jedialphaknight Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 well I have a "decent" computer, at least in my opinion, and well, when I run quake 3 and I encounter a reflective surface, my framerate drops I usually get 90-140 fps on 1024x768 normal textures and all but when I hit a mirror I go to 30-50 on this pic http://www.jediknightii.net/screenshots/screen003.jpg there is the deathstar it seems with its reflective surface, I wonder if this will pose a problem to people with not above par systems will have problems with say the Deathstar MP level? my system specs are 1ghz P3 Geforce 2 GTS 512 RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithcloak Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Well if it slows down in quake III the same will happen in JK II. I suggest that you lower your res setting from 1024x768 if you want it to run better, but as it is your comp is better than mine. Sithcloak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saient Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 As for single player games Frames Per sec won't really matter to much aslong as your getting above 30 which you should and for multi just switch your res down you texture quality down your geometry down to low and use vertex lighting and up your fps I run quake3 at 800x600 in 16bit and vertex tetures at picmip 1 which still looks decent and like a modern game.. there are people I know using picmip 5 which makes the game look crappy and they own me in quake3 cause at the end of the day when in Multi-player graphics don't mean 5h1t just play around with it .. this game won't run bad in Multi and you can handle low fps in single players with graphics on high to really endure the feel of the starwars uni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Well, it shouldnt run too bad with JK2....remember, Raven will have made improvements by now, especially if reflective surfaces are used alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 I guess we'll all have to adjust the settings a little to get the game to play the way we want. I try to play every game on the highest settings first, just to see if the framerate is acceptable. I'm not worried about running a game at the speed of light, because I like to see all the graphical detail possible. If it seems acceptable to me, I leave it on those settings - though I usually encounter at least one area in a game that starts to chug a bit. I found a couple of areas like that in RTCW (which I'm using as my benchmark), so I'll probably have to drop settings to medium levels for large outdoor areas...and, as you say, effects intensive areas, such as those with reflections. Of course, I hope these problems will be rectified when I update my graphics card, but until then I'm prepared to grin and bear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro The Hutt Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 But with some luck one will be able to toggle them reflections on and off in the options menu. So that those with slower comps don't have to worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowbieOne Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Hmm, odd. I have a P3 866 Geforce 2 GTS, and I run Quake 3 at 1152x864 with all details up, and I don't lose and fps at all on reflective surfaces. It's strange that I have met many people with better specs than me, yet I run games better. I think my comp is special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steg Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 ok ok now i NO my puter is under performing i have trubble keeping my machine 2 50fps in q3 and drop to under 30 on reflective surfice i have: 1Ghz Athlon 256 pc133 ram Ge 3 Ti 200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedialphaknight Posted March 7, 2002 Author Share Posted March 7, 2002 Slowbie do you think you can give me or us your settings for quake..? I really like playing my games at 1024x768 if I can't, I usually just go buy another comp just cuz 800x600 on my 21 inch monitor doesn't look to good, and I don't wanna get a new comp yet cuz I wanna wait for unreal 2 or something can you help us out slowbie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-Vector Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Originally posted by StormHammer I try to play every game on the highest settings first, just to see if the framerate is acceptable. I'm not worried about running a game at the speed of light, because I like to see all the graphical detail possible. If it seems acceptable to me, I leave it on those settings - though I usually encounter at least one area in a game that starts to chug a bit. I found a couple of areas like that in RTCW (which I'm using as my benchmark), so I'll probably have to drop settings to medium levels for large outdoor areas...and, as you say, effects intensive areas, such as those with reflections. Well, I sure hope JO's framerates are more akin to RTCW's than MoH:AA's. I can run RTCW @ 1024x768 32-bit everything maxed very smoothly, but Allied Assault is a whole 'nother ball game. I'm guessing the AI and scripting is at 'fault', because the multiplayer demo (the "Hunt") ran fine at maximum settings. Of course, I hope these problems will be rectified when I update my graphics card Don't know about that, I've got a GF3 Ti500 and I still got those framerate issues with MoH:AA as described above. Elite Force runs pretty well though, but less than RTCW in certain places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke101 Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 I have a Pentium 4 1.4 ghz 384 Rambus Memory 64 MB Geforce 3 Ti 200 And Quake 3 runs fine on my computer with reflective surfaces. And if it causes your frames per scecound go down well then drop your res. settings and don't complain. If you won't, then upgrade your computer or buy a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedialphaknight Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 Ok I got a question for you Geforce 3 users, I wanna get a Geforce 3 64 mb version, will this help out on my reflective surfaces and overall framerates (a noticible difference) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ewok Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 I'd go as far as to say it'd be *VERY* noticeable. To give you an idea... I'm running a GF3, amd 1.4ghz, 512mb DDR. I played MOHAA and RTCW on it's highest settings (not just picking high detail, but going to advanced options and setting everything to max) and only has visable slowdown on one level of MOHAA (changing complex shadows to simple fixed that). On the other hand, my brother runs a GF2 mx400, amd XP1700, 640mb DDR. Playing those same games, with the same settings wasn't very playable. Of course with lower settings the games don't look terrible or anything, but it's not the full effect either. Really tho i'd recommend getting a GF4, last I checked the GF3 was nearly the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedialphaknight Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 I figure the geforce 3 will come down in price once the ti models of of the GF4 come out, I only have a 1ghz with 512 ram and a GF2 so I just wanna update the graphics card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoodlyGod Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Since the discussion has moved on to video cards, I'd like to reccomend one. A local store is selling a Geforce 4 MX-400 powered Leadtek Winfast A170 for 130 bucks. My friend decided to buy it and I was thinking he was just going to get the latest features of the Geforce3/4 but not a big FPS jump. We tested using Quake III at the highest possible settings on the same system with his old Geforce2 MX-400 versus this new Geforce4 MX-400.Specs/results follow. 