Lack of aircraft in GWX 2.0

[KaleunHassanAziz]

Hi, folks!

First of all, thank you to GWX team!!

In my last two patrols starting from Sep. 39

out of Wilhemshaven, I am yet to be jumped

by single aircraft. I passed north of Scapa Flow

to get to the Atlantic.

In my GWX 1.03 installation, I was always attacked

every 5 to 10 minutes real time (same game period /

same game location)

Is this normal?


Everything else seems to work fine.

Could someone help?

[Jimbuna]

The aircraft are most definitely out there....we put in literally hundreds of RL hours testing the aircraft traffic and I am actually getting pretty sick of their interference in-game on my present patrol heading around the tip of Scotland toward patrol grid AM25.
Try to keep your tc at a maximum only of x128 http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[KaleunHassanAziz]

Thank you for the quick reply.


Actually, I love to get jumped by enemy aircrafts.
It somehow makes the game more immersive, I find.

That is why I never go over tc256. It threw against
me plenty of aircrafts in GWX 1.03.

In the last two patrols (GWX2) I stayed at 256, but not
at 128.

Do you think staying at 128 would make a difference?

[irish1958]

.

Do you think staying at 128 would make a difference?

Yes, Stay below 128.
If you really want to get pounded by air, try the Bay in 1943-44,:lost:

[Jimbuna]

You'll eventually need one of these to have even a sportung chance http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif
U621 (U-flack)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1518/u621uflackald8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5342/u621uflackbxf3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Brag]

From what I've heard, the aircraft at the beginning of the war been reduced to a more realistic level than in GWX 1.

In GWX 1, going through the Fair Isle Passage one always saw aircraft. I am now on my second patrol, seen only one Portuguese plane. I try to stay away from areas patrolled by aircraft. :D

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Hi KaleunHassanAziz,

Early in WWII, aircraft assets were stretched to the limit and very few were available for ASW patrols. Also, cooperation between navies and airforces was virtually nonexistent. It isn't until late 1942 that you will begin to see the leading edge of an enormous shift in aircraft action in GWX... reflecting what happened in real life once the allies got it together in an organized way.

A great deal of research and testing went into the distribution of airpower in GWX 2.0.

[KaleunHassanAziz]

Wow, that's much comforting. Thank you!


But just out of curiosity, I would like to hear

from others how often they encountered English

aircraft during Sep39 - Sep40 patrols.


* And for those with problem with white specks

The problem really bothered me, but I was ready to
live with it.

But yesterday, I guess I got very lucky.

After doing doing following things, the white speck are no more!!:rock:
(I have XFX8800GT)

1. Changed AA to 16Q / Anistro... application controlled

2. Enabled mod: captain america icon
Enhanced damage effect
Merged campaign
No medal on crew
Alternate loading screen

I am not sure which one solved my problem,

but my GWX2.0 is white speck free now!!!!:sunny:



Now, I want to see some tommies in the air!

[Kpt. Lehmann]

If anything changed your horizon problem, it was your AA changes that you made... though you may not need to go as high as 16x. Try lowering it to say, 8x AA and see what happens. Doing so, you won't have to lose a bit of overall performance. Your call though. Every PC/System has its quirks and is unique... especially the Nvidia 8800 gfx cards.

Returning to the topic, air attacks in 1939-40 should be quite rare for you indeed.

[stew278]

In got attacked by aircraft quite a bit in my current patrol during Oct '39. I was passing N of Scotland on the way to my patrol area. In grids AM34-AM36 while travelling SW I was repeatedly attacked by Swordfish in pairs, one wave after another. I got 8 of them before one scored a lucky hit and killed the flak gunner.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

In got attacked by aircraft quite a bit in my current patrol during Oct '39. I was passing N of Scotland on the way to my patrol area. In grids AM34-AM36 while travelling SW I was repeatedly attacked by Swordfish in pairs, one wave after another. I got 8 of them before one scored a lucky hit and killed the flak gunner.

The presence of Swordfish (and Avengers) in GWX indicates a carrier nearby.

Also, if your course hugs shorelines relatively tightly... you may receive attacks by Hurricanes.

