120101 - Coastal Rush 5 - Fullrun 1/10

[TheGreenMonster (PC)]

just to compare notes here,, I don't use any third party encoder I just use virtualdub and use the encoder inside that, and my file sizes are around 1.1GB

After fraps they are around 2GB quarter screen, and compress down to 1.1GB

Just a side note "Poul going to be 40 yrs on Sunday 01/01/12

Dec 30, 2011 18:41:14 GMT Grnkjr0 said:

I think it is because Aaron´s PC is too slow...be it video card or CPU. I also noticed this in a video posted on EA forum, where some guy did the Live Free or Drive Hard challenge. When you time that guys video, you get a 7-8 sec difference - he also uploaded to Youtube. He was asked about this and replied it was because FRAPS slowed down his run and that it actually did not look like that in the original video.

Aaron you ever noticed similar like this with the Run before in any of your videos? It would be interesting to find out what is the cause of this. I record in full-size and 1920x1080 and then I usually have 4-5 gigabyte of video that I encode with ffdshow and compress using virtualdub. That way I am able to upload a 1080p video to Youtube and they will not downsize my video, but show it like it is.

Poul

[Grnkjr0]

Sunny I am gonna be 41 - do your math

I am pretty sure Aaron´s problem can be fixed. Aaron try to record the same run in a smaller resolution like 1280x780 or whatever resolution around those numbers. Just to see if having more fps available when recording has something to do with this.

You could try to run Badaboom and see if it makes a difference. Have you bought the program or do you have more "free" trial runs left to use? Otherwise I can tell you how to get the full program for free if you PM me about it.

It could also be the settings you use when running FRAPS? Do you record with 30 or more fps? Do you see a constant 30 fps in left upper corner when recording? We all know FRAPS to be very demanding in hardware terms to use, so maybe try again record a run, but this time use MSI Afterburner instead? It has a free recording program to use, and it works just as well as FRAPS. Have you even got MSI Afterburner running when you play? I know I have to enable MSI Afterburner when playing The Run - otherwise my system will lock, because my video cards do not get enough voltage and air on auto - so I always crank up everything - to avoid any throttling.

I have never had any problems with my videos, so it would be hard for me to speculate on what is going on here. But try what i suggested and tell me what happens.

Poul

[aarog5606]

I might try MSI afterburner, i noticed it had video capture.
With fraps, i record at 30 fps. I was recording at 60 and that was the problem i was having before with the lag. Since i changed it to 30 fps while recording, i get around 25 to 28 fps which sucks, but with this game still doable.
I know that my Shift videos are correct and i havent changed anything other than recording fps in fraps from 60 to 30, i use the same programs and encoders, everything goes to the same folders. I would get 80+ fps in Shift but only rarely 30 fps with The Run. Logic tells me its because of the low frame rate which comes from a slow cpu. So actually the problem will be fixed when i finally upgrade my PC in 3 to 4 weeks. Until then, im not really worried about it.

[wizard70]

Aaron I have set Fraps to record to a USB external drive. It helps a lot with frame rate. I record at 30fps and half size then compress with Windows Movie Maker using one of the following compression sizes (choose the one that suits you).
Video for local playback(2.1Mps)
Video for local playback(1.5Mps)
High quality video large.

If you are on Win7 just download movie maker from the Microsoft download site.

Vdub is great but a pain in the butt to use. Movie maker is straight forward and simple. Anyone needing help using it can PM me.

B

[Grnkjr0]

I have made some tests these last 2-3 hours to see what is going on here. I found out what is the problem - need time to write it all down and analyze.

Poul

[Grnkjr0]

Hey!

We all know this game was developed for PS3, which means that this title and some in the past are very CPU demanding. I decided to test things and see why Aaron´s videos seem to be slowed down compared to actual render time. I found out that largely it is because of a CPU bottleneck and no matter what - there is no current solution to his problem - other than replace his CPU.

I made several tests this morning and found out, that no matter what clock speed your CPU or your graphics card is - you will see choppy gameplay if you do not have a CPU with at least 4 cores (quad) - even with SLI enabled. So upgrading to a SLI solution by buying an additional similar graphics card - will do nothing for this problem with choppy game rendering.

I made some tests playing with my CPU and graphics cards - changing CPU clock speed, disabling cores, lowering GPU clock speed and without SLI - even changing CPU/GPU PhysX dedication.

