Flight Sims - Remember Those?

[4merTopGun]

Hi All,

I am new to this board, and have fallen a bit behind in my video technology savvy since I stopped staying current with things - which was, oh, about the time the Voodoo-5 came out! Well, maybe not that bad, but I still am behind the times!

I was hoping that one or more of the mavens on this board would be gracious enough to address a fairly broad system question concerning a very specific application. Specifically, I am building a new system, and have only the following items from my old one; A CoolerMaster "Stacker" case, several brand new optical drives, and a RAID-0 (a.ka. "Pseudo RAID") set based on a pair of Raptors. I do have a pair of good Corsair 512MB XMS chips (2-2-2-5), and a nice Antec Neo power supply. I wish to acquire an MB, CPU, and video card, and the only game I am worried about playing is "Lock-On", by UbiSoft. Obviously, I play more than one game, but I am not worried about Doom-3, Half-Life 2, etc. losing a few frames per second; the flight sim is what I wish to maximize.

So, my questions are these; should I go with an Intel 3.6 GHz chip, or an AMD 4000+ ClawHammer? Inspecting SANDRA's databases, I read better floating point figures from Intels, and unlike some of the newer FPS games, flight sims are *VERY* floating-point physics intensive, and therefore would take better to a chip with a hot FPU. Are the Intels truly better than the AMDs in FPU performance, or is real-life different in this case, with the AMD showing better performance in actual applications?

Next, video. I will stick with nVidia, as I know that Lock On was tweaked for use with nVdia's particular architecture, and some preliminary tests between mine and a friends PC have borne this out. The question is this; just how much will Lock On benefit from SLI? Does anyone have any info on this to suggest what SLI might do for Lock On? I have been told, and have seen tests where SLI had minimal impact on the game, but between the MB and the extra video card, shredded the poor guy's wallet.

I thank you in advance for your thoughts, and I wish you all a happy holiday.

TG

 

[Matt2]

It's always hard answering these types of questions concerning a specific game, especially when you dont play that game!

Have you googled for a video card review that includes Lock-On? I bet there are some SLI scores in there.

 

[Willie11b]

In RE: to the processor portion of your question:

IIRC Intel does very well with floating point operations that are SIMD optimized which is more of an approximation but does not do as well with true floating point ops. Basically it depends on how your application is coded.

Will

 

[ayabe]

I really don't think you need SLI to run Lock-On, I have a X800XL and I can turn up all the goodies including the dreaded heat blur and still never go below 25FPS.

 

[videopho]

Hi formertopgun:
You'll do fine with either platform of your choice. LOMAC is a resource very demanding game. My sys can achieve average 30fps at max settings (1680x1050) and barely playable at that setting so often I have to scale down my setting. For FS2004/PF-IL2 and Falcon 4.0 AF, my rig can handle at max settings with very playble frame rate (mostly in the 50-60 fps).
PM me if you need more detail.
Welcome aboard and it's good to see another PC aviator.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: videopho
Hi formertopgun:
You'll do fine with either platform of your choice. LOMAC is a resource very demanding game. My sys can achieve average 30fps at max settings (1680x1050) and barely playable at that setting so often I have to scale down my setting. For FS2004/PF-IL2 and Falcon 4.0 AF, my rig can handle at max settings with very playble frame rate (mostly in the 50-60 fps).
PM me if you need more detail.
Welcome aboard and it's good to see another PC aviator.

I don't know why you think 20-30 FPS isn't playable in LOMAC, I can strafe all day long in my hog with that framerate. Anything lower than 20 is a problem but everything else is perfectly fine.

 

[videopho]

I don't know why you think 20-30 FPS isn't playable in LOMAC, I can strafe all day long in my hog with that framerate. Anything lower than 20 is a problem but everything else is perfectly fine.

I never said "isn't playable". Frame rate is somewhat personable as well. Some prefers smooth buttery fram rate at lower settings or a bit lagging at higher settings. Playing 20-30fps is not perfectly fine, INO.

 

[4merTopGun]

Hi All,

First, thanks to all for their comments. Matt2, your point is well taken concerning application familiarity, and unfortunately, I have not seen any such specific numbers published. Willie11B, thanks for your reflections on FPU performance, and I thank ayabe, and videopho, for their specific inputs on LOMAC.

Guys, to be honest, I am baffled. This is my current system: ABIT IC-7G (875 chipset), 3.2GHz P4, 1 GB Corsair mem (2-2-2-5 @ 1.75 volts), and an eVGA 6800GT. I run everything maxed at 10x7, except for the heat blur, which I turn off, and I have the water set at "Very High", instead of high. Believe it or not, I have no real difficulties over water, and it is only over buildings that I get smacked down to about 9 FPS, which is unplayable. I like to lazily circle over the docks at Sevastopol at sunrise, downtown Khersones, & the train station, in my MiG-29S, watching the shadow of my plane zip along the ground, and buildings. When I get below 4-500 metres, things start getting really choppy whenever there are segments of the ground in the FOV, and below 200 metres, FPS crashes down to 9-10 max. What kind of FPS are you guys getting under those circumstances? Please don't tell me that you guys are getting 30-50 FPS at 16x12, flying 300 feet over buildings, with full detail on, because if you are, I'm gonna be *REALLY* perplexed! I benchmarked my card, and got right around 4700 on 3dMark05, very nearly the exact number published on GPUReview.com.