[bigboywooly]

In got attacked by aircraft quite a bit in my current patrol during Oct '39. I was passing N of Scotland on the way to my patrol area. In grids AM34-AM36 while travelling SW I was repeatedly attacked by Swordfish in pairs, one wave after another. I got 8 of them before one scored a lucky hit and killed the flak gunner.

The presence of Swordfish (and Avengers) in GWX indicates a carrier nearby. :yep:

Also, if your course hugs shorelines relatively tightly... you may receive attacks by Hurricanes. :nope:

Hudsons and Ansons
:rotfl:

You wont see a Hurri in a British airbase till 41

[Kpt. Lehmann]

In got attacked by aircraft quite a bit in my current patrol during Oct '39. I was passing N of Scotland on the way to my patrol area. In grids AM34-AM36 while travelling SW I was repeatedly attacked by Swordfish in pairs, one wave after another. I got 8 of them before one scored a lucky hit and killed the flak gunner.

The presence of Swordfish (and Avengers) in GWX indicates a carrier nearby. :yep:

Also, if your course hugs shorelines relatively tightly... you may receive attacks by Hurricanes. :nope:

Hudsons and Ansons
:rotfl:

You wont see a Hurri in a British airbase till 41
Okay... so I fergot a detail! SUE ME LOL!!! :p :p :p

[KaleunHassanAziz]

Thank you, Kpt. Lehmann.

The AA was actually at 8x when I got those white specks.


As for the aircraft thing, I think I'll start a new career and

do a couple of patrols out of Lorient in 43 to check enemy

air activity.

I would still like to hear more on this issue from others.

Thanx in advance!

[KeptinCranky]

I've repeatedly crosses the passage north of Scapa Flow, in both my IXb and my IIa, I did get some planes in early 1940, mostly Ansons, although with the IIa I got mugged by swordfishes, usually 2 or 3, I shot down 5 with no damage to the boat....poor stringbags


They're out there, just cruise along on the surface in good weather and attack the first merchant you encounter with your deckgun, they'll find you :up:

[TarJak]

There is definately a difference in both the mix and frequency of air attacks early war. As BBW stated these have been the subject of a significant effort to bring them more into line with what was historically correct.

I've played numerous patrols around the northern British Isles in 1939 and have been jumped by a number (less than in 1.03 but probably more historically correct), of aircraft, mostly Ansons and Hudsons. This is one of the reasons Uboat commanders travelled submerged during most daylight hours in the first years of the war unless they were in a position where it was necessary to surface.

Using lower TC 128x or less will give you more frequent chance of seeing air attacks.

[Pablo]

Wow, that's much comforting. Thank you!


But just out of curiosity, I would like to hear

from others how often they encountered English

aircraft during Sep39 - Sep40 patrols. Hi!

On my current patrol (Sept '39) I was attacked three times in two days while traveling westbound between the Shetlands and the Orkneys. The aircraft each time was an Avro Anson. My TC was 128.

Hope this helps!

Pablo

[GoldenRivet]

i have been jumped in early war times by aircraft in the area of the Shetlands, the Orkney islands and northward from the outer Hebirdes.

this is a logical place for aircraft to focus upon because u-boat traffic bottle necks here in their transition between the north sea and the open atlantic.

you wont see much air activity in 1939, 1940 and 1941. but air activity is out there and it increases each year a little bit.

1942 you see a spike in air activity, and then 1943 44 amd 45 you will likley encounter a group of aircraft multiple times a day every day you are on patrol

[KaleunHassanAziz]

Thank you very much for the replies.

I'll start a patrol from Lorient in 43 and see what happens.

Thx again!!

[Jimbuna]

......and don't forget..

BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!! http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

http://www.itsnature.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfmoon.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif

[NiclDoe]

when i first saw the title of this thread it shocked me. Also Yu will not be complaining anymore once you make it to 44 or 45.:lol:

[irish1958]

Jimbuna: Way Too Cool Sig for GWX 2.0!:up::up:

[TarJak]

Start a patrol from Brest in 44 or Flensburg in 45 and see if there are enough aircraft around for you.:lol:

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa54/TarJak/SHOT2338.jpg

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa54/TarJak/SHOT0035.jpg

[Hartmann]

Lol !! :lol:

No more music band and people saluting ... You have to go ut to the sea at periscope depth ! :doh: :dead:

[Jimbuna]

Jimbuna: Way Too Cool Sig for GWX 2.0!:up::up:

Cheers Irish.....Feel free to use it mate http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

http://www.itsnature.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfmoon.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/pasquarade/wolf-38.gif

[BulSoldier]

IN all my carriers i almost never met aircraft patrols,they were extremerly rare (still dont have 2.0:damn:) but i should point that i was killed everytime in late '42.

