ATI Drivers LFS Problem (5.11 ok / 5.12-5.13 bad) [Archive]

Scawen

4th January 2006, 21:20

EDIT : ATI driver people have found the problem!
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=61433#post61433

Hello ATI Users.

We've heard reports that the latest versions of the ATI drivers are causing low frame rates in LFS. The short version of the story is : 5.11 drivers work well, but 5.12 and 5.13 run very slowly. More info here : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=3639

We need to know which cards are affected by this problem. If you are able to run a test (trying LFS with different driver versions) or you already know the results for your computer, please select one of the poll options. If you select option 1 or 2, please tell us which card you are using, so we can make a more accurate report to the ATI driver developers.

EDIT 1 (CPU) : Please also state which CPU you have and does it have Hyper-Threading?

EDIT 2 (MIRRORS) : Please also check the frame rate with mirrors OFF! Is the slowdown related to drawing the mirror image?

Jonesy_

4th January 2006, 21:36

Well, I have a x700pro wtih 256mt of mem.

And I haven´t ran any seriuos tests, but I´d say I got something like 20-30 fps drop at certain places with the newer drivers.

I might edit this once I`ve made some proper testing.

EDIT: 3100+ sempron

Quietus

4th January 2006, 21:51

9800Pro 128MB

virtually no difference with either driver (Omega versions), around 90fps. Not using any AA or AF though... not sure if that's relevant.

EDIT: AMD 3200 Barton.

Doorman

4th January 2006, 22:07

X800XT 256mb memory 5.12 and 5.13 of any description, any configuration, AA-AF on or off, 10-15fps
I've also got another machine with a 9700pro and get the same problem.

Doorman

4th January 2006, 22:15

It may be relevant to ask who is running hyperthreading cpus. I just got a sneaking feeling. Both my pcs have P4 HT cpus. One 3.4 and one 3.0

Lautsprecher[NOR]

4th January 2006, 22:22

Radeon 9800 PRO
Omega 5.12
Works like a charm.

felplacerad

4th January 2006, 22:33

All OK,

I was running 5.11, when i just sat in the xrr on we1 i got about 120fps.
after upgrading to 5.13 (and rebooting, obviously) i got about 140fps.

Im running a Radeon X800XT PE and an amd64 3200+ on win xp x64.

BLooDMaN

4th January 2006, 22:43

P4 2.8c Asus P4P800 Deluxe 2x256 OCZ Ati 9600 SE with cat 5.13
Usually runs at 15 fps but when I disabled HT from the bios it goes up to 50 but it's not as fast as with cat 5.11. It's like there is a frame rate limit because it doesn't matter which resolution I use or which graphical setting I change it always stays the same.

Akuma66

4th January 2006, 22:45

Ahhhhh so its more of a problem than just me and my mate. We had nasty FPS drops when going up to 5.13.

Mine is : A radeon 9600Pro 256mb with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4(HT). (Nuts its in my damn sig anyway lol)

Madman_CZ

4th January 2006, 23:00

i believe that new drivers can cause fps drops... i myself own a radeon 9800pro in combination with asus a7n8x board and a gig of ram....

i have not updated my graphics drivers for a while.. in fact i am still using the 4.12 drivers by ati which give me the best performace. I did update to new drivers but i found fps drops in gtr, farcry, doom3 etc so i went back to the 4.12 which i feel are the best tuned drivers for a radeon 9800pro.

i play lfs with 4x aa and 4x af and i get around 70-80 fps

mad

Bob Smith

5th January 2006, 00:56

I've got an old Radeon card in my spare system, I'll play around with it tomorrow.

Agent248

5th January 2006, 02:23

"Northwood" Pentium 4 3.0Ghz with HT, All-in-Wonder X800XT the game run fine with 5.11 (around 90fps with 4x FSAA and 8x anisotropic), but drop below 10fps with the 5.12 or 5.13 (whatever the setting chosen)... Didn't have the time to test 5.13 without the HT. I'm running Windows MCE if this can be of any help.

Billeh

5th January 2006, 03:40

well i just tryed to install 5.11 after takeing out 5.13 and now my computer has gone loopy :( i formated it today as well and noticed i was getting 20fps on "south city" which i never used to get befor the 5.13.

I think i might have got a dodgey set of ati drivers so if anyone has a working set of drivers could they post a link to them :) and i will try it when i wake up :)

Stuff

5th January 2006, 04:08

Mine is fine. 9800 Pro 256mb. Catalyst 5.13s
System is AMD 2600+, nothing spiffy. :)

Blowtus

5th January 2006, 04:12

went from 130fps on 5.10 to 125fps on 5.13. voted for all ok, a few fps is a non issue. athlon 2600 (no ht) and gecube 9550.

der_jackal

5th January 2006, 04:13

Holy Jumpin'

AMD64x2 4800+
ATI x1800xl

5.11 was fine, 5.13 is MISERABLE, I'm getting >20+ fps drops even w/ AA-AF off. It's making online racing unplayable.

I turned off HVS in game and got about 10 fps back, but the graphics engine was dropping plot points all over the place.

danowat

5th January 2006, 06:38

Intel Pentium 4 3.4Ghz with HT and a Saphirre X800pro 256mb.

5.11 fine, 100fps, 5.12,5.13 awfull 10fps.....

Dan,

Micha

5th January 2006, 08:18

AMD 3000+; X800 (256 MB); 1024 MB RAM

updated from 5.10 to 5.13
I use AA 8x and AF 16x
No noticeable fps drop. Everything ok.

mr_x

5th January 2006, 09:52

AMD XP3200+ Barton
Radeon 9800XT 256mb
512mb RAM

no problems at all

HRT SHAUN

5th January 2006, 10:13

p4 2.4 @ 2.7 normally @ stock though
x800 pro

quite abit of a drop here :(

EDIT: non HT

Scawen

5th January 2006, 10:40

Intel P4 - 3,6GHZ (Hyper Threading)
ATI x800xt
1GB DC

as far as i know it has something to do with the HT-Technologie. Dooesnt matter which ATI Card u are using. :shrug:Agreed - so far it does seem to be strongly related to HT. Thanks Doorman for coming up with that idea so early on in the thread.

Somehow the new drivers don't seem to be compatible with Hyper-Threading if you are running LFS.

Andreas Grauel : you forgot to mention what frame rate loss you are getting, but i guess it's the same as others - a significant loss with the newer drivers?

HRT SHAUN : Is yours a HT (Hyper-Threading) processor?

B2B@300

5th January 2006, 10:54

Just be interested to know if assigning the lfs.exe process in task manager to 1 virtual processor would help the fps? I would try this myself but my old machine (P4 2.6 HT and ATI 9600Pro) is at my wifes work place now... and I want be able to test it until sat or sun... it's just this has been brought up before in regards to HT processors and poor LFS performance, so would be interesting to see...
I personaly even on my new machine (has nvidia card now) still set the lfs.exe process to 1 cpu and set its priority level higher than normal, it seems to help in terms of stability :shrug:

TRM.13

5th January 2006, 10:59

yes!! I went crazy and I formated pc too!!! :shrug:

PIV-3000 HT but not in dual chanel (512mb ram), Ati 9800pro: 5.11-90fps
5.13-10fps

with a 9600pro, same problem

danowat

5th January 2006, 11:08

This is not the first time HT has borked performance on one of my games, I will test tonight if assigning the LFS process to a single affinity will solve the issue (as it does on some others), if so, there is a way to "fix" the exe to only use a single affinity, but if the exe gets changed in an update you will lose the fix.

