Community
On Orbit => Space Shuttle Mission Simulator (tm) => Topic started by: spaceboy7441 on July 25, 2008, 12:55:28 AM
-
Admin any previews for the new patch coming or any news on when it will come out.
Please and
Thanks
-
i'm not admin. I don't know what he knows.
but I can only assume he will say something like this:
"all in due time :)"
as I said before.
judging from past experience, patches are only announced a week or two before their release. but If this service pack is so massive - it can also be delayed by bugs (and i'm sure there are a lot of them if this upgrade is so fundamental as they claim).
I can only suggest to be patient :) give them the time to do their magic - they are good at it :)
-
I know I'm just so excited. ;D
-
As Uri said: "all in due time" :).
You must understand that this is a major Service Pack, so it will contain a new mission, new goodies and of course the newly optimized code. Patience pays :)
/Admin
-
Patience pays :)
/Admin
How much?
Sorry could resist that :) Would the new optimised code allow for a 'slightly' low specification? For example; a laptop using an Intel 'standard' graphics card?
-
"Space Shuttle Mission 2007 Service Pack Released"
"Exciting Simulations has released a new service pack for Space Shuttle Mission 2007. This service pack brings a significant performance boost as well as a new mission and new features. For details, read this press release."
I copied this directly from FLIGHTSIM.COM's Main page... Obviously an error. ( Unfortunately ) :)
-
If you click on the this in that story it say's upcoming Service Pack So, there is no error. ;)
-
If you click on the this in that story it say's upcoming Service Pack So, there is no error. ;)
"Released" and "Has Released" means exactly that...When I first saw that I bolted directly to the download section here because I own the simulator and I didnt need the backround story. I had to go back to FS.com to get the the real deal. If that was a intentional "hook" it worked on me. ;D
-
;D ;D
-
Guys... FSCOM has made an error. We did say "upcoming release" - that's the official word. You can also see the announcement in our forums.
/Admin
-
Anyway, a small surprise awaits you in the News Section - no, it's NOT the new Service Pack just yet, but nevertheless we hope that the tease will help you appreciate the effort we've been investing in SSM2007 :)
Have lots of fun!
/Admin
-
WOW ;D
The max frames is over 60.
The FPS is toggling from 50-64
Even when I look directly into the smoke I get 30-40 instead of 30 ;D
Thanks ;D
-
Admin, it's amazing.
Can you guys do something.. anything... to fix the VC Right Click for us ATI users? I get more FPS, but it's only about 5 or 6 more with the optimized code.
This is amazing, though! Thanks to you and your team that have made this better!
-
My bad when I used FRAPS it showed me always getting 60 FPS unless looking in the flame ;D
-
So on the Demo maxed out I get 16-20 FPS... in 1.37a I get 20-30... Also an old problem has returned.... The computer running at 16-20 but the timer and mission clock move at regular speed... meaning SRB sep will happen at the 2 minute mark but at the slow frame rate my altitude is 150,000 or less... As of now the Demo runs slower than 1.37a?!?!?!
-
I get 60 fps with the demo. And that is with no browsers open. ;D
-
Im most happy with it. I get a flickering 60-50 FPS (F1 view) on launch looking back at the ground and the clock moves at "second for second" pacing. With my system, I only got a reduction in performance (30fps and "slow" MET) on launch before first staging with version 1.37, So I was extremely pleased overall. I can now watch launches close up in the outside views without a framerate hit.
-
Looks good, I hope we get some extra i-candy as well as frame rates.
Cheers
-
Hey Admin, just to let you know, the optimised code is running the sim over 200fps on the demo :o ;D
Did you give it steroids or alien/NASA technology? :)
-
Hey Admin, just to let you know, the optimised code is running the sim over 200fps on the demo :o ;D
Did you give it steroids or alien/NASA technology? :)
Secret alien technology, what else! 8)
/Admin
-
LOL :D
here's a piccy to prove it, but I've had 200-300fps only on finals (post HAC) everything else seems to be around 60-70fps.
Yep I know I'm a little left of field (nasty cross wind, honest :) ), really it was because I had trouble trying to setup fraps and couldn't remember the start screen shot capture key. ::)
(http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/4/7/27/t_20080727higm_e43772d.jpg) (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/7/27/f_20080727higm_e43772d.jpg&srv=img33)
-
As somebody I know would say " SMOOOOOOOOOTH!".