[Checkmate King 2]

You guys sure know your stuff!!!

In my first patrol I played after reading this thread, I did not exceeding a TC of 128 and guess what; the first aircraft my crew have spotted in my last 9 patrols (counting GWX 1.3 and the new GWX 2.0).

I was starting to wonder were they were, also.

Thanks:D

[BulSoldier]

I must say i prefer never meeting them.I always evade going in areas with aircraft activity,may be that was the reason not meeting much of them.:hmm:

[Schwuppes]

I think youre on to something there BulSoldier... :know:

[bigboywooly]

Just patrolled AN15 - April 40 - and was buzzed by many a Swordfish and a Hudson or 2
The Swordfish meant a carrier somewhere - Scapa
Well there was till I sunk it

:rotfl:

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

I just want to verify that running anything over X128 will impact aircraft encounters; correct?
That's gonna make running patrols to the Caribbean a bit long. --wry grin--

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I just want to verify that running anything over X128 will impact aircraft encounters; correct?
That's gonna make running patrols to the Caribbean a bit long. --wry grin--

Yes TC DOES influence how many air attacks you may receive.

Even low TC does... just not as bad as high TC.

Anything above 256x TC virtually eliminates air attacks.

The short explaination: computational lag by the SH3 engine created by each increment of TC allows units to zip by you without ever seeing you. The opposite is true also.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

I just want to verify that running anything over X128 will impact aircraft encounters; correct?
That's gonna make running patrols to the Caribbean a bit long. --wry grin--

Yes TC DOES influence how many air attacks you may receive.

Even low TC does... just not as bad as high TC.

Anything above 256x TC virtually eliminates air attacks.

The short explaination: computational lag by the SH3 engine created by each increment of TC allows units to zip by you without ever seeing you. The opposite is true also.

Okies. Thanks. :)
Odd as this might sound :doh: but I'd rather run at the lower compression to keep the chances of air encounters 'real'. But that's a killer on those gawdawful transatlantic jaunts. Are there reasonable points when heading cross-Atlantic (or, for that matter, down to the tip of Africa) where running at higher compression won't 'cheat'? Much as I dislike air encounters --grins-- I also don't want to be driving my boat 'claoked' from them either.

[TarJak]

Using SH3 Commander I've bumped the max TC up to 2048 to speed up the Trans-Atlantic crossing. I normally run out to around 500km at 128 or less to keep the air attacks "real", then ramp up to 2048 for the main jaunt across the pond, and at around 500km from the US coast drop back to 128 again. I managed to finish a Drumbeat patrol the other night in less than 5 hours elapsed real time. Game time was over 8 weeks most of which was spent at high TC on the two crossings.

[Schwuppes]

This thread explains to me why I encountered no more than 2 (!!) aircraft from 1939 to mid 1943 in my last GWX 1.03 career, I was using 1024 TC too often.

Yer I guess thats a reasonable compromise Tarjack. I think I will do the same when I start my new GWX 2.0 career.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Just speaking for myself... I wish I had the time to run around at nothing but 1x TC.:yep:

[BulSoldier]

DAmn i thought the only thing high tc affects is the time we spot the flying machines.

[Jimbuna]

Okies. Thanks. :)
Odd as this might sound :doh: but I'd rather run at the lower compression to keep the chances of air encounters 'real'. But that's a killer on those gawdawful transatlantic jaunts. Are there reasonable points when heading cross-Atlantic (or, for that matter, down to the tip of Africa) where running at higher compression won't 'cheat'? Much as I dislike air encounters --grins-- I also don't want to be driving my boat 'claoked' from them either.

Look at the SH3 Map and study the air coverage circles 'year by year'. I find that a good rule of thumb guide for increasing to high TC http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[gimpy117]

well, it's 1939.....

ive already gotten jumped by a flight of 3 russian bombers after i sent a contact report..

