Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#4519313 - 05/03/20 08:57 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 398
orbyxP Offline
Member
orbyxP  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 398
Washington State
I had a 6700k/1080 Ti before my current setup and played WOFF UE with benchmarks to death, so the comparison I'm giving is from my own experience. If my own experience is not enough, then I can't give any more proof than that.

Steam has games like the latest Tomb Raider with it's own benchmark which measures CPU/GPU performance. The latest Hitman also has a benchmark which measures FPS. There are many more out there. So, yeah, I've seen 200% improvement on modern games with max settings when I went with the 9 series/RTX Ti. Again, my own experience from owning a 6700k/1080 Ti.

EDIT: Also, I'm referring to M.2 PCI Express SSDs (20Mb/s) which the standard M.2 SATA SSDs (6Mb/s) can't compete no mater what brand or speed.

EDIT2: Ask anyone on this forum with an older CPU, 6th gen and below to verify if they can run 1918 with Ultra air activity at 60 FPS. I couldn't do it with my 6700k. So, if I started playing on Ultra air activity in 1916 and wanted 60 FPS, I'd have to lower it a notch in 1917, then two notches in 1918. That's my proof.

EDIT3: To cut a long winded story, and from reading the comments in this thread, I think this discussion is going nowhere. I made this thread in an attempt to figure out where the stutters were coming from, but I can't. I've decided not to pursue trying to figure out why there are stutters and just focus my time on modding whatever I can.

Last edited by orbyxP; 05/03/20 09:51 PM.
#4519320 - 05/03/20 09:52 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
kksnowbear Offline
Member
kksnowbear  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
I asked if you had proof that fiddling with air activity is required for someone who doesn't have a 9-series CPU. Did you ask everyone who doesn't have a 9-series CPU about this? Also, there are many CPUs that are better than a 6700k without being a 9-series.

Just because the SATA M.2 drives are slow as Christmas, doesn't mean by any stretch that there aren't any other options that are faster. I named at least two. (By the way, BIOS have been modified to run and even boot NVMe storage on many older boards as well, going back to Z86...and if you have a PCIe 3.0 x4 slot, that means high speed NVMe without an M.2 slot at all.

In any case, you said "If none of this matters", and I've now shown that even older hardware can absolutely compete with CPU usage, storage speeds, and other factors, cost for cost.

You're omitting things that don't fit your perspective, like the fact that PCIe drives that are faster than SATA SSDs have been around since way before NVMe. Just because not everyone is familiar with the details of this stuff doesn't mean there aren't other alternatives. Like I said, I can and have put many PCIe SSDs in much older machines that don't load the CPU by design, and still get much better read speeds compared to a SATA SSD and without CPU overhead. (I didn't even mention RAM drives that will absolutely put any NVMe storage to shame, with 15x the read performance).

But, as I've pointed out many times, cost is always a factor, and buying the most expensive isn't always the 'best'.


Last edited by kksnowbear; 05/03/20 09:52 PM.
#4519322 - 05/03/20 10:07 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: HarryH]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
kksnowbear Offline
Member
kksnowbear  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by HarryH
Very interesting discussion. I hope my enjoining does not throw it off the rails. To that end, let me start by offering KKSnowbear a public apology for my recent disgraceful behavior. No matter how much passions are stirred, there's no excuse for that.. I am sorry KK.

Major McGee, I concur 100%. You have used the term 'hiccups' to describe what you see. I've used that term myself in the past and I'm very relieved that it appears to have been accepted in this thread as a legitimate term for describing a key issue with the CFS3 engine. After all my tuning and experimenting I do still have those as well. Typically there's one hiccup I can set my watch by at ~ 93 seconds into the mission (it varies a little depending upon the campaign region) followed by one or two less dramatic ones, until around 200 seconds in, from which point I will seldom see any more of them through to the conclusion of the mission. Sounds very similar to what MM is describing.

Now here's the part where I hope the discussion can stay civil: if those occasional hiccups were grouped together to become stutters every time I was in low combat,, i.e. the issue that KK's original QC showed so well, I wouldn't be able to play this game. But they don't, for me at least, no matter what terrain I'm over, or the weather, or anything. Sure, sometimes maybe not 100% smooth, but still very playable. As the Major says, "When you're doing a white knuckled check six in the middle of a dogfight, you're hardly ever going to notice a little hitch in the display."

