Jump to content

WWShadow

Inactive/Retired WW Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About WWShadow

  1. Oh man wish I had the dinero to do this! I want that and the TIR, but with the way things are with Kay at the moment, never gonna happen seems more likely. I'd rather have the TIR more then this setup of yours, but boy what a dream setup! LOL I do agree with Chuck here Dave, you might want to just box them up for now and semi-retire them till later. I KNOW how life can really REALLY preempt everything and push out things like hobbies and such stuff. But life has a way of moving in cycles and now may not be optimium or conductive to your hobby of choice (even if you move to a different hobby for a while that accomodates how LIFE is operating for you). But it WILL cycle back. A year from now you maybe kicking yourself for cutting these strings, so I also advise... (as generous as your offer is), hold on to your HOTAS/pedals setup and bank 'em for later! ;)
  2. I'm not sure that one post made by the one guy who had problems with 45.23 is accurate. This is what my .inf shows for 45.23, as you can see it supports all nVidia cards from NV5 to NV35. [strings] Disk1Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 1" Disk2Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 2" Disk3Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 3" Disk4Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 4" Disk5Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 5" Disk6Name="NVIDIA Compatible Display Driver Disk 6" INFName="nvagp.inf" NVIDIA&DEV_0028.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/TNT2 Pro" NVIDIA&DEV_0029.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_002C.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Vanta/Vanta LT" NVIDIA&DEV_002D.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Model 64/Model 64 Pro" NVIDIA&DEV_0100.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce 256" NVIDIA&DEV_0101.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce DDR" NVIDIA&DEV_0103.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro" NVIDIA&DEV_0110.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400" NVIDIA&DEV_0111.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200" NVIDIA&DEV_0113.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 MXR/EX" NVIDIA&DEV_01A0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Integrated GPU" NVIDIA&DEV_0150.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/GeForce2 Pro" NVIDIA&DEV_0151.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ti" NVIDIA&DEV_0152.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_0153.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro2 Pro" NVIDIA&DEV_0170.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460" NVIDIA&DEV_0171.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440" NVIDIA&DEV_0172.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420" NVIDIA&DEV_0173.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440-SE" NVIDIA&DEV_0178.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_017A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS" NVIDIA&DEV_0181.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 with AGP8X" NVIDIA&DEV_0182.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440SE with AGP8X" NVIDIA&DEV_0188.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 580 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_018A.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro NVS with AGP8X" NVIDIA&DEV_018B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_01F0.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU" NVIDIA&DEV_0200.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3" NVIDIA&DEV_0201.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200" NVIDIA&DEV_0202.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500" NVIDIA&DEV_0203.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro DCC" NVIDIA&DEV_0250.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600" NVIDIA&DEV_0251.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400" NVIDIA&DEV_0253.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200" NVIDIA&DEV_0258.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 900 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_0259.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 750 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_025B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 700 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_0280.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800" NVIDIA&DEV_0281.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X" NVIDIA&DEV_0282.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE" NVIDIA&DEV_0288.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 980 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_0289.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro4 780 XGL" NVIDIA&DEV_0301.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_0302.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800" NVIDIA&DEV_0308.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000" NVIDIA&DEV_0309.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000" NVIDIA&DEV_0311.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_0312.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600" NVIDIA&DEV_0314.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600SE" NVIDIA&DEV_0321.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_0322.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200" NVIDIA&DEV_032B.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 500" NVIDIA&DEV_0330.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra" NVIDIA&DEV_0331.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900" NVIDIA&DEV_0338.DeviceDesc="NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000" Perhaps he got a bad driver, you can easily check your .inf before hand Sandy, maybe the XP is messed up. I used 45.23 with my GF3 without any problems so I would "imagine' it would work with your GF4 okay. But then again, you have XP.
