ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Our loading times are actually very good, and our reloads are extremely fast. Also loads within the same mission should be faster than the first load of a mission because we cache all the textures, models and sounds from one level to the next. If you find this is not the case, I have bad news for you: your system does not have enough RAM. If you lower the texture detail settings from VERY HIGH to HIGH, you will see your loading times get much, much better. You may say "but I have a 64MB card and 256MB system RAM!", that should be fine for a lot of the levels, but when you're using the HIGHEST level of texture detail, you're going to need more than that on some levels. If you have 512MB of system RAM, you should be fine with full-on cranked-up detail levels. (There is also the issue of your AGP aperature setting in your boot-up setup... if it's very high relative to your amount of system RAM, there is a possibility that it could affect performance). However, regardless of your configuration, then, if you are having long load times (for whatever reason), lowering your texture detail is the best way to shorten the loads. Ste Cork, who did the load/save stuff, did some loading and reloading timing tests using 2 vastly different system configurations. Here are his findings: All tests were run from the CD burn we were given internally of the release copy, and dropping out of the executable and re-running for each graphic setting change (and waiting for all thrashing to cease before starting next test). The only settings I altered were choosing the 4 predefined video settings at the top of the video screen. Nothing else was touched at all. All tests stopwatched from console command "map kejim_base" to seeing "datapad updated"; onscreen. P3 / 1GHZ / 512MB / GeForce3 64MB VideoSetting Load time Reload Time (same timing method) ============================================== HighQuality 1:15 0:04 Normal 0:38 0:04 Fast 0:31 0:03 Fastest 0:29 0:03 P2 / 300MHZ / 128MB / TNT1 16MB ( crap machine, but for comparison ) HighQuality 6:00 0:55 Normal 2:55 0:42 Fast 1:52 0:20 Fastest 1:45 0:15 Moral of the story: use settings good enough for the hardware you've got.Re-load times are what counts unless you can play every level without dying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chico Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I guess 512 megs of ddr AND a 64mb gf3 isnt a good enough amount cause the load times are God awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Obi Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to remember that when I finally get it tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digl Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Thanks ChangKhan. Welcome to the forums Chico. If you have that setup and the loading times are "god awful" you have a problem. Maybe your RAM is bad, or you have a slow HD or processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shifty_Parrot Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Yeah, it's not just your system specs like RAM and CPU you have to worry about. You really want a HDD that's 7200 RPM (or higher:) and has some good cache lke 2mb. But anyway...the loading times are worth it right? RIGHT?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie319 Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 OR overly high expectations... the textures are majorly huge... I have only 256MB RAM. but hopefully it won't be a problem.... coz of the 128MB DDR on my gf4... atleast I know now that the extra video ram's good for something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroXcape Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I've run JKII on a system worse then Chico's, and the loads aren't bad at all (even on high.) He probably doesn't know how to configure his computer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Chico I guess 512 megs of ddr AND a 64mb gf3 isnt a good enough amount cause the load times are God awful Well it sounds like your not having any problems with getting ample fps in the game so maybe your proc is a little on the weak side. That can cause slower load times too but since you have enought Ram that's not the problem and I know your GF3 is not the problem. The important thing is that the game plays fluidly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_B Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gro Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I have an athlon 1.2@1.3, 768 MB RAM (Not DDR) and the initial loading time is always long. Reload times aren't too bad, but definitely not extremely fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razarblade Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I have about 1.28 gig of sdram, my load times are faster than quake 3's in multiplayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yautja Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Do you have DMA enabled, if you are running windows 98? im not sure about windows xp, but that should help load times greatly in win98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Mike_B I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem. I've got similar specs to what you have...same proc, ram and HD too! I don't know what sort vid card you have but I have a GF3 (original no Ti series) and I can play MOH (the most demanding game to date that I know of in FPS shooter anyway save maybe JKII). I can't wait until tomorrow and I can't wait until my GF4 Ti 4400 comes in and I can get my Athlon XP 1900+ at the 1st of April. I'll probably gain at least 50 fps between the two but assuming you have a GF3 card or a Radeon 8500 I know it's going to run like a dream on what I've got now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juke Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Chang, I've neglected to say this a while, but your avatar freaks me out. Seriously. CHANGE IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranHornjr Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I have an Athlon Xp 1500+, 256mb ddr, 20gb 7200rpms HD, geforce2 mx400 32mb....and i am hoping that I will be alright. I need to upgrade my video card, but I was hoping that the 256mb of ram, fast HD, and processor would out weight that fault.... Thanks Chang for the advice, but i think I will just wait..i have waited long enough for the game to come out, i can wait an extra minute to get full graphics, if my card will handle it...and your avator is kinda scary, but it has character, keep it. until next time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darky Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Let's put it this way, how does it compare with Return to Castle Wolfenstein? That should be a pretty decent comparison. Especially since RCW's minimum requirements are slightly higher than JO's. Now I realize that that may not should be the case, but going by the numbers... uh... Gee, just answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke101 Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Just wondering, i still havn't gotten my copy of JO. however, will i have long loading times with these specs: P4 1.4 ghz 384 Rambus Ram 16X DVD-Rom GeForce3 TI 200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Omega Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Hold on me too! 1 Ghz (Athlon) 256 ram Geforce 2 MX 400 52x cd drive 40 gig hardrive Using Windows ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Mike_B I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem. If the load times are really that bad (did you time them?), that's not right as it was not the way the game was developed. Regardless of your configuration, then, if you are having long load times, lower your texture detail and it should get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrawn Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I have an AMD 1.4 processor and 264MB of DDR RAM, and a Geforce 2. Load times are fine for me. About 10 seconds to load after I die and 30-40 seconds for a new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Locke101 Just wondering, i still havn't gotten my copy of JO. however, will i have long loading times with these specs: P4 1.4 ghz 384 Rambus Ram 16X DVD-Rom GeForce3 TI 200 Not if you use the right detail settings... that''s the point- you'll only get long load times (and in-game texture thrashing) if you try to push your system to do more than it can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Thrawn I have an AMD 1.4 processor and 264MB of DDR RAM, and a Geforce 2. Load times are fine for me. About 10 seconds to load after I die and 30-40 seconds for a new level. Hmm, that's actually a bit long. I have reloads of about 4-6 seconds and initial loads of maybe 20-30 seconds max (with the rare exception when starting a new mission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Mike_B I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem. BTW, you do not mention what kind of video card and how much video RAM you have nor what detail setting you're using. If you have a GeForce2 or something, you'd better drop the texture detail one level (this is the setting I play on and it looks fine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Thunder Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 This may be alittle off topic, but what exactly is your avatar, ChangKhan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Silent_Thunder This may be alittle off topic, but what exactly is your avatar, ChangKhan? Yeah, a little OT, but since you're the first to ask... Chang Khan is the name of a character in a sci-fi film I was writing (I went to college for film, not programming) and he was a kind of tiger-man like species (there were a few races divided into a caste-like system: the lion-like ones were the politicians and leaders, the tigers were the soldiers, the panthers were assassins and religious fanatics and the leopards and others were the oppressed lower classes). So I made that picture to look like a tiger-man, after the Chang Khan character. Back in, oh, '95 (I think) I had this newfangled consumer-level 2-D morphing program (simply called "Morph") that could churn out a low-res image like that in under ten minutes... hehe... (so the picture is a morph of me an a very nice tiger image that came with the package). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.