The Wibble Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 The Swamp level is laggin me. P4 2.0GHz 512 MB RDRAM Geforce 3 Ti500 All the levels in JKII run excellent, 40 - 90 frames. All levels except one that is. The swamp level runs from about 10 - 40 frames. What kind of system do these people expect to run that kind of level? At some points its almost inplayable. I'm using detonator 23.11 drivers because I remember reading they were recommended for this game and they scored one of the highest in http://www.guru3d.com detonator test. Any ideas? I'm just really concerned as I would hate for Soldier of Fortune 2 to run like this since its using this kind of vegetation graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Ronin Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 It lags on that performance monster??? Good lord... maybe try another detonator? I just have a Gef3, 512mbSDRAM and a pIII-1000 and the swamp runs fine. Really seems to be the detonator that's lagging. I for my part use the 28.32 one. Digital_Ronin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obijonkenobi Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 The human eye can only pick up around 30-35 fps on a computer screen so any more fps is not really needed. As long as it is in the 30's you wont see a much smoother frame rate with your human eyes. Unless your a computer like HAL9000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TornSoul Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 It's true that the human eye can't see the difference between 30 and 100 FPS, but it can see big sudden changes in FPS. So if your framerate goes from 100 to 30 suddenly you will see it. As for the lagging in the swamp level. What video settings do you use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D66 Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Yes the human eye may only pick up the 30 frames a sec.... BUT The myth that higher framerates don't affect your experience has been arounds as long as the FPS discussion... In fact, The frames displayed on your screen dont REALLY smothe out until about 60FPS... (This has some complicated reason of which I cannot remember the details, so for more info just go to http://www.beyondunreal.com and ask SIMPLYCOSMIC v2.0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal LuD Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm For your reading pleasure on the fps issue. Some people just don't understand. Also, with my Radeon 8500, I just have to knock down the resolution to 1280x1024 or even as low as 1024x768 to get 60+fps... It's not that bad at 1600x1200, but I prefer a 60+fps framerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamp Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by obijonkenobi The human eye can only pick up around 30-35 fps on a computer screen so any more fps is not really needed. As long as it is in the 30's you wont see a much smoother frame rate with your human eyes. Unless your a computer like HAL9000... negative, the eye can pick up anywhere from 60 to 80 ... look at a game the runs 35 fps and then look at 60 ... youll see a difference, a big difference...but, *i have been known to make errors...........from time to time* <-- from the hoth planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal LuD Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 No no no... C-3PO said that R2-D2 makes errors from time to time. Not himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obijonkenobi Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Okay I read that article and I was kind of right... I just had the wrong type of screen But the FPS is still around 60... So having FPS going into triplle figures is still a waste of money (if you had to get a new video card to get to that FPS level... of course if you had no video card before hand then it isnt a waste:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal LuD Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 It's not a waste of money... It's just more performance for when you'll need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyDiplo Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by obijonkenobi The human eye can only pick up around 30-35 fps on a computer screen so any more fps is not really needed. *sigh* Another internet myth... If that where true, how come I can quite clearly see flicker if I set my refresh rate to 60Hz on my monitor? You also ignore that every aspect of a game is usually tied to frame-rate, so that mouse and keyboard responsivness are directly related to framerate etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrEEpaGe Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 actually i can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps....like in games when i change the vsync to certain values i can very easily see the difference whether it be jerkiness or in animations... and danny is right; other things are tied to the framerate rating indirectly. the faster your setup is, the faster the game will react to input (keyboard, mouse, etc) and then output on the monitor and speakers... and the argument that "buying a gf4 or gf3 now because you dont need lots of fps" is stupid. you buy a video card to last as long as possible, and i dont think that any gf2 cards or lower will run UT2, now will they? or how about age of mythology? i think not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfyboy Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 It is not an internet myth. I am a film production student. The human eye can not see more than 30 frames per second. That is why films are between 25 and 30 fps and animation is usualy 24/25 fps. It is a fact people. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyDiplo Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by Alfyboy It is not an internet myth. I am a film production student. The human eye can not see more than 30 frames per second. That is why films are between 25 and 30 fps and animation is usualy 24/25 fps. It is a fact people. Deal with it. You obviously never read the page that was posted then - http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm I have seen film students write in to columns about how anything over 24 fps is wasted. Why 24 fps? Movies in theaters run at 24 fps. They seem pretty smooth to me, so why would we need more? Well, let’s take a look at movies from the eyes’ perspective. First off, you are sitting in a dark movie theater and the projector is flashing a really bright light on a highly reflective screen. What does this do? Have you ever had a doctor flash a bright light in your eye to look at your retina? Most of us have. What happens? A thing called "afterimage". When the doctor turns off the bright light, you see an afterimage of the light (and it is not real comfortable). Movie theaters do the same thing. The light reflected off the screen is much brighter than the theater surroundings. You get an afterimage of the screen after the frame is passed on, so the next frame change is not as noticable. Screen refresh is also a very important factor in this equation. Unlike a television or a computer monitor, the movie theater screen is refreshed all at once (the entire frame is instantly projected and not drawn line for line horizontally as in a TV or monitor). So every frame is projected in its entirety all at once. This then leads back to afterimage due to the large neurotransmitter release in the retina. Perhaps the most important factor in the theater is the artifact known as "motion blur". Motion blur is the main reason