"White Artifact" in scenery P2

Sli uses the second cards processing power to boost the primary card, but not the RAM on it. It's my opinion that if you have the cash Sli is a good thing to have. If you're on a budget then a single powerful card is better than 2 mid range cards.

NVidia are quite pricey compared the the latest generation of Ati offerings. You could have gotten a 4870 for around what you paid for the 2x8800GS's. If Nvidia is your thing then a 9800GT looks good to be a good budget card. However 2x9800GT's isn't that far off the cost of a single GTX280.
 
hmmmm MAKES ME WISH

Parky said:
Hey Cliff,

I just spent more money on a single video card than you spent on your motherboard, cpu, memory AND video cards combined.

Now, if that doesn't make you feel any better, nothin' will.....;)


Cheers Mate,

Parky
Click to expand...

I HAD A JOB WORKING YOU KNOW WHERE IN ONTARIO:costumes::isadizzy::d:applause:.
PD
 
You did.....cheapest I've seen 'em up here is $199, which is still ridiculously cheap. Fabulous bang for your buck for sure!


Cheers,

Parky
 
Parky, you've obviously earned a reputation here for being good with computers - but I'm afraid your math in this case is flawed.

You see, you can't add up *your* costs Canadian, and still use *mine* in USD. You can convert one or the other, but you can't do the conversion on half the math. I was actually aware that this might be where the error in your figures were...but, as I pointed out: If *I* bought the card, it would cost me $469 - bringing the total I've spent (in USD) to over $900.

(Or, if you wish, take the $600+ I spent here and 'up-convert' to your having spent $600+ for a card I can buy for $469 - 469:600, that's 27.9%...my hardware - with the two cards I bought, not yours - in your dollars now costs $775+ - a good bit more than the $600 you spent on your card alone. If I bought the card you did, *and* the rest of my hardware, at your price, then my cost is now roughly $1151.00)

And I didn't add taxes to the "over $600" I cited as what I paid for my current CPU, RAM, and video cards, where you were considering taxes.
Apples and apples, if you please :)

On the SLI question: I also realize OFF doesn't necessarily benefit from SLI - but then again, OFF isn't by far the only thing I do with my machine. I play several other (newer) games that clearly *do* benefit from SLI..and I occasionally do some work on here too :) And I think it's not really accurate to say that what I'm running is "the equivalent of a single 8800GS".

For one, in the right circumstances, these cards will hold their own against a single 8800GT. (Note it obviously wouldn't apply in an environment - like OFF - that doesn't benefit much from SLI). You may recall I did say that the system performs admirably in every other circumstance I've thrown at it. I have *no* complaints with the system's performance.

It might be more accurate to say that where OFF is concerned I don't benefit much from 2 cards...but I didn't build an SLI machine just to play OFF, either. Again, there are several games I play - CoH among them - which runs better (particularly at higher resolutions) in SLI than otherwise.
What troubles me is this system does well elsewhere, but seems to be "Not exactly a real speed-demon by today's standards" only where OFF is concerned. This would be why I asked, in my first post, what exactly *is* required to run this, without the graphic issues?

All that being said, I think your advice about finding out how optimized P3 is, is well taken. Trouble is, I don't want to find out *after* it's too late that P3 still requires a grossly disproportionate rig (now having paid $50 for OFF that could've gone toward a new video card and simply played P2 better - assuming it requires no *less* than P3). Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless there's a big difference in graphics performance, I'm not sure P3 is for me.

(Before anyone here gets all in an uproar, again, I think OFF's great...and do please remember it wasn't my decision to make P1&2 free, nor to make P3 cost $50 - I think it's fine the way it was offered. I think the $50 is a fair price for what it brings. But if the additional hardware costs are necessary to enjoy it, then you have to count the additional hardware costs as part of the deal. Again, my system's fine for me as is. I wouldn't be looking to buy more video cards, except to run OFF better.)

I can't make anyone else's decisions for them...I came here to ask help in making my decisions, from those who would be in the best position to help. If you think about it - you might conclude that this very concern would be why I'm here, now - asking the very questions I've asked.

Thanks.
 
Hi Cliff,
the discussion thus far has been all about gear....
But in my experience, tweaking the config.exe is a vital aspect which you haven't mentioned. Are you confident that you have the config settings just right? (no doubt there is something in a "readme" thread that sets all that stuff out).
And for more subtle tweaking, the config overrides.xml is worth a look, there are a couple of settings there that cannot be got at individually from the config console.
For "tearing" artifacts on the screen, IIRC, the refresh rate and the frame rate need to be in synch....(well don't quote me on what exactly needs to be in synch, I haven't touched the setup for a while).
So i guess what I am asking is whether you have finished tweaking the config settings. I think it took me two or was it three years before i started to understand what was going on (OK, ok, so I'm a bit of an aging duffer when it comes to technology :d)
 
I personally think you would be better off using a single 8800GTX 768Mb 384bit GDDR3. You would have more available graphics memory.