  3. System specs AMD XP2100+ (Running at 2.08Gig or as XP2600+) [198fsbx10.5 multiplier at 1.625v] Asus A7N8X Deluxe FSB400 512mb PC3200 DDR 400FSB Corsair RAM (Two 256mb sticks) 60gb Western Digital HDD with 4mb cache eVGA e-Geforce FX5900 w45.23 Drivers (more on that later) not overclocked. Runs at 450Mhz/850Mhz (Core/Mem) On board sound (nForce2) Better then Audigy1 or 2 hands down! NEC950 19” Monitor Win 98SE DirectX 9.0b In Game setup Visibility Distance = high Objects Lighting = high Objects Detail = excellent Landscape Lighting = excellent Landscape Detail = excellent Clouds Detail = detailed clouds FB Video Setup (external progie) OpenGL: Custom Texture mipmap filter: trilinear Texture Compression: None Use Vertex Arrays: Checked Multitexture: Checked Combine: Checked Secondary Color: Checked Vertex Array Extention: Checked Clip Hint: Checked FB Sound Setup (external progie) Playback channels: 16 Speaker type: Headphones 3D engine mode: Balanced Sampling Rate: 22050 Audio enhancements and hardware acceleration: Checked Note that I got the Geforce FX5900, the deal was just too good. I could have gotten ATI 9700 plain jane or the FX5900 plane jane and opted for the 5900 as it would (and has proven at least to me) that it would be slightly faster then a 9700 Pro. I could have gotten the ATI 9700 for $240 and the FX5900 for $230, economics and the possibility of a slightly faster card won me over to the Geforce. I tested three driver sets for the FX5900; 44.03, 45.23, and the 52.16. First off let me start by saying that the 52.16 drivers sucks so bad it nearly made me throw up! Lots of bugs with that one at least for the 98SE version, I struggled with it and finally gave up. Perhaps the XP version is better but I doubt it. Some benchmarking first to get a general ‘Feel’ as to what I might expect, using 3dMark03 330 I got these scores: 44.03 – 5084 45.23 – 5386 52.16 – 5538 These scores look like there is quiet an improvement from 44.03 to 52.16, but I think this test (and others I’ve done for benchmarking) are meaningless. As you’ll see from my testing below: I tested two resolutions, 1024x768x32 to match yours Sandy and 1280x960x32 to get (IMHO) the best “Bang” for the buck if you will from the power of the FX5900. I do NOT use any anisotropic filtering. I found with the FX5900 it was really pretty pointless. Also I never used it for my GF3 when it was working because it was just a card killer for fps. Btw, using the above settings I gave for the external progie setup, I get VERY close to anisotropic smoke/shadows etc anyway, so why bother! No FSAA 1024x768x32 Done in Average/Max/Min 44.03 – 35/70/8 45.23 – 40/60/12 52.16 – 39/83/11 Here they look pretty even, though the 52.16 driver has a higher peek, it actually scores in the middle for average, also note that the 45.23 drivers seem more “consistent” for frames, even on the low end. FSAAx4 1024x768x32 44.03 – 32/64/11 45.23 – 37/54/16 52.16 – 30/57/12 Here the 45.23 drivers really seem to shine compared to the other two. Higher average, although the peek is lower then the other two, I’d rather it was ‘Consistent’, and the minimum frames were better then without FSAA. This was something I noticed with all the tests I did, the minimum frames were ALWAYS higher with FSAA then without. Guess the FX cards REALLY like to use FSAA! Also look at the hit I took between no FSAA and FSAAx4 with the 52.16 drivers vs the other two drivers! Now I tried all kinds of combos on the video (in game and external setup progie) as well as the sound and found that anything other then what I listed above Sandy cost me 1-5! Fps. Sound adjustments made no difference to performance on my end, but I would expect that with the nForce2 sound setup. So Chucks advice to you and your Audigy may very well have a big impact for you. I know my SBLive really seemed to hate IL2 and then FB, not in quality, but in stutter effect. You may also want to look into your driver Sandy. The 52.xx are really for the FX (so is the 45’s for that matter), but recently Oleg did post that the game does BEST with 45.33 (they don’t make that driver for 98SE, but they do for the XP) so I would investigate the driver too! Look at the difference it made in my tests and benchmarks be buggered! I’m using the 45.23 because for me they are the best and visually they even look better then 52.16 and 44.03! Plus I had mucho problems with 52.16 for stability and reliability etc, many programs just didn’t work with 52.16. Now here are my scores for all drivers but at 1280x960x32 No FSAA 44.03 – 35/79/8 45.23 – 37/54/9 52.16 – 37/79/13 Higher peeks for the 52.16, but same fps average for 45.23 and 52.16, surprisingly the minimum frames seem to be better for the 52.16. FSAAx4 44.03 – 30/63/11 45.23 – 32/54/12 52.16 – 29/58/8 Here I think something broke for 52.16 they just plane sucked, but again the 45.23 drivers did very well and lost hardly anything going to FSAA, hell although the average is lower, the minimum was higher! The low end score for the 52.16 was the only time in all the testing where it actually lost ground going to FSAA. Just another indication (for me) that something was screwy with the 52.16 drivers. Btw, just for kicks, I did a test with at 1600x1200x32x4FSAA and got these numbers: 29/59/11!!! I will however use 1280x960x32x4FSAA because the aircraft dots at distance just get WAY to tiny to see well. LOL Though it looks gorgeous. I also tested using perfect settings, and can do it at 1280x960x32x4FSAA but the average drops to 21fps and the minimum drops to around 8 which is a real noticeable occurrence. Just not worth it in my book for pretty water. I’ll still with high/excellent settings. I also ran the game at x8FSAA and although like perfect it is incredible looking, the average was around 18 and the minimums were around a 4-5. Real pretty and an indication of where the industry is heading, but I need a faster processor to do it justice. LOL Anyway I hope some of this helps Sandy, consider trying the other drivers (especially 45.23/45.33) since Oleg has said they work best with FB and my tests seem to bear out his claim!