why movies can be shown at 24 fps, therefore saving Hollywood money by not having to make the film any longer than possible (30 fps for a full feature film would be approximately 20% longer than a film shown at 24 fps, that turns out to be a lot of money). What motion blur does is give the impression of more intervening frames between the two actual frames. If you stop a movie during a high action scene with lots of movement, the scene that you will see will have a lot of blur, and any person or thing will be almost unrecognizable with highly blury detail. When it is played at full 24 fps, things again look good and sharp. The human eye is used to motion blur (later on that phenomena) so the movie looks fine and sharp. It's almost if the author knew you personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted April 12, 2002 Author Share Posted April 12, 2002 I had trouble getting the new driver to work due to the nvidia refresh rate fix, when I install the new driver the refresh rate fix fails to see my graphics card correctly and so I can't proceed to the next screen to choose my refresh rate. What would be nice would be a detonator remover but so far I have not found one for XP. On another note my frames are nice and high on this level if I load it from the beginning. If I then do a quick save followed by a quick load my frames drop badly, its like quickloading kills the frame rate too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningBaron Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 i can see a difference between 70 and 30, genrally alot smoother, but what does this have to do with someone whos game is running at 10fps? obviously that isnt going to help his saber fights against the shadow troops (i know, ive been there, it pretty much doubles the difficulty)! but on that note, 30 and 60 fps are not going to effect the game and how easy it is to play compared to 30 and 10, which i think is the main point here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted April 12, 2002 Author Share Posted April 12, 2002 I just tried the latest detonator drivers and the performance was slightly worse, the good thing is during my testing I discovered my problem is with quickloading. I loaded the level from the very, very start where the movie clip begins and the game was running @ 30 - 90 frames (Is this good for this level?) I looked at a spot on the map and my frames read 70. I then quick saved the game. I then immediately quickloaded the game and my frames were @ 40. I then quickloaded the game once more and my frames were @ 15. This was all looking at the same spot. It seem that quickloading for some reason totally reduces my frame rate. I am running Windows XP and using the 23.11 drivers which seem to be best for me. Does anyone have a clue whats going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted April 12, 2002 Author Share Posted April 12, 2002 Ok, this is really starting to suck now, it seems that any level I load will have severly low FPS compared to loading the level from the very beginning. Anyone else here with XP encountering similar problems, also here is what shown in my console after a quick load, should these errors be here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingDead Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I dont think that it would matter but do you have everything else closed? you may have a bunch of stuff in the background thats taking up resources and btw: who cares if the human eye cant tell the difrence between xxfps and xxxfps.... ITS BRAGING RIGHTS, thats what I say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapaca Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 DUDE! I hated the stupid Yavin swamp, not because it was built badly or anything like that. It was because I only had a GeForce 256! So I finally finish the game (AMAZING!!!) Then I go to the store and buy a GeForce 4 Ti 4600....... The Swamp level is great!!!! That card really puts out!!!!!!! MY SPECS. Windows XP 256 MB RDRAM (Will be upgrading to 512) GeForce 4 Ti 4600 Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer 19" Trinitrion Monitor:fett: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Athlet Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 The swamp level lagged my system to the point of unplayability on the lowest possible graphics settings (I have no 3d card). I sent my save to my friends house, got through the level over there, then took the new save back home.... heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardius Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 I'd like to know if everyone else is running the game on FULL detail, 1024x768 or greater, and most importantly, if you're using Quincunx or 4x FSAA and anisotropic filtering. If you're still getting 30-90 fps with all of that on (above 50 most of the time, too), then there's definitely something wrong with my rig. If so, to what degree are you using FSAA and anisotropic filtering ? Here's why. I'm running on a 1.3 GHz Athlon, 512 MB RAM, Geforce 4 Ti4600, and WinME (yeah, I'll make the switch once I find someone who has XP). Res is 1024x768, all settings maxed out, Quincunx FSAA, 4x (32 sample) anisotropic filtering, and 28.32 dets. Now, in the beginning of the swamp or around any foliage, I get 28-35 fps. I get a max of 45 fps when I go somewhere else. Somehow, this doesn't sound right. However, when I go to no FSAA and no anisotropic filtering, I get 42-80 fps. Why such the dramatic jump ? I thought the GF4 was supposed to implement these features almost effortlessly, unlike the GF3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wibble Posted April 13, 2002 Author Share Posted April 13, 2002 LOL, Whoops. I guess I should have run a forum search before posting this, i just found numerous posts on this issue. There are tons of people with this problem and its all to do with quickloading. Stand perfectly Still and check FPS Now Quicksave Now Quickload Check FPS which is now 1/2 of before Quickload again and watch FPS plummit further I wonder if the dev's are aware of this problem? Here are some more threads with this trouble http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37684 http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=426186 There are more posts than this, there are many links inside the above post. I guess an email to the tech support would not hurt incase they don't know of this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardius Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Believe it or not, I have NO problems with quickload and quicksave lowering the framerate. It just stays the way it was... fairly crappy. You think having a cheap motherboard with the FSB only @ 100 MHz is the problem ? All of my other hardware is listed in one of the above posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsiSilverthorn Posted April 13, 2002 Share Posted April 13, 2002 Originally posted by The Wibble I had trouble getting the new driver to work due to the nvidia refresh rate fix, when I install the new driver the refresh rate fix fails to see my graphics card correctly and so I can't proceed to the next screen to choose my refresh rate. That's because Nvida changed the driver registry format so that the fix no longer works....But there is a way to do it yourself...You have to edit the .inf file in the driver pack BEFORE installing, setting the minimum refresh rates that can be used for a given resolution. Check the Nvidia card and driver websites for details on how to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.