[Hitman]

The short explaination: computational lag by the SH3 engine created by each increment of TC allows units to zip by you without ever seeing you. The opposite is true also.

Nice that this got solved in SH4, pity it still happens in SH3 :damn:

Anyway, I have noticed that in later war years the effect is greatly diminished by the aircraft radar :yep:

Since their detection range is increased a lot, it is harder for them to fly by at hight TC without noticing you. If I had the skills and knowledge, I would like to see what happens if placing a visual node with huge detection ranges in early war aircrafts. Probably they would detect you easier at higher TC and that would solve a part of the problem? :hmm: Well I suppose if the GWX guys haven't done it before, then that's because it doesn't work :lol:

[bigboywooly]

Could work Hitman
The trouble with high TC is by the time the game drops to 1x to let you know the aircraft would be already on you
Shipping does a similar thing
Was running through the channel the other night 1940 at 4096TC
I know
Was attacked by 3 warships on seperate occasions
All 3 times when the game had dropped to low TC I was already under attack and they were REAL close
Damaged before the game could drop to 1

But you are right ,in later years the radar will drop TC whatever speed you were going
Again they can be real close the higher your TC at the time

[Biggles]

Always thinks it turns to laggy when using 4096TC. I'd use max the TC before that, and especially if I was foolish enough to go through the channel!

Oh, and I haven't met any airplanes yet. Operating outside Norway now in April 1940. You'd think the Luftwaffe would drop by from time to time....

[johnno74]

Does anyone know if the missing aircraft at high TC effect is reduced on a fast machine?

Aircraft miss you because their position is calculated in steps, which get bigger as you increase TC. at 1x TC the "refresh time" of the game world is around 20 times a second... at 1024 its more like once every 10 minutes.

But if you have a faster CPU the game could in theory use smaller steps, updating the game world more often at high TC, allowing you to use high TC without missing aircraft, or dropping out of TC with the bombs already on their way down...

So the question is: Is the calculation step size fixed, regardless of your pc's specs? I'm inclined to believe the game DOES vary the size of the calculation steps, because of the effect when you are near a harbour or a convoy at high TC - the map update slows to a crawl, sometimes only once a second or so, but while the framerate drops, the distance you travel each frame increases to try and maintain the same overall TC, indicating a very large calculation step.

I used to play SH3 on my desktop pc, a 2ghz athlon64 and I noticed the missing aircraft at high TC a lot. Now I play on my 2ghz core 2 duo laptop (even though the mhz is the same, the core2 is a LOT faster than an old athlon64) and I seem to get more aircraft at high TC.

Has anyone played SH3 on different machines and noticed this?

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Ok, I've no real idea how aircraft 'appear' in the game, so if this sounds idiotic please forgive me.

I'm assuming that, like convoys and singletons, that the actual 'physical' entity appears (spawns) when your U-boat is within a certain radius of where the ship(s) are projected to be. If that's the case, is there any way the act of spawning could be used as a trigger somehow to knock TC back? I've no idea how the mechanics of event triggers and spawning work, so I'm not sure if this is really off-the-wall or not.

I do know that when I'm tooling along at 512X or higher I always know when there is a convoy in the area because all of a sudden my 'clock' starts lagging like slogging through mollasses, and my cursor starts moving real slow and jerky. I'm guessing that's because the game has to start populating the actual ships instead of just moving them as a programmed blip of code.

I'm kind of torn here. I dislike knowing I'm avoiding aircraft (I know; sounds silly, no?) by running 'cloaked' at higher TC, but I also dislike spending tremendous amounts of time heading to and fro patrol areas and convoy lanes at quite low TC.


Was attacked by 3 warships on seperate occasions
All 3 times when the game had dropped to low TC I was already under attack and they were REAL close
Damaged before the game could drop to 1



Had that happen to me several times in the past, especially during periods of poor visibility (ex. heavy precipitation, heavy fog). By the time it dropped me to 1X the DD was less than 100 meters away and I'd already been critically damaged. Now I'm in the habit that any time visibility sucks I'm running ahead slow and TC between 64 and 128. So far that's kept me from being pounced and pounded.

