Improving framerate + new graphic drivers

[.vooDoo.]

Have any of you bothered to email the people who released the game? Was it Aspyr? They can probably give a detailed reason as to why the fastest Mac machine's can only achieve 60-61fps.

[fefe]

Dear VooDoo,

Good point.

I have no idea if it is a video driver limitation.  Or if it is a GR limitation.  Someone should email them alright.

Does anybody know if velocity engine is used in GR?  I know quake 3 uses it.  I am curious.

[Mr. Lothario]

     The FPS should not affect data transmission AT ALL. The two are absolutely different, and each should happen at its own rate as determined by the graphics hardware and network hardware/connection. I've frequently heard people saying that bad ping causes low FPS, or vice-versa. That should be total bullshit. However, since this is a Red Storm game and thus was programmed by syphilitic monkeys, I can't rule that possibility out.

[fefe]

Dear [Eur] Flies,

Actually I only play with my PC friends on his personal server.  What is your name in Game ranger?  I am not that good, maybe you can show me some trick

I am sure your observation is true.  However, those could be due to different reason.  

I really don't think you are uploading info the same rate as your screen output rate.  So a faster computer will upload more info to the server?  That would mean a server will overload if all client computers are fast computers.  That obviously doesn't make sense.  You are drawing every pixels on your screen, but you are not uploading every pixels to your server.  You only upload your location and your action.  That is dependent on your action, not how fast your screen draw the info to you.  That's why a good software (like half life in PC) is so playable even at 56k modem, cos they have good scheme on sending the info in a compact way.  Remember, the info is sent out the moment you press the keys, and it certainly does not wait for your screen to draw first before they send out the info.  If you move straight from point A to point B, it sends out the same data, no matter how many frames it draws on your screen in that second.

I have no doubt that a computer having 70 fps can perform better than 40 fps.  But that's association, not cause and effect.  A computer that can put out 70 fps is obviously the latest model, that means having faster cpu, better graphic card, faster BUS, faster RAM, faster cache.  That translate to faster generation of data, faster output of data from ethernet to GR and then to your screen, etc, i.e. less lag.

If you have 2 machines, both with same component, same everything, but one computer has a cap on on the video driver for 70 fps, the other have 40 fps (screen output rate), the 70 fps computer will see things appearing 0.01 second earlier than the 40 fps computer.  Human reaction time varies between 0.1 to 0.2 second.  So I really don't think one can blame it on the slower computer.

So for all of your having less than 61 fps, no worry.  Your computer can handle all the data generation and transfer.  It just doesn't show it on the screen.  

On the other hand, fast and slow ethernet makes a huge difference.

So if you want to win, make sure your neighbour is not downloading the hulk and hogging all the bandwidth....

Anyway, not sure how I get into this discussion.  But it is sure fun and informative.

Thanks again

fefe

[Mr. Lothario]

     ::Captain Kirk impression:: Must... dispel... misconceptions!

     Lemme preface this by saying that I'm a student of video game programming and design (no, really. I'm in a Video Game Design program at my college), and a programmer, so I have a fair bit of background in this subject and I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass.

     In a typical program, there is a main loop which repeats continuously while the program is executing. This main loop triggers everything else in the program. A very simple main loop might function something like this: begin loop; check for keypresses--if a key was pressed then quit; go to beginning of loop.

     In a game, the main loop is necessarily complex, containing calls to functions that call other functions, and so on. A simple main loop in a game might go something like this: begin loop; get input from player; process input from player; update things on screen (that is, move things, delete things, add new things, etc.); draw screen; go to beginning of loop.

     What this structure means is that a game is doing only one thing at a time, in a certain order. Drawing the screen is typically the last step, since it takes the longest (1/60 of a second is a damn long time). In the case of Ghost Recon, it is a reasonable assumption that the network handling comes after player input and before sound and graphics handling. This structure would make sense because that would allow the network code to send out the latest data on what the player is doing, and it would allow the sound and graphics code to play the sounds and draw the pictures which represent the very latest data received from the other players.

     In the optimal case, drawing the screen takes no longer than any other section of the main loop, so everything can be counted upon to happen regularly. In real life, the drawing is going to take varying amounts of time, and on some computers, it's going to take a very long time. In the latter case is where we run into problems with this main loop structure. If the computer is only able to draw, say, ten frames per second, then the rest of the loop is hung up waiting for the drawing to finish, which means that the game will not receive network updates frequently, which means the player will notice lag.

