Better framerate with 1.3 patch ?

Stary Wuj · 05-14-07, 06:53 AM

This game is beautifull (without Postprocessing filters :-) but I think graphic engine
is not optimized very much. I have AMD 4000+, 2 GB Ram, SB X-FI and Geforce 7800GTX, not fastest rig of the world, I know, but FPS should be little higher
IMHO

(higher than 23 with many in-game graphic options off).
The same problem when I look through the periscope (SH3 like) - much lower fps
than normally, from bridge or external camera.
I heard, that framerate was better before 1.2 patch - it is true ?

Flickering on distant objects should (and probably can) be removed,
but what about framerate ?

Best Regards

Stary Wuj

TDK1044 · 05-14-07, 06:59 AM

I run this game with all graphical options maxed out, but with volumetric fog and the event camera disabled. I also run the mod that allows all the post processing filters to run except the grainy effect.

The result for me is a beautiful looking game, and frame rates between 27 and 40fps for the external shots, which is perfectly acceptable using a 7600GT video card and 2 GIGS of RAM.

Stary Wuj · 05-14-07, 07:06 AM

I must try with volumetric fog - off, (sad, fog is nice and add immersion IMHO)
I don't remeber where "Event camera" option is - (I bought SH4 few days ago)
- can I disable this camera in main "game" menu ?

Thank You

Stary Wuj

ReallyDedPoet · 05-14-07, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stary Wuj

I must try with volumetric fog - off, (sad, fog is nice and add immersion IMHO)
I don't remeber where "Event camera" option is - (I bought SH4 few days ago)
- can I disable this camera in main "game" menu ?

Thank You

Stary Wuj

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114496

The link to remove the grainy effects

. The event camera is under options\gameplay in the main menu. The fog is nice and it is still in the game, but the Voumetric Stuff is a FPS killer.

RDP

Marko_Ramius · 05-14-07, 08:37 AM

I agree with the fact that it could be better in term of fps. Should be optimised in some way by the devs. Problem is : Will they have time for this ?

The priority is the bugs, i understand this and i agree. But if they can optimised the code, i hope they will.

Volumetric fog is the killer, that's true, and should not IMHO.. "Armed Assault" seems to me more complex to render, and it seems to run better. I don't know if we can compare, though..

A strange thing is when at heavy seas, the FPS are a lot more better then in calm, while in SH3, it was the opposite :hmm: Cannot figure why.

The game run good in my rig but should run even better IMO.

SteamWake · 05-14-07, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marko_Ramius

A strange thing is when at heavy seas, the FPS are a lot more better then in calm, while in SH3, it was the opposite :hmm: Cannot figure why.

Light reflections, more of them to calculate (shrug).

Bane · 05-14-07, 09:23 AM

Like has been said - the volumetric fog is a frame killer, it cuts my frames in half when I turn it on. I leave it off as you can imagine.

Other than that I think the game runs surprisingly well. The resolution is set to 1280x1024, I use the drop-down to set the sliders on medium and then I turn on all the checkbox options (those with labels that is

). No AA or AF. I was surprised to get between 30 - 60 fps on my 3.5 year old computer (except the video card).

AMD FX-51 @ 2.2GHz
Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB on Cat 7.4
2GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 RAM
SB Audigy 2 ZS

Hartmann · 05-14-07, 03:20 PM

one question is if UBI have plans for a 1.3 patch.

in case of this there are other priority like bugs, but i think that the graphic engine is not optimized , also there are glitches still with 1.2.

my system is low end (2400, and gf 6600) but i have some strange slowdowns, from 20 fps to 10, curiosly when i ordered periscope depth the frames go up before the sub dives to the requested depth, also at night there is always like a moon reflection in the sea, but no moon in the sky.:hmm:

but could be nice if devs have more time for improved the graphic performance before UBI dissolve the team.

MikeJW · 05-14-07, 05:33 PM

I went into the main.cfg and under development tools, I think it was, I set all 3 options to "No". That gave me an extra 20-30 fps.

CaptainHaplo · 05-14-07, 06:46 PM

The above suggestion helps. But seriously - at anything above 20 - your not seeing much - its a number - little more. These are DRAWS of the screen (FRAMES) per second here... anything over 20 is smooth and easily playable. Patch 1.2 was - more than anything else - a graphics patch (including engine tweaks for better framerates).

To many people have gotten caught up in the FPS comparison - vs gameplay.

The last thing SH4 needs is another graphix patch. When SH4 has the major bugs fixed, or better yet all of the 80 some odd documented bugs/missing but documented "features" - then and only then should work on "tweaking" the graphics engine be a concern. Until then - asking for better framerates is like snow white asking the witch for a prettier poisoned apple - its still not right!

Dont get me wrong - if framerates over what the engine delivered really contributed to making the game better - I would support it. But this isnt a first person shooter - the game needs to be smooth and playable - but gameplay should always (and post 1.2 especially) take a backseat to pretty pictures on a canvas of under the hood problems.