Whatever terms we use for less than 100% smooth performance, It looks like pretty much everyone agrees that it's the engine that's the root cause. I would say that if you can put up with those hiccups and you are prepared to put the time and effort into it to make everything else very smooth and playable at high detail settings, this sim has an abundance of enjoyment to offer.

Thanks to Lou and Stache I was able to configure OBS to get a pretty decent 2K recording that's very close to what I actually experience on my monitor. No question there's a bit of a performance hit with OBS but it's ok for demo purposes. I now have a video that I'll upload later that shows those early hiccups very clearly.

Again, hope this stays civil.

Thanks all.

No apology is necessary; I do sincerely appreciate your gesture. I try not to take this stuff personally, and I really wish no one did.

I strongly agree with MMs first post (this thread) regarding his own assessment of the stutters.

I don't necessarily agree with the concept that you're not going to notice it if you're in the middle of things. First, (I think) he's not saying it doesn't happen, it's merely his own assessment of whether it's noticeable. And that's going to vary by not only the individual, but the situation. Also, he doesn't say you won't notice; rather that you're hardly ever going to notice.

What's the difference, you might ask. Fair question.

Here's an example: >LINK<

At :31, a stutter occurs, causing the player to be unable to control or react to what's happening in the game. This is a fairly big pause, and more important, when the game resumes normal behavior, the player is getting pounded by gunfire that he could've otherwise potentially evaded.

I don't think this can be fairly described as something you're 'hardly ever going to notice'. There's no horizontal view movement, no head-turning, and this isn't during startup. It's just happening, at random. It adversely affects the outcome, regardless of player skill or action, and in fact the player has no control over it. Even if you'd panned your view around 10 seconds before, this can and does still happen.

This perfectly illustrates the problem with these drops: It causes you to 'lose track' in your input responses such that they are no longer appropriately timed/sequenced around the actual situation. Pilots refer to this as "situational awareness"; it is an absolutely crucial part of combat flying, and when this happens it's taken completely out of your control.

Now, maybe this is someone else's idea of something you'd hardly notice, but if we assume survival is everything in this sim (as it was in reality), then I have a hard time seeing how this could be overlooked.

As for remaining civil, I know of no reason it shouldn't remain civil. I discuss, at length, but within forum rules; I try to present evidence and cite fact, I sometimes give opinions (noted as such)...and we can all do this, indefinitely if desired...but none of that is uncivil, and it doesn't ever have to get that way as far as I'm concerned. I think vigorous debate can and should be expected, but no one has to get personally offended.

I don't claim to be perfect, and if I actually break forum rules then I'm sure it will be called out. But I don't believe it's necessary for anything to be uncivil.

#4519327 - 05/03/20 10:20 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
kksnowbear Offline
Member
kksnowbear  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by orbyxP
I had a 6700k/1080 Ti before my current setup and played WOFF UE with benchmarks to death, so the comparison I'm giving is from my own experience. If my own experience is not enough, then I can't give any more proof than that.

Steam has games like the latest Tomb Raider with it's own benchmark which measures CPU/GPU performance. The latest Hitman also has a benchmark which measures FPS. There are many more out there. So, yeah, I've seen 200% improvement on modern games with max settings when I went with the 9 series/RTX Ti. Again, my own experience from owning a 6700k/1080 Ti.

EDIT: Also, I'm referring to M.2 PCI Express SSDs (20Mb/s) which the standard M.2 SATA SSDs (6Mb/s) can't compete no mater what brand or speed.

EDIT2: Ask anyone on this forum with an older CPU, 6th gen and below to verify if they can run 1918 with Ultra air activity at 60 FPS. I couldn't do it with my 6700k. So, if I started playing on Ultra air activity in 1916 and wanted 60 FPS, I'd have to lower it a notch in 1917, then two notches in 1918. That's my proof.

EDIT3: To cut a long winded story, and from reading the comments in this thread, I think this discussion is going nowhere. I made this thread in an attempt to figure out where the stutters were coming from, but I can't. I've decided not to pursue trying to figure out why there are stutters and just focus my time on modding whatever I can.


I am absolutely certain your efforts regarding the stutters are appreciated. As I mentioned earlier, I am grateful for your post showing the graphs, and said so back on page 1. I'm truly sorry you can't figure out where the stutters were coming from, because I'd truly like that to happen. Believe me, if it was apparent the solution was that everyone should buy 9700/2080Ti systems, I'd certainly have no trouble making that recommendation. As it stands, I'm dealing with guys who want systems for less than a half (or even a quarter) of the costs.