     However, this is a well-known problem, and has a neat solution: a trick called threading. A "thread" is somewhat like a mini-program. It runs, executes its own instructions, handles its own data, and quits when it's done. The difference is, a thread is created by a program in order to handle some task. The reason threads are used is that all modern OSes are preemptively multitasking, which means that each program gets a share of the CPU and system resources to do its thing. Since a thread falls into the category of programs in this context, the thread can run simultaneously with the program which spawned it. This means, for example, that the network handling, the sound handling, and the graphics handling could all run in parallel, so that in a case like that mentioned above, where a computer can only get ten frames per second, the sluggish graphics handling won't bog down the sending and receiving of game packets, nor any other aspect of the game's execution.

     In other words, a properly written game engine (one which employs skillful use of threads, as well as some other performance tricks) will not have any correlation between frame rate and lag. I assume that Ghost Recon is threaded, because even if Red Storm's programmers are a bunch of syphilitic monkeys, it would be on the order of criminal stupidity to write a first-person shooter engine which was not threaded. However, I wouldn't put it past them.

[fefe]

ha ha, you are obessed with this thing

Dude, Loth is saying the game should not have "any correlation between frame rate and lag".  I agree completely.

"In the case of Ghost Recon, it is a reasonable assumption that the network handling comes after player input and before sound and graphics handling."
- that's what I am saying, man.

Concerning 15 fps vs 5 fps, I would pick 15 fps win too.  Since the difference is 0.134 second, higher than the reaction time (assuming all other hardwares are the same).

I will be on vacation starting tomorrow, so you have to live without me for a while.  Hope you won't miss me too much

Have a nice long weekend.

fefe

[Jeb]

fefe, that thing about EAX was my tip  
But the importance of that is that when you play in massive games of 30+ people and there is lots of shooting and nades going off, it seems to help my comp not lag, which in turn hurts my fps.

I think mauti talked about running GHR on a separate partition or drive, i've noticed that this is probably the best quick fix for performance. Also try to keep the drive as un-fragmented as possible ( especially since GHR has a few thousand files).

Quitting applications can help a little bit, but not to much, especially if you have a lot of physical memory in osX.
If you really care to see just how many processes are running on your computer at any given time open terminal and type "ps -ax -M" which will list all the active processes by memory usage. Or if you simply want to see the number type "ps -ax -M | wc -l". With 4 apps that i have open there are 141 active processes, so killing a few extra processes (closing apps that your not using) won't make much of a difference given the ways that osX handles memory and multitasking, assuming that the open programs are idle.

Currently I'm tinkering with using renice to speed up Ghost recon's performance. Renice is a unix tool that changes priorities of processes. In theory it would be possible to make ghost recon run a bit better if it had a higher priority. I'll run some tests and tell you if there is any differences.

[0 Kilz:M:]

This has got to be the most frustrating topic I have read. I just bought a new comp thinking it would deliver gaming bliss as well...now i read this and all i can say is...SH*T! So anyway, with a new comp right out of the box you think I should partition my HD right away and dedicate that soley to ghr? If so, how much space should I give it? And will I have to do this with RvS as well? Im getting a 1.25ghz with a radeon9000 pro, so as long as I can pull 30-40 fps I will be happy.

Oh, and uh, can you tell me how to set up a partition in my HD, I've heard of that b4 but I have never done it and the last thing I need to do is mess up a new comp.

Kilz

[[[EUR]] HoloGram]

Kilzo - a better Vid Kard will help u more! the 9000Pro is low- end!
And the 9000Pro will not be able to handle RvS properly!

[Mr. Lothario]

     Yeah, as long as you're spending the money, spring for the 9700 Pro. It'll serve you better, and a lot longer.

     Radeon 9700 Pro: Me love you long time, soldier-boy!

[0 Kilz:M:]

A 9000 will handle rvs, its 64mb, rvs requires 32, plus it is listed on their supported cards list. I would have upgraded to a better one but I bought more RAM instead figuring it was money better spent for now. If my 9000 wont handle rvs, then at that time I will buy a new gc.

Ok flies, sounds easy enough, thanks!

Also this topic is precisely why I am so against pc players joining mac games via the ip. You get someone to join a RS game and they have a 3.0 dual pentium and are ripping off 80 fps or more while everyone else including the host is only pulling 20-25...totaly unfair. Pc gamers should just stick to pc apps and let us Mac peeps enjoy our virtually cheat free gaming.

[fefe]

Dear Jeb,

Sorry about the EAX tips.  I think I miscredited it to someone else.

