How much grunt does CFS3 really need and what's the bottleneck?

[greycap.raf]

Just a thing I've been wondering for a while now and the latest additions to both my hardware and the sim add-ons spurred this thread. It seems that no matter how much power I pour into CFS3 the frame rates never get to a level I'd expect them to be at.

My hardware, current and (used to be) parts:

Intel Core2Duo E6750, running at 2.66GHz
Nvidia GTX470 (Nvidia GF8800GTS 320MB factory OC)
6GB 800MHz DDR2 RAM (4GB of the same sort), and yes I know XP only uses 3.25GB
Windows XP SP3 (7 Pro 64 for a brief while)

With the old configuration playing my very heavily modded 3.1a install I was getting about 60 fps on stock airfield X, now getting about 75 fps at the same spot. It's also the general frame rate throughout the sim. Both configurations topped out around 130 fps when looking at a clear sky. However, the old configuration slowed down to 30-40 fps in ETO, especially near airfields. That was one thing I hoped to correct with the GTX470 but the situation remains the same - the general fps increased a bit but ETO still slows it down to the old figures. Is it just that the engine itself is too heavy at such spots, are the poly counts through the roof, or what? Surely the Nvidia flagship card combined to a Core2Duo should run a game this old constantly at something like 80 fps? Both installs have the exact same cfs3config values.

On the other hand, MAW runs smoothly as butter, perhaps even smoother than the 3.1a and it's been that way since the beginning.

[ndicki]

No idea about the hardware, but one reason I use MAW as a development tool is that while it's up to date (mine is, anyway) it runs well without all the stuttering and suchlike I get with ETO... An old version of ETO at that. The latest version I stripped for parts and deleted - too resource-hungry by far.

[hairyspin]

The consensus seems to be that CFS3 prefers speed to power and you'll get better fps with a 3.4GHz processor than a 2.6GHz quad-core job. Also the game engine just can't take full advantage of the more recent graphics card developments because it's 2002 vintage software which will also run on Windows 98!

That's not to say recent hardware can't run it better than 5 year old kit - recent hardware tends to run faster anyway - but there's a limit to the improvements available. The big improvements in graphics cards are in running higher resolutions at decent fps: all that video memory gets used to good effect. I used to content myself with 20+ fps in MAW at 1024x768 16-bit colour on an old P4 1.66GHz with a 5200 128MB card. Nowadays I get an untweaked 40+ fps in ETO on a Core2Duo 2.8GHz with a 9800GT 512MB - at 1680x1050 32-bit colour!

So if you're running a 24" 1900x1600 monitor.....!

Also IIRC MAW was designed to be framerate-friendly, whereas ETO was planned with more powerful machines in mind. No offence to the ETO guys, but the MAW crew were masters at efficient modelling and texturing since they cut their modding teeth in the days when that really mattered. You can't load up the scenery with more airfield details without incurring a fps penalty, whereas sand is easier on the texture buffers. Still, there's always Valetta Grand Harbour if you think your rig is pretty zippy!

Just my tuppence ha'penny.

[greycap.raf]

So if you're running a 24" 1900x1600 monitor.....!

1920x1200 24" actually. Not that much off!

ETO was planned with more powerful machines in mind.

That's one of my main points here. Is there actually a machine powerful enough even today to run it smoothly under all circumstances? I tend to doubt it as airfields cause a big fps hit, explosion effects and such cause a big fps hit, those two combined slow even this rig down to a crawl. If someone has a machine that can run it at full detail above 60 fps in the middle of an airfield bombing raid I want to see the specs.

[wsmwsm]

After running CFS3 and all its progeny (MAW, ETO, OFF, etc.) - for years - I just found a simple trick to boost framerates. Something that I probably should have figured out long ago and that everybody else with Nvidia probably knows. But here goes anyway.

By right-clicking on the desktop, a menu appears which includes an item entitled "Nvidia Control Panel". One of the Nvidia options is "Adjust Image Settings. . ." By simply moving the slider from "Quality" to "Performance", I just the average FPS in CFS3 by 15-20.

The sim runs - and even looks - better. Now I am wondering what the "Quality" setting actually does.

[hairyspin]

Sounds to me like a processor upgrade might help! And the Quality setting probably refers to graphics features unsupported by CFS3.

Thanks for that, wsmwsm!

[Pat Pattle]

whereas sand is easier on the texture buffers.

That's a very good point! One thing that helps in ETO is to look in your assets folder and if you have a paint proggy that will do it, check the size of your 'scenerysheet01.dds' file. If it's 2048X4096 then reduce it by 50%. Also, many of the ETO a/c and airfield textures are 2048 square. Again reducing them by half will improve fps no end.

[ndicki]

The quality setting governs anti-aliasing. If you go for performance alone, you'll have jagged edges around everything, and your screenshots will be rubbish. This overrides the settings you have in your config file.

[ndicki]

Also, many of the ETO airfield textures are 2048 square. Again reducing them by half will improve fps no end.

Never thought of that. I removed most of the trees though. That helped.

[greycap.raf]

By simply moving the slider from "Quality" to "Performance", I just the average FPS in CFS3 by 15-20.

Doesn't help any when you've got CFS3 defined in the program specific menu.

Also, many of the ETO a/c and airfield textures are 2048 square. Again reducing them by half will improve fps no end.

I actually ran tests some time ago (can be found on the forum) with 1024 and 2048 textures, and found the difference to be just about non-existant. Something like 67 fps vs. 65 fps. The texture size doesn't matter a bit after it's been loaded into the graphics card memory and if there's enough memory there's no problem.