#4519865 - 05/06/20 05:11 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: kksnowbear]  
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
HarryH Offline
Member
HarryH  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
KK, that video clip is 5 years old. It shows a perfect example of what I refer to as a hiccup, albeit a very extreme one. While the CFS3 game code has remained static, a lot else has changed in that time: hardware performance has improved. The WOFF product has improved. Peoples' efforts to subdue the annoying hiccups / stutters / etc., have improved. Ever since WOFF Platinum was released I haven't experienced a single instance of anything like as severe during a mission as can be seen in that video, no matter what the weather, the date, or the plane. I've put a lot of stick time in with campaign missions. People have posted dozens of videos in the current campaign thread. I've watched most of them and I have not seen a single example of anything even close to that moment in the video you linked to. This was true for me on my GTX 1070, and unsurprisingly, it is equally true with my GTX 2080.

I've seen your offers to help newcomers on this forum with hardware setups. Can you give an rough example of a budget setup that you would typically recommend? Along with this, I'm curious as to how you set their expectations WRT playing WOFF PE on a budget setup?

Thanks

H


System: i5 8600K @ 3.6GHz,16GB DDR4 @2666MHz. RTX2080, MSI Z370 mobo, Dell 27" G-SYNC @ 144Hz. 2560x1440

#4519870 - 05/06/20 05:38 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: HarryH]  
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 398
orbyxP Offline
Member
orbyxP  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 398
Washington State
Originally Posted by HarryH
I'm curious as to how you set their expectations WRT playing WOFF PE on a budget setup?


Very true. That is the key. I don't believe you're likely to get the same fluidity from a 9th generation CPU, PCIe SSD, RTX GPU and 240hz monitor as you would with an overclocked 6th generation CPU, SATA SSD or HDD, GTX GPU and 60hz monitor. .

Monitor hz is often overlooked as a major factor in game performance. Search YouTube or Google on 60 vs 144hz or 240hz. It doesn't only apply to FPS games. It even makes your OS smoother!

Last edited by orbyxP; 05/06/20 06:01 PM.
#4519895 - 05/06/20 08:25 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
kksnowbear Offline
Member
kksnowbear  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
HH

You and I already discussed the matter of how often the drop occurs during a flight. As I've explained, the problem with looking at it that way is that it can happen any time; there is nothing saying it can't happen more than once in rapid succession, and you essentially have zero control over when it does happen (or how long it lasts, or when it happens again). Looking around, even all the time (to 'load textures') doesn't solve this problem, because airplanes are pretty much required to be moving forward all the time (else no lift). Hence, you encounter new textures. You can look around 360 degrees, and still have this happen a second later.

The issue with all the other tests you mentioned that don't show drops, is - and this was actually pointed out in your test thread - that none of the videos show any drops to begin with; therefore no one can say whether anything was there to 'solve' in the first place. Everyone agrees (I believe) that drops are caused (or at least worsened) by 'texture loading' (just as a generic expression). So, it absolutely follows that whether/how severely any single flight encounters the drops will depend on factors like where/when you're flying, and what else is being rendered/displayed. That means unless you duplicate exactly what's in that first video, you aren't necessarily going to see the same drop. And, if the videos don't show stuttering to begin with, then there's really no proof it would've been present in that specific scenario (It could've just been the other factors, which we all understand will alter the effect; how severe, etc).

But let's set that specific video aside for a moment. Here's a newer one (about a month old): >LINK< . Look around 1:08. I would infer this is the most recent WOFF version, since it was posted by one of the OBD team. And I seem to recall Pol saying he had a fairly powerful updated machine, although this doesn't specifically say it was created by him or on his machine. Yes I know it's WIP etc, but that has no bearing at all in the context of frame dropping. Granted, the pause isn't as long as the one I linked before, but this is more likely because of the exact environment, textures, etc than differences in the system would reflect, IMO. In any case, we can't say it's not there, and we can't say that any difference was strictly due to the machine.

I've tested with a range of CPUs over the years, some many times stronger than others, and I've seen little to no change in these particular frame drops. And, in spite of what some might claim, even the latest 9900K setup isn't going to perform at a level overall that is 200% more powerful than some of the 6th, 7th and 8th-gen setups I've used (there is plenty of evidence of this over at the 3dMark website, BTW).

To me, it's exceptionally unlikely that I could run 15 different CPUs, some more than twice as strong as others, and see zero difference in the drops...and then, just by going to a setup that's (at best) maybe 30% faster than ones I've already tested, the drops suddenly disappear. Certainly, the range of processor performance overall would be (at least close to) linear with respect to drops...IOW, I'd expect a CPU 2x more powerful than a 'baseline' to be less likely to show drops, and one 4x more powerful to show even less.

But, your theory about the latest CPUs implies that the rate of improvement stayed exactly the same (near zero) through 6 generations of CPUs, then suddenly jumped through the roof with the latest generation. That's not consistent with the scale increase in their relative performance, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, for that reason.

To be clear: I'm not saying I don't believe the newer hardware won't improve the game at all - I certainly believe it will. And, I could see (a number of reasons) someone might believe the newest components would overcome these issues. However, what seems to be missing is an accounting for the "scale factor" I described above, particularly when people other than myself have already stated they have the same drops at times, in spite of some pretty high-end hardware.

If you please, the question about an entry level budget system is a great question, but I'll need to get back to it. I am actually looking forward to it, because it is a very relevant question (perhaps *the* question IMHO) just a little pressed for time ATM.

Last edited by kksnowbear; 05/06/20 09:44 PM.
#4519906 - 05/06/20 09:32 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
kksnowbear Offline
Member
kksnowbear  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 945
HH, cont.

As regards the budget setup and expectations - again, let me say this is a great question.

In the recent past, I have spec'd out a couple builds/upgrades that wound up using 3rd-gen CPUs, GTX780s, boot SSD/storage HDD, and 8G DDR3 RAM. I can do/have done systems like this for $400-500+, depending on exact CPU/GPU, exact memory, exact chassis, size/type storage, custom storage, and cooling setup. I have first-hand test results that show roughly 70FPS average, and that the CPU/GPU are not loaded much beyond about 50% with all settings maxed out (which kind of echos my own feeling that more isn't really helping with drops much, overall, and certainly isn't necessary). These results have been corroborated across multiple systems, and by others using systems I worked with them on, in addition to my own observations. This seems to make that level of system fairly reliable as a good budget performer; subjectively, people seem to be pleased with what they get.

Part of the reason I like this question so much is that it goes to show exactly how conservative a system can run the sim with decent performance (and, at least anecdotally, without any tweaking or mods being necessary). Interestingly, this is also close to what OBD says on their website for a 'recommended' system. And I firmly believe it's in everyone's interest that such minimal requirements can be effective. Really a bad idea, IMHO, to give the impression you need thousands of dollars of hardware to get decent performance out of any PC game.

As far as expectations go...

Well, if I'm being honest, I am essentially compelled to specifically mention frame rate drops. I will usually say something like this is a system closely matched to the required/recommended specs; testing shows it will yield in the range of X-x FPS. I am usually completely forthcoming about hiccups, frame drops or whatever we're allowed to call them.

Depending on the level of interest, I usually try to provide as much detail - including test figures - as I can. Some don't care about all that, and I try to gauge this during the 'pre-sale' discussions. For example, if a guy's coming from a complete slide-show, he'll be tickled silly with 70FPS, and the occasional stutter isn't likely to bother him. But I have also built very fast machines for gaming, and if there are going to be issues, I'd be wise to bring all this up in advance. Especially as the price goes up. And this is why I'm so interested in it, because people aren't just paying me for hardware. I have to advise them on how to get the best for their money, and sometimes that means saying "You're not getting past that problem, regardless of how much it costs, because..." Or, "If you want 144FPS consistently, you're going to have to spend more than $400..."

I do have to be somewhat concerned with performance-related issues, because I offer money-back guarantees, which could kill me if someone's not happy. I make nothing to begin with, and that's the truth. If I incur much loss, I'd be paying people to take hardware. And - as with ALL games and software - I generally specify that, while part of what I'm selling is support, and I will try to help, I also cannot be responsible for specific performance issues in any software (because I don't create the software). In some cases, I've spent way more time than it was worth trying to set up/optimize a build for a certain game(s) (not referring to WOFF here...ask me about Rainbow6 sometimes...or PUBG...or RUST...)

Either way, I do have to know - I have to be able to recognize, that is, what is a problem in the hardware and what's not. Usually by the time someone takes delivery, that setup has been so thoroughly vetted, cleaned, inspected and tested it's not even funny (which is the biggest reason I make nothing). I have seen various little anomalies in various games; they often look similar but aren't always the same. Texture loading isn't unheard of, but not so bad that very fast storage won't all but eliminate it, and the behavior is different besides that. If a RAM drive won't even change it, then something's wrong beyond what I'd call 'typical' texture loading.

I'm not sure this answers your question but I've tried to be thorough. Discussion/questions welcome.

Incidentally, I have to say everything else aside I genuinely appreciate this question and the chance to answer it.

EDIT: BTW I certainly didn't intend, in my exuberance with the question, to say that this stuff only matters because or when I sell something. The reason I thought it such a great question was because it addresses the subject of expectation, and expectation vs cost - which is a big factor as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether you buy new or used, build yourself, off the shelf, online or local...

Last edited by kksnowbear; 05/07/20 10:34 AM.
#4519938 - 05/07/20 01:58 AM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 799
Stache Offline
Member
Stache  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 799
Michigan, USA
I offer this video with an afterburner overlay for consideration.
July 1918 - DVII's vs Bentley Camels



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A. Einstein

(System Specs:)

I7-6700k OC 4.4GHZ, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz; Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB, G1 OC'ed GTX980ti; Three-Acer XB271HU WQHD Gsync 144Mhz; Samsung 950-512GB NVMe SSD; WD 2TB-7200rpm; Cooler Master HAF XB EVO, Nepton 240M cooler, V1000 PS; Windows 10 PRO; VKB GunfighterPro Stick; Thrustmaster TPR Pedals; Saitek Throttle; Dual TM MFD panels; TrackIR 5; Windows 10 v1909
#4520028 - 05/07/20 03:57 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
HarryH Offline
Member
HarryH  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
Stache, super video. You clearly have your system dialed in extremely well.

KK, thank you for the detailed answers. Your knowledge of PC hardware is clearly very comprehensive. I can only speak to my own experience. A combination of experimentation with settings, combined with key upgrades to my monitor, my GPU and my CPU and later versions of WOFF have made me very happy playing this game, so in my case I can say I'm glad I've spent the time and money on it.

Yes there's a very minor hiccup / stutter or whatever in that Polovski clip, but it's an external view with WIP code. In any case, I am not saying these problems are gone. I am saying that IMO better hardware diminishes them for me, and others seemingly.

I think you'd be providing your potential customers a more complete service by testing your builds with the latest version of WOFF, which I don't believe you are currently doing? I found that PE generally performed better than UE did right out of the box, but that's just a feeling. It is the release that most new players will want to purchase and play, I would imagine.

Well, after all that, this doesn't seem to be such a big deal, does it? We both agree there are niggling performance aspects still hanging around in the old game engine. We're both at least somewhat in agreement that better hardware does make it run 'better', albeit not offering a complete cure for stutters etc., aren't we? Problems only seem to arise when newcomers to the sim come onto the forum and complain about stutters. My hope is that in future we can all lean a little more toward optimism rather than pessimism in those circumstances. Stache's video, and many others, show how well a good machine can run WOFF PE and there's an opportunity for you right there to advise and sell more systems to help others get similar results.

EDIT: I just saw your recent response to a new forum visitor here: https://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4518451/new-pc That's very balanced IMO, thank you.


Last edited by HarryH; 05/08/20 05:05 PM.

System: i5 8600K @ 3.6GHz,16GB DDR4 @2666MHz. RTX2080, MSI Z370 mobo, Dell 27" G-SYNC @ 144Hz. 2560x1440

#4520030 - 05/07/20 04:00 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
HarryH Offline
Member
HarryH  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by orbyxP
Originally Posted by HarryH
I'm curious as to how you set their expectations WRT playing WOFF PE on a budget setup?


Very true. That is the key. I don't believe you're likely to get the same fluidity from a 9th generation CPU, PCIe SSD, RTX GPU and 240hz monitor as you would with an overclocked 6th generation CPU, SATA SSD or HDD, GTX GPU and 60hz monitor. .

Monitor hz is often overlooked as a major factor in game performance. Search YouTube or Google on 60 vs 144hz or 240hz. It doesn't only apply to FPS games. It even makes your OS smoother!


Yes indeed.


System: i5 8600K @ 3.6GHz,16GB DDR4 @2666MHz. RTX2080, MSI Z370 mobo, Dell 27" G-SYNC @ 144Hz. 2560x1440

#4520064 - 05/07/20 08:49 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: HarryH]  
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 799
Stache Offline
Member
Stache  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 799
Michigan, USA
Originally Posted by HarryH
Stache, super video. You clearly have your system dialed in extremely well


Thanks Harry,

This is not to say I do not get an occasional hiccup, I do like that term better as IMO, it indicates an event of a very short duration.
As infrequently as a hiccup may occur they certainly do not affect my enjoyment of WOFF.
There are somethings that have to be lived with. (Like that streching of side monitors - yeah I see it now)

Perhps OBD will be able to address this in the future, but depending on the resources, I might prefer they spend their time improving other aspects.