/Admin
-
I'm quite surprised I getting over 100fps in a modern game.
My Pc is only a humble Pentium4 3.0Ghz (HyperThreaded 1mb Cache), 1GB RAM (PC3200), ASUS V9999 Ultra (Nvidia 6800 Ultra 256Mb RAM).
I'll check it later on the Wife's PC, that has a Nvidia Geforce 5600 128Mb, but same memory and CPU.
-
desktopsimmer: I've got the same computer as you, but a HIS Radeon 2600 HD with 512MB RAM. How do you get 100fps+? I stay steady at 58-62, no matter if I have this site open in the browser, or if I have just the game open.
Any tips?? :D
-
I think it's not my setup that does it. Download the demo version and do the landing phase. After the HAC, watch the FPS soar :)
-
I think it's not my setup that does it. Download the demo version and do the landing phase. After the HAC, watch the FPS soar :)
Yeah, I've done that. I still maintained only 65 FPS max.
-
Improvements on the fr looking good. Can't wait to give the demo an install on my home pc and to fly STS-1 tonight!
-
Yeah, I've done that. I still maintained only 65 FPS max.
Strange that it doesn't happen for you. Does anyone else have the turbo FPS on finals?
-
Okay installed it on my home machine, runs brilliantly. Turbo FPS no matter the situation. I get nothing below 100FPS indicated which is fairly strange. Time proceeds normally though from what I can tell. One complaint I've got though is the camera controls feel much heavier with the new code. Otherwise a very good update to an already brilliant product
-
Nice to see the FPS unlocked, getting at least twice as many now.
I agree, I found one issue with the camera controls, when sat on the launch pad in-cockpit view, camera panning is too slow. It's fine everywhere else, from what I could see.
edit: strangely, it seems fine when I start at T-12seconds.
-
Yeah, I've done that. I still maintained only 65 FPS max.
Strange that it doesn't happen for you. Does anyone else have the turbo FPS on finals?
Hi,
I've installed the demo and I also still maintained only 65-70 FPS max. ::) ::)
Computer: Q6600, 4GB DDR RAM, Nvidia 8800 GTX 768mb running Vista Home Premium
Greetings,
PeteEHAM
-
Hi,
I've installed the demo and I also still maintained only 65-70 FPS max. ::) ::)
Computer: Q6600, 4GB DDR RAM, Nvidia 8800 GTX 768mb running Vista Home Premium
Greetings,
PeteEHAM
Does it increase on final, as with that specification it should beat my 200fps
-
I tried the new demo yesterday and, like so many here, I got around 65 to 70 FPS.
I suspect the max. FPS does not only depend from your PC hardware, but also from the monitor settings you are using. If your monitor is set to a relatively low resolution like 1024x768 or even 800x600 the FPS would be much higher than on high res settings like 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
So, I think this is one reason for the different FPS values we all see.
In this respect, I am quite happy with the FPS I get, as my monitor is set to 1920x1200.
Maybe everybody here could also write what monitor settings they use, when they get a certain FPS value.
It would allow a better comparison of the different FPS values. (Usually you don't compare apples and oranges, do you? ;) )
And we will soon be able to prove or disprove my point. :)
-
My resolution is 1440x900. I get 58-62, max I've seen was about 67.
Now that you speak of it, though, I do wish there was a resolution setting in SSM.
-
It can't be your monitor resolution because SSM automatically sets it to the monitors max resolution ;D
-
It can't be your monitor resolution because SSM automatically sets it to the monitors max resolution ;D
I would doubt that. Just try it out for yourself: Change the display settings of your monitor to a lower resolution and then start SSM. It will look different and you will get higher frame rates in certain situations, than in a higher res setting.
Besides: Monitors also have different max resolution settings.
-
SSM is always running on the windows resolution setting.
it assumes that it's the MAX res for your screen :)
-
I've tried 800x600, and I still got 58-62, and nothing changed. All the way from HAC to landing, no outstanding FPS.
-
I tried the new demo yesterday and, like so many here, I got around 65 to 70 FPS.