  4. Drat, saw this to late! /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_biggrin.gif&key=64cd7b7a0036899205810ec0a5b90ed7121d5889dd92733089c47c9758b7f4ae">
  5. Well it looks like I'm narrowed down to the 9700 or 9700 Pro. I can get the 9700 for 217.50 shipped, or the 9700 Pro for 249.00 shipped. The one place that had it for 220.00 sold out of their last one. /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_e_sad.gif&key=38741f9e3530d7cdc640e0699ad44e6069f4d0e7d8af9de1ac5a402558336cb2"> Yeah I've been reading up on them Mike and they seem to be premium still, even after having been out over a year. With only the 9800's beating it (bearly) and the 5900's (and even here the 9700 beat it in some area's) Now it's just a matter of getting it at best price, but looks like I'll be able to get them by the 24th at the latest. Wife and I worked out the budget and with a bit of arrangement looks like this is possible.
  6. Both are fine cards and relatively cheap (9000 goes for about $140-150) but DX8.1 compat and not DX9. (Btw, I can get a 9600 Pro for about that too) Since I'm forced to get a new card anyway, I think (long term) that going with something that is DX9 compat is the better long term economic choice. Getting something 'Cheaper' now and saving just doesn't seem to work here. My wife has this thing about... Well it's working what do you need a new one for? LOL She has a point and I usually cave, but not this time I think. I would like to get a DX9 card, but not hamstring myself either. I mean there are some cheap DX9 cards out there, but not much better performance wise then my old GF3. So I'm looking to get something at least somewhat better performance and also something I won't need to replace in say three-four years. So I'm shopping long term, instead of short term fix. I did that route and it (although not as long as I expected) didn't "allow" for long term life. LOL If I have to I'll go with just the plane jane ATI 9500, which sells for about $115. Which is only a slight improvement over the GF3 I think, though it is DX9 compat. Right, hey you hardware guys, is that right?
  7. Okay, my "new" (old) graphics card (GF3 original) died that I got last year to replace my other GF3 (it was used), well for all intents and purposes, it's still twitching, but not usable. It took me almost two weeks to figure out it was the graphics card. System has been for several weeks, locking up, giving me DtD in software, BsoD and Bs as well as just your general lockups. I thought it was all the usual culprits and eventually I twigged on the graphic card when it would get REAL bad when I would use FSAA and such. I'm now using my old TNT card which basically (by comparison) lets me type text, LOL) Anyway, I'm obvoiusly going to need a new card. /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_e_sad.gif&key=38741f9e3530d7cdc640e0699ad44e6069f4d0e7d8af9de1ac5a402558336cb2"> The GF3's and 4's seem out and with the new technology going DX9 etc so are anything that are strictly DX8 and below. So that leaves newer generation cards. The obvious choices seem to be ATI and Nvidia (damn I'm considering changing brands again, I was such a diehard 3Dfx guy and then kicking and screaming I've become a Nvidia guy). Price wise I'm looking at either the FX5600 Ultra or the ATI 9600 or 9500. However I think I've found an excellent deal on the 9700/9700 Pro. I've found an ATI 9700 for $200 and an ATI 9700 Pro for $220, which I understand is an outstanding price for those cards, however coming up with that money is gonna be a squeeker. I can come up with $100 pretty easy by the 24th, but the rest will be tough with the holidays coming up. Sigh. Plus I'm not sure that I could get the pricing available NOW. Catch 22. LOL I might get the money but then the price will go out of reach. LOL I'm looking at the 9500 Pro (I've priced that at around $170 at several places so that seems pretty stable) so if I can I'll get that if the 9700's fall through when I get the money. Now my question is, should I try to move heaven and hell (ie don't pay those things called bills, risk torture by my wife, sleeping on the couch etc) to try and get the 9700/9700 Pro, just shoot for the 9500 (or 9600??) or save mondo pennies and get the 9800's or just get the FX5600. Does anyone have an old card of any of the above they'd be willing to sell to me? Inquiring minds (well okay one and it's mine) want to know. ;) Oh can you tell I'm kinda leaning towards the ATI cards now? LOL
