No matter what I do, I can't get any fps improvement

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

That doesent seem so bad.

Beats my 12 in Command Station, 20+ on the map and 9 on the bridge.

Your FPS would be a blessing in disguise for me

[uniquemind]

Originally Posted by scalelokt

Yeah computer gaming is not a cheap hobby. My video card alone cost as much as an XBox 360 and its already showing its age, and I sure dont have the money to upgrade it right now. Truth be told, PC gaming is a big pain in the butt, and I wish I were satisfied with just a console. The problem is sims like Silent Hunter are not, and probably never will be, on a console system. And if they are they are almost always dumbed down sims that have a much more arcade feel. I'll probably get a 360 sometime soon, I'm impressed with it and the games I have played are really fun. But I'll always be trying to upgrade my PC whenever I can, games like SH3 and SH4 make it all worth it.

In response to the original post in this thread. It doesnt sound to me like your FPS is that bad, probably about the same as mine. SH4 is a graphically beautiful game, as much as any game out there as far as I'm concerned. I dont think its surprising you arent getting huge FPS values, so long as it is smooth and playable it sounds fine to me. You said you get 20+ FPS when outside the sub, that seems perfectly playable to me. I guess if you have a top of the line Alienware that cost you 5 grand it would be disappointing, but I'm assuming you computer is probably similar to mine, so I dont think you are doing anything wrong.

Yes the Silent Hunter games would'nt be suited at all to consoles, the only game with a Submarine and other naval and air units I can think of on a console is "Battle for Midway" I have that game too, but it is far too short and too arcadey for me, this game is more my cup of tea anyday

Maybe its the same old story with me, expecting too much from a system thats ageing sadly..........I know you're quite right in what you and others have said and that my fps are pretty good, I guess I just got fed up with the graphical glitches I have and wanted everything to be fine and therefore blasted out my feelings.

I do however suffer pauses when say an aircraft is shot down in the artillery practice......as the planes hit the water a get a pause, also when a ship starts to blow again little pauses......and of course crawling out of the harbours is awful to watch, but from now on I'll go into the nav map and stay there until my fps rise a bit nothing severe I know but it does spoil the effect a bit.......but I won't complain so much........afterall others have it far worse and I feel for them........

[minsc_tdp]

For NVidia users, NVTray has some neat performance options that turn on and off various options that are pretty obscure and well hidden. It does this via profiles where you have 4 options, from High Quality to High Performance. The performance options will reduce texture details and boost FPS. Since you're at ~25-30 you really just need 5-10 more to really smooth the game out (though personally I can't stand less than 60 FPS on anything, and spend fortunes trying to solve it. Which is why I'm on an OC'd Core 2 E6600 at 3 GHz, and trying to get 3.6 GHz stable again...) A few hard disks in RAID-0 configuration really helps to cut load times on all games as well. Even two in RAID-0 will generally double your hard disk performance and is extremely noticable. You can get two 80 GB drives for less than $60 each if you look around (they should be identical drives for raid-0.)

[pocatellodave]

Try disabling your onboard sound.See if that helps your fps.
Pocatellodave

[skullman86]

AMD64x2 3800+ @ 2.11 GHz
7800gt @ 381/1208 MHz
2 gb of ram

........and it runs like crap, the patch didn't improve my performance and pre patch I could turn all the settings down to their lowest and I would only gain 10FPS at best .Outside it's like 24 most of the time with the occasional 36 if I'm looking in the right direction but then it drops to 18 on other occasions and inside is about 70 most of the time.I even tried reinstalling from scratch but still no improvement at all.It probably has something to do with the fact that it's a dual core, I really hate it when developers get lazy and don't code it for the group of people who want to move on and use something new for a change (same goes for companies that still put games on cd when dvd drives are only $40 )


Hopefully the new PC I'm building will run this game better

[Cakewalk]

Originally Posted by SgtWalt65

I am running a 7800GS card with an old Athalon 2800 and I am not having any issues with fps at all. Guess I am lucky....Oh and just about max video settings with 8x AA.

Hm, what are your actual FPS values?

[Hazelwood]

Originally Posted by uniquemind

I can't get any fps improvement when turning down/off any or indeed all the options listed in the options menu now don't tell me......that this requires a restart each time?

:

You are not alone. I still play Janes F/A 18 which many years ago was marketed for Win98 and supposed to run just great at 500 MHz. Well, I still get major "Jerko-vision" on a 3GHz P4 with all the latests graphics.

I am using P4 3GHz with 2 Gb fast RAM and ATI X1650 graphics. I have no idea what the frame-rate is but it is acceptable in any event. This sim is very demanding. I doubt there is anyone out there getting a really smooth performance, especially when the action gets tough. I certainly notice some slow-down when the action closes in.

Hang in there with the developers. This is a superb sim and we know they are going to make it even better.

best wishes,
Cpt J. Hazelwood

[SgtWalt65]

Originally Posted by Cakewalk

Hm, what are your actual FPS values?

35 fps +/- 5. Plenty smooth and this is while in a convoy.

