Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js

Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Performance comparison between versions  (Read 3400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WhiteSnake1976

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2023, 04:22:57 PM »

Unfortunately, my PC right now doesn't support SSDs. But I'm due for an upgrade anyways.

A system with a I5-4670k definitely does support 2,5" SSD's, even a Pentium 4 system can if it has SATA connections on the MB and PSU.
Your system can run SATA-600 for sure.
Don't know where you live but for less than 25 euro's/dollars you can buy a 120GB>256GB 2,5" SSD, if you also install your OS on there it will make your system a lot faster on boot-up and loading things.

Edit: just do not use SSD's as storage for pictures etc. that you want to keep, unless you got a good back-up (you should always have a back-up of pictures and things you really want to keep in anycase)
Logged

RABIZO

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 531
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2023, 11:06:11 PM »

It's been 2 years since I replaced it with an SSD.

The game no longer stopped for a moment in the middle of the game, but I didn't feel any improvement in drawing speed.

Maybe buying a new, high-performance PC will solve everything.
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24064
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2023, 02:02:11 AM »

TGA runs alright for me
This indicates that the dreaded "Java Wall" might kick in again.
To cross-check whether that's the case, please check DOF and JTW. Both should run fine as well if the assumption is true, because WAW is the only module holding enough classes to trigger the Java Wall.

Background info:
BAT 3.6 introduced a fix to the dreaded "Java Wall" issue.
Essentially, this fix consisted of a cleanup of all Java Classes found in BAT in order to avoid the known triggers for the Java Wall issue (there are a few and it's Java Coder stuff, no point to roll out details here).
Unfortunately, following BAT versions started to implement mods again that lacked this cleanup process, hence we might have reached a point again where on certain systems, the threshold for triggering the Java Wall has been crossed again.
Nothing much a user can do here, as the limits differ from system to system, and the only solution to this is to perform a full overhaul of all existing Java Classes.
Took me 3 months back then, and I'm definitely not up to the task for another time.

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

Whiskey_Sierra_972

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
  • In memory of my beloved hero: Saburo SAKAI!
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2023, 02:56:18 AM »

Just a noob java wall question...

Can reducing the number of planes loaded by editing air.ini help to reduce the preformance drop?
Logged

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24064
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2023, 03:45:01 AM »

Depends on whether or not you happen to disable a mod containing "dirty" classes.
Try latest added mod aircraft first, chances are best for them.
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

WhiteSnake1976

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2023, 04:14:15 AM »

It's been 2 years since I replaced it with an SSD.

The game no longer stopped for a moment in the middle of the game, but I didn't feel any improvement in drawing speed.

Maybe buying a new, high-performance PC will solve everything.

Faster SSD doesnt improve drawing speed, the read/write wil be a lot faster, the faster it can read the faster things wil load, so you get less (or no more) stutters from objects in game loading.
You need to set your SATA ports in Bios to AHCI mode (to put it simple, it makes it possible to read/write at the same time) if you got an older motherboard (especially one that still has IDE ports together with SATA ports)
Logged

Froge

  • Pacman Frog
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
  • How often should a pfp change?
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2023, 04:19:07 AM »

A system with a I5-4670k definitely does support 2,5" SSD's, even a Pentium 4 system can if it has SATA connections on the MB and PSU.
Your system can run SATA-600 for sure.
Don't know where you live but for less than 25 euro's/dollars you can buy a 120GB>256GB 2,5" SSD, if you also install your OS on there it will make your system a lot faster on boot-up and loading things.
I live in Ireland, but I'm still using that old B85N Phoenix with two HDDs connected. I'm gonna get an upgrade this christmas so this problem might likely get solved!
Logged
Mmmm myes pet froge (She/Her)

WhiteSnake1976

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2023, 05:25:36 AM »

A system with a I5-4670k definitely does support 2,5" SSD's, even a Pentium 4 system can if it has SATA connections on the MB and PSU.
Your system can run SATA-600 for sure.
Don't know where you live but for less than 25 euro's/dollars you can buy a 120GB>256GB 2,5" SSD, if you also install your OS on there it will make your system a lot faster on boot-up and loading things.
I live in Ireland, but I'm still using that old B85N Phoenix with two HDDs connected. I'm gonna get an upgrade this christmas so this problem might likely get solved!

That mainboard suports SSD's fine, its got SATA 3.0 600MB/s and you got 3 of those so you could fit an SSD as an extra drive foir some games, but its really worth it to also install the OS on a SSD.

But if you get a new PC/Mainboard make sure you get a M.2 SSD atleast for your OS.