  8. Oooooo.... The Zeke! Hmmmm, be real interested in how that puppy handles. To bad it's the Zeke and not the Zero itself, (pictures P40-E vs Zero....(sound of Homer Simpson dreaming of donuts).....MMMMmmmm....dogfight. hehe) The Zeke however is a bit much for the Aging P40, but still sounds fun! LOL I could give a rats ass about the P51, but I'm sure the rest of the world will love it. (I don't like the P51 because it stole the good engines that the P40 could (should) have used, the nerve! LOL) Sounds exciting regardless.
  9. Just a heads up, not sure if you guys have had any problems with lag, but thought this still deserved a heads up.
  10. Yep, this is what I've been hearing about the ATI cards. They work, but only in 16bit. I've heard of other issues with the ATI cards and 16bit, but I thought (though I admit I don't track this to well as I don't own an ATI), that this was taken care of with drivers and DirextX 9a?
  11. To disable stencil, do it from the setup program, and NOT from inside FB. I can do it there no problem, same was true for IL2. Couldn't do it from inside the game, but only at the setup program. If you can't it may be due to the ATI cards, it seems a trend may be developing for them and stencil, but I don't have enough data yet to be conclusive about that.
  12. Let me see, I have the following settings (starting from card to game). System setup: DirextX 9a nVidia 43.45 Drivers GeForce3 Card. Intellisampe=Quality, No FSAA, No Anisotropic Desktop set to 1280x960x32 OpenGL set to always 32bit Disable VSync IL2:FB Setup Program: OpenGL 1280x960x32 No Stencil Buffer Texture Mapping: Bilinear Texture Compression: None Uncheck: Use Dither, Disable all, Clip Hint, Use Palette, Texture Anisotropic Extension Sound: 8 Channels Desktop Speakers Minimal 44110 Uncheck Audio Enhancement and hardware acceleration, and the radio boxes. In Game: High High Excellent High High Detailed Clouds With these settings I get with FRAPS using the Black Death track: 2003-04-05 22:39:32 - IL2FB Frames: 4311 - Time: 119980ms - Avg: 35.930 - Min: 22 - Max: 49 I can actually use Excellent everything and only lose about 2-3fps, but it's easier for me to see ground details with high so I use it as you probably know ProfFATE. I can use Perfect, but I lose about 7-8fps and like excellent I can see detail better and the water although gorgeous at perfect just isn't worth it to me. This is what happens when I use S3TC compression. Sure in outside views mostly you gain a boost in performance (a slight one). Here is what I got with my above settings, with S3TC: 2003-04-06 11:01:19 - IL2FB Frames: 4510 - Time: 120284ms - Avg: 37.494 - Min: 22 - Max: 50 I gain roughly 1 extra fps across the board. However, that is kind of misleading. While in cockpit (where we do most of our flying. LOL) I actually lose about 13fps. With S3TC in cockpit fps average around ~23, yet with no compression I get roughly ~36fps average. But if you compare my over all average for Black Death, I only lose 1fps in outside views with no compression, but gain 13fps in cockpit. Personally I'd rather highest fps total I can get with Black Death AND internal cockpit viewing, so I get better perforance WITHOUT compression. Not only that by my image quality is MUCH better without compression. This is mainly posted for anyone else reading this as I think Fate already knows all this. /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_biggrin.gif&key=64cd7b7a0036899205810ec0a5b90ed7121d5889dd92733089c47c9758b7f4ae">
  13. 4.1. Textures A rendered scene is basically made up of polygons and lines. A texture is a 2D image (usually a bitmap) covering the polygons of a 3D world. Think of it as a coat of paint for the polygons. 4.2. T&L: Transform and Lighting The T&L is the process of translating all the 3D world information (position, distance, and light sources) into the 2D image that is actually displayed on screen. 4.3. AA: Anti Aliasing Anti aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges along a rendered curve or polygon. Pixels are rectangular objects, so drawing an angled line or curve with them results in a 'stair step' effect, also called the 'jaggies'. This is when pixels make, what should be a smooth curve or line, jagged. AA uses CPU intensive filtering to smooth out these jagged edges. This improves a game's visuals, but can also dramatically degrade performance. AA is used in a number of situations. For instance, when you magnify a picture, you'll notice lines that were once smooth become jagged (try it with The Gimp). Font rendering is another big application for AA. AA can be done either by the application itself (as with The Gimp or the XFree86 font system) or by hardware, if your video card supports it. Since AA is CPU intensive, it's more desirable to perform it in hardware, but if we're talking about semi-static applications, like The Gimp, this really isn't an issue. For dynamic situations, like games, doing AA in hardware can be crucial. 