Silent_Thunder Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 That's pretty neat . Did you ever end up completeing the film (or the story)? The Avatar looks cool, but is kind of freaky at the same time . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Sounds to me like some of you people are not looking after your systems as best you can. Using 3rd party software and tools that come with windows (scandisk, defrag etc) and latest drivers I have always been able to push my system beyond what it can do. PIII 700mhz 256 PC100 SDRAM 20GB Hard Drive (Old) Geforce 2 MX 400 64MB Yes, my system was top of the range and now its not even average. But by looking after it and rewarding it with drivers, and tweeks - http://www.guru3d.com - I have Quake 3 based games running lovely. MOHAA - 50 - 60 Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL RTCW - 70 + Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL Franky i'm suprised you guys are having some troubles on your super systems when my old tin is chugging away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFunk Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I have a PIII 800EB and 256MB Ram with a GeForce 2 Pro with 64megs SDR and I have been running with max texture detail at 32bit for the entire game. The only times I have had a slowdown is with the rain in swamps on Yavin 4 and entering the besieged temple. My load times are maybe 8-10 seconds from a quicksave and 20-30 between missions, tops. Maybe its just a fluke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUS_Tomcat Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by ChangKhan[RAVEN] Not if you use the right detail settings Does JO have an auto-configurer for best options? or something? Also, I'd like to know, (of course) your system specs, and detail settings Take a screenshot of the options menu or something... I got a 1ghz TBird, 512 mb PC133 CAS 2 SDRAM, 32mb Gefgorce 2 GTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastfonzy Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Hmmm turning down texture level...maybe for the multiplayer, but in singleplayer I can endure a little bit longer load times as long as the game shines in full glory. Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loluzzz Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I've got 1.5 gigs of pc133 and i noticed that loading times actually doubled when i increased the texture quality from medium to very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loluzzz Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 btw, lando has a pic of han solo in a speedo on his ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gro Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 My system handles the game well enough, I never really have a big FPS hit with full detail (At 10248768, just no Antiostropic filtering), its just the initial load time is almost a minute, and yes my system is tweaked/ overclocked/ updated. The reloads aren't to bad, and I can live with the long initial load if its rare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not? Yeah thats true, when Windows 98 was being developed 512MB RAM was a dream for the home user. I dont even think ME fully supports that much RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loluzzzz Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 If you're still using win98 i think its time to upgrade ;d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrobes Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by ChangKhan[RAVEN] (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). I once heard that the AGP aperture should be about half of what your total RAM is. Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUS_Tomcat Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by fastfonzy Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not? I always thought it was MORE than 512 it can handle 512 but over that it freaks... or well, doesnt use it efficiently anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic_series Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by The Wibble Sounds to me like some of you people are not looking after your systems as best you can. Using 3rd party software and tools that come with windows (scandisk, defrag etc) and latest drivers I have always been able to push my system beyond what it can do. PIII 700mhz 256 PC100 SDRAM 20GB Hard Drive (Old) Geforce 2 MX 400 64MB Yes, my system was top of the range and now its not even average. But by looking after it and rewarding it with drivers, and tweeks - http://www.guru3d.com - I have Quake 3 based games running lovely. MOHAA - 50 - 60 Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL RTCW - 70 + Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL Franky i'm suprised you guys are having some troubles on your super systems when my old tin is chugging away. what the hell ? it's not like we don't know how to tweak out pcs man. but with a geforce 2 mx 400 64mb card doesn't matter if you have a 30ghz cpu, you're not going to be getting 60fps+ with mohaa or rtcw running @ 1024x768x32 MAX detail > which i assume you have the slider bar highest for everything. frankly im suprised that anyone would believe your figures. there's one thing about tweaking and gaining performance, but that doesn't turn a geforce 2 mx + 700mhz system into a capable gaming system for current games at MAX detail or so you say. unless you're not moving and looking at a wall something. it's not possible for your system to get the kind of frames that you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 ChangKhan, I'd say that there definately are game problems with the 3DFX V5500 cards. The first load takes a long time (that's