As long as I'm wishing --grins-- I wish radio contact reports dropped TC down, too. Getting a radio report does, but a radio contact report doesn't. --mutters--

[Kpt. Lehmann]

The short explaination: computational lag by the SH3 engine created by each increment of TC allows units to zip by you without ever seeing you. The opposite is true also.

Nice that this got solved in SH4, pity it still happens in SH3 :damn:

Anyway, I have noticed that in later war years the effect is greatly diminished by the aircraft radar :yep:

Since their detection range is increased a lot, it is harder for them to fly by at hight TC without noticing you. If I had the skills and knowledge, I would like to see what happens if placing a visual node with huge detection ranges in early war aircrafts. Probably they would detect you easier at higher TC and that would solve a part of the problem? :hmm: Well I suppose if the GWX guys haven't done it before, then that's because it doesn't work :lol:

Well Hitman, you've actually hit on something there that has been experimented with.

There are at least two factors that influence detection at elevated TC levels. There is the computational lag that was discussed.

However, the other thing that I am aware of that can influence matters are the "sweep" speeds of the sensors. If you increase the sweep speed, you have in a sense 'ubered' the sensor.

The problem with speeding up the sweep speed of the various sensors... (visual, radar, RWR, hydrophones etc) is that it basically makes them operate at an unreal level of effectiveness. Sensors should not be 100% effective 100% of the time... This is especially true of the 'visual' sensor.

Hydrophones in real life could detect a single merchant in the region of approximately 20 nm away, while the same hydrophone set could detect a convoy 100 nm away.

In SH3 hydrophones can only have one maximum range and sensitivity setting. The outer ranges for the hydrophones are set for a lesser effectiveness or 'signal strength detection' capability.

Increasing the sensor sweep basically makes the outer ranges again 100% effective.

Increasing the sensors sweep times can also cause a watch crewman see perfectly to the maximum possible distance in pitch darkness... at 3:00 A.M./0300 in the morning.

Also, speeding up the sensor sweep times puts a much higher load on your processor... as each unit in SH3 has various combinations of sensors... each sweeping at speeds that are relevant to a real-life bsaed comparison and balance against the limitations of what can be represented in-game.

Rubini's 'Stay Alert' mods increase the sweep speed of the visual and hydrophone sensors on the player subs... at the cost of making detection capabilities always in the player's favor... and reintroducing the old 'vampire night vision' bug in SH3.

How this relates to GWX users:
Naturally, players can choose to use these mods. However, for the reasons stated above, they will not become part of the GWX default package.

I mean no offense to Rubini. He's given an enormous ammount of good work to the Grey Wolves and the community... especially in relation to campaign coding... but he and I have fundamentally different ideas on what things would be good for the sensors in in SH3.

Lower TC is always going to be the best way to go... as it allows the engine to process changing data more effectively. Furthermore, as Albrecht von Hesse describes, lower TC reduces the FPS hit that occurs when a convoy renders into existence nearby in SH3.

Some measure of patience will always be required of players to get the most out of SH3.

[BulSoldier]

I have dual core and as far as i understand sh3 doesnt use the second(sort of) so it is actually pretty anoying runing at 1024 and sometimes fps drops dramaticly.IN any case indeed low tc is best solutions,it can make IX patrols really long but it wont let you out of high tc when have a contact in a fog 3 seconds before collision.

I play with 256 and yes it takes 4times the usual to go anywhere but hey, you can do other things than watch the monitor,what are the watch crew for ? :up:

[Schwuppes]

I have dual core and as far as i understand sh3 doesnt use the second(sort of) so it is actually pretty anoying runing at 1024 and sometimes fps drops dramaticly.IN any case indeed low tc is best solutions,it can make IX patrols really long but it wont let you out of high tc when have a contact in a fog 3 seconds before collision.

I play with 256 and yes it takes 4times the usual to go anywhere but hey, you can do other things than watch the monitor,what are the watch crew for ? :up:

There is one problem however, when the radio operator recieves a radar warning from the Metox or Naxos there is no audible warning, there is only message displayed in the dialog box.
Otherwise I would just set TC to 64 and chill out infront of the television... but because of this limitation I don't risk the lives of my crew.