I also find that defraging the hard drive helps big time.  And after I upgraded my hard drive, it is even better.  Although I don't understand why.  I thought the entire map (and the skins, etc) are loaded to the memory, so accessing speed of the harddrive shouldn't make the difference.  But it does.  Maybe someone can explain that.  How about ram disk?

Well, about playing with PC friends.  I notice that if you don't apply the "IT mac patch", a lot of the models are screwed up.  In many cases, I can see through wall and long bushes/trees.  Talking about having advantage over my PC friends

P.S. I am so tired after 2 flights and 8 hours of travel.  I should go to bed now.  They are also charging me for outside call.  I would recommand people go to Days INN, which has free airport access.

P.S.S. Flies, how was your hot date?  

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Brian]

Hi all,

I have the following: 17" iMac, 800MHz PowerPC G4, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, 32MB DDR video memory.

I would like to see better performance for Ghost Recon and am curious what the consensus is regarding best dollar value. More DDR? An new card? Throw it in and buy a PC to use for gaming?

Thanks!

[Brian]

I have 256MB RAM. Admittedly, I question whether the terrible slowdown I experience is due to graphic capabilities or processing power. Contrary to what is suggested elsewhere in this thread, it isn't only my frame rate that suffers.

Here are two exhibits:

a] I have noticed the cadence of automatic weapons fire change in correlation to a degredation of frame rate display. In other words, the weapon fire audibly changes from 12 rounds per second to, say, 5 rounds per second as the display begins to lurch noticably from fram to frame.

b] While running down a road, with no enemies active, my frame rate drops by a third if I shift my gaze from my feet to the horizon.

From what I have gathered from this discussion, exhibit A has to do with the burden on my system from processing game data and exhibit B has to do with the rendering capabilities of my graphics card.

So. might this question boil down to which will provide me the greatest overall benefit, enhancing either my DDR or DIMM RAM?

[Jeb]

jeez, its that slow on an G4 imac...

I have a 466mhz G4 with a geforce3 (64megs) and 768megs of ram and i average around 30fps at medium.  More ram helps, and i would be curious to see GHR benchmarked on a 2ghz G5 with 8gigs of memory  

You would benifit from more memory, that generally speeds up osX signifigantly, and i'm sure it would do the same for GHR.

[.vooDoo.]

sorry, off topic...but how does one "defrag" there computer and what does it do?

[Mr. Lothario]

     I believe Norton Utilities has a defrag utility (it did in OS 9, so it should still be there in the OS X version). There are probably other defragging tools available, but Norton is the best-known (and I don't know any others, so I'm only going to mention Norton   ).

     Defragmenting a storage device (most typically a hard drive) is a process wherein files that are fragmented--that is, not stored in one contiguous block on the drive--are moved around the disk so that they are in one piece on the drive. Defragging also involves arranging the data on the disk so that things that are more likely to be accessed often, like documents and applications, are stored closer to the read/write heads so that it takes less time to access them. I dunno how much good the arranging actually does in the real world, but the defragmenting of files is very useful because it allows your drive to read a file in one shot rather than being forced to jump around on the drive surface, which usually translates to noticable decreases in response times from your hard drive.

     Basically, it's one more way to get a minor speed improvement out of your computer. You should do it as maintenance about every six months or so (set aside a large block of time, since on a big drive, defragging can take all night).

[0 Kilz:M:]

Also it helps to let your comp index nightly, I used to always be playing games at index time so I would cancel it. Now it would take my comp 3 days to index so I keep canceling it. And don't forget to rebuild your desktop at least once a week along with zapping your p-ram. These little tweaks will keep your mac humming along nicely.

I would also recommend getting ?The little Mac book? by Robin Williams. She is a Mac Goddess, she usually writes a new book with each new operating system and covers all aspects and nooks and crannys of it. It is well worth owning. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0321169662/qid=1057536141/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3361146-6293631?v=glance&s=books

And heres another question, is DDR ram (Double Data) like having twice the amount of regular ram? Like 256 of regular ram=512DDR?

[Mr. Lothario]

     It's not DDR, it's DDR RAM. DDR stands for Double Data Rate. The advantage of DDR RAM is that it can send twice the data over its pins per clock cycle that SDRAM can send. Basically, SDRAM sends data at the beginning of a clock cycle, while DDR RAM sends data at both the beginning and the ending of a clock cycle. In other words, DDR RAM effectively has more bandwidth, so the computer can access the contents of RAM more efficiently.

[.vooDoo.]

Changed my monitor resolution to 1024x768, @ 100Hz and didnt see any improvement. Should i change my gameplay res to the same? I play at 1152x870 with an average of 40fps.