1.4 ghz Althon T-bird ECS K7S5A motherboard 256 meg 133mhz RAM Windows XP Pro Geforce 2 MX-400 Highest detail: 29.9 FPS Geforce 4 MX-400 Highest detail: 129.7 FPS I don't know about you guys, but that 100 FPS leap blew my mind. So, I'd say if you're going for a newer vid card go for this. -Noodly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedialphaknight Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 yeah I get that too I get like 170 fps...but when I hit the things in reflective surfaces or open spaces....yeah also in Return to Castle Wolfenstein I use that as a benchmark kinda cuz its newer and it uses team arena but...yeah in there I get like 40 fps in open areas sumtimes less than that, that worries me actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ewok Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Actually those GF4 MX cards are a bit misleading. They're more or less faster GF2 cards. They don't even have the new features of the GF3. IMO they shouldn't be even called GeForce4. Only the Ti GF4 cards have the new features and the GF3 features. If you goto http://www.tomshardware.com it's explained in much better detail and comes with benchmarks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desslock Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 170 FPS? I'd need to see a screeshot to believe that one. In all truth that sounds like a driver problem. Download WHQL Certified drivers or the latest Detonator Drivers (though I recommend the WHQL. I come to this conclusion because some of you with GeForce cards are not having problems and some of you with GeForce cards are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Originally posted by NoodlyGod Since the discussion has moved on to video cards, I'd like to reccomend one. A local store is selling a Geforce 4 MX-400 powered Leadtek Winfast A170 for 130 bucks. My friend decided to buy it and I was thinking he was just going to get the latest features of the Geforce3/4 but not a big FPS jump. We tested using Quake III at the highest possible settings on the same system with his old Geforce2 MX-400 versus this new Geforce4 MX-400.Specs/results follow. 1.4 ghz Althon T-bird ECS K7S5A motherboard 256 meg 133mhz RAM Windows XP Pro Geforce 2 MX-400 Highest detail: 29.9 FPS Geforce 4 MX-400 Highest detail: 129.7 FPS I don't know about you guys, but that 100 FPS leap blew my mind. So, I'd say if you're going for a newer vid card go for this. -Noodly Well if your looking for a new vid card then I would either get a GF4 preferably, but I wouldn't get an MX model. They are ok but a GF3 will out do any GFMX card because the MX version has fewer pipelines than the others. If it was between an MX and nothing then I would get an ATI Radeon 8500. They are comparable to a GF3 card, plus they are about $150 for the Radeon 8500 with 64 megs of ram! I still like GF cards better but the Radeon 8500 is no slouch! Personally if I had the money, I would get the fastest GF4 I could afford. Any GF4 or GF3 (non MX version that is) will beat any GF MX version card because of the fewer pipelines it has. I believe it has 1 fewer pipeline than the normal GF cards but I'm sure someone knows exactly what it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedialphaknight Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 yeah I am going to aim for a gf3, I only got a 1 ghz, getting a geforce 4 is more money and is kinda like having really big Biceps and a chest but with really small legs, it just wouldn't fit... i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 The system in my signature, my PC, runs Q3A with this: 1. 1024x768 resolution 2. All 32-bit color depth 3. Full texture detail 4. Trilinear filtering And I have never seen my framerate drop below 80 or 90 FPS. When I turn on Quincunx antialiasing, I get 50-60 FPS on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoodlyGod Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 The MX-400 doesn't have the transform and lighting tools? Man, if that proves to be true my friend ain't gonna be none to happy. Well then, if that's so I'd also go for the Radeon 8500 I saw it stomp all over the Geforce 3 Ti-200 as far as speed goes. (Especially at higher resolutions) Thanks for the info -Noodly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hahadude Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Don't put too much emphasis on processor speed, that isnt what is really important for a game to run well. I run games at high resolution with high detail and all i have is a pentium 3 700 mhz. I do have 640 mb of ram though and a geforce 3. Thats whats important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ewok Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Ya... 1ghz is fast enough. NoodlyGod: I'm sure the GF4 MX cards have T&L (even the GF2 MX cards do), but probably not pure hardware T&L like the GF3 and GF4 Ti cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoodlyGod Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 For the most part, I'll agree with you HaHaDude. Newer Video cards have a built in processing unit that takes away much of what the CPU used to do. But that doesn't mean the CPU doesn't make a difference. It still connects all of the various hardware peices together and for anyone running an older Vid card (I'd say below a geforce 2) a newer CPU should show some drastic improvment. Also, when I upgraded from 256 megs of ram to 512, I got a 1fps increase. In short, I'll agree that a newer video card makes a really big difference, but not all the difference. And memory only helps to a certain point. Especially for those with older video cards who can't plunk down the 300 bucks for a g3. And For what it's worth, Pricewatch has a ECS/XP 1600 CPU combo deal for 130 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.