Dan,

dUmAsS

5th January 2006, 11:22

im on 05.7 (man im out of date) and dont really want to upgrade with these problems.

however i have...

PowerColor X800 Bravo 256mb
AMD64 3000+
~70 fps with only me on track (in cockpit view)
~30-50 fps when in the middle of a full pack ( in cockpit view)

i will update the drivers if you need that card tested

Qurpiz

5th January 2006, 11:39

Had the problem, I have Radeon x850 Pro, PCI-E. With 5.13 LFS was really slow, 25-30 fps and in starts lower than 15. Works well with 5.11 now.

EDIT:
And my comp:
3200+ (2,2ghz) Athlon
1536 mb RAM
x850

latch

5th January 2006, 11:55

At first I wasn't going to update, but in the name of LFS I'll test this out tomorrow after golf. :tilt:

CPU: Athlon XP @ 2350mhz
GFX: 9800pro

Edit: I'm no longer going to test this out. Not only do I not have HT, the compulsary CCC inclusion in the new driver packages is bound to screw up something on my computer. Windows Update has issues installing .NET service packs on my computer, and as such I wouldn't be in the best position to give reliable results about the latest drivers.

Billeh

5th January 2006, 11:56

Please anyone got a link to a working 5.11 or bellow as i cant play south city trying turn one at 10 - 15 fps is awful :(

loopingz

5th January 2006, 12:19

9500pro athlon xp 2800+ seems to work fine (omega drivers)

danowat

5th January 2006, 12:32

Please anyone got a link to a working 5.11 or bellow as i cant play south city trying turn one at 10 - 15 fps is awful :(

http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?id=18

Scawen

5th January 2006, 12:35

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 12:50

the x2 series are two completely independant cores, appears and functions the same as a dual cpu system.

the 3200 wont be a x2, also amd dont have an HT equivalent so the 3200 will be a single core (3800x2 is the first in the x2 series)

also i think the 3200 is 2.0ghz as my 3000 is 1.8 @2.55Ghz :) (maybe its an older model cpu or not amd64)

Troy

B2B@300

5th January 2006, 12:51

der_jackal and Qurpiz : you are the only ones so far with non-Intel CPU who are reporting the same problem, so that's interesting.

der_jackal : AMD64x2 4800+
Qurpiz : 3200+ (2,2ghz) Athlon

Do these processors have a similar feature to Hyper-Threading - perhaps under a different name? AMD64x2 : is this actually two separate processors, or a single HT processor?

From AMD's FAQ section:

Q:Does the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor design have two AMD Athlon 64 processors on a single die?
A:Yes. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor design is true dual-core - with two CPU cores on one die. AMD’s dual-core architecture relies on advanced Direct Connect Architecture to supply each core with the memory and I/O bandwidth needed to maintain high performance per core. AMD’s on-chip integrated memory controller ensures that both cores have optimal access to the integrated memory controller and integrated HyperTransport™ links, so that performance scales well with the number of cores.

They also have something called HyperTransport technology which I don't think is the same as HT for intel they probably just named it similar for maketing purposes...

Having said that the current generation of P4's which are the P4D range are also true dual core processors, a quote from there sales guff "Intel® Pentium® D processor is Intel’s preferred desktop
processor. Because it is powered by two execution cores in one processor"

I'm curently running with an P4D 840 3.2 but unfortunately have an nvidia card so can't see if it affects the ati cards the same as the old P4 technology... is it possible it's not about HT at all but the way dual core processors (virtual or not) organise thread processes?

It is also apparent that Intel is using the same or at least a modified version of there HT technology on the new dual core processors they offer...

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 12:54

HyperTransport is just the connection bus (its an open standard - not just amd, but ofcause intel wont sign up to standards as usual)

Troy

danowat

5th January 2006, 13:05

Whilst Hyper-Threading is a psuedo dual core system, I think the OS (and more than likely the GFX drivers) see it as 2 physical CPU's.
Might be why there is that link between the X2 having the same issue.

Dan,

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 13:06

Additional info is that 5.12/5.13 drivers are 'multicore' optimized

The psuedo nature of the HT is that it only has partial genuine simultainious processing capability (only part of the hardware is duplicated) and can run anywhere from 45% to 75% of a genuine dual system of equal type.

Troy

AndroidXP

5th January 2006, 13:18

I think it's pretty obvious now that HT/DualCore is the source of all these problems. I doubt ATi did anything wrong in their drivers, I rather tend to believe that it is LFS which is messing things up. This first showed when mighty powerful HT/DualCore CPUs where generally a bit slower than equally or lower rated single core CPUs, although the effect was not this strong (IIRC).

Now, the only major changes in the new .12/.13 ATi drivers is optimized (or added?) HT/DualCore handling. It seems that the little handicap HT/DC CPUs had prior now get really noticable because the GFX card tries to mess around with the other core too, causing some quirk with LFS somewhere deep in the drivers.

Maybe "just" making LFS use the other core too (for some misc calculations) would solve these problems? :shrug:

jmkz

5th January 2006, 13:20

Opteron 1.8Ghz S939 Single Core
Sapphire X800GTO²
5.13

excellent performance with every detail maxxed out

B2B@300

5th January 2006, 13:26

As I stated earlier in this thread I currently find that LFS runs better on my system (stable) with the lfs.exe afinity set to cpu1 and its priority set to system process (highest) so would be interesting if anyone with an ati card can see if this helps the situation at all :shrug:

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 13:33

Information that may be relivent or not (to do with threading)

Im a A64, single core and an nvidia card

when a background process comes 'alive' such as my norton updating, in say fear or hl2 i get a little 'stuttering' and a performance fps drop of maybe 25%, if the same happens in LFS i get a performance drop of 90% (im locked at 100 fps normally and get <10 fps when 'something' happens in the background) maybe its just a LFS thread priority issue?

Im sorry if this post is not usefull or taking the focus away from the real problem, just thought it may be relivent.

Troy

Scawen

5th January 2006, 13:42

I think it's pretty obvious now that HT/DualCore is the source of all these problems. I doubt ATi did anything wrong in their drivers, I rather tend to believe that it is LFS which is messing things up....But then why would it all be working perfectly well, above 100 fps with the 5.11 drivers, and drop so terribly to 10 fps with the 5.12 / 5.13 drivers?

Why should that be LFS - when the only difference is the drivers?

Of course, LFS is involved somewhere here, because this problem isn't affecting some other games, those that were tested by ATI, for example. But i don't see anything here that indicates that LFS is doing anything wrong, other than perhaps using something in DirectX 8.1 that ATI didn't include in their test program?

Scawen

5th January 2006, 13:50

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 13:50

Scawen, i would agree with your general statement, because nvidia's latest drivers are dual core optimized (but not for ht) and nobody seems to be reporting the same issues with LFS

Troy

FlintFredstone

5th January 2006, 13:54

More info :

:)

I was reading about the ati drivers when they came out, i know there is a registry setting to disable the dualcore/ht support in the drivers but i cant find it again :(

Im sure it was on www.rage3d.com (http://www.rage3d.com) forums

Troy

AndroidXP

5th January 2006, 14:15

I understand you and I really have no idea how (if?) code has to be modified to be HT/DualCore "compatible". It's just that I have yet to hear of any game besides LFS that actually suffered from the new drivers.

I wanted to say that I doubt LFS has problems with the ATi drivers, but LFS has problems with HT/DC. The new ATi drivers trying to use HT/DC exaggerates this problem big time.