I would like to have a mod that makes someone of my crew shout out when the FumB recieves enemy radar waves. Ala "Schiff gesichtet" style.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I have dual core and as far as i understand sh3 doesnt use the second(sort of) so it is actually pretty anoying runing at 1024 and sometimes fps drops dramaticly.IN any case indeed low tc is best solutions,it can make IX patrols really long but it wont let you out of high tc when have a contact in a fog 3 seconds before collision.

I play with 256 and yes it takes 4times the usual to go anywhere but hey, you can do other things than watch the monitor,what are the watch crew for ? :up:

That is often true regarding dual core processors default operation.

I use an optimizer program that shares out the load on my dual core processor evenly.

IE: If my processor is working at 30% capacity... each of the two processors receives 15% of the load.

[Koondawg]

I use an optimizer program that shares out the load on my dual core processor evenly.

IE: If my processor is working at 30% capacity... each of the two processors receives 15% of the load.
please share which one do you use...:smug:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I use an optimizer program that shares out the load on my dual core processor evenly.

IE: If my processor is working at 30% capacity... each of the two processors receives 15% of the load.
please share which one do you use...:smug:

Oi... my PC shop loaded it in for me. I can give you the name, but not the program itself.

Let me hunt for it... been a long time since I even looked at it.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

When you choose to view its operation status, it shows a current load graph for each processor.

Here is the full title and readme minus the legal disclaimer mumbo-jumbo:

AMD Dual-Core Optimizer
Release Notes For
Version 1.1.1
November 9, 2006
---General Description---
AMD Dual-Core Optimizer utility synchronizes Time Stamp Counter (TSC) MSRs on AMD Dual-Core Processors.
---Improvement and Fixes---
Version 1.1.1
* AMD Dual-Core Optimizer’s driver has been WHQL tested and signed by Microsoft Corporation.
Version 1.1.0
* 4x4 "Gaming Mode" added.
Version 1.0.0
* This is the initial release.
---Usage Notes---
* Run setup.exe for a full uninstall/install.
* On 4x4 Systems, right click on the AMD logo system tray icon and select "Gaming Mode" in order to turn "Gaming Mode" on/off.
---Known Issues---
* Using AMD Dual-Core Optimizer while running on ATI Radeon Xpress on-board graphics will cause system to lock up while running HCT stress test. The problem has been identified as an ATI graphics driver issue, and an updated version of the ATI graphics driver will be available sometime in the future to remedy this problem.
* Reports of Blue Screen crash when used with MS Hotfix from KB Article 896256.
* Going into "Gaming Mode" in Windows Vista will create a "cmd" window briefly.
---System Requirements---
* Microprocessor: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processors
This software installs and operates under the following operating systems
* Microsoft® Windows® XP
* Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
* Microsoft Windows Server 2003 32-bit
* Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64-bit
* Microsoft Windows Vista Beta 2
Operating systems NOT supported are:
* Microsoft® Windows® NT 4.0
* Microsoft Windows 98 Gold
* Microsoft Windows 98
* Microsoft Windows 95 OSR2
* Microsoft Windows 3.x
* Microsoft Windows Millennium
* Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition
* Microsoft® Windows® 2000
---The following languages are supported ---
* All

[Koondawg]

TY...:up: just about said what I was reading up on em...

from AMD: AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core processor systems, by periodically adjusting the core time-stamp-counters, so that they are synchronized.

[TarJak]

A while back Letum posted this explanation of how TC tracking operates in SHIII. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=371010&postcount=6

I'm not sure where he got the info but it's one of the clearest explanations I've seen of why you see more at low TC than high TC. Simple computational expediency.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

A while back Letum posted this explanation of how TC tracking operates in SHIII. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=371010&postcount=6

I'm not sure where he got the info but it's one of the clearest explanations I've seen of why you see more at low TC than high TC. Simple computational expediency.

...Which leads us back to the answer that high TC reduces... and even eliminates aircraft attacks regardless of what we may try to do.

During the beta sessions for GWX 1.0 a little over a year ago, we did some testing with the airstrike.cfg file using elevated airstrike generation percentage values.

What we found was that though you do get a few air attacks at high TC... you are absolutley SWARMED by air attacks at low TC. (Dangerous file that is!)