I'm trying to think about what could be slowing me down under those circumstances, and I'm drawing a blank. I know it's not video bus speed, because I tested the game on my company's server, a SuperMicro X8DAEG-2 with dual 3.2 GHz Xeons, and a RADEON X800 on a PCIExpress 16x. Obviously, the dual Xeons did nothing for the game, as it does not support multiple processors, but the X800 did HURT performance, as it ran 5-7 FPS max under the same conditions. I know I'm not FPU limited, because, again, the Xeons on the 7525 would have better FPU results than my little P4 on its 875/7210 board, and their numbers were worse. The only thing I can think of, is that my GPU is neither crunching the change of scenery, nor spraying the polygons down with their textures quickly enough. My 6800GT is filling textures in at 5600 MTexels per second, compared to 4800 for the X800 128MB, 8000 for the 7800GT, 10320 for the GTX, and 13200 for the GTX-512MB.

Might I be correct that my board's texture and shader limitations are what is keeping my frame rate chunky when I fly low over buildings with full detail on?

Again, thanks guys!


TG

 

[BenSkywalker]

Lock on benchmarks with current high end boards and SLI.

The game is clearly processor limited, although nV's boards prove to be superior(likely driver overhead). Looking solely at this game I would say get yourself the fastest single core Athlon64 you can paired with a single 7800GTX.

Edit- Forgot to ask- are you hitting virtual memory during your gaming? That could be another potential issue. I doubt it as the benches above see minimum framerates in the single digits with 2GBs of RAM when everything is pushed to the maximum.

 

[4merTopGun]

Ben,

Thank you for the *INVALUABLE* reference - I really appreciate it! I have not had problems with the system accessing virtual with either 512MB, or the 1 GB I have now. The only difference between 512 and 1GB is the load speed, which improves drastically with 1GB.

This is interesting. So it looks like I've just figured out my setup on video; a 7800 GT, as it seems that the min framerate for the GT is higher than it is for the GTX. Go figure. The only thing that gets me is this; I'm getting better numbers than they are in typical combat, and it's only when I get close to the ground and the buildings are rendered, that I take a huge hit. I usually hover around 31 FPS in the MiG-29A test flight, which is rife with rendered cumulus clouds, and a running fight with a MiG-31 which you can only win if you kill right away, or execute an awesome pop-up intercept.

As far as being processor limited, I suggested that this might be the case in my original post, when I referenced the intense floating point requirements of the physics involved. You seem to prefer the AMD products, and that's fine. But integral MCHs aside, if we're talking about sheer mathematical power for a single-threaded, 32-bit application, in your opinion, how far up on the Athlon 64 clock "Ladder" would I have to go before I matched the floating point (and integer as well) abilities of a 3.6 GHz P4? 2.4 GHz? 2.6 GHz? I only ask you this because you seem to know AMD products, and I feel comfortable with my knowledge of Intel processors - any chance we can build a bridge, here? : )

I thank you VERY much for your very enlightening post, Ben, you have been a great help to me!

TG

 

[4merTopGun]

Hi All,

I ran over to my local coputer store, got me an overclocked 7800GT, and guess what? hardly any difference in my frame rate with LOMAC, over my 6800GT. Looks like I am going to have to upgrade my processor before anything else. Thanks again guys!

TG

 

[slatr]

I'll buy a copy in the next few days and try it out on my Opeteron 148 @ 2.86

What would be a good benchmark scenario?

 

[professor1942]

I'm an IL-2 junkie (FB, PF etc.) and I had major stutter problems and long loads with my P4 2.8c and 2 GB RAM. I took the same memory out and put it in this new AMD64 system and it runs much, much smoother (and loads twice as fast).

I'd go with AMD64 without a doubt... though it's clear that LOMAC isn't very well optimized and probably will never run smooth on anything.

 

[Matt2]

This is a little off topic, but no one responded to this in my thread in software...

Is Falcon 4.0 Allied Force any good?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Since his questions are answered, I'll just postcount+

I've got to get a good stick and start doing the flight sims again! I probably spent more time with A10:Tank Killer for amiga than any single PC game.

 

[slatr]

Is Falcon 4.0 Allied Force any good?
****
never bought it, but from all I have read about it, a good one to have. I currently only have FS2004 and I am about to get Lock on Gold.

It would seem Falcon has campaigns and lock on has a more limited scope (black sea I think), but an incredible level of detail.

 

[slatr]

I probably spent more time with A10:Tank Killer for amiga than any single PC game.

**
What was that other one on the amiga? Set in San Fran bay area. I want to say F/A 18 ..

Incredible for its time.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: slatr
I probably spent more time with A10:Tank Killer for amiga than any single PC game.

**
What was that other one on the amiga? Set in San Fran bay area. I want to say F/A 18 ..

Incredible for its time.

Could be, my memory is failing me here. I think I had F/A 18 Hornet but I can't remember if it was for PC or Amiga though. I do remember the carrier landings were a b!tch!