The first logical thing is of course to blame ATi for the problems because they first arised when their drivers changed (and to some extent it's indeed their drivers "causing" the problem). But what should not be overseen is that they don't "cause" the problem, they just make it more apparent. Now you can argue that the "root problem" was small enough to be ignored and not considered a problem, but ideally we should find out why LFS has these problems with HT/DC and solve them. Most probably the .12/.13 problems will be solved aswell.

E: heh yeah. try{ } catch { } is awfully slow :tilt: And I really have no idea how your code looks so I think wild guesswork won't get us anywhere. Either you find something "by luck" and it solves the problem or ATi can be arsed to actually debug their drivers running LFS which would be way more helpful :)

danowat

5th January 2006, 14:15

Is there no debugging system we (those who have problems) can run whilst LFS is running to try and pin point the problem?.
I am 99% sure that its a HT/Dual core issue, as I have seen it rear its ugly head many times.

Dan,

AndroidXP

5th January 2006, 14:36

Hmm, i just stumbled over this
Detecting HT Technology or dual cores requires the use of the CPUID instruction. [...] The CPUID instruction is not visible to high-level languages such as C/C++, C#, or Java. Calling the CPUID from these languages requires either the support for inline assembly or the ability to call an assembly language routine.I guess you can't really do that much code fixing regarding HT/DC by yourself. It really seems to be a by-product of some weird driver combinations and/or bad luck.

felplacerad

5th January 2006, 14:43

Just experienced something new,

when i run lfs in windowed mode, everything is fine - until i (for example) press the start menu, or or bring up any other "right-click" menus ... Then the fps drops 'til <10. the fps stays low even when i pause the game. It doesn't seem to have to do with lfs losing focus, i can use other applications and the game will run fine, until i use those menus, or a "hint" pops up (if i place the cursor of the clock for example, a "hint" will show me what date it is.)

det 5.13, x800 @ win xp x64 ...

EDIT: woops, found a solution - disabling "shadows under menus" in apperance/effects fixed the problem the menus, the "hints" still slow things down though. please let me know if you know a way to correct this ..

tpa

5th January 2006, 14:54

ATI X850 XT PE
Athlon Barton 2800+

No noticeable difference in fps.

For some reason the AF doesn't work anymore, though :pillepall And on windows startup I get an error message "cli.exe" couldn't be initialized. Hopefully switching back to 5.11 will solve this :shrug:

Jimi

5th January 2006, 15:00

P-IV 3GHz HT, 1024 DDR-400, ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB

With the new "Omega 2.6.87" couldnt get over 18fps,
where I had 90fps with the previous Omega 2.6.71 before.

Tried everthing for a while, then decided to step back to previous version of drivers.

danowat

5th January 2006, 15:27

Could it be down to the CCC (bloated piece of rubbish, waste of space ATI control panel) that is now a must for the 5.12/.13? could that be part of the problem?.

Dan,

felplacerad

5th January 2006, 15:40

Could it be down to the CCC (bloated piece of rubbish, waste of space ATI control panel) that is now a must for the 5.12/.13? could that be part of the problem?.

Dan,

There's a big difference between control panel (CP) and Control Center (CCC) .. control center is the .net dependant "application" and the control panel are the tabs in the advanced display settings.

5.11 is the last version which included the control panel, but does still work with 5.12 and 5.13. But if you want all options available (such as ovedrive) you'll have to edit your registry.

Check this link for more detailed info .. http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33839451

SparkyDave

5th January 2006, 15:42

I think cli.exe is just the update checker thing, that polls ati.com to see if there's a newer version of your driver available.

I get sometimes 3 instances of cli.exe one for the tray icon one for the CCC when it launches and i think one is the poller you mention , I have couple of PC's here both with ATI cards and 1 with X2 cpu so Ill try to get some results posted later tonight,( I think this slowdown is somthing to do with shaders and how the drivers are running on 2 cores , rather than LFS running on 2 ) .

SD.

EDIT just saw the post above . if you want new driver with old CP read here... http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33839451

Hallen

5th January 2006, 15:46

I have an X700 PCIE (16x). Pentium 3GHz, 1.5GB RAM HT enabled.
I installed the drivers that came out in December and my frame rate dropped a lot. If I use the look function to turn my head to the left, frame rates jump way up (from 40 to 100+). But straight ahead, frame rates were down to around 40. They had been right around 70 with the older drivers. (The look function also had the same affect with the old X300 GPU that I had before??)
I have vertical synch turned on, AA and AF set to max values. With the newer drivers, changing AA and AF settings in the driver made absolutly no difference inside LFS. The frame rate never picked up.
I rolled back my drivers and everything returned to what it was before.
I also always turn off the ATI error detection stuff. It seemed to slow things down and make them unstable when switching to windowed mode in LFS.
I only use the control panel. I do not use the full ATI configuration software crap. I don't overclock.

wien

5th January 2006, 15:54

I haven't noticed any major difference between 5.11 and 5.13 (Probably because I don't have a DC/HT CPU), but one thing I have noticed, is that any version beyond 5.09 gives me generally lower and more unstable FPS. Using 5.09 I get a pretty stable 55-70 FPS (a lap around BL @ 1920x1200 4xAA). 5.10+ I get ~60FPS with frequent drops to ~25FPS. I've even had the 5.10s suddenly drop to ~10FPS and stay there. Probably not the same problem, but thought I might as well mention it...

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton core) with 1GB RAM and an ATI Radeon 9800 (Plain vanilla) 128MB.

felplacerad

5th January 2006, 16:20

I also always turn off the ATI error detection stuff.

hmm .. You mean VPU-Recover?

der_jackal

5th January 2006, 18:20

One more question :

For those who experience the massive drop in frame rate, i guess the frame rate is still very low, even if you press the pause key? Is that true?

I'm asking that just to be sure that the updated drivers aren't somehow causing LFS physics to run slowly, and so the slowdown is almost certainly in the drivers themselves. If that's quite well established then the ATI guys will really need to run LFS over a debug version of their drivers on a HT system and they may be able to see instantly where it's tripping up.

Sometimes there is a huge slowdown due to exception handling. The scenario for that could be that somehow there is an error (or many errors) each frame due to a certain DirectX function called by LFS, and these could be causing the slowdown.

Last night playing multiplayer, I was geting ~25fps when I first dropped into the pits during the session, after the world "spooled" up and everybody else was drawn around me, I dropped to ~10-15fps.

If I changed to spectator mode I would get back up to the ~25fps range, but the minute I dropped the camera view to "forces" or "in car" I crashed back down to the ~10fps range.

And it's been pretty well covered, but yes, my proc is a dual phyiscal core 64bit processor running in 32bit mode. I was going to bring the machine in to work and throw it on a debugger but don't have time this week.

Single player empty track, no other cars, I was getting ~40fps, but I did not try to pause the game. I'll try that tonight if I get the chance. :)

ATHome

5th January 2006, 18:40

It's not only related to HT processors only.

I've got a 2,2 Ghz Athlon XP and a 9800Pro. With 5.11 stable 70-90 fps with 5.12 20-40 fps.

iHomer

5th January 2006, 18:57

I'm running on a P4C 3 GHz HT enabled. x800xt 256mb 2GB DC PAT Before .12 i got above 100 fps, after .12 I got below 20. For someone that said that had a cli.exe error... I think it's because you have no .net framework installed.