I first disabled SLI on my two 460GTX and tried to see if I could lower my GPU clock speed, so that I could get below 30 fps - but impossible. Then I started testing things with 2 cores on my CPU only.

I set CPU for 3.0 GHz, with two cores only ( I own a quad i7 920), multithreading enabled and only one 460 GTX with CPU dedicated PhysX. I tried to do a time around 2.27-2.28 in Midnight Rush and after I had recorded my run, I opened up the video file and timed how much of a time lose there was. In the video compared to actual time - using my build in stop watch on my G15 keyboard - I saw that it had lost 9-10 sec compared to actual time.

I then ran the same but with GPU dedicated PhysX - time lose was 5-6 secs.

Now with SLI enabled and CPU dedicated Physx - 5-6 secs.
With SLI, but with GPU dedicated PhysX - 5-6 secs.

Now this tells me that once you only have two cores enabled and you use CPU as PhysX accelerator - the CPU becomes an even bigger bottleneck - compared to when you have GPU dedicated for PhysX acceleration. This makes perfectly sense, but I was unable to verify this, because when I opened up Nvidia control panel and set "show PhysX indicator - nothing appeared on the screen when gaming. This means (I think), that they do not use PhysX acceleration. If they had used PhysX acceleration, but as software only and not hardware accelerated - then at least it would had shown it was the CPU which did PhysX. But I have searched the net for answers to this, but could not find anything mentioning NFS The Run and Physx. It seems that CPU is bottleneck here, so using SLI will have no effect with a 30 fps cap.

I then cranked up the clock speed to 4.0 Ghz - still with only two cores enabled and no SLI - only one 460GTX.

With CPU as dedicated to PhysX - 2-3 sec lost in video compared to actual time.
With GPU as dedicated to PhysX - 5-6 secs lost.

This means that upping your CPU clock speed will give you less time lose, but strangely only when CPU do the PhysX. Why is this? I have no idea because I can not find any information to whether PhysX is even present in this game or if only software implements (pretty sure it is that if anything though). It is developed for that shitty PS3 console - so no reason to give the option of hardware acceleration using your graphics card.

I decided there was no reason to test using SLI at 4.0 GHz - we all ready established SLI had no effect with only 2 cores.

I then enabled all 4 cores and set CPU to 3.0 GHz with only one 460GTX.

No time lost either with CPU dedicated or GPU as dedicated for PhysX.

What does this tells us? Well, If you own a 2 Core CPU, best choice to see some better game rendering, would perhaps be to either upgrade your CPU or crank up the clock speed. Buying a 2nd graphics card, will not do anything for you if you are bottlenecked by your CPU - makes sense.

EA has made some damn CPU demanding games lately and this is because they are ported from console. I read that even those with a PS3 (which are the target buyers) experience a lot of problems with graphics. I have no doubt it is because their PS3 gets too hot - so to you who lives in warm places - put your PS3 in the refrigerator and enjoy your game You rather not follow my suggestion though

What about us PC owners - how do we avoid choppy gameplay? I could not help notice how poor the rendering and how choppy gameplay felt when using only two cores on my CPU. Everything felt as if it was undergoing slower. When I ran Midnight Rush with two cores - it felt as if the cars had slowed down so there really is a difference from playing using a quad core as to a 2 core CPU - even the loading times were terrible.

What to do about it? Go upgrade your current PC system, because EA will likely not do anything about it! We have been waiting for a patch now for too damn long - but any info on the matter is non existing.

Please share your thoughts and ideas....

NB: I of course have all the videos and stuff, but see no point in uploading that many videos and pictures.

Poul

[wizard70]

Dec 30, 2011 12:31:55 GMT aarog5606 said:

Thanks Brian,
The youtube video time was 2:51 and the original took 2:25 as it should.

Evidently it was only the You Tube video that was slow not the original recording Poul. But thanks for all the trouble you went to testing. You must be on holiday.

B

[wizard70]

Here is my best effort. The Ai or As are a pain and the highway is wall to wall cars for me and it just got my blood pressure up so consider this my entry. My sound finishes the in 2m23 odd can I claim that as a race time?