Never thought of that. I removed most of the trees though. That helped.

That's the way to go. On the BoB Hawkinge airfield the file size is reduced to about half of the original when the trees are deleted and the fps goes from 25 to 40+. But still, 40 fps with this kind of hardware?

To put this into perspective - in a heavily modded 3.1a with all sliders at 5 I get roughly 75 fps. Sounds reasonable. In ETO and BoB, with terrain and scenery sliders pulled all the way back to 1 and flying across open terrain I get 60 fps. Is it just me or does this sound like there's something very weird going on?

[NachtPiloten]

There were modification to the scenerydim something or another that controlled how far out the engine generated trees, buildings and other autogen stuff. This was a big help in improving framerates. Do you have this? I think it was part of maw as an option to improve the rates vs having dramatic looking scenery. I believe that you placed the new files in the asset folder which over rides the stock settings .. I think.

Hope this helps and stirs some of that gray matter out there.

[Pat Pattle]

The thing about the trees is that they are very 'small' models, 8 polys if I remember rightly. all the trees on one airfield add up to far less than 1 aircraft, your far better off to remove those and ground vehicles.

However from various posts over the years it seems that everyone's pc is different!

Oh and don't forget background services - use FSAutostart to get rid of unwanted applications and free up some memory, this is one of the easiest ways to better fps.

[hairyspin]

Just a thought, greycap. That 6GB of memory, is it 3x2GB DIMMs or 2x2GB and 2x1GB? DDR2 memory likes to be fitted in pairs for memory interleaving and if you have an odd number of DIMMs the m/b can't use it as efficiently afaik.

[OldCrow]

Just a thing I've been wondering for a while now and the latest additions to both my hardware and the sim add-ons spurred this thread. It seems that no matter how much power I pour into CFS3 the frame rates never get to a level I'd expect them to be at.

My hardware, current and (used to be) parts:

Intel Core2Duo E6750, running at 2.66GHz
Nvidia GTX470 (Nvidia GF8800GTS 320MB factory OC)
6GB 800MHz DDR2 RAM (4GB of the same sort), and yes I know XP only uses 3.25GB
Windows XP SP3 (7 Pro 64 for a brief while)

With the old configuration playing my very heavily modded 3.1a install I was getting about 60 fps on stock airfield X, now getting about 75 fps at the same spot. It's also the general frame rate throughout the sim. Both configurations topped out around 130 fps when looking at a clear sky. However, the old configuration slowed down to 30-40 fps in ETO, especially near airfields. That was one thing I hoped to correct with the GTX470 but the situation remains the same - the general fps increased a bit but ETO still slows it down to the old figures. Is it just that the engine itself is too heavy at such spots, are the poly counts through the roof, or what? Surely the Nvidia flagship card combined to a Core2Duo should run a game this old constantly at something like 80 fps? Both installs have the exact same cfs3config values.

On the other hand, MAW runs smoothly as butter, perhaps even smoother than the 3.1a and it's been that way since the beginning.

I've always thought that the game engine is just pretty poorly made for framerates and avoiding stuttering.
I'm running a similiar set-up to you, and the problem you have might be the video card settings. The strange thing I've noticed with CFS3 is that it runs and looks better when I go to maximum settings in the Nvidia control panel and in game. Maximum in every aspect! AA(enhanced), AF, both 16x. TransperancyAA =supersampling, etc. It always seems to run smoother when it really shouldn't.

Looking at what you said again about your FR, those are very impressive numbers actually and I'm not sure what more you could expect. I don't use ETO, so maybe the problem lies there only?

[greycap.raf]

Just a thought, greycap. That 6GB of memory, is it 3x2GB DIMMs or 2x2GB and 2x1GB? DDR2 memory likes to be fitted in pairs for memory interleaving and if you have an odd number of DIMMs the m/b can't use it as efficiently afaik.

2x2GB and 2x1GB. Used to be 4x1GB.

I've always thought that the game engine is just pretty poorly made for framerates and avoiding stuttering.
I'm running a similiar set-up to you, and the problem you have might be the video card settings. The strange thing I've noticed with CFS3 is that it runs and looks better when I go to maximum settings in the Nvidia control panel and in game. Maximum in every aspect! AA(enhanced), AF, both 16x. TransperancyAA =supersampling, etc. It always seems to run smoother when it really shouldn't.

Looking at what you said again about your FR, those are very impressive numbers actually and I'm not sure what more you could expect. I don't use ETO, so maybe the problem lies there only?

That's pretty much my own opinion about the game engine too. I'll have to try pushing everything to the maximum, now I have 4xAA and 4xAF and it looks good enough already but if more quality means more speed, yes please!

And it indeed seems that the problem lies in ETO (and BoB) only. What I'm wondering is that how on earth it can put even a rig of these specs right to its knees. It shouldn't be even possible.

[MajorMagee]

The thing to remember about trees in 3D programming is that they all have to get sorted to see what's behind something else and if the pixel gets displayed or hidden. The trees may be simple but too many of them will really bog things down. Thats why changing the view distances make such a big difference because it limits the volume of tree objects that need to be checked.

[ndicki]

Also at the kind of distances we're talking about, an aircraft will be down to basic LODs anyway - so while it will be more than a tree, it won't be the full load, far from it. Fifty trees takes some calculating - angles, etc, as the Major says.