Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Haha, I can get 333fps in JA with a GeForce4 Ti4200 in SP and MP. Check the screenie: Is this...uh...normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Chewy289 Haha, I can get 333fps in JA with a GeForce4 Ti4200 in SP and MP. Check the screenie: Is this...uh...normal? I guess it could be...but its not going to matter unless you have your screen refresh all the way up. >< 50-100 is optimum for most monitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfire13 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I'd guess you're not running with all your settings on maximum. I've got a GF4Ti4200 as well. I don't get 333fps. My FPS is usually around 60 to 80, but that's at 1152x864x32bit with all settings on maximum. If you're getting that kinda framerate, you might want to think about raising your details levels or resolution. Otherwise, it's just going to go to waste. Nobody can tell the difference between 300fps and 100fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Since the dawn of Q3 it has mattered, FPS affects in-game physics, certain FPS values increase the physics to your advantage...admittedly in a game like JA the effect will not be as noticeable as games like Elite Force/Quake 3, but it's still there. It helps with stuff like jumping higher, dodging faster, increases fire rate (slightly but it means u can give off a second round that little bit faster). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 All my game settings are max, refresh rate is lowest possible, monitor resolution is 1024x768, GeForce4 Ti4200, and I can get 300fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdomwinds Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 if that geforce one of the top of the line cards? Mine is a lame mobile geforce4 440 go. I get 50 or 60 max at 1024 X 768 with everything turned up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 If you edit your cfg file to remove the cap of 85 FPS, then yes, anything is possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 I just got it up to 500fps in MP with everything at highest setting. No I have a cheaper GeForce4 Ti, only $100 Just do this: r_dynamicglow 0 and com_maxfps 500 Load a multiplayer map, and look at your FPS! Updated screenshot of 500fps: http://216.118.116.39/fps.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 don't stare at the ground/corners when bench marking. load up that episode 1 duel map and take in as much of the map as you can (FOV), you won't get 500 fps on max quality settings on any card, let alone a low end one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfire13 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I'm getting about 80fps on my GF4Ti4200 (with EAX turned off). I do, however, have dynamic glow on. That seems to me to be th only difference. Would turning that off make so much of a difference? Almost 4 times increase in FPS? Oh, and yes. My maxfps is set to 100. I never reach 100, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy289 Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Stafire13 I'm getting about 80fps on my GF4Ti4200 (with EAX turned off). I do, however, have dynamic glow on. That seems to me to be th only difference. Would turning that off make so much of a difference? Almost 4 times increase in FPS? Oh, and yes. My maxfps is set to 100. I never reach 100, though. With a 4200 try what I do: com_maxfps 200 r_dynamicglow 0 Set the maxfps to 200 not 100, and dynamic glow does make a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdomwinds Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 how many of you can run the game smoothly with anti aliasing on? I get like 20 fps or 10 with it turned on. So i just leave it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Ardent The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective. That's not actually true. You don't see in frames, your eyes don't have a refresh rate. Your eyes are constantly taking in streams of light and images. You can really "perceive hundreds of frames per second", although you're not going to notice it going over about 60 to 100, simply because the extra stuff, even if you are seeing it, is unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 By the way, is dynamic glow causing extreme slowness for everyone else? How about you guys on nVidia cards? I can't understand why it's so damn slow, even when there's no glowing stuff on my screen, I still only get like 30 FPS! And this is on my Athlon XP 2000+, Radeon 9700 Pro and 768 MB of PC2100... Before I thought it was only a problem on ATI cards, but you guys seem to be having trouble with it, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardent Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Emon That's not actually true. You don't see in frames, your eyes don't have a refresh rate. Your eyes are constantly taking in streams of light and images. You can really "perceive hundreds of frames per second", although you're not going to notice it going over about 60 to 100, simply because the extra stuff, even if you are seeing it, is unnecessary. Well obviously eyes don't refresh. I should have put that in quotation marks, but whatever. The point is the average human simply can't make use of more than 50fps. Some people can make use of up to 100fps, but...you're not one. >< The testees who could make use of that many fps are all military fighter pilots (and maybe a stuntman, can't remember clearly). Professional gamers ranked in somewhere around 80fps...and these are the people who make a living doing what most of us do for fun. You can "take in" as many fps as a computer can generate, but you'll only make use of about 50 of them per second, on average. Those frames are the only frames the optical nerve ignites the nervous synapse to the part of the brain determining reaction. So...anything else really is fluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Eh, it's higher than that. I notice FPS drops all the time from 85 to 60, it's not that hard. I don't notice them in play, nor do I care, only when I'm looking. Military pilots saw and identified planes that were flashed on a screen in 1/220th of a second, most everyone would see the flash (no matter how short it would seem to them), but without practice, they couldn't recognize the plane like the pilots can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoJiTa Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Ardent The average human being's eyesight only refreshes at around 45-50fps. A professional-level gamer may be pushing 100, but anything beyond that is just wasted, both from a hardware standpoint and from a human capability perspective. Actually, if you had any level of familiarity with the quake 3 engine you'd realise that certain frame rates boost your movement. Human capability and whatever doesn't matter, and nobody uses certain framerates for that reason anyway, it's purely for a gameplay boost. The most desired frame rate is generally 125fps, seeing as it's easy to maintain this rate without heavily tweaking the graphics, and that it 'boosts' the distance you jump, which means faster strafe-jumping and slightly longer jumps. There are other frame rate values that give the same effect, 125 is just about the best, but there are some that are fractionally better, I think. Here's some links with more info on it: http://ucguides.savagehelp.com/Quake3/FAQFPSJumps.html http://q3tricks.quakexpert.com/tutorials/framerate.htm Frame rate matters because the physics system is dependent on frame rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I must admit that I'm interested to see the full screenshot with 500fps as a comparison here is what i get with the rig specs:- 1280 x 1024 4xAA 16xAF High Quality textures and detail settings (everything max in OpenGL driver settings) The rig is an XP2500 @ 223x11 (~2.5Ghz) 512 Mb DDR3500 (2-3-3-10) Radeon 9800 non pro @ 411/357 (20k in 3dmark01) My framerate hovers between 150 & 200 in most maps and in some of the more complex maps it drops to 75 heres a screeny:- basically once you go above 60fps slowdown is unperceptible so if you have a mad amout of frames per second why not use that excess power to improve image quality with stuff like Anti Aliasing & Anisotropic Filtering. IQ is the real bonus of todays graphics cards, sheer framerate has become far less of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 How did you get that kind of FPS? i'm using Gforce4 MX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumor Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Chewy289 All my game settings are max, refresh rate is lowest possible, monitor resolution is 1024x768, GeForce4 Ti4200, and I can get 300fps. sorry but that is BS. i have a 4600 and i don't get 300 fps with everything maxed. i only get around 200 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavkov Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Thx guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Fisher Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 With my 9700 PRO, I usually get between 100-200 FPS. that's with all settings maxed out and at 1024x768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurionStormrage Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 He never did specify if his Ti 4200 is the 8x AGP or the 4x AGP. If at 8x, it's theoretically acheivable. Okay, it's official now. My rig sux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 8x doesn't offer a very significant increase in performance over 4x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.