I am sure many are going to tell me that I am missing the point because I dont run at 32000x22000 resolution on a 52" plasma display and so I can't understand how not having a fps above 60 (which is the max the average human eye can see btw) just kills the game. Sorry - but last time I checked - this stuff we do is still called PLAYing a GAME - thus GAMEPLAY is important. When what we do is called WATCHING PRETTY PICTURES - then graphix should be the ruling criteria. If that day ever comes - then I won't be part of the scene.

Yes - I know pretty graphix sell games - but so does good gameplay. One of the best naval warfare simulators of the ww1/2 era (surface ships only) is Naval Gunnery Campaigns. It started out as Raider Operations for those who may have heard of it. Written by one man - his focus was gameplay. He let a number of us test it, and was kind enough to give us a place in the credits. But no matter how many people tried to change his focus - he stayed on what he knew was right - and guess what - the game was released with CGA graphics - think Silent Service 2 - but the GAMEPLAY is the most realistic you will find in the genre. No - he won't make a million dollars from the game - but he delivered an excellent product to those who wanted a true simulation. Many of us bought this game with that same desire - and while the eye candy crowd has gotten their attention with 1.2 - its about time that some real attention was paid to the rest of us.

I get passionate about this topic - but I mean no disrespect to those that differ with my view. I just think that its time to straighten out this game - make it what it could truly be - and more attention to graphix isnt how to do it...

MikeJW · 05-14-07, 06:57 PM

The thing is the 1.2 patch hurt FPS without doing anything. I have a 2.66 D2C and after 1.2 I was getiing 20 something FPS on the bridge. Fine, except when there was action going on and it dipped to the low teens or single digits. I messed with the main.cfg as the dev tool garbage does nothing and my FPS shot up to the high 50's, low 60's on the bridge giving me more room to spare when the Pacific goes crazy. yeah, 20-25 FPS is playable but if thats what your getting on the bridge when it's calm your going to be hurting when in a convoy and DCs start dropping. It doesnt need a graphics patch but 1.3 needs to disable the dev tool lines in the main.cfg.

U-Bones · 05-14-07, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeJW

The thing is the 1.2 patch hurt FPS without doing anything. I have a 2.66 D2C and after 1.2 I was getiing 20 something FPS on the bridge. Fine, except when there was action going on and it dipped to the low teens or single digits. I messed with the main.cfg as the dev tool garbage does nothing and my FPS shot up to the high 50's, low 60's on the bridge giving me more room to spare when the Pacific goes crazy. yeah, 20-25 FPS is playable but if thats what your getting on the bridge when it's calm your going to be hurting when in a convoy and DCs start dropping. It doesnt need a graphics patch but 1.3 needs to disable the dev tool lines in the main.cfg.

Why have devs editing text files that we already know about? We need them to fix things like AI and damage control, and to tell us how to tweak things we don't know about yet.

Stary Wuj · 05-15-07, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeJW

I went into the main.cfg and under development tools, I think it was, I set all 3 options to "No". That gave me an extra 20-30 fps.

Please, tell me about options You changed........and where exactly

Best Regards

Stary Wuj

XanderF · 05-15-07, 10:29 AM

Don't disabling the 'debug' settings still result in a pretty big FPS increase?

That might be something to try.

Anvart · 05-15-07, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stary Wuj

... but I think graphic engine
is not optimized very much. ...
Best Regards

Stary Wuj

I agree with it absolutely ...
About what here to speak...
We have insufficiently optimized code...

05-14-07, 06:53 AM	#1
Stary Wuj Lieutenant Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Poland, Zabrze Posts: 268 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	Better framerate with 1.3 patch ? This game is beautifull (without Postprocessing filters :-) but I think graphic engine is not optimized very much. I have AMD 4000+, 2 GB Ram, SB X-FI and Geforce 7800GTX, not fastest rig of the world, I know, but FPS should be little higher IMHO (higher than 23 with many in-game graphic options off). The same problem when I look through the periscope (SH3 like) - much lower fps than normally, from bridge or external camera. I heard, that framerate was better before 1.2 patch - it is true ? Flickering on distant objects should (and probably can) be removed, but what about framerate ? Best Regards Stary Wuj

05-14-07, 03:20 PM	#8
Hartmann Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Grid CH 26, Spain ,Barcelona Posts: 1,857 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	one question is if UBI have plans for a 1.3 patch. in case of this there are other priority like bugs, but i think that the graphic engine is not optimized , also there are glitches still with 1.2. my system is low end (2400, and gf 6600) but i have some strange slowdowns, from 20 fps to 10, curiosly when i ordered periscope depth the frames go up before the sub dives to the requested depth, also at night there is always like a moon reflection in the sea, but no moon in the sky.:hmm: but could be nice if devs have more time for improved the graphic performance before UBI dissolve the team. __________________ But this ship can't sink!... She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. Strength and honor

