[ARSPR]

Well my present PC is out, (GPU or MB, I don't exactly know), and I'm really tired of the Infernal P4 Prescott Heater I have...

So as a present to myself I'm thinking in buying a Dell Dimension 9200 which ships with Core 2 Quad, (no cheaper Core 2 Duo available here in Spain) + nVidia 8800 GTX + Vista (no XP available).

So, could you confirm if:

• FSOpen runs OK with Vista 32 bits.
• FSOpen runs OK with Core 2 Quad processors.
• FSOpen runs OK in OGL with 8800 GTX (and latest drivers of course).
• EDITED: FSOpen runs OK in widescreen resolutions (1680x1050 in this case).

(I'm too tired to start digging the answer through all the forums from my job PC  )

Thanks in advance.

[MetalDestroyer]

- Running fine with Vista Business 32 bit
- Running fine with a 8800 GTX with the Forceware 162.22 Beta (and before)
- Running fine on Core 2 Duo (so I don't see any trouble for running FSO on Core 2 Quad).

[jr2]

Hmm.  About the XP, what version did you have on your other compy?  (Pro or Home?) Did it come with it, or did you buy it separate?

[ARSPR]

Hmm.  About the XP, what version did you have on your other compy?  (Pro or Home?) Did it come with it, or did you buy it separate?

XP pro "bought" separately from a friend... 

(My system is/was a no-brand one).



What about widescreen resolutions? Are the supported?

[jr2]

Well "buy" it again from him, and dual-boot XP & Vista.

Widescreen works, but has problems (stuff doesn't look right, but you can live with it).  To solve, just play in 1024x768 and let the monitor stretch it for you.  (Which is why it's important to have a good monitor.)

[ARSPR]

PC ordered    I hope it all goes fine.

Another fast question. I don't want to re-install my whole FS2 installation but just copy my actual directory from my old PC HD to my new system. But doing this, I know I will lose all the needed Windows Registry entries. But IIRC, running the Launcher sets them all again, (this is my hope, at least    ).

Am I right? or must I properly reinstall the game nevertheless (retail version and then SCP additions or directly Turey's SCP one)?

Well "buy" it again from him, and dual-boot XP & Vista.

I'll try not playing with my brand new system (OEM Vista). But this is an option nevertheless if all goes wrong. Although, switching OS for just playing a game is a PITA , (even THIS game)...

[karajorma]

You'll need to run the launcher again and you may need to delete/edit your launcher6.ini file so that the path doesn't point to the wrong place.

Apart from that you should be fine. Don't forget the OpenAL install though.

[ARSPR]

You'll need to run the launcher again and you may need to delete/edit your launcher6.ini file so that the path doesn't point to the wrong place.

Apart from that you should be fine. Don't forget the OpenAL install though.

Thanks Kara. I've already forgotten OpenAL. 

(I think I'm going to be perpetual noob 2nd version)

[Bob-san]

Sounds awesome. SImilar question--does Freespace Open work better with more cores? I'd assume not, but ya never know (since Pentium D has been out for so long, and Pentium 4 HT longer)

[ARSPR]

Sounds awesome. SImilar question--does Freespace Open work better with more cores? I'd assume not, but ya never know (since Pentium D has been out for so long, and Pentium 4 HT longer)

Nope, FS2 is single threaded so no performance gain (or just a little because secondary background tasks can be offloaded from FS2 running core).

[MetalDestroyer]

The only thing you will gain, is the ability to use very very high resolution with Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering without having a single slowdown except when you put to many ships due to the engine limitation.

[Bob-san]

Oooo... *wants FSO to use multiple threads*

Any chance any programmer is working on FSO that has multi-threading capability? So little as seperating sound and AI would be great...

[taylor]

Some sound related code, various bits of input stuff, and system event handling, are already threaded.

The engine wasn't really designed with multi-threading in mind though, and there is a TON of code in use which isn't remotely thread-safe.  Making it multi-threaded also has cross-platform implications, since you have to restrict the changes to the lowest common denominator.  It wouldn't be easy work, and I highly doubt that anyone will put forth the required effort anytime soon.

[Bob-san]

Well, is it possible to emulate audio hardware support? So we can have higher-quality audio laced through one CPU core to emulate dedicated cards... anyways I think separating some stuff like audio will let us get a bit more out of the engine's old single-threaded design.

[ARSPR]

MY NEW PC IS UP AND RUNNING 

Ooops. There's something very wrong with FSOpen and multiple cores...

One simple test (with Taylor's XT 0830):

I run my test mission (AllTerranShips.fs2 - mission attached).
nVidia ForceWare 163.44
OGL at 1280x960 (ForceWare does not scale, so I have empty areas filling my 1680 x 1050 desktop).
More or less I get the same results windowed or fullscreen. (OTOH in fullscreen mode, I get a full crash if I swap from game to Windows desktop, although I know it depends on drivers not on fsopen).
I just start the mission and I stay still. I just at look the obtained fps.
MediaVPs 3.6.8 zeta plus patches.

+ Without doing anything (multiple cores running): Around 7-8 fps.
+ Setting FSOpen process Affinity to just one core, (it doesn't matter if I do it through Task Manager or through Imagecfg.exe utility): Around 25-30 fps.

Could anyone test in his system?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Turey]

MY PC:
IBM Thinkpad T61
2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB 1DIMM RAM
1GB Intel Turbo Memory
Nvidia Quadro NVS 140 (128MB)
Vista Ultimate

MY SETUP:
C:\Games\FreeSpace2\fs2_open_3_6_9-Xt_0830.exe -mod mediavps -spec -glow -env -mipmap -nomotiondebris -2d_poof -no_vsync -dualscanlines -targetinfo -orbradar -rearm_timer -3dwarp -warp_flash -mpnoreturn -fps
OGLx1440x900x32
All detail settings to Highest possible

Both cores: ~15fps
Single core: ~32fps

[ARSPR]

Thanks Turey.

Hey, looking at your results and your PC specs, (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz vs. my Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz), it seems that:
+ With one core, the performance is just the same like mine (fps seem limited by CPU not GPU).
+ With all cores, your performance is halved but mine is divided by three or four. So, the more cores you have the higher performance drop? (I'll test setting affinity to 1, 2, 3 and 4 cores ASAP).

More tests from more people are welcomed. Thanks in advance.

EDITED ----

Some more tests done:

• I've enabled -no_vsync flag too.
• I'm running in window cause I cannot swap to Windows Desktop from fullscreen (total crash)
• I use task manager to set the affinity.

One strange thing in these tests:

• I start the mission and I look at fps
• I press Esc so I get the "Exit mission" box. Then I press Esc again to return to the mission.
• Normally, the fps just after these last steps are much higher.
• Sometimes the after-Esc fps are maintained and sometimes they drop to the "original" values.

The results are:

• 3 and 4 cores: 7 fps (15 fps after-Esc). 3 cores seems slightly slower.
• 2 paired cores (0&1 or 2&3, remember a Core 2 Quad is just two Core 2 Duo together, so I'm just using one or the other Core 2 Duo):    15 fps (18 fps)
• 2 cores but not paired: 7 fps (15 fps).
• 1 core: 40 fps (40 fps).