You are refering to fa18 intercepter I'm certain now my F18 was for Amiga that is.

 

[professor1942]

LOMAC has better graphics hands down, but I've heard that Falcon 4 is more realistic (and has a steeper learning curve).

 

[Matt2]

I briefly tried the original Falcon 4.0, very immersive, definately more of a simulation game compared to some of the "arcadish" slight sims that are out there.

Cool, I think I'll pick Falcon 4.0 Allied Force up today at work.

 

[Killrose]

I recently tried a re-install of MS Comat flt simm2 to see what it would look like with my 6800U and everything AA'd and AF'd to the max. The game would not recognise my MS FFback Joystick no matter what I tried!!

Works in everything else, LOL, so I un-installed teh game :|

 

[4merTopGun]

Slatr,

I have that one, and it is "F/A-18 Interceptor", by Bob Dinnerman. To say it was ahead of its time is a tremendous understatement. Dinnerman designed full-scale flight sims, and decided to take pity on us poor desktop users and apply his tremendous expertise to a game which we could own, and run. He chose the Amiga because it too, was ***WAY*** ahead of its time in graphics, and literally represents the first time that a separate procesor (or microcontroller) was installed on a computer, and dedicated solely to video processing. The big trio, as they were called were; The "Fat Agnes", The BLOC (BLitter Object Chip), and the Portia. The BLOC and Fat Agnes were especially critical, as they were literally a video accelerator duo for the Motorola 68000 (in the original Amiga). I still have the packaging, and original floppy for that game...really brings back memories, gives away my age, and shows just how far back I go with aerial combat sims!

Thanks for the walk down memory lane, Slatr! : )


TG

a.k.a.; KALASHNIKOV

 

[4merTopGun]

Hi Professor,

I have both games, and while I agree that F4 is a somewhat more "complete" game in some respects, I respectfully disagree that it is more realistic - quite the opposite, in fact. For instance, in F4, a hit is a hit - damage is randomly generated. In LOMAC, however, damage is assigned with respect to where the hit occured. For example, in one test run, I was tailing a turbo-prop powered AN-26 transport in my MiG-29S, had him locked up with guns tracking, zoomed in my view very tightly, and opened fire. The first salvo hit his starboard engine, which immediately started belching smoke, the second, his port engine, which did the same thing, and with no damage anywhere on the fuselage, the plane went down. When one scores a hit in F4, these psychedelic-looking polygonally-based chunks of debris fly off the aircraft, with no regard to where the hit occured, and you have to guess as to whether you took out an engine, or just scratched his paint. Again, with no disrespect to you, IMHO, this is kinda hokey, to say the least.

Last but not least, the flight envelope on the F-16 has such a ridiculously exaggerated sweet spot, as to make the plane next to useless in H2H combat, unless you can keep your airspeed *EXACTLY*on that "Knee (or "Corner") of Life", perpetually. LOMAC's envelopes feel pretty good, seem to have a good gamma of useable maneuverability, seem to simulate the impacts of realtive aeroelasticity fairly well, and even seem to properly represent the realtive merits of the aircraft included, except for the F-15, which is totally over-modelled, again, IMHO.


TG,
a.k.a. "Kalashnikov"

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: 4merTopGun
Hi Professor,

I have both games, and while I agree that F4 is a somewhat more "complete" game in some respects, I respectfully disagree that it is more realistic - quite the opposite, in fact. For instance, in F4, a hit is a hit - damage is randomly generated. In LOMAC, however, damage is assigned with respect to where the hit occured. For example, in one test run, I was tailing a turbo-prop powered AN-26 transport in my MiG-29S, had him locked up with guns tracking, zoomed in my view very tightly, and opened fire. The first salvo hit his starboard engine, which immediately started belching smoke, the second, his port engine, which did the same thing, and with no damage anywhere on the fuselage, the plane went down. When one scores a hit in F4, these psychedelic-looking polygonally-based chunks of debris fly off the aircraft, with no regard to where the hit occured, and you have to guess as to whether you took out an engine, or just scratched his paint. Again, with no disrespect to you, IMHO, this is kinda hokey, to say the least.

Last but not least, the flight envelope on the F-16 has such a ridiculously exaggerated sweet spot, as to make the plane next to useless in H2H combat, unless you can keep your airspeed *EXACTLY*on that "Knee (or "Corner") of Life", perpetually. LOMAC's envelopes feel pretty good, seem to have a good gamma of useable maneuverability, seem to simulate the impacts of realtive aeroelasticity fairly well, and even seem to properly represent the realtive merits of the aircraft included, except for the F-15, which is totally over-modelled, again, IMHO.


TG,
a.k.a. "Kalashnikov"

INteresting, thanks for the insight. I'm really interested in Falcon 4.0 AF's dynamic campaign however. I love the feeling that what I'm doing in those missions is actually making a difference in the game, whether it be good or bad. I hate games where you cant move on until you "beat" the mission.

 

[professor1942]

@ Kalashnikov -

I appreciate the insight... I am mostly a propeller kind of guy but I'm thinking about flying some more jets, and I'm leaning a bit more towards LOMAC now.