Yeah, that was kinda my point - my frames are only off a couple from the people with "a bunch of ghz". Been through most of the tweaks already.Frazer wrote:I think 23 fps flying low over a city isn't that bad actually, but it shouldn't go any lower.
What you could do is remove a bunch of building types to reduce the frame drop over cities. Read more here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=8 ... stcount=34
Also, if you haven't already, check the Blackshark Tweak Guide: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=49434
(some things changed in FC2 though).
Last but not least, save yourself hours of tweaking and feed your FC2 a bunch of ghz.
Flaming Cliffs 2.0
Well, at some point we must tell ourselves that "we have to live with it". The real bottleneck of performance is ED's programming......I mean dual cores have been around quite some time now and as long as ED's programs don't make use of that we will have to deal with severe frame drops during a flight...
Last edited by Frazer on Wed May 26, 2010 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Understood. I'm just hesitant to upgrade without knowing the best move for my money.Frazer wrote:It won't get any better with your system (without fully emptying your Structures folder)
It almost seems like the best (price/performance) move at the moment is the fastest dual core that fits my board. Perhaps better cooling to allow some OC.
At this point in time, there seems to be no benefit to a quad...unless you're trying to run stuff in the background while you fly formation.
FORMAT C: . . .Panther wrote:I wish my dual core 3.74 would get 25 fps... tired of single digits. Yes you read that correctly...
Something is definitely wrong there Panther. I have a five year old (!) rig, single core, 8800GT graphics card and I'm usually not below 30fps with high scenes if that tells you anything.
Sort of a bump here...
Lawndart wrote:Has anyone figured out how to tweak the roll rate in the FM yet? Trying to figure out if at all possible where to do that. The F-16 should have a roll rate of 224 deg/sec, but the "flyable" F-16 FM has a roll rate of ~173 deg/sec making it too sluggish.
The other discrepancy I'm peeved at is the lack of "auto trim". If someone figures out if it's possible to add this to the "flyables", let us know.
SilentEagle wrote:Yea, I know exactly what parameter and what file it is in, but if you were to modify the FM, you would have to completely add an entry for the F-16 as it is not already in this file. The file basically consists of the F-15, A-10, Su-27, and Yak-40.. that's it. I'm thinking ED left those 4 jets in there as they made modifications to the flight models, but didn't bother hard coding them back in to the game.
So the flight model of the F-16 is hard coded, until you add an entry in the SFM_aerod.lua file in the scripts\aircrafts\_common folder. However, once you add an entry, you have to provide all parameters for the FM at all mach numbers, which is data neither you nor I have access to. What we, the Patriots, have done is continue using the F-15 and tweaking what's there already, as creating a whole new STABLE flight model is a real pain...trust me I tried.
Omxmax is the parameter that controls the roll rate at different mach numbers, but as to how you would go about this without the other data for the F-16 FM is beyond me.
Has anyone made any advancements in this area yet? The lack of auto trim is certainly the most annoying of all discrepencies.Beaker wrote:Haha I know where you're headed LD. I would love to know the same thing... can we tweak just the values we want at the mach breakpoints we want? Would be a godsend.
I'm hoping at some point when I've got the time, I can do some regression modeling and see if i can get the performance numbers "read backwards" from hard-coded to SFM_Aerod. Essentially, generate numbers that match those of the aircraft when flying in-game, but without guess-work. (Or at least minimal guesswork).
Keep in mind, for anyone interested, it DOES matter which aircraft's SFM numbers you're playing with. They retain a lot of the 'feel' of the original aircraft which leads me to believe the SFM_Aerod file's numbers just "supplement" or "adjust" hard-coded performance data, rather than acting as the only constants.
Made a few more improvements here, actually.
Set Ventrilo & TrackIR for affinity to only the 2nd core....thus they're not competing with FC2 which likes the first core.
Also moved one of my DIMMs over. I was running memory in single channel mode.
That, combined with the city tweak and I'm up about 50%.
Engine crank in the hangar I see about 35fps.
Ordered a new CPU cooler and bigger faster memory. Hopefully I can get some OC mojo working. With the stock Intel cooler, I sit at around 50C under minimal/no load. OC ain't gonna go well like that...
Set Ventrilo & TrackIR for affinity to only the 2nd core....thus they're not competing with FC2 which likes the first core.
Also moved one of my DIMMs over. I was running memory in single channel mode.
That, combined with the city tweak and I'm up about 50%.
Engine crank in the hangar I see about 35fps.
Ordered a new CPU cooler and bigger faster memory. Hopefully I can get some OC mojo working. With the stock Intel cooler, I sit at around 50C under minimal/no load. OC ain't gonna go well like that...
Teej - I'll have to admit I am totally ignorant of the ability to specify a core for certain processes. How do you do that?Teej wrote:Made a few more improvements here, actually.
Set Ventrilo & TrackIR for affinity to only the 2nd core....thus they're not competing with FC2 which likes the first core.
Also moved one of my DIMMs over. I was running memory in single channel mode.
That, combined with the city tweak and I'm up about 50%.
Engine crank in the hangar I see about 35fps.
Ordered a new CPU cooler and bigger faster memory. Hopefully I can get some OC mojo working. With the stock intel cooler, I sit at around 50C under minimal/no load. OC ain't gonna go well like that...
