Some here like to excuse problems if they do not exist for them. Others like to sweep them under a rug if a work around is found. While some like to blame the author of the post.

Well, I took some time today to compare apples, oranges, and pears. I decided to do this because a recent operating system crash prompted me to try my onboard ATI 1250 Xpress video.

My system:
OS: Windows XP Service pack 3
Motherboard: ASUS M2A-VM
CPU: AMD 64 x2Dual 4600+
RAM: 2Gb

Video:
ASUS GeForce 7600GS Silent with 256 ram
ATI X1250 Onboard chip

I started with the ATI video becouse EAW 1.2 will not function with the 7600GS. I did a fresh install of EAW from the Infogrames CD. Exe is not recognized as a valid file, so I created a savedata folder and applied patch 1.2. I made no other adjustments to my system or EAW.

Quick mission was selected. EAW flew just fine. There is no ingame FPS counter without modifying files, so no FPS was recorded for stock EAW 1.2

I downloaded patch 1.28c and unzipped to the EAW folder. Actualy, I screwed up the unzip and had to move the files from the infogrames interactive folder to the European Air War Folder.

Quick start was selected. The frame rates were a constnat 60 fps, with an ocasional dip to 58 and 59 when a large number of aircraft and particle effects were on screen. Obviously, the video output was synced to the refresh rate of the monitor.

The onboard chip was disabled, the drivers removed, and the system rebooted. Please note, last week was the first time the onboard video has ever been used. The computer was build November of 2007 using the 7600GS. All previous complaints of poor FPS can not be blamed on driver conflict.

Quick start was selected. The frame rates were 30 fps when viewing the landscape and sky. It droped to 22 fps when one or two enemy aircraft were visable. When 2 boxes of bombers were viewed at long distance, the fps droped to 17. When the bombers were at medium range and fighting with the interceptors, the fps droped to 7. When I reached the bombers and there full detail model was drawn I had 2 fps.

I installed Glide wrapper GlideWrapper084c.exe that was downloaded 6/17/09 and Glide was selected for rendering.

Quick start was selected. The frame rates were 75 viewing 4 boxes of bombers at long view range, sky and ground. Nvidia obviusly uses a higher refrash rate for the monitor. The fps droped to 36 as the bombers started to become more detailed and combat with multiple interceptors filled the screen with particle effects. The lowest fps was 24. 3 boxes of high detail bombers, interceptors, escorts and particle effects filled the screen.

I did not test the ATI card using the glide wrapper.

Conclusion, ATI is still the king of EAW. If you have low FPS use Glide.

Well, I think that dots the eyes, and crosses the tees.

Here's my details:

1.2 FXEXE versions with full highres (8 bit) graphics for all terrain and objects, using Rotton's targetset never drops below 15 FPS on my old legacy machine. Not even when the air is full of flack and 128 aircraft are battling it out. The only problem are smokestacks, which only appeared after switching from a gForce 2 GTS 32 MB to a gForce FX5500 256MB.
The glidewrapper didn't improve behaviour here but unlike D3D it is capable of using lores textures in the distance and hires for near view, whereas D3D can only use lores for everything, unless it is forced to do otherwise.
When the game is apropriately modified it can do exactly the same thing as Glide with the advantage that no additional software is needed to run, in order to 'wrap' (read translate, and read more timeconsuming). Wrapping will also use valuable memory on lower end systems, limmiting the ammount of texture space but more video memory may be of help (not proofen).

VonBeerhofen

I have 2 legacy machines.
oldest
OS: Windows 98 Second Edition
Motherboard: ASUS A7V266-E
CPU: AMD AthlonXP 2000+
RAM: 512 Mb
Video: ATI 8550

This machine has had EAW on it for years and years and years. EAW 1.2 flys wonderfully. I added 1.28c and I get 60 fps high and 39 fps at the lowest. I did not try the glide wrapper.

The other machine
OS: Windows XP Service Pack 3
Motherboard: ASUS A7N8X pos
CPU: AMD AthlonXP 2000+
RAM: 512 Mb
Video: Geforce4 440MX

I did a fresh install of EAW 1.2. EAW flys good. No problamatic lagging. I added 1.28c and flew quick start. 60 fps was the normal when looking at ground, sky and distant bomber formation. When I closed to medium view for the bomber formation and attacking interceptors, the fps droped to 30 fps. Durring my barrel roll through the formation the fps droped to 24 and back to 60 upon exiting the formation. The Glide wrapper will not run with video card.

Conclusion, Nvidia changed something in there modern drivers that prevents DirectX 7 from functioning properly.

An interesting thread.


I continue to get excellent rates on Vista and Win 7, with a Radeon card and D3D. It stays on a steady 60 unless I am close to a very large bomber formation with lots of smoke and tracer where it may from to a minimum of 24.