CJ
 
CJ - thanks. I think that's a totally reasonable suggestion, and believe me, I'm giving the whole matter a careful study as we kick it around here.

Daiwilletti...tweaking is, of course, a good idea. For the record, note I originally joined here in February 06 - I downloaded P1, started tweaking then, and haven't really stopped trying since. I have spent time reading not only here, but also the CFS3 section. Truthfully, you see a lot of the same stuff over and over - so while, yes, there's a lot of info - a lot of it is duplicated as well - at last IMO. And I've tried most everything I've read up about, even a few that no one specifically said try.

My conclusion? Well, I think tweaking can make things somewhat better; couldn't really give a measurable percentage.

But then, let me ask you this: If all it took was the time spent reading all this stuff, why would it be that so many here seem to be buying new hardware (and we're not talking conservative stuff, in some cases)? It seems that - tweaking taken into account - it's going to take a *very* special setup indeed to run this game at what I'd call an acceptable level of performance.

To wit:

- I spent over $600 in upgrades, still not even close, according to what I've gathered. Even with relatively conservative settings, graphis-wise.
- Others spent similar amounts-to-slightly-more, they still seem to have some of the same issues.
- Others still, spending what I call crazy amounts on video cards alone, and still will occasionally have issues (assuming everything's run at or near wide open).

(No insult intended, folks, I swear - but good Lord - does anyone but me believe it's just a little insane to pay almost $500 {or more} for a video card?)

Among other things, my wife would absolutely beat the three-legged, backwards, convoluted, living daylights outta me if I even suggested I was considering it. And I wouldn't blame her. And don't hand me a bunch of you-know-what about "who wears the pants". I'm the primary breadwinner here, but she was in the Navy just like me, and I'll bet she could take 3 outta 5 of you in here *lol*

Sorry, back to the point: Yes, I've tweaked. I think it might help, a bit. But anything near say 10% improvement? I think not. At least, not so far as I can tell.

And, another thing - a lot of these 'tweaks' seem rather dated ("Go to 512M RAM from 256 for the biggest improvement"!!?? - Really?). I almost imagine many may have applied, back in a day when people were trying to squeeze something out of a system that wasn't 1/5th of what we commonly see today. Many honestly just don't seem to matter much, at least in my seemingly endless applying/testing/modifying/re-testing.

Finally, let's be honest - there are a *lot* of configuration settings to have to tamper around with...too many, dare I say? I don't recall a game ever that required this much to get enjoyment out of.

Of course, if someone were to pop in and offer a comprehensive study on the ones that offer real improvements on current Nvidia hardware, you can bet your tootsie I'd be all over it. Can't say as I've seen that, though.

Best to all.
 
Just to put a bug in your ear Cliff. Newegg still has the recertified 8800GTX listed on the site for $128.99. It's auto notify but you could put your name on the list. It's a real steal. Mine works great and came with all of the accessories and software.
 
Yep, I'm pretty good with computers. Nope, I'm not that great at math. Only reason for the cost related comment was to inject a wee bit of humour into the thread. Sorry. I'll try to stay dead serious from now on.

Pretty sure there are quite a few people here running P2 at what they perceive as acceptable levels of performance on hardware that in some cases would seem inferior to your's. Rather baffling really. That's the very reason I'd keep the thread going if I were you. One of 'em must have the solution to your problem. Evidently they just haven't come forward yet, but surely it's only a matter of time.

Unfortunately, I've completely run out of any helpful suggestions. Well, with the exception of maybe just one. Nawwwww....that probably won't work either :kilroy:

Best of luck with it.


Parky
 
"Sorry. I'll try to stay dead serious from now on."

No need to get like that, man. Didn't mean to offend with my observations about the math. Not sure what your original intent was (humor or not) by saying that you paid more for your card than I did for all my upgrades - but, when we're discussing the pros and cons of dollars-v-performance, I think it's important to be accurate.

Honestly, especially considering your follow-up concerning the Canadian costs...well, it didn't seem entirely like you were joking to me. If I'm off base, I apologize.

I hope the thread will stay open. I don't find anything that isn't worthy of at least consideration - so if you have ideas, let's hear 'em. I really hope/wish people wouldn't/don't get offended if I'm not so willing to accept opinions and subjective findings as fact. I wish people wouldn't seem so bothered when I say, "Look, thanks - but I've already tried all that." Seems many take that as my being difficult - I'm not. But, I am here to find what *works*.