Hallen

5th January 2006, 20:03

hmm .. You mean VPU-Recover?
Yes, thank you. That stupid thing. It could just be an ad-hoc logic thing, but when I turned that feature off, I stopped having problems with the GPU locking up when I went to windowed mode.

felplacerad

5th January 2006, 20:22

Yes, thank you. That stupid thing. It could just be an ad-hoc logic thing, but when I turned that feature off, I stopped having problems with the GPU locking up when I went to windowed mode.

ah bummer i can't seem to check wether is on or off, since i didn't install ccc, just the 5.12 cp. the reghacks which are supposed to re-enable the tab doesn't seem to work for me. which is weird cause the other hacks do :P

i guess that might be the problem then, maybe its turned on even though it's hidden.

EDIT: Ok, i've found the source of the "1 fps when showing "hints"/popups whilst in windowed mode"-problem, it has to do with anti-aliasing. If i set it to anything else then application preference lfs will slow down as soon as a popup appears. It doesn't matter if i set it to 2/4/6, it's all the same. The Anistrophic filtering setting does not have any impact on lfs whatsoever, nor the texture/mipmap/vsync settings. It's just the AA - The problem isn't resolved but atleast now i know how to bypass it.

SparkyDave

5th January 2006, 20:32

If you get a cli error or the CCC splash screen hangs , I would recommend uninstalling the drivers and reinstalling with CP . the ATI uninstaller is here
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894

EDIT..Use .NET 1.1 not .NET 2.0 if it freezes on the splash screen.just read at another forum .

I tested with wheels view virtual mirror on

ran a 14 car replay and noted fps at start from driver in 1st and last position when paused and not.

on my older pc AMD xp2400+ 9800pro (6xAA 16xAF) Windows XP Home I get constantly similar results with 5.11 and 5.13 drivers leader - 50 fps last car 24fps .
and when paused leader 60 fps last car 29 fps .

other pc AMD xp 4400 X2(dual) X850XT PE (6xAA 16xAF) results

Win XPx64 with 5.11 leader 130 fps last car 50 fps .

and with the 5.13 leader 50fps last car 20 fps .

Win XP Pro with 5.11 leader 160 fps last car 70 .

and with the 5.13 leader 60 fps last car 25 .
Edit: pause added about 15- 20 % increase in fps in each case.
note on the dual PC if I set simple track to all in graphics HVS options the fps drops to 6 - 8 fps , also turning virtual mirror off almost doubles(up to max 256) the above framerates on the dual core for the lead cars but does not alter the simple track HVS performance .

testing with omega drivers gave same performance exactly.
testing with NGO optimized drivers gave same .
setting LFS.exe affinity to only 1 core made no difference.
still testing . ;)

SD.

B2B@300

6th January 2006, 00:00

Interesting people have mentioned recently that when you look left or right the rendering in the mirrors stops? don't know if that is a fact or not :shrug: but if it is then several people are experiencing a dramatic increase in frame rate (more than would be expected ie 2x) by disabling mirrors or looking left/ right with the ATI cards and DualCore CPUs, hopefully we are getting closer to the problem... do you other guys that experienced the fps drop find this the case also?

Scawen

6th January 2006, 00:07

Yes, good question...

Could it really be that disabling mirrors removes the problem totally? So that with mirrors disabled, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 all give the same (or at least similar) frame rates, on a HT cpu or any other affected computer?

It seems unlikely! But if so, then it must be something to do with rendering to a texture.

spearsd

6th January 2006, 00:48

Scawen,
No problems here running X850XT 256MB 1368x768@56Hz 4xFSAA 8xAF. Runs silky smooth. Also, A64 3500+ 2GB RAM for the record. Keep up the good work! :-) :thumb:

travbrad

6th January 2006, 06:08

I have a Athlon X2 3800+ and a Radeon X850XT, and the newer drivers give me about 20FPS. I tried setting the affinity of LFS to use just one CPU, but it seems to be the ATI driver processes that need to use one CPU. Ill try settings the affinity of the ati stuff tomorrow and see how it goes. I don't want to install the new drivers again right now

danowat

6th January 2006, 15:33

Ok, fresh install of the Cat 5.13's, without CCC, using ATT, all mirror settings, none, real, or virtual make any difference to the poor FPS ,which "I THINK" has improved since the 5.12's and now get 25fps with 5.13, 10 with 5.12 and 100 with 5.11.
Setting the LFS process to a single affinity also makes no difference, so, basically back to square one.
Scawen, I will leave the 5.13's on for now, if you require any checks or anything done let me know.

Dan,

Huru-aito

6th January 2006, 16:19

For what it's worth:

9800 Pro 128MB
2500+ Barton
1GB RAM
Windows 2k SP4

5.13 was ~20fps slower than 5.8 I'm using now, noticed this during LFS benchmarking with the max cfg. Didn't try anything else back then, disabling mirrors etc. Interestingly enough, the LFS menu had also some lag when using the new drivers.

danowat

7th January 2006, 08:20

I hate bumping posts, but I wondered has anyone else tried the "no mirrors" and seen the effect?, or any other news?.

Dan,

Scawen

7th January 2006, 10:21

Not yet apparently! I guess they are bored with installing drivers - i'm not surprised! :(

We only need a few people to confirm that mirrors make no difference, then we can assume it's nothing to do with mirrors.

Dan, your first sentence in yesterday's post is a bit unclear. I just want to be sure : you are saying that mirror settings make no difference at all, and it's just slow in all cases with Cat 5.12 and 5.13 drivers, even with mirrors off?

dUmAsS

7th January 2006, 10:49

i just updated to 5.13 and ran the benchmark replay.

on the old 5.7 drivers, the corner before the pit entry gets 70fps with mirrors on.

on the 5.13 i get 35fps with mirrors on. with mirrors off i get 70fps

AMD64 3000+ (single core)
1024mb Ram
X800 256mb VIVO

on the grid i get 20fps, i think before i had around 30-40

felplacerad

7th January 2006, 10:53

I'll just go ahead and confirm that turning off mirrors makes SOME difference, my fps drops from about 140 to 120 if i turn them on when im alone on the grid.

danowat

7th January 2006, 10:53

5.11 = My "normal" LFS S2 FPS 100+fps
5.12 = 15fps
5.13 = 20fps with mirrors,20fps without, i.e. no difference, also tested turning off HT by forcing the LFS.exe process to a single affinity, makes no difference, also tried ALL options for the ATI driver, again, makes no difference

Going back to 5.11 solves all FPS problem,

Now, something I did notice was this, when I load a car + track, the FPS start at my normal (100fps) then after a split second, just enough to notice the fps counter, it cycles down to 20fps

http://www.flightsin.com/ss61.jpg
http://www.flightsin.com/ss62.jpg
http://www.flightsin.com/ss63.jpg

Right, 3 shots taken at split seconds when loading a track, the first is just as its loaded, 160fps, then 100fps, then 23fps.

edit: actually mirrors DO make a very slight difference, maybe 5 fps

Dan,

GP4Flo

7th January 2006, 11:09

No difference in FPS between old (5.x) and 5.13 driver. My system specs:

ATI Radeon 9600 (Sapphire Atlantis) 128 MB AGP 4x, passive cooled
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (no HT) 2 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Win XP SP2, DirectX 9.0c

Scawen

7th January 2006, 11:57

I'll just go ahead and confirm that turning off mirrors makes SOME difference, my fps drops from about 140 to 120 if i turn them on when im alone on the grid.Thanks, yes, mirrors absolutely must make some difference to frame rate, as it is another draw of the world (at lower res) onto a texture. But the important point is, if the mirror draw is responsible for the slowdown.

