The difference is only very small, and i contribute them to being random, maybe i just looked a slightly different way in 1 recording over the other. Seeing how the game doesnt have a sli profile (or as far as i know of) this isnt that strange but at least now i know why im getting lower rates then i should with a gtx295.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--quoteo(post=1869180:date=Aug 15 2011, 04:02 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Aug 15 2011, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why bother with such a stupid resolution, when you could be playing a far smoother res at like 1600x1024 or something?
To be a great gamer, performance and a consistant setup (same mouse, keyboard - not changing the control layout) is key.
You are not even going to notice a graphical difference at 1600 either really, or just play it in full HD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming you mean mine; the short version is immersion. Apparently someone else has already looked into a LUA alteration of FOV that bases on vertical resolution instead of horizontal. As-is, it at least gives pseudo-peripheral vision, even with the vertical *severely* cut. 3D gaming with applications that properly support mega-widescreen modes, it's a ridiculous advantage, and you get used to being able to see things that are next to you out of the corner of your eye (as my monitors are set up in a semicircle, only increases this effect, as they ARE out of the corner of my eye) and responding to them.
As an example, Brink can be set up with fully custom resolution and aspect ratio settings. TF2 also handles it well, allowing more situational awareness and snap-shooting. Only real down side is that games don't seem to set up their HUD to be customizable to match (eg: only use 1920x1080 for the hud, centered on the screen), so you have everything all the way off in left (or right) field, forcing you to take your eyes off the action if you need to check your minimap or health. Once you're used to having that (and you GET used to it pretty quick!), it feels claustrophobic to go back to a single screen for some game that doesn't support, or deal with it well/at all.
And as far as 25-40fps goes, it's fully playable. Then again, I was gaming back when 14fps in HL was considered good, with a Creative Monster3D. Get off my lawn!
<!--quoteo(post=1868879:date=Aug 14 2011, 04:19 AM:name=NS2HD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS2HD @ Aug 14 2011, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1868879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Atari 2600 - 128b RAM, MOS 6507 CPU @ 1.29Mhz OC (1.36v on air). Getting a solid 40-60 fps.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>User was slapped for this post</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice...
That's about what I'm running... (or attempting to...)
8-10 fps all the time... So not really playable...
Now I know that it needs to be optimized... but having done game development my self...they're probably not going to squeeze it down to their FAQ's system requirements
A 1.2 GHz Processor (SSE2 required), 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP
I think it's time to update these to something realistic and stop giving us old PC's false hopes... my 7900 is pretty much the fastest DirectX 9 level card nVidia ever made... the 8000 Series was all DirectX 10... so... yeah... :)
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1868879:date=Aug 14 2011, 04:19 AM:name=NS2HD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS2HD @ Aug 14 2011, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1868879"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Atari 2600 - 128b RAM, MOS 6507 CPU @ 1.29Mhz OC (1.36v on air). Getting a solid 40-60 fps.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>User was slapped for this post</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should upgrade to the 5200, 1.79MHz and 16KB ram. I bet you could push that up to the 80-100 fps range.
personally you say that. But realistically, at 25-35 fps, you get slight mouse lag, and mouse jittering, making it extremely difficult to be consistent in landing hits.
I agree that 25-35 is unplayable, you need to get over 35fps consistently in order to play the game smoothly and responsively... Note: that's why NS2HD keeps saying he is low skilled, because his fps is locked by fraps at 30fps, meaning most of his kills are down to luck.
I've used fraps, at 30fps, and the mouse lag is horrendous.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2011
For fps to not affect your performance negatively, I'd say around 100fps stable is a good target. Less than that and the "disadvantage per fps" gets larger and larger, more than that and the "advantage per fps" is almost negligible.
I'm running and i5-2500k @4.7ghz. My fps is around 55-75 in hectic situations, sometimes lower than that if I haven't restarted NS in a while or the server is struggling or I'm in a room full of turrets or hydras or similar noobcomm spam. Shave 10 off those numbers for american servers (high ping lowers fps).
fmponeJoin Date: 2011-07-05Member: 108086Members, Squad Five Blue
HELLO GUYS!
If you're having FPS problems in NS2, please post your rig specs (start menu->run->dxiag ... is a good way to retrieve your system specifications) so that the devs can get a survey of what kind of PC is struggling to run the game. Keep in mind if you've got a real old computer like me, they may tell you that you need to upgrade!! The harsh truth!!
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
So I wanted to see how far my fps has improved since the early beta (see the benchmarking in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=112532" target="_blank">this thread</a>), so I reran the Fraps test I did in B162/164. Comp specs and results are below.