Your comment about what others find acceptable goes to prove the point: What they find acceptable is a matter of opinion. By comparison, I'm asking where the point lies that one can expect no stutters and triangles - be it tweaks, hardware, P3 or whatever. It happens that *my* idea of acceptable performance differs from others; in many cases, they seem to think these issues are acceptable.

(Do recall that, among the reasons CFS3 failed was that many perceived it as horrible in the graphics department - it's well known for that, so obviously I'm among many who share opinions of what is 'acceptable' and what isn't.)

I think the key here is that my idea of what is acceptable is also quantifiable, irrespective of opinions: No graphics funny business.
Others seem to say "It looks great...yes I have some (triangles/stutters/etc..), but that's OK with me".

One is a matter of preference (or tolerance); the other can be observed by anyone, regardless of opinion. It's either there or it isn't - whether it's deemed offensive by a given individual isn't at issue - see?

I *really* hope that clarifies the difference.

Let me state again what I intended to determine (both from my post, a few days ago now):

"what (in terms of a system) could one reasonably expect to get decent graphics - say, sliders at 5-4-4-4-2 - say, maybe 1280x820 (16:10/wide) and *no* stutters or white triangles, etc?"

"And, perhaps most important of all, is P3 going to substantially change what would be required, as has been recently suggested ?"

To round the thought out: If it does come down to spending $500+ in addition to the $600+ I already spent to get (what many consider) acceptable performance...then, like many things we less fortunate do without, the answer may simply be that I just can't afford it.

Somehow, I'm sure I am *not* the only person in this particular boat. Mind you, how each of us decides to deal with it is another matter, entirely. I get the feeling that some deal with it by deciding they're OK with white triangles. Maybe I'll decide that, for the difference in $200 and $500, I can learn to cope.

I dunno, because - try as I might here, I can't seem to find out where exactly the difference lies. If the answer is "Buy the fastest CPU and video card(s) you can afford then turn the sliders down 'til it suits you"...well - as above - I've already tried that. I'm even willing to consider spending more - but there are limits. Fact of life. If I'm going to spend more, though - then the questions becomes "How much?"

I hope someone will come along and provide the answer I'm looking for here.
 
an aside : play with your aircraft slider at 5! It's paramount to the aspect of the planes and not too taxing on the frames. The biggest impact is made by terrain and scenery.
 
Bzhyoyo - a great suggestion that has been made a number of times over teh time I've been here.

Regretfully, what I have confirmed is that - at least with my current rig - setting the AC slider to 3 *will* cause a noticeable 'pause' any time other aircraft come into view, in proportion to the number of craft. I've found no way to mitigate this effect, and it worsens in proportion at settings of 4 and 5.

I would *love* to hear from anyone who knows of a way to address this, as I feel my settings (3-3-3-2-1) are extremely conservative for my setup, but raising them any higher makes the performance suffer (I'm sure we can all appreciate that even a moment's stutter when in the heat of an engagement can make life-or-death differences). I have tried many of the tweaks listed here and in the CFS3 forum, and experimented with my own.

Thank you for the thought.
 
Bottom line is, those 8800s aren't stepping up to the task. Your system and mine are very similar except for our graphics. The 8800GS has 384Mb of memory (at least every one that I found) and two in SLI will only produce 384Mb of usable graphics memory. I looked it up and two 8800GS' in SLI configuration provide performance comparable to the ATI 4850 andthe 8800GTX, however, with the 8800GTX you have 768Mb, twice the usable memory that you have with your present setup. It has been said in the past, by the devs themselves, that OFF loves a fast processor (which you have) and lots of graphics memory (which you don't have). So, If you want to see OFF in "all it's glory" and have high fps, you'll have to upgrade your graphics, and I don't believe there are enough "tweaks" that will give you the performance in OFF that you seek with your current setup.

CJ

PS My setting in OFF are 5,4,4,5,5 and it runs great 40-60fps
 
"Regretfully, what I have confirmed is that - at least with my current rig - setting the AC slider to 3 *will* cause a noticeable 'pause'"

Yep that's your rig not mine.

Something is not right there cliff527. I'd look at the SLI - try disabling 1 card with OFF and see what happens.

Also sometimes you can cause problems with too much o/c. Maybe just try with out and see.

I had an 9800 GX2 (one card but 2 internally in SLI) and OFF P3 ran pretty badly better with SLI off. Upgraded to 1 single GPU 1GB (GTX280).
with an e8400 , at full whack all 5's. FPS is in the 50's fps apart from take off with 13 aircraft with me ;).
 