The question is : For people who do experience the massive slowdown with the new drivers, try switching off mirrors, and now, with mirrors off, is the massive slowdown still apparent, or is it almost the same frame rate with 5.11 and 5.12/5.13. :)

Anyway, Dan's answer is that it's nothing to do with mirrors. Even with mirrors switched off, it runs incredibly slowly on the new drivers.

SparkyDave

7th January 2006, 12:52

There is still a big slowdown even with mirrors off , Its just it seems even worse with mirrors on :shrug: ,its sometimes hard to get an even fps because fps changes with the movement around the track and the more cars drawn ect ,
are the car reflections drawn on top of the cars texture? and are reflections drawn in mirror?
It seems the V mirror slowdown I get is not so drastic from last place car (with no cars in his mirror).

SD.

GP4Flo

7th January 2006, 13:21

You could try LFS S1 and switch on/off simple car to see if the reflections are causing the slowdown.

danowat

7th January 2006, 13:41

Right, just tried a quick online race, that was fun at 15fps, not, and if I turn the clocks off I get a big increase, from 15fps to about 45fps, not back to my "normal" speeds but a big increase non the less.
Virtual clocks or clocks "on" make no difference, but clocks OFF does.
Help at all?.

Dan,

samarius

7th January 2006, 13:51

I have gone back to 5.11 drivers because of the system taken up by the new CCC in the ATI drivers from 5.12 onwards, the control panel option has been dropped forcing users into the CCC config. I had evil fps drop across the board and used some tuning tips I garnered from a post in "another" forum, but even using the tips, which are a PITA to setup, the drop was still there just not quite as bad. I have recently bought an AX850XT AGP card to replace my 9600xt, still using the 9600xt atm tho cos the 850 was wrecked during delivery, along with an Audigy 4 and some other stuff, by the courier, so I will check again once it gets returned to see if the newer card suffers as badly.

Sys Spec
AMD 3000+ barton
1.5 gig PC2700
256 Sapphire 9600xt
Creative 5.1 digital

Sam

danowat

7th January 2006, 13:53

You can use the 5.12/13's sans CCC just by first installing the ATT (ATI Tray tools) and then downloading just the DRIVER from ATI, not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the performance in LFS.....

Dan,

JoeCool

7th January 2006, 16:56

P4 3,0 GHZ
512 MB
ATI X800 pro chip

no single frame less with 5.13, no matter if mirrors are on or off

iHomer

7th January 2006, 18:03

Is your p4 an HT one?

JoeCool

8th January 2006, 09:15

Is your p4 an HT one?

yes (im pretty sure :shy:)

Octane

8th January 2006, 13:01

After reading the problems with the 5.12/5.13 drivers i was "afraid" of installing them, but yesterday i tried them and got the following results :

Catalyst 5.11
---------------------------------------------------------------
2006-01-07 21:17:09 - LFS
Frames: 4297 - Time: 103135ms - Avg: 41.664 - Min: 27 - Max: 57

Catalyst 5.13
---------------------------------------------------------------
2006-01-07 22:55:56 - LFS
Frames: 4062 - Time: 103590ms - Avg: 39.212 - Min: 24 - Max: 55

So i experienced a minimal fps-loss of 2-3 frames. (I think its within measuring tolerance)

Its done withe the unofficial LFS benchmark.spr, but with my current config file.

I am NOT using the CCC (biggest POS ever) and my CPU has no dual-core / HT (Athlon XP 3200+).

Mirrors are are always turned on (real mirrors + virtual mirrors).

The Gfx-Card is quite old : ATI Radeon 9500 pro, all test done in 1360x1024x32 with 4xAA and 4xAF.

ATHome

8th January 2006, 15:19

I've wanted to run some test on my system, to check this issue with mirrors on/off, but unfortunatly (for the solving of this problem) my problems with the performance are gone. Don't know what I've done what could have solved it for me, but now it just runs as fast as ever.

Strange thing that I was affected by it before and now it is gone. It's a pity for Scawen that I couldn't help, but nice for me.

(HUN)ultiMate

8th January 2006, 17:33

I've ran a benchmark at Fe Green, 1 hotlap with xrg (spr).
AMD Athlon 2000+, 512 MB, Radoen9600XT 128MB, 800*600*32 no AA,AF

VGA driver, that came with the card (V7.991 i think):
2006-01-08 18:39:59 - LFS
Frames: 12281 - Time: 138360ms - Avg: 88.761 - Min: 66 - Max: 93

Cat 5.13:
2006-01-08 18:51:45 - LFS
Frames: 12084 - Time: 138594ms - Avg: 87.189 - Min: 62 - Max: 93

I haven't experienced any performance loss anywhere in LFS.

Scawen

8th January 2006, 17:54

Thanks everyone for the results.

My programmer friend Alex was able to reproduce this on his computer, in the debug and release versions of DirectX, and there were no error messages output from the debug version. So our current thinking is it still looks like a fault in the ATI drivers. Just strange that other games don't seem to be affected.

Anyway, i've written again to my ATI contact, and if i'm unable to get in contact with him, i will try another person at ATI.

danowat

8th January 2006, 18:52

I appreciate the continued support for this issue Scawen, I am glad that your friend was able to reproduce it, shame it cant be fixed at your end, but hopefully ATI will fix it their end.

Dan,

felplacerad

9th January 2006, 14:46

Yes, keep it up. :up:

i, just as others would also be glad to help out further if possible. i'll drop my specs again just for the record,

Windows XP x64
ATI Radeon x800 xt pe (asus)
Athlon a64 3200+

let me know if there's something in particular i can try which might help.

SladiVadi

10th January 2006, 06:38

Got a reply over at the Beyond3D forum.Looks like ATI folks are aware of the problem and trying to find a solution. :)

96 GTS

10th January 2006, 06:51

ATi Radeon 9550 256MB, 1024MB Ram, Intel P4 Prescott @ 2.8 GHz. I'm getting 90+ alone on the track, works like a charm running Cat 5.13s.

danowat

10th January 2006, 07:08

Got a reply over at the Beyond3D forum.Looks like ATI folks are aware of the problem and trying to find a solution. :)

Well, thats a start for sure, lets hope that they can solve it for the next release, don't really fancy dropping back to the 5.11's for the 2nd season of the ESL :thumb:.

Dan,

southamptonfc

10th January 2006, 10:53

P4 EE 3.4
X800XL 256MB AGP
ASUS P4P800-E
Win XP Pro SP1

I used to get 130+ fps with 5.11 drivers. With 5.13 I get 15-20fps!!!!

Turning mirrors off may increase the fps a little, but it is still not playable.

Billeh

10th January 2006, 18:41

i have tested with mirrors on mirrors virtual and off

mirros on = 20-30fps
mirrors on and virtual = 15 - 25 fps
mirrors off = 60 - 100 fps

machine is xp1700 / radeon 8500 64 meg ddr / 256ddr ram :(

BLooDMaN

11th January 2006, 09:57

I was playing with the graphic options and something strange happened with the Simple track (no car shadow) option, when I clicked on ALL my usual 10 fps went down to 2 using the cockpit view

axus

11th January 2006, 09:58

I was playing with the graphic options and something strange happened with the Simple track (no car shadow) option, when I clicked on ALL my usual 10 fps went down to 2 using the cockpit view

PC Specs?

sireric

11th January 2006, 21:24

SparkyDave

11th January 2006, 21:59

Just a note for ATI users: we have found the driver issue and have corrected it internally and are currently running it through QA. It will not make it into the Cat 6.1 release but we are looking into the best way to get it out to users.