4.4. FSAA: Full Screen Anti-Aliasing FSAA usually involves drawing a magnified version of the entire screen in a separate framebuffer, performing AA on the entire image and rescaling it back to the normal resolution. As you can imagine, this is extremely CPU intensive. You will never see non hardware accelerated FSAA. 4.5. Mip Mapping Mip mapping is a technique where several scaled copies of the same texture are stored in the video card memory to represent the texture at different distances. When the texture is far away a smaller version of the texture (mip map) is used. When the texture is near, a bigger one is used. Mip mapping can be used regardless of filtering method (Section 4.6). Mip mapping reduces memory bandwidth requirements since the images are in hardware, but it also offers better quality in the rendered image. 4.6. Texture Filtering Texture filtering is the fundamental feature required to present sweet 3D graphics. It's used for a number of purposes, like making adjacent textures blend smoothly and making textures viewed from an angle (think of looking at a billboard from an extreme angle) look realistic. There are several common texture filtering techniques including point-sampling, bilinear, trilinear and anisotropic filtering. When I talk about 'performance hits', keep in mind that the performance hit depends on what resolution you're running at. For instance, at a low resolution you may get only a very slight hit by using trilinear filtering instead of bilinear filtering. But at high resolutions, the performance hit may be enormous. Also, I'm not aware of any card that uses anisotropic texture filtering. TNT drivers claim they do, but I've read that these drivers still use trilinear filtering when actually rendering an image to the screen. 4.6.1. Point Sampling Texture Filtering Point sampling is rare these days, but if you run a game with 'software rendering' (which you'd need to do if you run a 3D accelerated game without a 3D accelerated board) you're likely to see it used. 4.6.2. Bilinear Texture Filtering Bilinear filtering is a computationally cheap but low quality texture filtering. It approximates the gaps between textures by sampling the color of the four closest (above, below, left and right) texels. All modern 3D accelerated video cards can do bilinear filtering in hardware with no performance hit. 4.6.3. Trilinear Texture Filtering Trilinear filtering is a high quality bilinear filter which uses the four closest pixels in the second most suitable mip map to produce smoother transitions between mip map levels. Trilinear filtering samples eight pixels and interpolates them before rendering. Trilinear filtering always uses mip mapping. Trilinear filtering eliminates the banding effect that appears between adjacent mip map levels. Most modern 3D accelerated video cards can do trilinear filtering in hardware with no performance hit. 4.6.4. Anisotropic Texture Filtering Anisotropic filtering is the best but most CPU intensive of the three common texture filtering methods. Trilinear filtering is capable of producing fine visuals, but it only samples from a square area which in some cases is not the ideal method. Anisotropic (meaning 'from any direction') samples from more than 8 pixels. The number of sampled pixels and which sampled pixels it uses depends on the viewing angle of the surface relative to your screen. It shines when viewing alphanumeric characters at an angle. 4.7. Z Buffering A Z buffer is a portion of RAM which represents the distance between the viewer (you) and each pixel of an object. Many modern 3D accelerated cards have a Z buffer in their video RAM, which speeds things up considerably, but Z buffering can also be done by the application's rendering engine. However, this sort of thing clearly should be done in hardware wherever possible. Every object has a stacking order, like a deck of cards. When objects are rendered into a 2D frame buffer, the rendering engine removes hidden surfaces by using the Z buffer. There are two approaches to this. Dumb engines draw far objects first and close objects last, obscuring objects below them in the Z buffer. Smart engines calculate what portions of objects will be obscured by objects above