okay), and the game plays perfectly, but subsequent loads will just hang, and the load menu itself becomes all "stuttery" when you move the mouse. Hit ESC and quit the game and restart, and everything is perfect again for the first load. By dropping the colour depth and texture details you can get faster loads and the load menu will stop stuttering, but after doing a few loads, the game will hang on loading again. The really strange thing is that if I am in a "stuttery-wil-not-load" state, and then change the video settings (even if I change them upwards) a load will now work correctly for a while, and then hang later. Is this some kind of initialistaion or flushing bug? I's guessing that changing the screen settings flushes or initialises something that allows the card to reload a level correctly. I've tried several different drivers and messed about with numerous settings, but it seems the game just doesn't handle a V5500 correctly. Other V5500 owners have reported this on other 3DFX forums. I'm very disappointed as the game looks so fantastic and plays very fast with FSAA, but the loading/hanging makes the game incredibly frustrating. You have to exit and restart the game everytime you get killed. I know you could say that 3DFX is gone and the V5500 is obselete, but no other game has this problem (RTCW and Bridge Commander were graphically perfect, and they didn't have loading problems). Is there any way you can look into this? Maybe it is a simple matter of texture management as you say? Please bear in mind, I am not complaining about the loading speed, I'm complaining that the V5500 seems to hang on every second and later load of a saved game, even quicksaves. BTW, I should say my system is a P3-850 with V5500 and 512 megs RAM running WinME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykel007 Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 You'll putting my P3 800mhz 128RAM ...... to shame. I don't have the game yet so I don't know how it would handle, so pray for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aik Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Is 10 - 15 seconds slow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedimaster74 Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I can't understand why people are complaining about the load times. I find the load times to be sufficient, its just people don't have enough patience I have a 1.4GHZ system with 512 Megs of RAM and a Geforce3 ti200 and I can run the game full details on 1128*xxx with hardly any slowdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Home_Sliced Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Oh boy, I only have a 400 Mhz processor. I might want to have a good book handy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedimaster74 Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Home_Sliced Oh boy, I only have a 400 Mhz processor. I might want to have a good book handy... Hehe you may want to upgrade your machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarbageCanDroid Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 read this: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=417460#post417460 will fix all your problems Thankyou Wicked GL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chico Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 ok, let me restate what I said at first. MP load times are fine. Its the single player load times that kill me. Athlon xp 1900, 512 megs ddr, GF3 (original). Loading up the single player, I LITERALLY had time to go fix myself a snack in the kitchen and pour a drink before it was finished loading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAM_effect Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 I really don't know where I stand on my specs. 1.0 GHtz Penitum Celeron 254 MB RAM 8 (????) MB on Intel Video Card With the games I try they run decent, but I suffer from slowdown with anything above 1024 resolu. I usually have it at 800 resolu at either medium and high settings depending on the game. Games I've tested are Max Payne Demo, American McGree's Alice, Red Faction, SW Starfighter (none of the ships had any color though), and Deus Ex barely ran at all (too much slowdown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyt-Pon Dai'el Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Originally posted by Chico ok, let me restate what I said at first. MP load times are fine. Its the single player load times that kill me. Athlon xp 1900, 512 megs ddr, GF3 (original). Loading up the single player, I LITERALLY had time to go fix myself a snack in the kitchen and pour a drink before it was finished loading. I have basically the same config as you (exept an 1800, not 1900), and I know what you mean. Loads at the beginning of levels are pretty long, and quickloads are longer than average, but not awful. I'm guessing that, like me, your cranking up every possible setting to the max. IMO, it's well worth the wait. Once the levels are loaded, it looks and runs like a dream! [edit: Welcome to the forums!!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Durden Posted March 28, 2002 Share Posted March 28, 2002 Hey Jam, your system would run it decently if you got a new graphics card. That 8mb Intel card is holding you back bigtime. I assume it is your built in graphics right? Do you have an AGP slot available? If you do, upgrading is pretty damn cheap these days. A geforce 3 base processor is as low as $114 right now. Worth the upgrade IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChangKhan Posted March 28, 2002 Author Share Posted March 28, 2002 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...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.