Our Devrel and driver people should be in touch with the developers already, or shortly.

Thanks for reporting the bug and sorry for the inconveniences. For further problems, you can file a ticket under the www.ati.com (http://www.ati.com) website in the "my support" section of the drivers.

Great news :D:thumb::D maybe a hotfix? ;) so ... looking forward to the 6.2 release.

Thanks for the customer service. :thumb:

SD.

Scawen

11th January 2006, 22:25

Thanks for the info! :up:

AndroidXP

11th January 2006, 22:53

Wahoo. Tbh, I'm a bit surprised it's really ATi's fault :shy:. But then again I shouldn't, who am I to question Scawens code? :D

B2B@300

12th January 2006, 00:48

Tbh, I'm a bit surprised it's really ATi's fault.

No suprise really :thumb: it's a very BIG ask to get the many tousands of variations of hardware and software that we have in modern PCs to work floorlessly together :Looking_a pretty sure you will find most times the debugging process takes as long or longer than the original writing of the code :) It's fairly obvious that Scawen and Co put alot of effort into LFS in this area :scratchch

Well it's great too hear that the issue is being sorted out :D thanks sireric for the info.

Lino

12th January 2006, 04:45

I'm useing the CATALYST Version 5.13 and I have no Problems at all, 80-90fps. All settings on high.

AMD 64 2800+
ATI Radeon 9600xt 256mb
1gig of ddr ram

danowat

12th January 2006, 06:23

Just a note for ATI users: we have found the driver issue and have corrected it internally and are currently running it through QA. It will not make it into the Cat 6.1 release but we are looking into the best way to get it out to users.

Our Devrel and driver people should be in touch with the developers already, or shortly.

Thanks for reporting the bug and sorry for the inconveniences. For further problems, you can file a ticket under the www.ati.com (http://www.ati.com) website in the "my support" section of the drivers.

Arse, I could really have done with it being in the next release, looks like I will have to go back to the 5.11's AGAIN for the start of the ESL season :pillepall.
Maybe a BETA version will rear its head, or a hotfix, failing that does anyone have the 5.11 DRIVER ONLY?, not the "full pack" just the display driver.

Dan,

SparkyDave

12th January 2006, 07:26

anyone have the 5.11 DRIVER ONLY?, not the "full pack" just the display driver.

Dan,

Hey Dan just use the low speed option and you can D/L all the bits separately 5.11 here
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=27

Dan theres some MS hotfixes over at rage3d forums if you get any other X2 problems mine seems more stable after I installed them (dosent help with this game btw) .

SD.

danowat

12th January 2006, 07:34

Cheers Dave :)

Dan,

Scawen

12th January 2006, 10:09

It will not make it into the Cat 6.1 release but we are looking into the best way to get it out to users.Do you know approximately how long Cat 6.1 will be the default / official driver?

EDIT : Got my answer, below...

FlintFredstone

12th January 2006, 11:59

6.1 = year 6 = month 1

6.2 would be out approx feb 12th if we go by previous releases

Troy

Scawen

12th January 2006, 12:26

OK, thanks! One month is bearable. :)

FlintFredstone

12th January 2006, 12:42

sireric

12th January 2006, 18:30

If i remember correctly, they have 3 versions ahead in development (so they will be working on 6.3 and just 'fixing bugs' in 6.2/6.1), so if its a 'fundimental' problem we could be talking longer :(

Im lucky as i dont use an ati for my home/game machine, just here at work

Troy

Yes, we usually are around 3 releases or so. About 6~8 weeks for a specific bug fix to show up. I believe 6.2 will have this fix. We'll see if we can do a hotfix earlier.

As for lucky to not use an ATI for home/game, I think that's backwards. No other company is as consistent in updating drivers and fixing things; I believe we give the best game experience out there, both for the newest and for older HW. Certainly give the best visual experience.

SparkyDave

12th January 2006, 18:50

We'll see if we can do a hotfix earlier
:D :thumb: :D

Off topic ! Sireric . have you just downloaded LFS demo to test for this issue ? or have you played before? just wondering ,if the former what do you think of it? 1st impressions?

SD.

der_jackal

12th January 2006, 19:51

Yes, we usually are around 3 releases or so. About 6~8 weeks for a specific bug fix to show up. I believe 6.2 will have this fix. We'll see if we can do a hotfix earlier.

As for lucky to not use an ATI for home/game, I think that's backwards. No other company is as consistent in updating drivers and fixing things; I believe we give the best game experience out there, both for the newest and for older HW. Certainly give the best visual experience.

I'm lucky I use an x1800xl at home. ;)

I'm just a little miffed this issue slipped through the QA / regression testing because I'm pretty sure it's causing my slow down in GTR as well. Oh well, I'm going to roll back to 5.11 and wait for the package update.

sireric

12th January 2006, 21:47

:D :thumb: :D

Off topic ! Sireric . have you just downloaded LFS demo to test for this issue ? or have you played before? just wondering ,if the former what do you think of it? 1st impressions?

SD.

No, I personally haven't. I'll give it a whirl this week or this weekend.

sireric

12th January 2006, 21:49

I'm lucky I use an x1800xl at home. ;)

I'm just a little miffed this issue slipped through the QA / regression testing because I'm pretty sure it's causing my slow down in GTR as well. Oh well, I'm going to roll back to 5.11 and wait for the package update.

That I agree with. However, it's difficult to get everything tested, in every mode. Especially for such as significant code change. But you can use 5.11 for now. Or you can force single CPU (not a good idea, imo) mode :-)

der_jackal

12th January 2006, 21:57

That I agree with. However, it's difficult to get everything tested, in every mode.

Trust me, I know. ;)

See what happens when you hold a SpinLock for too long? (just taking a stab at the problem, never got it hooked up to a debugger..hehehe)

FlintFredstone

13th January 2006, 08:19

Yes, we usually are around 3 releases or so. About 6~8 weeks for a specific bug fix to show up. I believe 6.2 will have this fix. We'll see if we can do a hotfix earlier.

As for lucky to not use an ATI for home/game, I think that's backwards. No other company is as consistent in updating drivers and fixing things; I believe we give the best game experience out there, both for the newest and for older HW. Certainly give the best visual experience.

Sireric, i wasnt having a go at ati, just saying im lucky because of the problem with lfs :)

BTW i was an ati owner at home at one time, unfortunately it was a rage 128 so i find it dificult to 'gamble' my money when thinking about getting an ati, i was seriously thinking of getting a 800xt last time out, but i chickened out (NV 7800GT now)

Troy

danowat

13th January 2006, 08:32

KiDCoDEa

13th January 2006, 12:30

I have had ATI since my 9800, and have thought it was the best since, but the FEAR and this LFS episode makes me think otherwise.
Now come upgrade time I will seriously consider an Nvidia alternative.

Dan,

having alternatives is always a good thing. i dunno about fear episode and couldnt careless (nv user for desktop here) but the lfs "thing" seems to me like its having the proper support and fix from ati. they even posted here.