Mine got 1 M.2 SSD for Windows and some Programs, a Second M.2 for the latest more demanding games (some games now benefit from M.2 instead of SATA SSD) and a big SATA SSD for the rest of the games, and a big relativly fast SATA HDD for Pictures, Films, Music, etc. older games and Downloads (moved the default downloads location to there also)

Also if you get a new mainboard/cpu/ram, make sure the ram is in the compatibility list, is atleast as fast as the memorycontroller in the CPU and has a Low Latency and Memory Profile compatible with your Mainboard like XMP or AMD Expo.
Logged

Froge

  • Pacman Frog
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
  • How often should a pfp change?
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2023, 08:05:34 AM »

But if you get a new PC/Mainboard make sure you get a M.2 SSD atleast for your OS.

Mine got 1 M.2 SSD for Windows and some Programs, a Second M.2 for the latest more demanding games (some games now benefit from M.2 instead of SATA SSD) and a big SATA SSD for the rest of the games, and a big relativly fast SATA HDD for Pictures, Films, Music, etc. older games and Downloads (moved the default downloads location to there also)
Don't worry, that's on the list of parts for my new PC. The new mobo I'm getting has two PCIe slots for SSDs
Logged
Mmmm myes pet froge (She/Her)

WhiteSnake1976

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2023, 08:47:27 AM »

But if you get a new PC/Mainboard make sure you get a M.2 SSD atleast for your OS.

Mine got 1 M.2 SSD for Windows and some Programs, a Second M.2 for the latest more demanding games (some games now benefit from M.2 instead of SATA SSD) and a big SATA SSD for the rest of the games, and a big relativly fast SATA HDD for Pictures, Films, Music, etc. older games and Downloads (moved the default downloads location to there also)
Don't worry, that's on the list of parts for my new PC. The new mobo I'm getting has two PCIe slots for SSDs

And do not use the old PSU unless its a really high quality one, if its a old PSU the Capacitors etc. might not like a higher load demand from a new system, would be a shame if it damadges your new hardware because it fails to regulate the power properly.

Also if you pick RGB for your system, keep in mind that Gigabyte RGB Fusion is difrent than the others, so a Gigabyte Mobo, Gigabyte GPU etc. can only work with Gigabyte RGB Fusion and wont sync with other RGB Software, but other manufacturers do have Gigabyte RGB Fusion compatible hardware like Memory modules, Mouse/Keyboards, and Coolers, Fans and Led strips.
My system is a Gigabyte Aorus mainboard and Aorus Videocard based system, including Aorus RGB Mouse and Keyboard (i like keyboard lighting in the evenings especialy as it makes the keys much easier to see as i have a minimum of (led)lights on it my house to save energy)

If your into RGB i highly recomend these: https://www.deepcool.com/products/Cooling/fans/CF120-PLUS-RGB-PWM-Fan/2021/143.shtml
Its a set of 3 wich can be hooked up to one connector via an adapter (theres a lot of extras suplied) and they got a LED ring in the housing and LED in the fans wich can work individualy to create really awsome effects, on top of that there relativly quiet and cheap (the price of the set is what most single rgb fans cost)

I got them installed in my moms computer as i needed to be able to hook up 3 or more fans to a single connector as the mainboard only had 2 fan conectors and these where the cheapest option, didnt even pay attencion to the RGB
Logged

Frankiek

  • SAS Team
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3278
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2023, 12:03:42 PM »

I know it's fun to ignore simple questions that might lead to real conclusions, while instead plastering threads with red herrings, still...

Question stays: How's the TGA performance of BAT 4.2.2 HF 4 for those who report 4.2 related issues?

]cheers[
Mike

On my system
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz   2.00 GHz
12 GB RAM DDR3
GeForce GT550M 2Gb

with same conf.ini settings and Nvidia control panel settings
The death track from start to end :
BAT WAW 4.2.2 hotfix 4; avg:22 max:36 min:8 #fr:3452
UP3.4 Patch 2 hotfix23; avg:28 max:56 min:7 #fr:4258
Logged

Dimlee

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Performance comparison between versions
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2023, 12:09:19 PM »

Probably, we can not find the right answer without testing the same mission on the same map with the same objects in TGA and WAW. Maybe I will have time for that next week.
It was faster than "two weeks". Kudos to myself.  8)

https://www.mediafire.com/file/93nouoayabodkl4/Test_BAT_TGA-WAW.zip/file

This mission can be played in TGA and WAW. All objects are the same (small difference in the map's presentation - see my remark below). Aircraft, ships, ground. Bombs, ships guns, flak, paratroopers.
Yes, there is a difference in FPS between TGA and WAW, it is especially visible when time acceleration is used. On my PC, FPS drops to single digits at x32 in TGA and at x4-x8 in WAW.

Remark:
Almost at the last moment, I realised that the airfields on this map are represented differently in TGA and WAW. There is no concrete in TGA airfields. Can concrete plates impact FPS? I don't know.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 19 queries.