2m27.60 - Wizard70 - Aston One77 - 0 Resets

[Grnkjr0]

Dec 31, 2011 15:01:41 GMT wizard70 said:

Dec 30, 2011 12:31:55 GMT aarog5606 said:

Thanks Brian,
The youtube video time was 2:51 and the original took 2:25 as it should.

Evidently it was only the You Tube video that was slow not the original recording Poul. But thanks for all the trouble you went to testing. You must be on holiday.

B

That would make absolutly no sense. Aaron uses the same programs for making youtube videos as I do, and then I too would have that problem. I know Aaron wrote it was only the compressed video - but could he be wrong? When using FRAPS people see a 5-6 sec time difference when recording a video - check out this thread about the problem at EA forum:

forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7766602.page

I am pretty sure Aaron has choppy gameplay and that the game speed is slowed down when he record a video - but lets ask if that is his problem.

Brian just try to set your CPU with 2 cores only and see what happens when you use FRAPS and record a video - real easy to test if I might add - would be better than just assume I am wrong about this.

Poul

[aarog5606]

Dec 31, 2011 15:01:41 GMT wizard70 said:

Dec 30, 2011 12:31:55 GMT aarog5606 said:

Thanks Brian,
The youtube video time was 2:51 and the original took 2:25 as it should.

Evidently it was only the You Tube video that was slow not the original recording Poul. But thanks for all the trouble you went to testing. You must be on holiday.

B

No, the original was 2:25, the video made with virtualdub was 2:51, the video on youtube uploaded from virtualdub video is 2:51. Like i said, it happens during compression. Brian, i can assure you Poul is right and we will see soon enough. What other explaination is there? Other than what you are thinking(im not stupid by any means).

Poul, Thanks for all your work and testing, you proved what i have been suspecting is the problem. I will get a new Motherboard and cpu, probably the fastest they have out as of now. I have to wait until the end of January to make sure i will have enough tax money put back, im sure i do now, but until my CPA does all the figures i wont know for sure. Damn taxes!, i love my country but i hate my government!

P.S. For shits and giggles, i will use my original video of my last PBRC video and use movie maker to compress and see the difference, since i already have it installed. I dont know how to use it yet, but im sure i can figure it out. If it helps then i will use movie maker and not virtualdub for now on. It will be tomorrow or later next week though. Unless things change on todays schedule.

[Grnkjr0]

I ran and timed the 10 sec video I recorded once more. I must have been a bit off this morning, because it is only 7-8 sec, but I also tried timing it again once it was compressed using VirtualDub - no change. This is with all 4 cores enabled, but should make no difference - only rendering time.

Poul

Aaron you could also upload your original file to Youtube, should be no more than 1.5 GB, so easy to do.

[aarog5606]

Dec 31, 2011 16:27:37 GMT Grnkjr0 said:

Aaron you could also upload your original file to Youtube, should be no more than 1.5 GB, so easy to do.

You can? Well that would simplify things! Is there a catch? With no need for compression, it will eliminate the time difference in the videos and the time it takes to make the video, sounds good to me!

P.S. Ahhh, i see, im uploading to youtube now, it is alot slower uploading, 40 minutes left! Oh well, we will see if there is a time difference at least.

-Upload finished, still a time difference, 2:51 again.

[TheGreenMonster (PC)]

Well I guess I'll take my whimpy old 2.29.90 and post it


2.29.90 TGreenMonster 0 resets

[Jussi]

Not sure if I have time to do this tomorrow,

so here's my crappy try, which will no doubt put me on the last place again...


2:36.87 - ISRC-Jussi - AM One-77 - 2 resets

Jussi

[wizard70]

Dec 31, 2011 15:41:47 GMT aarog5606 said:

P.S. For shits and giggles, i will use my original video of my last PBRC video and use movie maker to compress and see the difference, since i already have it installed. I dont know how to use it yet, but im sure i can figure it out. If it helps then i will use movie maker and not virtualdub for now on. It will be tomorrow or later next week though. Unless things change on todays schedule.

Windows movie maker is so simple it is a snap.

Import the original. Select all the frames and drag them to the story board. Then depending what version you have, on the old version in the left panel (3. Finish Movie) Save to my computer: Give name and save location. NEXT (other settings) I use Video for local playback (2.1Mps) That will compress A 1.5Gb file to about 35Mb.

The newer version differs only in the Save movie which is in the File Menu of the Menu bar.

B