I do not believe I have done anything magical in my settings or hardware and I am running a much higher resolutions that most users here on what is now four year old technology.


Last edited by Stache; 05/07/20 08:50 PM.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A. Einstein

(System Specs:)

I7-6700k OC 4.4GHZ, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz; Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB, G1 OC'ed GTX980ti; Three-Acer XB271HU WQHD Gsync 144Mhz; Samsung 950-512GB NVMe SSD; WD 2TB-7200rpm; Cooler Master HAF XB EVO, Nepton 240M cooler, V1000 PS; Windows 10 PRO; VKB GunfighterPro Stick; Thrustmaster TPR Pedals; Saitek Throttle; Dual TM MFD panels; TrackIR 5; Windows 10 v1909
#4520069 - 05/07/20 09:05 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: Stache]  
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
HarryH Offline
Member
HarryH  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by Stache
Originally Posted by HarryH
Stache, super video. You clearly have your system dialed in extremely well


Thanks Harry,

This is not to say I do not get an occasional hiccup, I do like that term better as IMO, it indicates an event of a very short duration.
As infrequently as a hiccup may occur they certainly do not affect my enjoyment of WOFF.
There are somethings that have to be lived with. (Like that streching of side monitors - yeah I see it now)

Perhps OBD will be able to address this in the future, but depending on the resources, I might prefer they spend their time improving other aspects.

I do not believe I have done anything magical in my settings or hardware and I am running a much higher resolutions that most users here on what is now four year old technology.



Yes you're getting great results with your machine spec, I agree.


System: i5 8600K @ 3.6GHz,16GB DDR4 @2666MHz. RTX2080, MSI Z370 mobo, Dell 27" G-SYNC @ 144Hz. 2560x1440

#4520525 - 05/11/20 06:10 PM Re: WOFF Stats with Afterburner Monitoring [Re: orbyxP]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
VonS Offline
WWI Flight Sims on a Mac
VonS  Offline
WWI Flight Sims on a Mac
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Quick follow-up to a couple of questions I had regarding vid. card overclocking, on page one of this thread. Info. may be helpful if anyone is out there running WOFF on one or two FirePro D700 cards.

For those running a 2013 Mac Pro as I am, with the two FirePro D700 cards that are de-tuned for workstations (consumer ver. of the card is the FirePro W9000) - you will find that the core clock and memory nos. are 850/1370 MHz. Feel free to download the "MSI Afterburner" program and jig up the nos. to 940/1380 MHz for an extra 8 to 10 fps or so in WOFFpe - also gives four or five extra fps, or so, in other sims like FE2/SF2/WOTR/ROF/IL2_1946/BoX - and an added sense of "smoothness" when flying, which I find more important than ave. fps.

The good thing about this tweak is that it is still within the factory overclock specs. for the two vid. cards and doesn't require tampering with voltage and other things that may wreck the cards. (Don't go beyond 1380 MHz for the memory overclocking since these cards are (strange?) and don't tolerate big tweaks to the memory frequency - I would get occasional freezes at 1385 MHz on the memory, for example.)

Also, set the "Macs Fan Control" program (https://crystalidea.com/macs-fan-control) in your BootCamp install on the Mac to point to "sensor-based value/gpu diode 2/ temp. range of 60 to 85 degrees Celsius" as range to activate extra fan speed and max. temp. allowed. You'll find that all components in the Mac Pro hardly go over 80 degrees that way, even after an hr. or two of intensive flight simming.

(Thank you Orbyx for beginning this thread since otherwise I would not have found out about "Afterburner.")

Von S smile2

P.S. There is a "bug" in ROF and BoX that disables "Crossfire" mode on dual AMD cards unless "v-sync" is set to "on" in the in-sim menu. Happy flying all.

Last edited by VonS; 05/11/20 06:15 PM. Reason: Added info.

~ For my various FM/AI/FPS/DM Mods. for First Eagles 2, WoFF, RoF & WoTR, and tips for FlightGear, recommended is to check over my CombatAce profile (https://combatace.com/profile/86760-vons/) and to click on the "About Me" tab while there. ~
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Polovski 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0