Recommendation to all: NO TOUCHY THE AIRSTRIKE CEEFIGGY!!!:o VERY BAD JUJU THERE!:o BAD MEDICINE FOR YOU!:o

[johnno74]

Oi... my PC shop loaded it in for me. I can give you the name, but not the program itself.

Let me hunt for it... been a long time since I even looked at it.

Hi Kpt Lehmann,

You've beem misled on what this app does. It doesn't "equalise" the load between each CPU, windows does that itself (and its not necessarily a good thing... look up "cache thrashing" on google to see what I mean.

Each CPU has a register which acts as a sort of time counter, but it measures processor cycles, not time. Power management and other things may change the clock frequency and this means the counter on each CPU on a multicore or multiprocesor system won't stay syncronised, differences will creep in.

Now some games and other apps use this time counter to measure elapsed time. This is really a bug, they shouldn't do this because one minute the program's code is running on one cpu, the next second the OS switches the code to a different CPU/Core and the program makes some assumptions based on what the time counter was a minute ago, and what is is now... but it never realises it isn't comparing the same time counter.

A program that has this bug may do many different things, from crash to have a very slow or unstable frame rate. This app was released by AMD (and only works on AMD systems) to try and keep the time counters syncronised between CPUs so badly written programs work properly.

I'm pretty sure SH3 doesn't have this bug, and unless you are running something that has this problem the app won't increase your framerates at all

Hope this clarifies things

[Koondawg]

Which leads us back to the answer that high TC reduces... and even eliminates aircraft attacks regardless of what we may try to do.
I dont run over 512 myself anymore, which from experience still allows me to get reports on aircraft and still have time to either submerge or load the guns up...same with convoy reports
I did used to jump right into a patrol and head out to the patrol grid at full TC and always wondered why I wasn't getting any action....

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Oi... my PC shop loaded it in for me. I can give you the name, but not the program itself.

Let me hunt for it... been a long time since I even looked at it.

Hi Kpt Lehmann,

You've beem misled on what this app does. It doesn't "equalise" the load between each CPU, windows does that itself (and its not necessarily a good thing... look up "cache thrashing" on google to see what I mean.

Each CPU has a register which acts as a sort of time counter, but it measures processor cycles, not time. Power management and other things may change the clock frequency and this means the counter on each CPU on a multicore or multiprocesor system won't stay syncronised, differences will creep in.

Now some games and other apps use this time counter to measure elapsed time. This is really a bug, they shouldn't do this because one minute the program's code is running on one cpu, the next second the OS switches the code to a different CPU/Core and the program makes some assumptions based on what the time counter was a minute ago, and what is is now... but it never realises it isn't comparing the same time counter.

A program that has this bug may do many different things, from crash to have a very slow or unstable frame rate. This app was released by AMD (and only works on AMD systems) to try and keep the time counters syncronised between CPUs so badly written programs work properly.

I'm pretty sure SH3 doesn't have this bug, and unless you are running something that has this problem the app won't increase your framerates at all

Hope this clarifies things

Well, I'm also one of the lucky few who knows I'm not getting screwed over by my PC shop.

I've encountered no problems using the app with any game, and though its been awhile, they took the time to explain the optimizer to me. (twice... because I asked again at a later time) They push it on me.

Infact, the store I go to often chases me out of the door without charging me for many of the things that others are normally charged for.

Heck, they gave me a full brand new copy of Rainbow Six one day not to far back.

They get free stuff and pass it on to people they like.

No offense intended. I've been their customer for several years now for good reason.

They listen.:yep:

That being said, dual core processors were still fairly 'new-tech' when we built my current rig. I'll ask them about it in the next day or so here. If new info is available and it turns out to be negative... they'll be straight with me and recommend a course of action.

[KeptinCranky]

Harr, all this rambling about high TC settings :nope: my first GWX beta test rig couldn't handle TC aboce 256x effectively, CPU too slow, and ramping it up beyond 1024x was right out, so I did most of it on 128x...it's the way to go, even across the atlantic all the way to the Carribean :yep:

this is also why I went to silly places like Liverpool and the Irish sea and still maintain that AM36 is a great hunting spot :up:

[Letum]

Has any modder tryed to slow the aircraft speed down.

