-
Harsh statements there m8. Hey newsflash no one is hunting u. Ease up.
We share a common thing , we love it. Let’s be positive and make it better. The show makes everyone here tired.
I fully agree with your last sentence, that was not my point. I was saying something else.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Harsh statements there m8. Hey newsflash no one is hunting u. Ease up.
We share a common thing , we love it. Let’s be positive and make it better. The show makes everyone here tired.
I fully agree with your last sentence, that was not my point. I was saying something else.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
This is the part that fails. Things don’t get better when everyone says everything is already rainbows and unicorns. I understand this is all volunteerism. And I understand it’s not a bunch of professional coders working full time on a project. Which is precisely why I say some of the things I say. Criticism is just a method of encouragement, and if you can’t handle criticism, then you shouldn’t be in the public view. But not being professional game developers also means things get overlooked. Teaching yourself new things in the coding world, ESPECIALLY complex math and DirectX (Which is ridiculously hard to master), often means you teach by experimentation and failure. Bringing light to things that may have been poorly implemented in the past, or things that may be conflicting with current changes, provides feedback and incentive for people to look at how things are being done, and examine if there is a better way to do it. In this particular instance, I feel pretty confident there is, because based on my experience, turning the TGP on or off should not cause a 20% FPS difference. It’s not rendering that much screen space. So maybe someone with some DX experience will see my comment and take a look. Maybe there is no other way to code it and it just causes huge FPS loss. They don’t like to comment on most things good or bad, so it doesn’t really matter anyways. In the end, there’s a better chance something MIGHT get done if it at least gets talked about.
As for the other stuff, well sometimes you deserve harsh statements–that statement right there very well might get me a little break from the forums, but it’s true. Inaccurate or flat out wrong information randomly thrown about without any real experience or knowledge to justify that information helps nobody. In fact, it can be quite detrimental to people who are trying to troubleshoot issues, or learn something new. You aren’t adding ANY value to the discussion by just randomly picking a sentence and saying you disagree with it. Why do you disagree? What basis do you have to form that opinion? What experience or credentials do you have to further substantiate that opinion? What references can you provide for anything you say? Add some of that into your comments and people would take you more seriously. Just saying you are wrong over and over again does nothing but destroy your credibility–especially when you make comments like the ones above which are completely and utterly wrong–Minecraft may not be the most visually appealing game in the world, but it’s actually quite complex under the hood. Every Block in the rendered World-Space has to be individually examined constantly because there is no way for the game to know what you are going to do at any given time. On top of that, it has randomized AI characteristics, “enemies”, friendlies, physics, random environmental changes, block-to-block interaction, distance characteristics, and it a complete electrical engineering subsystem designed to function almost exactly like real electricity. Can you do all that AND make it work cross-platform on machines that vary from old P4s to modern consoles and i7s to mobile phones? I certainly couldn’t and I have been coding for over 2 decades…
What I’m saying though, is offer some of your personal insight and experience to prove I am wrong, and I will gladly pat you on the back and admit you are right. Provide some kind of legitimacy in your comments, and the flames won’t follow. But otherwise, if you can’t take the heat; don’t start the fire.
-
Haven’t , and not gonna probably, read right now your whole answer. M8 u r new here. What u say towards me I’m sure made those that read it and know me for years now laugh very very hard.
Been there done that. I can handle your criticism.
On many u ask or post, guess what, already talked.
I’m not telling u to stop, just don’t take it personal. Devs many times don’t answer on things that are talked already, also they don’t answer when they don’t see something worth it. I try to answer u based on what was talked in the forum.
Keep going when u strike gold things will happen.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
U mean mirrors in DCS has zero impact?
U said it yourself “unless”, so assuming, so…sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
Mirrors are calling for a render of what is behind the aircraft, TGP or Mavs are displaying what has already been rendered in the froward view, a smaller selection of the rendered frame buffer.
Well that’s my understanding.
I use MFDe with marginal costs to FPS. About 5-7% i think.
-
Hmm Pat me on the back. I don’t target for this. I’m trying to help in any way I can and see fit.
If I should provide facts for things u say. Well most are mixed with personal or team preference.
Example WDP the way it was this wonderful tool want used from my squad. I made some suggestions to Falcas and thankfully he implemented them. There are no facts. Just likes and personal believe and practical issues.
I have no issue being harsh on me. But no need m8. The issue is not Arty or Mortesil, we are not measuring dicks here, I’m not I believe u r not also.
I’ve been working with coders for years so I have an experienced opinion. They tend to analyze things the “code” way, but that’s not always the best practice.
I’m not saying u r on the same category.
I’m no coder. I was educated on coding done a few things but long ago.
To get an idea on the load and mess of falcon code download the code of freefalcon or the one from the first leak and take a quick look. I believe it will change the way u see things.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Also DX9 dates back to the days of the original release of Falcon 4.0.
eRazor ported Falcon 107 over to D3d in 2001/2, DX7? hard to remember. And eventually killed my beloved V5 (Voodoo).
-
Not actually. U look left down, wpn forward up far and tgp right… It can be totally different areas.
U fly so the underneath terrain passes but u have stabilized ur SOI. So different thing. Eye view no vehicle but tgp has a column of smoking vehicles, guys it doesn’t renter all. Renters what u say it to display. Only loads the terrain mess height etc but not render all.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Why you gotta hate? Most people have no idea that FPS effects more than just the picture on the screen. Pardon me for trying to help people understand some of what happens beneath the hood.
No hating here!
Its that FPS issues almost always develop into long back and forth of opinions which is interesting to read as well as learn something new.
On the contrary, I appreciate your input.
Pika -
Not actually. U look left down, wpn forward up far and tgp right… It can be totally different areas.
U fly so the underneath terrain passes but u have stabilized ur SOI. So different thing. Eye view no vehicle but tgp has a column of smoking vehicles, guys it doesn’t renter all. Renters what u say it to display. Only loads the terrain mess height etc but not render all.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
This is exactly what I was talking about. If the game performs in this manner it is incorrect. The entire 3D world should be one large scene in a D3D sense. DX in combination with coded culling techniques decides what is in the picture and out of the picture for a given camera (Ever wonder the real reason the terrain is broken up in segments? There is a good chance this is it… ) . The objects are already loaded into memory for everything in the scene, and DX applies distance filters and scaling for the items in a particular view. This means it does NOT have to render a full scene 3x for 3 different views. It has to pick and choose which elements of the main scene are visible to a given camera, and perform the scaling and transforms for the models from that specific perspective. Only the transformed models which will be rendered to a camera need to be duplicated in GFX memory. Maintaining 3 distinct, full scenes for 3 different cameras is about as inefficient as it could possibly be. This is precisely the reason culling techniques have been developed and refined over the years.
I am aware you aren’t a coder, no need to clarify–trust me. I’m not sure what you mean by analyze things the “code” way though. Or what WDP has to do with any of this? Random… I don’t take things personally, it’s a forum for a game, which I don’t even play that often–just fun to poke around and hope some of the real issues get fixed eventually. You’re a random person I couldn’t care less about, except to feel somewhat obligated to correct your misinformation for inquiring minds.
PS… I’ve been in and out of the older code plenty enough. It’s not nearly as disjointed and messy as you might be led to believe. And certainly not the worst mess I’ve ever seen. Falcon is a relatively small program. Spaghetti code is just the way C/C++ works when you have a decent number of code files and shared objects to work with–especially when the program is developed by more than a single developer. There isn’t much you can do to get away from it, unless they are going to rewrite the entire code base in modern C++ with Smart Pointers and updated headers. Which they aren’t. But you have been working with coders for years, so you already knew that, right?