Thanks for the info guys, I wondered if there was a way to disable the shadows, bloom and such.
<!--quoteo(post=1911040:date=Mar 7 2012, 01:42 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 7 2012, 01:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, an FPS game like this needs a bare minimum of 40 fps to play well. 60-80 consistent fps will be perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed
There's no such thing as 'a core and a half.' Please don't buy a many-core CPU and then bother setting affinity. If your CPU has tons of cores and a low clock, overclock it and keep it cool, then reap the benefits.
Thanks for reading and internalizing that!
<!--quoteo(post=1911001:date=Mar 7 2012, 11:24 AM:name=TrueVeritas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrueVeritas @ Mar 7 2012, 11:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911001"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's not a joke
since september myself and many other people have seen maybe a 5-10 FPS increase. according to that trend, and that no more than 6 months are left in development, at 1.0 don't expect more than 10 extra FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is you can't try to imply that this trend actually exists
We're not talking about the distance someone has run when they run at a constant speed. We're talking about the performance of a game engine across many different client setups. That game engine is worked on by very talented people at some points, and at other times it is left alone while other tasks are done. So much of that is not linear that you just can't do this, man!
The only thing you can expect when NS2 gets released is that NS2 will be released.
Lowering res changes a bit, but not much. I saw a 10-15% increase going from 1920x1200 down to 1440x900. A bit of a bummer to play like so, but will have to do to get even that 40 fps.
Being like a poor Kiwi, I've always had low-mid ranged specs for contemporary games. Alot of times when I upgrade I'll go back and run through a 2 or 3 year old game again (or again again), just to see what it was like for the people with better machines.
I know I sound like a boring old fart parent, but to say you need a game running at 100fps just sounds 'spoiled.'
More On Topic:
I have a PhenomII x3, GTX550ti and 4gb DDR3 RAM, pretty average. I was running at 1920x1080 MED settings, all effect on except atmospherics. Untill build 199, probably between 10 and 40fps, having a BLAST, mostly becasue I'm more about gameplay than gfx. With build 199 I noticed a performance hit (but alot nicer particle effects, like skulks biting res nodes etc) so I went down to 1680x1050, things are smoother.
So as a guess, despite this talk about cpu cores, I'd still just drop down a res level if your anguishing, as long as you like the game it should still be fun to play even with a bit less eye candy going on.
<!--quoteo(post=1911204:date=Mar 8 2012, 06:25 AM:name=OnosFactory)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OnosFactory @ Mar 8 2012, 06:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I sound like a boring old fart parent, but to say you need a game running at 100fps just sounds 'spoiled.'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was the target-framerate in the old days, you're the young'un.
<!--quoteo(post=1911204:date=Mar 8 2012, 07:25 AM:name=OnosFactory)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OnosFactory @ Mar 8 2012, 07:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I sound like a boring old fart parent, but to say you need a game running at 100fps just sounds 'spoiled.'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because you've never had the experience of running games on max settings at 100fps or more. once you try it you will wonder how you ever played games at 30 fps.
yes, while 60fps is the theoretical limit the system can display and we can percieve VISUALLY. If the game is running at 100fps, then more things can be calculated by the computer internally, feedback/delay from input to action on the screen is reduced (10fps has a delay of 100ms between each frame, while 100fps has 10ms delay between frames). All this results in a smoother, more responsive experience in visual, audio and tactile feedback(you move the mouse physically, the game reacts faster).
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
30 FPS is what game sites in general these days use as minimum playable framerate, and it has been that way ever since Crysis and it's Motion Blurring technique, which adds a blur between frames to disguise the lower framerate.
In the old days, if you couldn't get 100FPS it was a major frustration, especially as I was running a 120hz overclocked 21" monitor (overclocked max resolution, took a few months of breaking in but was well and truly worth it!)
Crysis at 30FPS was as smooth as any other game at 60 fps. I've been a PC geek all my life, and now NS2 is coming out I find myself with the worst spec computer I've ever owned (in comparison to latest tech). NS2 is still a great game even on ridiculously awful settings at 1920x1080, it's just the server tick rate issues which cause the problems. Client has to do more prediction, and the framerate suffers.
<!--quoteo(post=1911234:date=Mar 8 2012, 11:03 AM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider @ Mar 8 2012, 11:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Crysis at 30FPS was as smooth as any other game at 60 fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it wasn't (Motion blur is also really annoying imo). Besides, in a fast paced game such as this, 60 fps isn't that great. I bought a 120hz monitor for fast games, it'd be a shame not to be able to use it to its full potential in NS2.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1911040:date=Mar 7 2012, 01:42 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 7 2012, 01:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, an FPS game like this needs a bare minimum of 40 fps to play well. 60-80 consistent fps will be perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed
That would actually decrease performance...
Thanks for reading and internalizing that!
<!--quoteo(post=1911001:date=Mar 7 2012, 11:24 AM:name=TrueVeritas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrueVeritas @ Mar 7 2012, 11:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911001"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's not a joke
since september myself and many other people have seen maybe a 5-10 FPS increase. according to that trend, and that no more than 6 months are left in development, at 1.0 don't expect more than 10 extra FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is you can't try to imply that this trend actually exists
We're not talking about the distance someone has run when they run at a constant speed. We're talking about the performance of a game engine across many different client setups. That game engine is worked on by very talented people at some points, and at other times it is left alone while other tasks are done. So much of that is not linear that you just can't do this, man!
The only thing you can expect when NS2 gets released is that NS2 will be released.
I know I sound like a boring old fart parent, but to say you need a game running at 100fps just sounds 'spoiled.'
More On Topic:
I have a PhenomII x3, GTX550ti and 4gb DDR3 RAM, pretty average. I was running at 1920x1080 MED settings, all effect on except atmospherics. Untill build 199, probably between 10 and 40fps, having a BLAST, mostly becasue I'm more about gameplay than gfx. With build 199 I noticed a performance hit (but alot nicer particle effects, like skulks biting res nodes etc) so I went down to 1680x1050, things are smoother.
So as a guess, despite this talk about cpu cores, I'd still just drop down a res level if your anguishing, as long as you like the game it should still be fun to play even with a bit less eye candy going on.
That was the target-framerate in the old days, you're the young'un.
Thats because you've never had the experience of running games on max settings at 100fps or more. once you try it you will wonder how you ever played games at 30 fps.
In the old days, if you couldn't get 100FPS it was a major frustration, especially as I was running a 120hz overclocked 21" monitor (overclocked max resolution, took a few months of breaking in but was well and truly worth it!)
Crysis at 30FPS was as smooth as any other game at 60 fps. I've been a PC geek all my life, and now NS2 is coming out I find myself with the worst spec computer I've ever owned (in comparison to latest tech). NS2 is still a great game even on ridiculously awful settings at 1920x1080, it's just the server tick rate issues which cause the problems. Client has to do more prediction, and the framerate suffers.
No, it wasn't (Motion blur is also really annoying imo). Besides, in a fast paced game such as this, 60 fps isn't that great. I bought a 120hz monitor for fast games, it'd be a shame not to be able to use it to its full potential in NS2.