I am 100% sure that slower aircraft will mean more aircraft spotted at high TC because
the "Jumps" they make will be smaller.
This is why we dont get the problem with cargo ships.

I rather suspect the GWX aircraft are faster, more realistic when fighting them, but it
makes the TC bug worse.

The ideal solution would be to have aircraft move at 30knots when not near the player,
but speed up to normal speed when in visual range. Alas, impossibe asaik.

Another link to my origional post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=371010&postcount=6)

[Jimbuna]

The problem with the aircraft speed is, if you lower it they lose altitude and eventually crash.

[Hitman]

Well Hitman, you've actually hit on something there that has been experimented with.


I suspected it :lol: You guys didn't leave any corners unexplored :up:

However, I was playing this evening a bit in 1944 and got aircrafts even at 2048x TC :o due to the radar range. I doubt much that the radar has a faster sweep speed than lookout, so it's definately the radar range what is helping the aicraft detect me. Also, since I'm using the 16k environment, I suspect that my crew also spottes sometimes distant aircraft that have not yet detected me :hmm:

A greater range in visual for early war airplanes would therefore in my opinion increase detection at high TC with no cost in terms of CPU load. What drawbacks would come then? Well, probably a bit of vampire vision in the aircraft and may be some detection of your U-Boat at "irrealistic" ranges.

I understand and accept all your choices, it is obvious that GWX is above all a coherent pack, yet for people like me who have very little time to play, high TC is a need rather than a choice :cry: .

Thanks for throughout explanation :up:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well Hitman, you've actually hit on something there that has been experimented with.


I suspected it :lol: You guys didn't leave any corners unexplored :up:

However, I was playing this evening a bit in 1944 and got aircrafts even at 2048x TC :o due to the radar range. I doubt much that the radar has a faster sweep speed than lookout, so it's definately the radar range what is helping the aicraft detect me. Also, since I'm using the 16k environment, I suspect that my crew also spottes sometimes distant aircraft that have not yet detected me :hmm:

A greater range in visual for early war airplanes would therefore in my opinion increase detection at high TC with no cost in terms of CPU load. What drawbacks would come then? Well, probably a bit of vampire vision in the aircraft and may be some detection of your U-Boat at "irrealistic" ranges.

I understand and accept all your choices, it is obvious that GWX is above all a coherent pack, yet for people like me who have very little time to play, high TC is a need rather than a choice :cry: .

Thanks for throughout explanation :up:

Well, in GWX we've managed to avoid emplacing additional AI visual sensors for the sake of being better able to isolate and measure the effectiveness of the existing visual sensor.

Therefore, if you increase the range or shorten the sweep time of the enemy AI sensors for aircraft... the same effect then automatically applies to enemy ship-mounted sensors.

You could increase the sensitivity of the AI visual sensors... but then surface units would adopt the same increase in acuity... meaning that enemy surface ships would spot you more quickly than they do now.

Shortening the sweep times has the same effect as increasing visual acuity/sensitivity.

Without adding additional sensors to ALL the enamy patrol aircraft... it is a tall order.

I haven't looked at the radar set types on aircraft in a long time... but if these radar sets are specific to aircraft and are not used on surface vessels... and as long as you are ready to sacrifice a bit on realistic radar ranges... which were relatively short ranged on aircraft anyway IIRC... then we may have a sensor that can be adjusted to detect you more often without ruining other parts of the picture. (Would need to potentially double or triple its range.)

However again, the above conjectural fix for what you ask, will not affect aircraft that do not carry radar. (Though this shouldn't matter much... All of the 'primary' patrol planes carried radar once it was readily available based on the date.)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Hitman, the sensors settings are a very dense minefield. Isolating them and testing them is a huge pain. Following that further testing would need to be done with all sensors functioning as a package.

I'm not telling you that it cannot be done... but, let me put it this way:

Cdre Gibs found and explained where the minimum and maximum settings were on the sensors...

The hardest part was the isolation, adjustment, and testing both individually and as a package. For six months during the development of GWX 1.0 I did little else.

The concepts are straightforward... but the actual implimentation and tuning... is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Its pretty much like cleaning a gymnasium with a toothbrush.