LOMAC FC2 Troubles!

Robert-Fierce · Post by **Robert-Fierce** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:44 pm

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, I've had LOMAC for about a year, updated to FC2 about 4-ish months. I fly in FSX and easily get around 65-70 frames per second. But the problem is that in FC2, I get about 7 fps. Weird thing is that on the ground, everything runs smooth, I don't run into the frames issue until I hit about 150 and up.

Here are some specs...

I don't know if this helps, but here is a Speedtest.net report.

Thanks, if you need any more info, let me know!

Post by **Lawndart** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:59 pm

The most obvious question is: What GPU (graphics card) are you running?

You'll need a decent graphics card! Onboard (or integrated/mobo) graphics won't do.

Go to your: Control Panel > System > Hardware Tab > Device Manager > (Click the [+] next to) Display adapters, to find out what graphics card you're using.

Robert-Fierce · Post by **Robert-Fierce** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:38 am

Nvidia GeForce 9100

Post by **Lawndart** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:30 am

The Nvidia 9100 is an integrated graphics processor part of the motherboard in your computer, not a separate card. You will probably need to buy a graphics card (most likely a PCI-E - but check your computer's available card slots and specs to be sure). According to this review/specs by CNET of your HP Pavilion p6310y you should have at least one PCI-E expansion slot.

Integrated graphics is designed for basic media apps like watching movies, music videos etc., and are not intended for gaming, although it will run most games - albeit not up to specs. Especially games that are reliant upon your GPU's processing power will be demanding on your system.

If you Google your card's name you'll find several links to people asking the same questions you're asking (and/or if it will run their games). The simple answer is... it's not designed for gaming.

Robert-Fierce · Post by **Robert-Fierce** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:17 am

Well LD, I really appreciate your time in investigating the issue. I suppose I now know why the PC can run FSX, but not LOMAC. It stinks that it doesn't help! Grr.

I paid a lot for my PC,

, I thank you a lot LD, you are some kind of awesome!

Post by **Lawndart** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:25 am

Your computer isn't that bad... It's only a small investment away from being a decent gaming rig. Nowadays you can get a pretty good graphics card for relatively cheap.

Check Tom's Hardware: Best Graphics Cards For The Money: August 2010

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:05 am

Even a single 8800 will do wonders! You have a decent quad core with a decent clock... that is an important 'foundation' for Lock On. Lock On utilizes the processor pretty heavily, but GPU is important either way.

Message me on Skype sometime and I can help you tweak your settings to favor your processor.

Post by **Teej** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:15 am

Beaker wrote:Even a single 8800 will do wonders! You have a decent quad core with a decent clock... that is an important 'foundation' for Lock On. Lock On utilizes the processor pretty heavily, but GPU is important either way.

Message me on Skype sometime and I can help you tweak your settings to favor your processor.

Unfortunately, cores mean (almost) nothing to LockOn/DCS/A-10 - it's all about clock speed.

It's nice if you can bump FC2 to the 2nd core (on a dual core) and run whatever else you need (Vent, whatever) on the first core...but cores 3&4 won't be used much if at all. Even on a dual core, I get one core pegged (the one FC2 runs on) and the other one is damn near idle.

At _this_ point, for anything LockOn related, clock speed matters more than cores...and clock for clock, Intel seems to run better than AMD. (I have a friend who didn't believe me until he built a rig for his kids almost identical to his own - same OS, same RAM, same video, same brand motherboard as close as possible to his own)...but his kids' Intel board is noticeably quicker than his own AMD even without looking at benchmarks...with the chips clocked close together (forget the #s but they don't differ by much).

Post by **Teej** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:30 am

Although the 9100 isn't great, the fact that it runs fine for a while (i.e. on the ground...what happens if you fly an air-start mission, do you get any time with good frames before they plummet?) makes it sound like a dust / airflow / heatsink problem...

Check these:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=99637

http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardwar ... ssues.html

Robert-Fierce · Post by **Robert-Fierce** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:44 am

Beaker wrote:Even a single 8800 will do wonders! You have a decent quad core with a decent clock... that is an important 'foundation' for Lock On. Lock On utilizes the processor pretty heavily, but GPU is important either way.

Message me on Skype sometime and I can help you tweak your settings to favor your processor.

I know that there are little ways to tweak the processors and various things on the FC2 platform.

You can hit me up on Skype when you're not busy, I'm always on and working on something, but it'll be awesome for you to help.

The rubbish part is that I lost my job,

, so no upgrades until another comes... or Christmas

Once again, thanks LD for your awesome work (as usual) and thanks everyone else!

Robert-Fierce · Post by **Robert-Fierce** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:47 am

Teej wrote:Although the 9100 isn't great, the fact that it runs fine for a while (i.e. on the ground...what happens if you fly an air-start mission, do you get any time with good frames before they plummet?) makes it sound like a dust / airflow / heatsink problem...

Check these:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=99637

http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardwar ... ssues.html

It'll start a little laggy, but yeah, it is so weird. Once you get in the 150+ region, the fps gets lower and lower as the speed gets higher and higher. Yesterday I took the F-15 up and got a lead foot and pushed her to 550.. ish, lol, the fps were round-abouts 5!

Luse · Post by **Luse** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:20 pm

I don't thnik I have ever heard of that one before.

Post by **Teej** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm

Robert-Fierce wrote:It'll start a little laggy, but yeah, it is so weird. Once you get in the 150+ region, the fps gets lower and lower as the speed gets higher and higher. Yesterday I took the F-15 up and got a lead foot and pushed her to 550.. ish, lol, the fps were round-abouts 5!

Seriously...download "speedfan".

It'll tell you not only fan speeds, but CPU / GPU temperatures.

I bet if you let that run, then start up FC2...when the things slows down you can alt-tab to speedfan and I bet something will be running WAY hotter than it's supposed to be.

Might be a simple fix (reseating a heatsink/fan, cleaning dust, etc).

Beaker · Post by **Beaker** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Checking temps is a good start.

Teej, I'm sure you know it, but FC2 utilizes a back core for the sound engine. Helps somewhat. Either way the architecture on the newer quad cores even with a lower clock than my 3.15ghz C2D seems to do better.

Post by **Teej** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:41 pm

Yeah, I agree an i7 will outrun a C2Duo clock for clock...somewhat. I don't think the difference will be large, however.

When I'm running FC2 w/ Vent in the background I typically end up with 1 core nearly pegged (with FC2) and the other core down around 30%. Maybe 50%...that's on a C2D e6600 that I've pushed the clock on a bit. Running around 2.8 now I think. Started getting unstable past that even though it's quite cool.

For out and out performance at all costs, yeah, an i7 will be best at this point. But if money is a concern...and when isn't it....you might get, say, a 60fps C2D vs a 70fps i7...but the chip/motherboard cost practically doubles to get that last 10fps.