them and simply not render the portions that you won't see anyhow. For complicated textures this is a huge savings in processor work. Dither- is used for shadows/smoke in 2d environments in the absence of stencil buffer Stencil Buffer- is used to draw realistic shadows/smoke Vertex Arrays- allow multiple Open GL assignments to be combined Polygon stipple- is used to pattern fill shapes Multitexturing- refers to the blending together of multiple source surfaces to render an image with special effects. These effects include light mapping, specular mapping, environment mapping, gloss mapping, morphing and emboss-style bump mapping Combine- improves texture combining Secondary color - used in reflections etc as replacement colors to aid in shading Clip Hint- used to correct vertex arrays and othe color anomolies in OGL (rare to use) Use Pallete- Alternate color source Texture anisotropic- enables anisotropic extension selection/use in IL2 setup Texture compress ARB - enables use of S3TC compression
  14. Sure Fate, here ya go: XP2100+@2.1Gig 512MB Ram (PC3200DDR XMS Corsair) I have 43.45 nVidia Drivers installed. (Though I was getting about the same fps with 40.72 and 41.09). System (PC) setup: No FSAA No Anisotropic Intellisample to Quality OpenGL set to always 32bpp and Vsync always off IL2FB Setup program set to: Texture Mipmap filter: Bilinear Texture Compression: NONE!!! This setting by far gave me the biggest fps boost. I found Trilinear and Anisotropic by far to be the largest killers of fps, and believe it or not 16 bit and S3TC also took quiet a chunk out of fps. I tested this extensively and painstakenly and trust me in that Bilinear and NONE are best settings. Otherwise you stand to lose 20 to even 30 fps loss. Everything else is default. In IL2FB proper, I have graphics set to HIGH for everything. Sal (WWoScottyo) also has a GF3 Ti200 and a AMD 1.4Gig CPU, only he has 128Mb of PC2100 DDR Ram. He also saw marked improvement in his game. When we fly online, I disable clouds for him because of his memory, works out great. One more note, turn your sounds to just 8 voices or default. Even with a good sound card, you can lose a few fps with more then 8 voice sound. Hope this helps out some. As for your time, Arizona is GMT -7 as you know, so I guess we have a 9 hour difference, so my afternoons should work out for your evenings. /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_biggrin.gif&key=64cd7b7a0036899205810ec0a5b90ed7121d5889dd92733089c47c9758b7f4ae"> Sal and I fly daily now from about 10am my time to roughly 3pm my time (not all the time, but inside that bracket. LOL) So that would be, lets see, 7pm to Midnight your time?
  15. Okay, Just an update. Everything was looking good till windows blew up. LOL So having reinstalled windows and all that it entails (shit I hate windows). I look to be back up and running again and although it's been a pain to reinstall windows, all the issues I had prior to that have disappeared and my system is actually running better. So I guess it was a good thing. I have flown a few sorties already with WWoScottyo and find the system solid and steady. Although this GF3 card is getting a bit old now, I still get an average of about 60fps at 1280x960x32 which I am quiet happy with. On the busiest of the beefy maps(with AI, ground and air, and city scapes etc) I still get a nice 40fps solid. I wonder what I would get with a better GPU? LOL Anyway, I'm available to fly with, afternoon to mid-afternoon is best for me, but I can be available for evenings as well (as long as I don't do that to often or the House CiC gets grumpy). So Fate let me know when you can fly and I'll be there. Kat do you still have daylight hours available or you back to night flying? Anyone else, let me know. I'm rusty, but not excessively so, though I must admit that I'm using distance "icons" at the moment as I can hardly see dots and such. lol I'll need to work on my SA big time. My gunnery is the pits at around 10%, but apparently when I hit I mostly hit sensitive stuff. /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=%7BSMILIES_PATH%7D/icon_biggrin.gif&key=64cd7b7a0036899205810ec0a5b90ed7121d5889dd92733089c47c9758b7f4ae"> WWoScottyo and I just flew another sortie and we each got two kills, each with 10% gunnery, however I got mine with 34 rounds and he got his with 75. heh Anyway, looks like I'm back (what a long damn wait, but I would guess it's been worth it, this system ROCKS!)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please confirm you have read and understand the rules above