[SgtWalt65]

Originally Posted by minsc_tdp

For NVidia users, NVTray has some neat performance options that turn on and off various options that are pretty obscure and well hidden. It does this via profiles where you have 4 options, from High Quality to High Performance. The performance options will reduce texture details and boost FPS. Since you're at ~25-30 you really just need 5-10 more to really smooth the game out (though personally I can't stand less than 60 FPS on anything, and spend fortunes trying to solve it. Which is why I'm on an OC'd Core 2 E6600 at 3 GHz, and trying to get 3.6 GHz stable again...) A few hard disks in RAID-0 configuration really helps to cut load times on all games as well. Even two in RAID-0 will generally double your hard disk performance and is extremely noticable. You can get two 80 GB drives for less than $60 each if you look around (they should be identical drives for raid-0.)

You do understand that your human eye can hardly notice any changes above 40 fps ( in certain conditions you can see as high as 200 fps according to some research I did on the net, but very rare. ) don't you? Lot of people say thats crap, but its scentifically proven. In fact look up what the fps on movies are, most you will see are from 24 - 35 fps max. Some where I saw a blind study where they would put up the fps on screen for some PC game and ask people if they see the difference and everyone said they did. LOL, but the fps never changed, just the fps counter on the screen did. The subliminal suggestion and the imagination is a wonderful thing isnt it? But as long as the video card manfactures and CPU manfactures can make money off you, they are not going to tell you this. Why would they want to? Go for that uber 60 fps, spend that cash. Very few people will be able to see the difference
The only reason to really upgrade, is for the graphics engine to see new eye candy and the cpu to process it.

[uniquemind]

Originally Posted by Hazelwood

You are not alone. I still play Janes F/A 18 which many years ago was marketed for Win98 and supposed to run just great at 500 MHz. Well, I still get major "Jerko-vision" on a 3GHz P4 with all the latests graphics.

I am using P4 3GHz with 2 Gb fast RAM and ATI X1650 graphics. I have no idea what the frame-rate is but it is acceptable in any event. This sim is very demanding. I doubt there is anyone out there getting a really smooth performance, especially when the action gets tough. I certainly notice some slow-down when the action closes in.

Hang in there with the developers. This is a superb sim and we know they are going to make it even better.

best wishes,
Cpt J. Hazelwood

Thanks mate,

I'll stick with it, I love the Sim too much to let it go..........I've let games go in the past because of poor performance and then seen several months later people saying how great the game has become since the days of such awful performance.........I bought Test Drive Unlimited (I know, a glutton for punishment! ) and now it sits in a draw waiting for a much needed patch to put it right, not sure if the patch wil ever come, at least the devs for this Sim have got two patches out while the TDU guys have yet to produce one!

Another one I have trouble with is Supreme Commander, that is terrible performance wise and the patches up to now have not helped performance for me.......but admittedly it is an extremely demanding game, and so again it sits in my drawer waiting for a new system..........that said the likes of Company of Heroes is fine for me..........so as someone else said it comes down to coding.

If the devs where given more time by the publishers (I could wait, and would rather wait for a near perfect game ) then there would'nt be half as much disappointment going around.........just my thoughts and feelings on it.

Of course Publishers have their reasons for wanting the game out as quick as is possible, and therefore we are left having to wait for after sales patches to come along

[Bilge_Rat]

I did some FPS test last night using the built in fps counter (ctrl + f8).

-in game settings: high graphics, did not touch the sliders, all options turned on except Environment & fog;

-my system: opteron 170 (2 gigs), 7900 GTX, asrock dual sata mb, 2 gigs ddr 500 ram, audigy 2 ZS, 2 x Raptors HD 36 Gigs in RAID 0, win XP; latest drivers, nothing overclocked;

-card settings: 1280x960 @ 100 hz, AA at 2xQ, 4x AF,

-test setup, sunny day, in the middle of the ocean, no other ships around;

in the command room - locked at 50 fps, turning on or off vsync and/or EE has no impact;

on the bridge - without EE - locked on 50 fps;
- with EE - locked on 33 FPS; turning on or off vsync has no effect;

- considering the amount of eye candy in the game, I am happy with these results. When posting FPS results, it is important to also post all the variables so others can compare apples with apples.

[uniquemind]

Please forgive the ignorance here, but what is EE? I bet I'll know it when you tell me but for now I am fumbling for the answer

I agree about posting all the variables so others can compare, I tend to rush through things and not put the effort in to write down everything before posting my findings

I did a complete reinstall today and just installed patch 1.2 and my flashing problem on the bridge seems to have gone......at least I am hoping it has, did'nt get to play for long so need to try it out later for longer.

[Bilge_Rat]

sorry, EE is Environment Effects

[uniquemind]

Thats ok Bilge_Rat

Now why the hell was I so daft.......Environmental Effects! of course

I'll switch my brain on shortly

Thanks

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by uniquemind

I'll switch my brain on shortly

no problem, takes me 2-3 mugs of coffee in the morning to clear out the cobwebs.