Page 1 of 1

Graphics don't seem to change fps that much

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:12 pm
by DRuM
Interesting. I decided to try out with default settings, everything on except vertical synch. Had high quality, 1024 res, to see how nice the game really looks, and it does look awesome. But there was hardly any difference in my fps from the low settings.

I created my own server. Standing right at the edge of the jumpad directly in front of the RL in 'no doctors' with 640 res, low quality and everything off except specular gives me 47/48fps. With the high quality config it was giving me 42/43fps. In other areas where I was facing a wall and getting 63fps it was down to about 53fps, and other areas still 63fps.
Online, with a dozen players on dm17 I was getting down to 9 or 10fps with both configs. It's an unplayable map at the moment with more than 1 to 4 players. The edge was ok to play though with that many players. So, is that about right? I figured high quality and high res on my puny rig would be much more unplayable and a lot more difference of fps.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 pm
by dzjepp
It IS unplayable. Cmon, 10fps? :D I guess you where expecting the higher quality config to drop you down to 1fps? :p

Standing still isn't going to make much of a difference. That and nobody else is on your server at the time. Not suprised it gives you similar results.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:17 pm
by DRuM
Yeah I agree, but on the other maps dzjepp with lots of players in the same area, the frame rate was much higher and roughly the same as the low settings config.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:20 pm
by reefsurfer
Try medium 800x600, shadows off, bump off..

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:30 pm
by DRuM
Yeh reef, I'll try that. Medium quality will definitely be acceptable.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:35 pm
by Cynips
The game IS very CPU limited simply. Running the ggl demo I went from 53 at 1280x1024, High, 2xAA, everything on to 72 with that config that makes things look like picmip 5, 640x480, everything low...

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:38 pm
by DRuM
Actually I wasn't on 640 res low quality, I was on 800x 600 res low quality. I've now made it 1024 res medium quality with no difference at all on fps that I can see. I'd like your rig cynips, best I could do was 34fps at low quality.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:40 pm
by Freakaloin
it doesn't really matter what settings i use...everything is stuck on 63 or whatever...but i can say its easier to play if u turn all the gay ass eye candy off...

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:46 pm
by dzjepp
jelluz?

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:14 pm
by Cynips
I'm running an Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.1GHz
1GB RAM @ 2-3-2-6 latency
X800 Pro @ 560MHz core/540MHz mem

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:31 pm
by DRuM
Cynips wrote:I'm running an Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.1GHz
1GB RAM @ 2-3-2-6 latency
X800 Pro @ 560MHz core/540MHz mem

You bar-steward! :icon33:

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:48 pm
by Cynips
DRuM wrote:
Cynips wrote:I'm running an Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.1GHz
1GB RAM @ 2-3-2-6 latency
X800 Pro @ 560MHz core/540MHz mem
You bar-steward! :icon33:
If it makes you feel any better, the only thing I had to play quake 3 on before last summer was a beige mac G3 @266Mhz and a Voodoo2. Tweaked to lowest possible settings I got like 10 fps in crusher.dm3 :icon27: