sledgmb Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 Has anyone gotten any idea when lucasarts/raven might release a much-needed performance addressing patch for Jedi Knight II? I bought this game 2 days ago and like most everyone I am having performance problems with it. I think I'm just going to go back to playing Half-Life until they release a patch. How long does it usually take from game release to the release of the 1st patch? If this were a console game (PS2, XBOX, whatever) they might have taken a little longer to make sure it's ready for release I think. Not fun being a Beta tester... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bantha274 Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 Supply some PC stats and a desc of your problem and maybe someone can help u. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledgmb Posted April 9, 2002 Author Share Posted April 9, 2002 PIII-600 768 Mb RAM ATI All-In-Wonder RADEON 32Mb AGP Not top of the line anymore, but definately not a clunker either. It should be able to handle this game with most options turned up. The game just stutters all over the place. Just isn't smooth like Half-Life was. It seems very "jaggie" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batai37 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by sledgmb PIII-600 768 Mb RAM ATI All-In-Wonder RADEON 32Mb AGP Not top of the line anymore, but definately not a clunker either. It should be able to handle this game with most options turned up. The game just stutters all over the place. Just isn't smooth like Half-Life was. It seems very "jaggie" too. No offense intended, but by contemporary standards your system *is* a clunker. All that RAM won't make up for an older graphics card and a sub-GHz processor. I have an Athlon 1800+ and a GEForce3 with 256mb of PC2700 333MHz RAM, and *I* have to turn down the graphics settings for the game to run smoothly. I could probably crank everything all the way up if I added another 256 of RAM though (next item on my wish list!). I would consider upgrading your system, the prices on RAM and processors are very attractive right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Whata fruitcake. His PC is hardly a clunker. If you look at he minimum req his PC should have more than enough power. Some people don't wanna waste their cash on upgrades every month such as geekazoids like you. "every sub-gig machine is a clunker" bawaha. Get real dude and go out of the house once in awhiles. He should be having no problems with the game whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Well even people with the best PCs are having problems......and then people who have far less than them can run it.......basically the Quake 3 engine was never designed for a game of this magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteChedda Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by sledgmb PIII-600 768 Mb RAM ATI All-In-Wonder RADEON 32Mb AGP Not top of the line anymore, but definately not a clunker either. It should be able to handle this game with most options turned up. The game just stutters all over the place. Just isn't smooth like Half-Life was. It seems very "jaggie" too. More data is needed, driver version? you are aware ATI just released new ones right? Motherboard type? OS? Have you tried a defrag? Are you hearing the harddrive or CDrom spin up during these times? Background apps? Half-life is a LOT less CPU and graphic intensive than JO is, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardius Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Snoop is right on this one. Maybe he'll have to run the game with all settings on medium and a res of 800x600, but it should run smoothly with the settings I mentioned. Even with a good rig like mine (GF4 Ti4600, 1.3 GHz Athlon, 512 MB RAM), the game unexpectedly chugs in certain areas @1024x768 , all settings to the max (except volumetric shadows, which slow the game down quite a bit for some reason), Quincunx antialiasing, and 4x(32 sample) anisotropic filtering. Yeah, that's putting quite a bit of stress on my system, but the GF4 is WAY more than enough to hold its own, and my Athlon isn't anything to laugh about, either. None of these problems should be happening with a GF4 OR GF3. There certainly should be a patch in the works to improve overall performance. It doesn't seem like people with certain videocards are having problems. Almost everyone has performance issues to some degree. Just because someone doesn't think a certain PC config isn't good doesn't mean they live in front of their PC, though. Bad judgement, but not necessarily a PC junkie. Maybe he doesn't upgrade every month or so and just upgraded from a 3 year old PC. Maybe not. Thing is, you never know. Sledge: You really can't compare JK2 and Half-Life. Half-Life's engine wasn't too complicated. With JK2, there's much more to take into account, but I'll admit that it isn't the most advanced and modified engine (Q3A Team). There are certainly some problems in need of fixing/patching, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteChedda Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by CaptainRAVE Well even people with the best PCs are having problems......and then people who have far less than them can run it.......basically the Quake 3 engine was never designed for a game of this magnitude. Err, I have a Athlon 750 with a GF1 and 256MB of Ram running Windows 98 I set shadows to simple, 800x600x32 with 32bit textures, texture detail on medium, dynamic lighting on, and I handle it pretty good, A couple of outside areas are a bit of a problem, drops me down to around 27 FPS, but most of the time I am 40+ FPS. If I turn shadows up, I am crippled, but thats to be expected on a GF1 card and a athlon 750 CPU, and yes this is a junker by todays CPU's, current top of the line is 2.2 Ghz, or 3x my CPU, ram is DDR, I have PC133, and the forth generation GF has been released, its the bottom end CPU, and I am aware of it, I have no problem with that either, because at any time I could spend under $300 and bring it up to date CPU/Mobo/Ram wise, then another $300 and catch the video card market, but for now it does all I need it to. The Q3 engine was never designed for a game this magnitude? What's that mean? What you think the more levels you can load the more memory it uses on a single level? the only place where rthe Q3 engine was troubles is outside areas, and yes it shows, but........... While I think the Serious engine or Max Payne engine would have also been a good choice, I don't think the Q3 engine was a bad one, and since Id engines are what Raven knows best..... Turn your graphics down if the frame rate bothers you that much, if at minimum detail it bothers you, then we have a problem. Mind you, a console would have been limited to 640x480 resolution anyway, so if your not playing at that res, you must not like consoles that much better than PC's. Some things you can try If you know what your doing you might Flash your motherboard BIOS. Make sure you have the latest chipset driver for your motherboard, I have listed the links here http://www.afn.org/~afn03257/driver.html Update your OS with any services packs, and network patches avaiable. Update DirectX [yes even though JO uses opengl for 3D graphics rendering it uses DirectX for other parts, just read the requirements] Disable background apps like firewalls and virus checkers until you can be certain they are not interfering [in other words your errors still occur after disabeling them]. Make sure your network card, sound card, and Video card do not share an IRQ with each other, reguardless of IRQ sharing these 3 do NOT play nicely togather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.