I suspect the max. FPS does not only depend from your PC hardware, but also from the monitor settings you are using. If your monitor is set to a relatively low resolution like 1024x768 or even 800x600 the FPS would be much higher than on high res settings like 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
So, I think this is one reason for the different FPS values we all see.
In this respect, I am quite happy with the FPS I get, as my monitor is set to 1920x1200.
Maybe everybody here could also write what monitor settings they use, when they get a certain FPS value.
It would allow a better comparison of the different FPS values. (Usually you don't compare apples and oranges, do you? ;) )
And we will soon be able to prove or disprove my point. :)
where is the new demo I downloaded it yesterday and it said it was version 1.37 I thought that the new version was 2.0
-
demo is on the main page.
latest "operational" version is still 1.37a
-
Demo software version may not always correspond to the full software version.
/Admin
-
Guys,
I love this sim. And I'm not criticizing it in any way with this post. But I've also got over 35 years experience as an IT Professional, and feel there needs to be a little bit of clarification for some users of the sim before this thread turns into a "Frames Per Second" fiasco much like I see in many of the Flight Simulator type forums.
Unless you are using an old CRT monitor, anything over 60 Frames Per Second is redundant, and a waste of your computer resources. A computer application may be able to PROCESS over 60 FPS, but if your monitor Refresh Rate is only 60 Hz, which almost all current monitors are, your monitor is only refreshing the screen 60 times a second. It can't draw 100 FPS on your screen. You will NEVER see those extra 40 FPS on your monitor.
So, if you are currently getting anything over 60FPS, and have any of the graphics sliders in SSMS turned down, turn some of 'em up until you get to 60 FPS. You may as well use some of that extra processing power to give you more detail at "only" 60 FPS, as that is the maximum number of "frames per second" you are ever going to see on your monitor anyhow.
And don't be fooled into thinking that if you get 100 FPS and somebody else only gets 60 FPS, you are seeing "more" than they are. Ain't so.
Respectfully submitted, of course.
-
I agree, what is the point of +100fps :).
I've posted elsewhere on this forum that it was a good thing that the sim is 'throttled' to 50fps. IMHO there is nothing gained for over 50fps, and to be honest I not seen a significant difference between my daft 200fps and +50fps. I've just found it strange for my PC to run at such a high rate for the demo.
-
Hi guys,
Yes, your observations regarding FPS etc are very correct. Actually on my own PC I am getting "only" a steady 60-70FPS - about 15%-20% more than I had before.
The new optimization gives us more headroom to add new features without impeding the smoothness and "real-timeness" of the sim.
And of course, we have mentioned quite clearly that the people who will see more improvement - especially in the real-time department - are those with weaker machines. Those of us fortunate enough to own a modern mainstream gaming rig (or stronger) will feel less improvement although it is definitely there.
What we are bringing with the next Service Pack is NOT what one would call "brute optimization" which results in hysterical FPS that look good on benchmarks. We have fine-tuned the Real Time engine and ONE result of that action spills over to better frame rates. Attempting to benchmark real-time simulators (FSX included) is doomed to failure, frustration and/or ridicule. There is a solid theory behind why this happens, but suffice to say that comparing FPS is NOT always a good way to gauge your system or application performance.
So while somebody gets 200+ FPS and somebody "only" 67FPS is really not that indicative of the SSM2007 performance - or the specific HW power. What is enough to know (and notice) is that Real Time now works correctly for VERY LOW FPS - last we tested was for as low as 9 (nine) FPS! Which is something we have not planned for initially. We simply wanted to pave the way for weak laptops and older PCs which of course, still offer some 3D acceleration according to our lowest recommended specs. Another indirect benefit is that now, it is very possible to get smooth or real-time in-game FRAPS video captures without the fear that FRAPS brings SSM2007 down to a crawl :)
It is likely that we will again "cage" the FPS indicator for the full release to max 50FPS (as opposed to the situation with the Demo). We are even tempted to remove it altogether now that we go real-time for as low as 9FPS. We'll see.