CJ - yes, I think you're right. After all that's been said lately, I am inclined to agree that the lack of memory in my case is the culprit. I know precisely what to do to address that (specifically, the lack of memory in my graphics cards). Actually, what I'm leaning towards at the moment would be 3x the memory I have now (at 1G). So, that should be that.

But I'm not sure that's the end of it. I think it's been said several times - once, by WM himself, if I'm not mistaken, that it is the GPU (not necessarily the memory) being unable to 'keep up' which causes the triangles. So, again, with reasonable settings (5-4-4-4-2 - or anything higher), what GPU would be required to eliminate the triangles and stutter?

"PS My setting in OFF are 5,4,4,5,5 and it runs great 40-60fps"
Are you saying you have *no* white triangles or stutter? Seems to me you've already said before you do see them, if only occasionally. (At the beginning of this thread: "Even with my new hardware, I still experience it." You went on to say later that you increased the clock speed on your cards and "That pretty much took care of the 'jaggies'")

Now, I'm glad you feel it runs great. Frame rates, though, aren't at issue here - mine also does 40-60 frames (even though my settings are a bit lower). But, you said you had the same triangles earlier - and even after you bumped the clock speed, you say it 'pretty much' took care of it. Does "pretty much" mean "it doesn't happen", or...?

Sorry if this seems repetitive or offensive, it isn't intended that way, but I have to be specific: Are you saying in fact you have NO issues with stutter or triangles, at any point during play?

Pol - thank you for the input. It seems you're among the few who actually has used SLI and has tried 'both ways'. I never thought to try disabling the SLI for OFF, honestly. I can't recall if there's a way to do that through config only. The NvCP lists various options for SLI mode, for example...or am I looking at pulling a card between tests? What did you do to 'swap' between SLI and not with your previous setup? (Funny, I was just today thinking I should try with all defaults in the NvCP...seems it was very different by default than I have it now. Hmm. I will certainly give both this and setting the O/C back to 'stock' speeds as a test).
 
I have to say if you can get an 768mb 8800GTX @$130, I'd snap it up. My last card was a 8800GTX, it was a great card, but if I picked it up for $130 it would have been the best card I'd ever have purchased.

It's a good performer in OFF, matched with your CPU and ram, it'll really perform.
 
A correction to my post (#37 above) about WM's comments re: GPU not keeping up that causes the triangles.

In review, what he said was:
If you are seeing white trees and white buildings etc - i.e white scenery objects then yes you are exceeding GPU mem capacity and then the solution is to lower the scenery and terrain sliders by 1 notch in CFS3 configs.

Although he doesn't say 'triangles', still - now I'm wondering if maybe the entire thing doesn't come down to memory on the video cards.
 
SLI enabled:

3DM03-57,665 / CPU 1-255.4 2-40.2

3DM05-23,133 / CPU 13,332

Company of Heroes- AvgFR:69.8("Great"), MaxFR:91.3 , MinFR:57.1

SLI disabled:

3DM03-34,713 / CPU 1-264.6 2-43.0 (overall down by 40%+, game tests all down 25-50%; CPU actually increased by about 5%, Fill rates and Shaders down approximately 50% (across 4 tests).

3DM05-20,427 / CPU 13,319 (3DM05 doesn't show details in free version; overall down by about 12% but CPU almost identical. I would attribute the difference in performance here compared to 3DM03 simply to the fact that 3DM has intentionally become more challenging in each version to better load newer graphics cards)

Company of Heroes- AvgFR:42.3("Good"), MaxFR:68, MinFR:35.2 (again, down by 40%+)

What this means is that the machine definitely "knows" there's a difference in the graphics sub-system, not to be confused with CPU performance. The machine responds to enabling SLI by performing 50-60% better than without.

It also means the method I'm using to disable/enable SLI is (or should be) a valid way to test the effect of SLI on OFF.

Regretfully, it appears to make almost no difference in OFF - at least as far as the 'stutter' experienced whenever I encounter other aircraft with AC detail slider set greater than 3. It also responds to slider changes, increase or decrease, as it has whether SLI is enabled or not: anything 3+ causes stutter, gets worse in proportion as you go up from 3.

Conclusion: While OFF may not benefit from SLI, it doesn't appear to suffer any ill effect from it - at least not in this case, within what I've tried.

And, as I've expressed earlier, memory on the graphics cards laid aside, I am just stunned that a setup so clearly effective on a range of other games/tests, just seems to fare so poorly in OFF.

If SLI doesn't 'pool' memory, OK, so be it - but then, how do all these other apps seem to benefit so from it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top