Fordman

13th January 2006, 12:35

WOW, now thats dedicated support for ya. NV user here also, always have been, but I have to say , :thumb: to ATI for this support and answers, now where is that NV Guru I saw :D

danowat

14th January 2006, 18:42

Any news of a hot fix? would be handy, not sure how long I can hold off returning to the 5.11's :(

Dan,

iNfa-ReD

15th January 2006, 11:23

9800XT

P4c 2.8 @ 3.1 with HT

Usually get 100fps +

With 5.13 I get less than 10! :( :( :(

lowgoods

18th January 2006, 16:47

As the problem has been found in the driver code, can it be specified in more detail what sort of hardware is affected? Is it all ATI cards in general? Thx...

danowat

18th January 2006, 17:06

It seems to affect a particular combination, that being an Intel HT P4, or a dual core AMD, and an ATI card.

Dan,

lowgoods

18th January 2006, 18:29

It seems to affect a particular combination, that being an Intel HT P4, or a dual core AMD, and an ATI card.

Thanks for the info. This matches my setup exactly. So I'll stay with the 5.11 drivers for the time being... :smileypul

vari

18th January 2006, 23:26

Cat 6.1 is out.

deggis

19th January 2006, 00:22

Is the bug fixed in 6.1? Can't see any mention about it in here: http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3521

I've never even tried 5.12 nor 5.13 because I have oldish 9500 Pro so I don't care to install every new driver but I'm just curious. :)

EDIT: doh, should have read that previous page. :D

Lino

19th January 2006, 00:22

Cat 6.1 is out.

Thanx!

Agent248

19th January 2006, 01:45

Just to let you guys know, the Cat 6.1 doesn't solve our problem. I know it was said probably in the 6.2, but I couldn't restrain myself from trying them :P

edit: spelling

danowat

19th January 2006, 06:27

Just to let you guys know, the Cat 6.1 doesn't solve our problem. I know it was said probably in the 6.2, but I couldn't restrain myself from trying them :P

edit: spelling

Arse, come on ATI at the very least please, please release a hotfix :D

Dan,

vari

19th January 2006, 10:57

I couldn't resist trying them either. I did some testing with LFS Bench and 5.11/6.1 gave me identical results. Not a big surprise though since I never had any slowdowns to begin with. So it's okay to install these if you never had any probs like me.

sireric

19th January 2006, 19:12

Arse, come on ATI at the very least please, please release a hotfix :D

Dan,

Working on it, but can't promise it...

NB: In fact, I can't get them to release a hotfix. Cat 6.2 will be out in roughly 2.5 weeks, and should fix this.

SladiVadi

19th January 2006, 20:05

Go ATI, go! :D

eraser_svk

20th January 2006, 17:19

i have R9550 @ 502/605MHZ, flashed to 9600xt, MSI K7N2 Delta, CPU AThlonXP 2400+ @ 2310Mhz and i did'n notice any change between 5.11, 5.12,5.13 drivers... all fine

deggis

20th January 2006, 21:16

sireric: Just curious lol, do you actually play LFS or did you just get the license to test LFS and the driver issue? You work for ATI, right? :)

SparkyDave

20th January 2006, 21:44

Thanks for the info :)

SD.

B2B@300

21st January 2006, 06:04

sireric: Just curious lol, do you actually play LFS or did you just get the license to test LFS and the driver issue? You work for ATI, right? :)

He was a demo user on the earlier post so he's just got it :D now if we can get the majority of ati guys into LFS we would have great support :razz: even surround gaming support for 3 monitors :tilt: :shy: :scratchch :D

Jakg

21st January 2006, 07:36

It seems to affect a particular combination, that being an Intel HT P4, or a dual core AMD, and an ATI card.

Dan,hmmm, i have an AMD Athlon 2800, which isnt dual core, and an ATi 9600 XT, so your suggesting it would work ok... i may have to try it, althogh id rather wait and try the new 6.2's when they come out

sireric

23rd January 2006, 22:53

sireric: Just curious lol, do you actually play LFS or did you just get the license to test LFS and the driver issue? You work for ATI, right? :)

I personally would rather play than "test", but both will get done. Since this is "my" license, well... :-)

sTyleFree

24th January 2006, 13:53

Vain

24th January 2006, 14:20

Welcome to the forum, sTyleFree.
1. There is no AA/AF setting in the game.
2. The CCC setting overrules the game-setting, if you tell the CCC to do so.

Vain

danowat

24th January 2006, 14:28

Sees new post........please be a fix,please be a fix,please be a fix, DOH!!!

Dan,

Doorman

24th January 2006, 15:18

Sees new post........please be a fix,please be a fix,please be a fix, DOH!!!

Dan,

In the words made famous by LFS forums aaaalll over the world "It'll be ready when it's ready" :D

sTyleFree

24th January 2006, 16:38

As seen on the screenshot (follow the link) I've got everything enabled in CCC..any solutions or at least suggestions? :|

-> Click me (http://www.scottyonline.de/lfs_noaf.jpg)

SladiVadi

24th January 2006, 17:01

Maybe try Radlinker (http://www28.brinkster.com/chrisww1942/).

bbman

24th January 2006, 18:09

As seen on the screenshot (follow the link) I've got everything enabled in CCC..any solutions or at least suggestions? :|

-> Click me (http://www.scottyonline.de/lfs_noaf.jpg)
Woah, where did you get your background from? :jawdrop: *me wants it :)*

bobbfwed

24th January 2006, 18:22

I have an x800 Pro and have run most of the old Cat5 drivers had have never had a problem. I am now using the Cat 6.1 and I still am getting 90+fps with all settings all the way up. I just wish this game could push my video card a bit more.
My stats:
AMD 2500+ Barton (OC to 2.18Ghz -- 3200+ speeds)
1.5GB DDR
x800 Pro (OC to 447Mhz core and 565Mhz mem)

sTyleFree

24th January 2006, 18:27

Woah, where did you get your background from? :jawdrop: *me wants it :)*
It's the "Road to S2" Wallpaper by n!incognito, I found it at the German LfS-Forums of 4Players.de on page #19 (click me, I'm a link (http://lfs.foren.4players.de/viewtopic.php?p=114761#114761))

Anyway, gonna try Radlinker now.

e.
hm, Radlinker doesn't seem to control AA/AF at all - there is no option like that. Only Clock Rate and Colors are editable :/

Bean0

24th January 2006, 18:58

It appears I'm unable to activate Antisoptric Filtering and Anti-Aliasing ingame. Since I've already activated both options in the Catalyst Control Center 5.11 (the newer driver versions are quite buggy, and I'm experiencing the same problem with them anyway) at 6x/16x and it's still deactivated ingame I'm guessing there is an ingame option overruling my CCC settings.
Is there such an option ingame? Or a bugfix either?

I use the 5.11 Cats with ATI Tray Tools (http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=733).

I have a game profile set up within ATI Tray Tools for LFS with AA and AF enabled which is automatically applied when LFS.exe is run. On exiting LFS, the graphics settings revert to whatever they were set at beforehand.

I have been led to believe that the ATI Tray Tools app actually works with Nvidia cards as well, but I don't have one to try it with.