/Admin
-
Admin,
In retrospect, after reading my post above, I want to clarify something. ;D
My use of the word "Guys" at the start of it was aimed at the user community...not the developers. The post wasn't meant to be critical in any way about the development concepts. Your efforts at improving the overall performance of the sim are greatly appreciated, for all users.
And I agree with your idea of caging the FPS in the final release. It will avoid a lot of "worry" amongst the user community about performance issues based on "relative" FPS indications.
FalconAF
-
FalconAF,
No worries - my post is in support of, and as an addition/clarification to your statements in the SSM2007 context. Your post meaning was well understood :)
/Admin
-
I see you mentioned FSX in your above post. I fly FSX(as well as SSM2007) and on my new PC Intel 8650 CPU core 2 duo and a GF 8800GTS 512mb graphics card I run FSX at 20FPS and it is very fluid at that level. I am running the default settings for it and they seem more than satisfactory.
Trev.
:)
-
Well, I know FSX VERY well - developer-level-well. The "FSX FPS" is not really the FPS we refer to. It has been noticed that even at 15 "FPS" FSX is relatively fluid despite the fact that movies at below 24 FPS begin to look choppy. Microsoft is yet to explain this :)
This subject (FSX "FPS") has been covered and discussed in many related forums so let us leave it to those forums ;)
/Admin
-
It has been noticed that even at 15 "FPS" FSX is relatively fluid despite the fact that movies at below 24 FPS begin to look choppy. Microsoft is yet to explain this :)
I don't want to ignore your request to "leave the FPS discussion to the FS forums", but if anyone is really interested in the answer to the above question, it's in my reply #11 in the link below:
http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=180676&page=2
There are also several other posts by me in the above link that will explain a lot about FPS when it comes to "gaming" on a home computer. SSME will be able to run and look quite well at lower FPS because of lesser "displacement" of objects from one position on your monitor to another position. Most space flight activities are relatively "slow" in nature when it comes to moving things across your monitor. As opposed to flying at "Mach Hair On Fire" at 500 feet AGL! ;D
FalconAF
-
When talking about FPS in the general aspect of PC gaming, the reference is not to screen refresh rate, but to the rate at which each GAME frame is displayed on screen. In other words, as you know, each frame is computed, rendered and prepared for display. The graphics card displays 60, 30, 85 times per second (or whatever times-per-second or "refresh rate" the user can select) whatever it has in the frame buffer - or more simply, in a portion of its GRAM. Regardless of that, the PC has to fill that buffer with useful information.
FPS in this (and our) context means: how many times per second the PC manages to prepare new scenes (or frames) for display, so while the card displays always at the selected monitor "refresh" rate, regardless of the monitor technology - the new scenes prepared by the PC are not necessarily prepared as many times per second.
So if the hardware is not up to the necessary specs, the graphic card would have that scene information pushed to its frame buffer by the PC etc. twice, three times or 10 times per second. The fact that the graphic card displays the frame buffer 60 times per second, is irrelevant. Human eye will detect those 2, 3 10FPS immediately.
The argument in that thread and here too seems to be around two different definitions of FPS - the "game-FPS" and the display system FPS which are two very different things.
When WE - and the majority of the gaming community - say FPS, we refer to how many times per second the PC and the graphic subsystems can prepare a new scene for display.
This is completely different from anything connected with the monitor and display part whose refresh rates are governed by standards and individual capabilities.
That's why MS has still to explain what THEY mean by FPS as it is clear that normally 15 game-fps should result in a choppy display, but in FSX case it does not.
In our case, anything above 24-30 fps will give a fluid image - in accordance with regular "movie" and physiological expectations, while the monitor may be refreshed 60 or 75 or whatever times per second. Even taking your projector shutter explanation, it is easy to see why these two terms are not connected: you may flip the shutter 24 times per second but if the movie runs slower by changing "scenes" every two frames (without affecting the shutter), effectively dropping the FPS to 12, the viewers will see a choppy movie.
Regardless of the game FPS, the real-timeness of the sim must be maintained up to a certain reasonable hardware-dependent extent, so while the clock and sim engine run at real time or let's say, one tick every 20ms, the displayed frame rate may be slower, with choppy "animation" etc. due to an underspec PC.
What we did with the new engine among other things, is optimize the real-time engine to work correctly also at very low game-FPS.
/Admin