Intel i5 2500k (OC'd 4.3GHz) 4GB DDR3 1333 RAM AMD HD 6950 Windows 7 x64 1920x1080 @ high settings, no AA/AF Atmospherics off
TEST #1: Marine walks from spawn to alien spawn and then back through the tram tunnel. (60s) TEST #2: Skulk runs from spawn to marine spawn and then back through the tram tunnel. (60s)
Comments
with the NV settings set to single GPU i get the following results:
Frames............ 3379
Time (ms)........ 60000
Min.................. 24
Max................. 75
Avg................. 56.317
In multigpu settings i get this:
Frames............ 3487
Time (ms)........ 60000
Min.................. 29
Max................. 76
Avg................. 58.117
The difference is only very small, and i contribute them to being random, maybe i just looked a slightly different way in 1 recording over the other.
Seeing how the game doesnt have a sli profile (or as far as i know of) this isnt that strange but at least now i know why im getting lower rates then i should with a gtx295.
6gb DDR3
5970 @800mhz/1100mhz
1680x1050
40-60 fps empty running around
25-35 in combat.
Pretty unplayable.
OS: W7 x64
CPU: i7 2600k
RAM: 6GB
GFX: GTX580
I played summit on a server with very little population, 1 or 2 players, and my average fps was 80.
Maximum was 120fps and minimum 68fps.
To be a great gamer, performance and a consistant setup (same mouse, keyboard - not changing the control layout) is key.
You are not even going to notice a graphical difference at 1600 either really, or just play it in full HD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming you mean mine; the short version is immersion. Apparently someone else has already looked into a LUA alteration of FOV that bases on vertical resolution instead of horizontal. As-is, it at least gives pseudo-peripheral vision, even with the vertical *severely* cut. 3D gaming with applications that properly support mega-widescreen modes, it's a ridiculous advantage, and you get used to being able to see things that are next to you out of the corner of your eye (as my monitors are set up in a semicircle, only increases this effect, as they ARE out of the corner of my eye) and responding to them.
As an example, Brink can be set up with fully custom resolution and aspect ratio settings. TF2 also handles it well, allowing more situational awareness and snap-shooting.
Only real down side is that games don't seem to set up their HUD to be customizable to match (eg: only use 1920x1080 for the hud, centered on the screen), so you have everything all the way off in left (or right) field, forcing you to take your eyes off the action if you need to check your minimap or health.
Once you're used to having that (and you GET used to it pretty quick!), it feels claustrophobic to go back to a single screen for some game that doesn't support, or deal with it well/at all.
And as far as 25-40fps goes, it's fully playable. Then again, I was gaming back when 14fps in HL was considered good, with a Creative Monster3D. Get off my lawn!
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>User was slapped for this post</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice...
That's about what I'm running... (or attempting to...)
AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (2.0Ghz)
2GB DDR
nVidia Geforce 7900 GS
Ubuntu 11.04/Windows XP
8-10 fps all the time...
So not really playable...
Now I know that it needs to be optimized... but having done game development my self...they're probably not going to squeeze it down to their FAQ's system requirements
A 1.2 GHz Processor (SSE2 required), 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP
I think it's time to update these to something realistic and stop giving us old PC's false hopes... my 7900 is pretty much the fastest DirectX 9 level card nVidia ever made... the 8000 Series was all DirectX 10... so... yeah... :)
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>User was slapped for this post</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should upgrade to the 5200, 1.79MHz and 16KB ram. I bet you could push that up to the 80-100 fps range.
6gb DDR3
5970 @800mhz/1100mhz
1680x1050
40-60 fps empty running around
25-35 in combat.
Pretty unplayable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I would say 25-35 fps is acceptable in combat, unless there's sarcasm in there that i missed.
I agree that 25-35 is unplayable, you need to get over 35fps consistently in order to play the game smoothly and responsively... Note: that's why NS2HD keeps saying he is low skilled, because his fps is locked by fraps at 30fps, meaning most of his kills are down to luck.
I've used fraps, at 30fps, and the mouse lag is horrendous.
I'm running and i5-2500k @4.7ghz. My fps is around 55-75 in hectic situations, sometimes lower than that if I haven't restarted NS in a while or the server is struggling or I'm in a room full of turrets or hydras or similar noobcomm spam. Shave 10 off those numbers for american servers (high ping lowers fps).
If you're having FPS problems in NS2, please post your rig specs (start menu->run->dxiag ... is a good way to retrieve your system specifications) so that the devs can get a survey of what kind of PC is struggling to run the game. Keep in mind if you've got a real old computer like me, they may tell you that you need to upgrade!! The harsh truth!!
Intel i5 2500k (OC'd 4.3GHz)
4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
AMD HD 6950
Windows 7 x64
1920x1080 @ high settings, no AA/AF
Atmospherics off
TEST #1: Marine walks from spawn to alien spawn and then back through the tram tunnel. (60s)
TEST #2: Skulk runs from spawn to marine spawn and then back through the tram tunnel. (60s)
BUILD / AVG FPS #1 / AVG FPS #2
162 / 55 / 58
164 / 50 / 51
188 / 63 / 67
Its a modest, but noticeable ~10fps since the early beta.