SladiVadi

24th January 2006, 19:02

e.
hm, Radlinker doesn't seem to control AA/AF at all - there is no option like that. Only Clock Rate and Colors are editable :/

Hm, there should be a 3D tab. I remember having this too and I reinstalled either my drivers or Windows. :P

edit:
There are driver cleaners available. Never tried them though.

sTyleFree

24th January 2006, 19:20

Hm, with ATi Tray Tools set to maximum quality settings I get about 2x or 4x Anti-Aliasing, but no Antisoptric Filltering..arghs X_x

iNfa-ReD

25th January 2006, 19:19

sireric

27th January 2006, 20:33

Edit: Haha oops I was looking at the wrong page

Any word on if the new Cat will fix this problem? The latest one doesnt have it in the know issues section :(

Plus Omega Drivers are no different for me :/

Anybody try these (not sure on the revs of these): http://download.hightech.com.hk/driver/Radeon_8_203_1900/8.203.4-051211a-028709C-ATI.zip

I know that the X1900 drivers we put out for x64 do fix the problem. Otherwise, it will be Cat 6.2

SparkyDave

28th January 2006, 14:14

Anybody try these (not sure on the revs of these): http://download.hightech.com.hk/driver/Radeon_8_203_1900/8.203.4-051211a-028709C-ATI.zip

I am getting an Inf error "no video driver found" when installing in xp pro

are these the CD drivers for the 1900?

I will continue trying to install its probably me

SD

SHIFT_

30th January 2006, 16:22

I had the problem where 5.12 and 5.13 generally didn't perform as well as the latest 6.1, big performance loss. Updating to 6.1 helps quite a lot. :thumbsup:

cohagen

30th January 2006, 19:11

Does the latest 6.1 driver from ATI fix this problem?

Jakg

30th January 2006, 19:36

Does the latest 6.1 driver from ATI fix this problem?no, aparently 6.2 will, but that will be out soon

danowat

9th February 2006, 11:31

Anyone try these > http://www.nordichardware.com/news,2979.html

Dan,

Kashopi

9th February 2006, 11:47

I have 6.1 and no problems ...

SparkyDave

9th February 2006, 20:12

6.2 cat is out ! :D

SD.

sireric

9th February 2006, 21:26

6.2 cat is out ! :D

SD.

Yep. It should fix the issue. Let me know if there's a problem.

iHomer

9th February 2006, 21:36

Currently I am not in front of my "big" computer, so I can't test if the game runs smooth now, but I can see no reference at all to the game problem in the release notes. Let's hope they missed up typing it... If anyone tests it please tell

SparkyDave

9th February 2006, 21:58

just tested on my dual core pc all is fine so far ,better than 5.11 by a few fps .

Thanks ATI and sireric ;)

SD.

dUmAsS

9th February 2006, 22:39

hmm, live for speed isnt mentioned in the release notes!

danowat

10th February 2006, 06:15

6.2 cat is out ! :D

SD.

WOOHOO just intime for mondays ERCC race :):D

Yeah, worrying that, no mention of LFS in the release notes, only a few hours till home time, so I'll find out for sure soon.

edit: can confirm LFS is now back to its former glory :)

Dan,

Agent248

10th February 2006, 13:28

edit: can confirm LFS is now back to its former glory :)

Dan,

I can confirm it too, everything is fine now. Live for Speed isn't listed in the resolved bug of the Cat 6.2 but the problem is solved.

shim

11th February 2006, 15:52

even tho ima nV user, mad props to sireric and Scawen for working with each other to sort out the issues.. tis wha a game should have, heaps of support from the devs and manufactures.. dunno how many games have turned arse end up cause of lack of dev support cause distributers bailed out for support..

Jakg

11th February 2006, 15:59

hmmmmm, use the Omegas my self, they on 6.2 yet?

EDIT:Obviously not!

theblackrabbi

11th February 2006, 20:25

X800XT 256mb memory 5.12 and 5.13 of any description, any configuration, AA-AF on or off, 10-15fps
I've also got another machine with a 9700pro and get the same problem.Try the omega drivers for ATI based cards. I have the x800xt same as you,and I was getting like 30fps no matter what the setting. Now that I downloading the OMEGA Drivers it runs at 120fps or greater.

neRu

12th February 2006, 09:00

You guys, check this out:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2082/catalyst8iw.jpg (http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=catalyst8iw.jpg)
Thats my graphic settings, set pretty low you see (Catalyst 6.2)

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5269/screenshot8cr.jpg (http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot8cr.jpg)
Thats an ingame screenshot. I can live with that graphic, but take a look at my FPS. It's totally unplayable :(

What do i have to do?

My computer:
3 GHz P4 Prescott HT
2x 256mb DDR, dualchannel
128 megs radeon 9250 (The tv-out on my XT/TD 9600 went out of order, when i moved my computer - cant get any signal - so bought a 9250)
60gigs something hdd
Onboard sound, lan, etc.

It really can't be true that it runs so low framerates - it's not that bad a computer! Help me - i'm desperate!

neRu

12th February 2006, 09:02

Oh, and i probably should tell, that with the 9600 xt/td - at same settings, it does not get over 25 FPS. I have shortly seen 30, but that where when i held still, and looked into a wall!

wien

12th February 2006, 12:41

It really can't be true that it runs so low framerates - it's not that bad a computer! Help me - i'm desperate!Well, you are running 1280x1024 with 2X AA and AF on a Radeon 9250. That is a seriously low-end card. Try checking the "Let application decide" boxes in the Catalyst Control Center, and try lowering your resolution. 1024x768 og 800x600 or something.

GP4Flo

12th February 2006, 12:48

With my Radeon 9600 I get about 40-60 FPS, with full details and 2x AA and AF, so there's probably something wrong with your settings. Check if Hardware Vertex Shading is enabled in the LFS graphic options.

Jakg

12th February 2006, 13:42

mrodgers

12th February 2006, 14:27

neRU, I just bought a new PC, AMD 64 3500 but it only has onboard gfx (ati chip with 256 mb shared). I have a 9250 (256 mb)as well from the old PC and tossed it in just to test and got the same results. The 9250 is a very old and outdated card. My onboard was better due to faster system ram than the card ram.

A note: My 9250 is almost brand new as well. I had just bought it for the old system as it was the best card I could do in it and it WAS better than the 8 mb onboard. But it is such a slow card, that current onboard gfx offerings are better.

wien

12th February 2006, 16:29

With my Radeon 9600 I get about 40-60 FPS, with full details and 2x AA and AF, so there's probably something wrong with your settings.But the 9250 is a completely different animal though. The 9600 was middle to high end when it was launched, but the 9250 was low-end... three generations ago. I wouldn't expect that card to deliver playable framerates with AA and AF enabled. Especially not in that resolution. I mean, LFS itself costs more than that card right now. :)

Octane

12th February 2006, 17:36

I also had a Radeon 9250 after my 9800pro had died (it was cheap and i thought it will do the job), but the 9250 card is really crap. I replaced the new 9250 with a old 9500 pro and even this old gfx-card is much faster than the 9250.

Hallen

13th February 2006, 06:22

Well, 6.2 didn't help me.
Dell 3GHz HT
ATi X700 PCIE
2.5G RAM

After installing just the drivers, I got 75FPS (I use screen sync)... for a while. Then it tanked after playing for a little while. It would also slow way down and stutter for no apparent reason. I was getting 40-60FPS.
I tried the OMEGA drivers, and frankly, they were worse. I kept the tools installed for checking temps and all that, but if it is running, LFS will not start.
Anyway, I switched back to 5.11 and my frames are back to 60-75. This is with 4x AA and 16x AF, full quality settings.

Jonesy_

14th February 2006, 07:38

Yea, I´m having similar issues as hallen here, the fps seems to be a bit higher than with the 5.11, but it starts to stutter after playing for 30mins or so.

But, I´m seriously thinking my GFX is braking down, not sure tho.

But, I didn´t have that stuttering with the 5.11, need to try those again to see the results, after I get home today.

-J