05-14-07, 06:46 PM	#10
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	The above suggestion helps. But seriously - at anything above 20 - your not seeing much - its a number - little more. These are DRAWS of the screen (FRAMES) per second here... anything over 20 is smooth and easily playable. Patch 1.2 was - more than anything else - a graphics patch (including engine tweaks for better framerates). To many people have gotten caught up in the FPS comparison - vs gameplay. The last thing SH4 needs is another graphix patch. When SH4 has the major bugs fixed, or better yet all of the 80 some odd documented bugs/missing but documented "features" - then and only then should work on "tweaking" the graphics engine be a concern. Until then - asking for better framerates is like snow white asking the witch for a prettier poisoned apple - its still not right! Dont get me wrong - if framerates over what the engine delivered really contributed to making the game better - I would support it. But this isnt a first person shooter - the game needs to be smooth and playable - but gameplay should always (and post 1.2 especially) take a backseat to pretty pictures on a canvas of under the hood problems. I am sure many are going to tell me that I am missing the point because I dont run at 32000x22000 resolution on a 52" plasma display and so I can't understand how not having a fps above 60 (which is the max the average human eye can see btw) just kills the game. Sorry - but last time I checked - this stuff we do is still called PLAYing a GAME - thus GAMEPLAY is important. When what we do is called WATCHING PRETTY PICTURES - then graphix should be the ruling criteria. If that day ever comes - then I won't be part of the scene. Yes - I know pretty graphix sell games - but so does good gameplay. One of the best naval warfare simulators of the ww1/2 era (surface ships only) is Naval Gunnery Campaigns. It started out as Raider Operations for those who may have heard of it. Written by one man - his focus was gameplay. He let a number of us test it, and was kind enough to give us a place in the credits. But no matter how many people tried to change his focus - he stayed on what he knew was right - and guess what - the game was released with CGA graphics - think Silent Service 2 - but the GAMEPLAY is the most realistic you will find in the genre. No - he won't make a million dollars from the game - but he delivered an excellent product to those who wanted a true simulation. Many of us bought this game with that same desire - and while the eye candy crowd has gotten their attention with 1.2 - its about time that some real attention was paid to the rest of us. I get passionate about this topic - but I mean no disrespect to those that differ with my view. I just think that its time to straighten out this game - make it what it could truly be - and more attention to graphix isnt how to do it... __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

05-15-07, 10:29 AM	#14
XanderF Samurai Navy Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 554 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	Don't disabling the 'debug' settings still result in a pretty big FPS increase? That might be something to try. __________________

05-14-07, 06:59 AM	#2
TDK1044 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 2,674 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	I run this game with all graphical options maxed out, but with volumetric fog and the event camera disabled. I also run the mod that allows all the post processing filters to run except the grainy effect. The result for me is a beautiful looking game, and frame rates between 27 and 40fps for the external shots, which is perfectly acceptable using a 7600GT video card and 2 GIGS of RAM.

05-14-07, 07:06 AM	#3
Stary Wuj Lieutenant Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Poland, Zabrze Posts: 268 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	I must try with volumetric fog - off, (sad, fog is nice and add immersion IMHO) I don't remeber where "Event camera" option is - (I bought SH4 few days ago) - can I disable this camera in main "game" menu ? Thank You Stary Wuj

05-14-07, 08:37 AM	#5
Marko_Ramius Frogman Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Near Paris Posts: 303 Downloads: 113 Uploads: 0	I agree with the fact that it could be better in term of fps. Should be optimised in some way by the devs. Problem is : Will they have time for this ? The priority is the bugs, i understand this and i agree. But if they can optimised the code, i hope they will. Volumetric fog is the killer, that's true, and should not IMHO.. "Armed Assault" seems to me more complex to render, and it seems to run better. I don't know if we can compare, though.. A strange thing is when at heavy seas, the FPS are a lot more better then in calm, while in SH3, it was the opposite :hmm: Cannot figure why. The game run good in my rig but should run even better IMO.

05-14-07, 09:23 AM	#7
Bane Torpedoman Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 119 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	Like has been said - the volumetric fog is a frame killer, it cuts my frames in half when I turn it on. I leave it off as you can imagine. Other than that I think the game runs surprisingly well. The resolution is set to 1280x1024, I use the drop-down to set the sliders on medium and then I turn on all the checkbox options (those with labels that is ). No AA or AF. I was surprised to get between 30 - 60 fps on my 3.5 year old computer (except the video card). AMD FX-51 @ 2.2GHz Sapphire Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB on Cat 7.4 2GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 RAM SB Audigy 2 ZS

05-14-07, 05:33 PM	#9
MikeJW Helmsman Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 106 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I went into the main.cfg and under development tools, I think it was, I set all 3 options to "No". That gave me an extra 20-30 fps.

05-14-07, 06:57 PM	#11
MikeJW Helmsman Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 106 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The thing is the 1.2 patch hurt FPS without doing anything. I have a 2.66 D2C and after 1.2 I was getiing 20 something FPS on the bridge. Fine, except when there was action going on and it dipped to the low teens or single digits. I messed with the main.cfg as the dev tool garbage does nothing and my FPS shot up to the high 50's, low 60's on the bridge giving me more room to spare when the Pacific goes crazy. yeah, 20-25 FPS is playable but if thats what your getting on the bridge when it's calm your going to be hurting when in a convoy and DCs start dropping. It doesnt need a graphics patch but 1.3 needs to disable the dev tool lines in the main.cfg.