VBH.
As you have reported on SPAW I assume that you have 1.28C installed somewhere.
What sort of frame rates are you getting with clean 1.28C on your rig?

Jel

Although I have not checked it myself, are you sure it is actually DX7 calls that are being used, rather than DX6 calls in the video subsystem. I thought it was possible to compile with the DX6 SDK (but could be wrong).
It may even be interesting to check in the "D3D.DLL" if the calls are not actually all the way back to DX5 compliance.

I did not check. I gave the code the benifit of the doubt as I know it uses nothing past DX7. I have been able to build the code using 2004 SDKs without converting the functions to DX8 so I assumed the function is DX7 compatable.

The fact that a newer Nvidia card is unplayable has always bothered me, and since I had the onboard ATI active when I saw the snipping starting, I thought I would take the time to do my own tests. The only test I did not do was to use JIM so I could get a fps of the 7600GS card under EAW 1.2.

Joe average who has a Nvidia card that gives poor frame rates is not going to dig through hundreds of posts to learn why. He (or she) does not care the why, only what to do about it. It's not about who's code does what, it's about being able to fly with the least amount of trouble.

To quote a Yamaha commercial touting the advantages of push button start "Mr. I just wana ride."

Yes I totally agree with you there.
The slowdown with the later generation video cards has always bugged me also.

I just now had a quick look at the D3D.DLL code and it is set for DirectX6.
What also surprised me was that the 16Bit Z buffer is enabled when rendering, but EAW is not taking advantage of it.
There even is direction lighting .... again not being taken advantage of.
Maybe that D3D.DLL is a generic one from somewhere and only some limited usage is made from that code for EAW.

It never is that easy. On my bike I ALSO had to pull in the clutch before the push button start would work.

If you follow the notes in the code and consider the pain DX was then, I think it's clear it is not a generic one. As to not implimented features, at least they put the place markers in the code. I miss my Blaster Banshee video card. That was the best quality graphics card for old DX rendering I ever owned.


I have to say I'm pretty impressed with the way the code group and the mod squad put 1.28c and a Pacific campaign together.

I have to agree. They have done a great job putting it all together. It will be interesting to see how much further they can develop the old girl.

Oh a deja-vu theatre.

Do we need the same theatre again and again??

Cant you just give it a correct name to prevent the typical "Myth creation"??

As we found in the last "EAW1.28 and slow FPS" theatres, its NOT just EAW1.28 related, its related to all EAW versions.

All you found here, we already found a year(or so) ago, when you was reporting the extreme slow donws with your PC.

At that time it got obvious that also EAW1.2 suffer by this slowdowns and that mainly modern PC´s (dual core and/or modern graphiccards and WinXP) suffer by this problem.

Otherwise there was no real different found between a EAW1.2 and a EAW1.28x installations.
Only when Multiskins was loaded slower PC´s did suffer, but this also could be related to the 3dz´s of the currently loaded plane. The different with multiskins was only good visible(2-5 fps) on PC´s like my realy slow K7 700MHz PC, with only 382MB RAM.

Can you please rename the theatre, then we can make it a sticky and then we dont need to discuss this again and again.

Greetings,

Knegel

btw, here is one of the theatres where we did discuss the FPS in EAW(at that time it wasnt EAW1.28 related).
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2734158/1.html

Out of this theatre here the conclusion out of tests made on different systems by different members of the code group:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
WinXP Professional SP2
In Game resolution 1024x768
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO
2 x 2400 MHZ AMD
2 gig RAM.

With glide wrapper up to 130 fps max, min is around 30 fps.
In 3d max fps is around 50, min is around 10.

With more modern PC´s the glide wrapper offer a real advantage. The FPS never drops into a slideshow area and the pictures are extreme sharp.
With same PC´s the fps in 3d mode drop down below 30 as soon as a plane comes in sight and below 25 as soon as a 4mot comes in sight and while attacking 4 Mots its a slide show.

Unfortunatelly the 24 bit skins dont work in glide mode.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WinXP Professional SP2
In Game resolution 1024x768
ATI Radeon 9800 PRO
1 x 2200 MHZ AMD
1 gig RAM.

FPS is very similar in glide and 3d mode with a smal advantage for 3d.
Min fps is around 15, max fps is around 50.

With an older system (700MHz AMD K7, GF MX460), 3d have clear advantages, where the min fps is at around 15 and max is around 35.

Tonys rather new high end PC with Vista or Win7 offer a stable min fps of above 25, max fps goes up to around 70(if i remeber right).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The values above was similar for similar systems of different code group mebers, using EAW1.28, EAW1.28a and EAW1.2.
There was no different between different exe´s.

More Modern systems + WinXP had real problems to get decent fps in 3d mode, often it get unplayable. Vista and Win7 with same PC offer playable fps in 3d mode
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I think the above is still valid knowledge.