The SH4 graphic engine needs to be optimized?

[Sirkam]

Do you think that the SH4 graphic engine can be optimized for a better performance?
The options are:

1. Of course, i need more performance...
2. No way, the game runs fine for me...
3. I'm neutral...

[Sonarman]

I think the devs did quite a bit of optimisation in the last patch including the dynamic loading of ships in your area. It would be great if this could be extended to ports as well as this may allow them to use less generic harbors and towns modelled on real world locales.

[theluckyone17]

I voted neutral... since I didn't figure my issue was caused by poor performance. It really should be classified as a bug, in my opinion. I've read about it previously up on the forums... somewhere's, there's a thread on it.


Symptoms: Positioned on the bridge, looking at the wake at the rear of the boat, my frame rate crawls. Look away, and the frame rate returns to normal. Same problem occurs when zoomed in on a burning/damaged ship. This appears only after running SH4 for a "good amount" of time (I usually notice it after 30 minutes or so).

If I remember right, the aforementioned thread stated this is caused by a problem with DirectX "timing out" (seems to me, it's switching "priorities" after a certain amount of time). Alt tabbing to the desktop, then returning to SH4, repairs the issue, at least temporarily.

[seafarer]

Given the range of hardware people are running SH4 on, I think it's near impossible to get any kind of objective consensus from a poll like this. Which also raises the issue I'm sure every game development team faces. Tighten up the game performance, and you may end up restricting it to only those few with the most recent and very high end components/systems.

Look at the folks who have graphics hardware that's alright for SH3, but runs SH4 poorly. If I had to buy a whole new system or add the cost of major component upgrades every time a new game came out, I'd soon just stop buying games.

For me, I'm quite happy with the overall performance. My only issue is one mentioned here before, where frame rates drop suddenly, and simply switching to the desktop and right back restores things again. I've yet to figure out even what might be going on there, but it's a mere annoyance, not a huge performance bug.

[danlisa]

I don't venture over here too often however, I would at least like some input on the possible optimisation or reduction of hardware strain.

Let me give you an example.

I can run SH3/GWX @ 1280x1024 with 6xAA & 16xAF and maintain a steady 100fps at sea, 30fps in port and 40-50fps in heavy seas.

In SH4 (stock & patched) @ 1024x768 with 2xAA & 0xAF I can only manage 25fps (freecam & bridge, after reducing the effect settings) and don't even get me started on when AI ships start to train their weapons on my boat.

While I appreciate, that SH4 has huge improvements in graphical aspects and that SH4 is the next evolution of the genre, this is one hell of a leap in system requirements. Incidently, when the SH4 system checker was posted, I met the recommended requirements.

I know all about freeing up system resources, infact most of the timemy system is running on about 25 processes (the highest of which is explorer.exe at around 35mb) and editing the debug issue in the cfg's. I'm relatively competent with PC's & Operating Systems.

So, bugged files or can SH4 be user optimised further?
First place to look would be the visible horizon, IIRC approx 21km. If the scene.dat is similar to SH3's, that's a huge drain on resources. Has anyone tried to pull it back to 8/16km?

Seriously, it's the only thing stopping me play. I can live with jaggies (just) but smooth gameplay is a must.

[maerean_m]

If a computer can run any modern game (like Bioshock and "Orange Box") then it can run SH4 at the same resolution.

And since SH4 behaves the same as the games in its era, I vote Neutral.

PS: no, Crysis doesn't count here

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

If a computer can run any modern game (like Bioshock and "Orange Box") then it can run SH4 at the same resolution.

Whoa, hang on.

I have Orange Box and I can run it @ 1280x1024 w/full AA/AF and do not get the slow downs/FPS issues that I experience in SH4. However, Portal struggles in places but that's universally attributed to coding bugs (by users admittedly).

I'll have to see what pans out in SH4 down the line.

[Wilcke]

There is way to much cross platform variations and how PC's are setup to make any kind of analysis on this subject. I have seen posts from folks that have state of the art blazing rigs that say their install crawls and posts from folks with mediocre rigs that are happy with their results.

How do you determine if an "engine" is optimized, tough one to analyze. I would rather judge the title on its ability to scale for the end user. The ability to turn things off and on in the video graphics department is important. I have found SH4 to be really scalable in this regard from the GUI. I can make it crawl on my PC or fly in regard to FPS. Yes it can look photo perfect but it also looks pretty good when running at high FPS. Frankly, for this sim anything over 25 FPS on average is perfectly adequate from what I have seen. Again, subjective opinion, my eyes only.

[Iron Budokan]

yes, it should be optimized, imo

[Lt commander lare]

it works fine on my system but it will work better when i upgrade the powerpack and graphics card but its works great for me

lt commander lare

[Sirkam]

...and the game have even graphical bugs,like when launching a torpedo (it touch a bit of the tube when it is release) and few other when the "Volumetric fog" is set to active.

[CaptainHaplo]

No it doesnt need optimization. For one - as mentioned - 1.4 did that while increasing the site distance "visible bubble) to 20km roughly. Sure there is the occasional "glitch" for a few people - but those are to be expected given no single machine is identical. While it would be nice if this could be fixed, its not really feasible.

Things like volumetric fog and such - remember that SH4 is DX9 basd - I agree that we would all love to see smoke like is seen in World in Conflict on a DX10 card. True transparency, individual particle physics (like in Crysis) are wonderful - but this engine was not designed for that.

The poll said graphics engine - so I voted no. There is one GAME engine "optimization" that still needs changing that would drastically help out performance for almost all players. That issue is the "ghost" ship phenomenon where a sunken ship is respawned and placed back "in play", yet if you sink it again you don't get credit for it. These zombie ships continue to exist regardless of mod, and are items that get loaded that are not needed.

Think on it - you have a 12 ship convoy - you sink 3 - then later as you re-attack - the game insists on recreating and redrawing (somewhere within the visual bubble) those 3 ships. This is memory - both game and texture - that must be loaded and held for no good reason.

You want to optimize the game - fix that first and then I personally would be able to consider other things - but that an obvious resource drain that isn't needed.

If one wanted to make the game more graphically pleasing - it would need to be ported to DX10 with a rework of some "features" to make it worthwhile.

[Triad773]

Hmmm... I like what CaptainHaplo had posted, but I voted Yes to optimization. If someone in the know could come forward and say that "no" was the answer, saving re-coding that to DX-10 (which, if like other lines Ubi handles I would not expect that could be in the offing) could be an answer to taking it to the next level.

I myself like the graphics and textures used, except for land masses that seem to nail my frame rates. Granted, it IS a naval sim and not one that might hold land/foliage renderings as a priority. But after being spoiled by Oleg Maddox/IL-2 whom seemed to do a decent job all-around, it is my disposition to ask if there is more possible, or is that it. Nothing wrong with that being it by any means, but it'd be nice to know know none the less.

Cheers

Triad