Question To People Who Have Fps
CplDavis
I hunt the arctic Snonos Join Date: 2003-01-09 Member: 12097Members
I hunt the arctic Snonos Join Date: 2003-01-09 Member: 12097Members
<div class="IPBDescription">trouble with HL</div> Just a quick question.
There are several posts around in different topic areas about Frame rates, low poly models to make frame rates better, will FR be better in 1.1? etc.
Im not trying to sound vain or arrogant becasue I know Money doesnt grow on trees and I used to play with a really bad PC. But what types of PC configurations does the average HL Modder play? Ive gotten 2 repsonses,
Conisdering HL Mods are based off of the very dated (compaired to current Unreal 2- Doom3 engines) Half Life engine, you dont need a power house (power house compaired to today's standards) to play NS and get good frame rates. So people have told me that they either, have a good computer but NS is fun so they play it anyways ( I gess i fit into that catagory) or 2. My computer is only good enough to play HL mods were I can get a decent frame rate.
I used to have an IBM Aptiva 450 Mghz with a weak Voodoo 5 and that was more then sufficent to play any HL mod and stillg et decent frame rates.
Im currently running a Dell P4 2.36 ghz with a 512 Mb RAM, and a GeForce 3 Ti. Its a bit over kill for HL but hey, NS and other HL mods have great gameplay so I will play them anyday over a really good looking new game with crappy gameplay.
The halflife system requirements are far from high, so what are you guys playing with that you need low poly models to make NS playable?
If your computer cant handle HL what will you do when/if HL2 ever comes out?
Maybe I dont know what Im talking about. Lol Im just curious as to what type of system the average NS gamer plays with. Sorry if I sound like im "leet" b/c I have a decent PC im not trying to sound that way.
There are several posts around in different topic areas about Frame rates, low poly models to make frame rates better, will FR be better in 1.1? etc.
Im not trying to sound vain or arrogant becasue I know Money doesnt grow on trees and I used to play with a really bad PC. But what types of PC configurations does the average HL Modder play? Ive gotten 2 repsonses,
Conisdering HL Mods are based off of the very dated (compaired to current Unreal 2- Doom3 engines) Half Life engine, you dont need a power house (power house compaired to today's standards) to play NS and get good frame rates. So people have told me that they either, have a good computer but NS is fun so they play it anyways ( I gess i fit into that catagory) or 2. My computer is only good enough to play HL mods were I can get a decent frame rate.
I used to have an IBM Aptiva 450 Mghz with a weak Voodoo 5 and that was more then sufficent to play any HL mod and stillg et decent frame rates.
Im currently running a Dell P4 2.36 ghz with a 512 Mb RAM, and a GeForce 3 Ti. Its a bit over kill for HL but hey, NS and other HL mods have great gameplay so I will play them anyday over a really good looking new game with crappy gameplay.
The halflife system requirements are far from high, so what are you guys playing with that you need low poly models to make NS playable?
If your computer cant handle HL what will you do when/if HL2 ever comes out?
Maybe I dont know what Im talking about. Lol Im just curious as to what type of system the average NS gamer plays with. Sorry if I sound like im "leet" b/c I have a decent PC im not trying to sound that way.
Comments
The skulk utterly failed but the sentry was reduced to 62% looking still nice.
Real men dont need high FPS.
The skulk utterly failed but the sentry was reduced to 62% looking still nice.
Real men dont need high FPS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's ALL about geting that fade kill with only 20 FPS <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> then killing the lerk that was umbra'ing him
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> JUSTICE!!
Pentium II 400mhz
384MB PC100 SDRAM
Geforce3 Ti500
Windows 2000 Pro with tweaks out the wazoo
I get a good 30-40fps with it in NS, which is plenty for me.
Oh, and this is subject to change of course, don't take my word for it blah blah blah but I haven't seen much in the way of a framerate difference between 1.0 and 1.1.
*Hearing his name JusticeBlade hops into his JusticeMobile and zooms to the scene*
Ah there was a good form somewhere and how to tweak your video card, um I think it was <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=28768' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...=ST&f=1&t=28768</a>
If that doesn't work search FPS using the search function. As for the 1.1 thing, no clue.
BTW GJ Ollj!
Pentium II 400mhz
384MB PC100 SDRAM
Geforce3 Ti500
Windows 2000 Pro with tweaks out the wazoo
I get a good 30-40fps with it in NS, which is plenty for me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
?!?!
I have a GF3Ti200 and I get constant 99 fps in the beginning of the match when there are no buildings, and when there ARE buildings, I drop to ~50... Are you running UT2k3 in the background or something?
Then again...
Pentium 4(I think, it says Pentium® 4 CPU 1.90 Ghz)
512 MB RAM
Windows XP
Uhm, Im way off-topic...
I don't think your FPS will improve much with 1.1, but server CPU loads will decrease alot, giving lower pings.
512 333Mhz DDR
120Gigs IBM
Geforce4 TI4400
19" Eizo screen
I worked hard for it past year, 3 fulltime months of salary,
I haven't got a clue as to what my fps is, all I know is everything runs smooth and I should be able to run Doom3 when it is released...
Cheers <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
anyway, i can paly any top of the line game or any older game with a nice standard 25 FPS. it isnt too choppy for me, and it is nice to be able to play even new games. NS however is the first time that ive actually wanted the bonuses you get from 100 FPS, so ive been doin all kinds of tricks and tweaks nowadays.
i can run instant messenger and a file sharing program and a virus scanner and winamp and IE and ASE and NS (actually i turn off winamp for half life) and it all runs well on a pentium 3 800, with 448 megs of SDRAM. people nowadays with p4-3.1Ghz ... i cant even imagine what they could use that kind of power for, my 800 runs BF1942 and UT2k3 just fine (yes those are mostly video card dependant, but im talking about the game physics and AI that take the processor)
(maybe i say this because i get 99.9 in 1280x960)
<a href='http://valve.speakeasy.net/survey/' target='_blank'>http://valve.speakeasy.net/survey/</a>
theres a very good change youre having vertical sync problems. turn it off
is this a brag about your computer thread?
2600+ 333, nforce2 mobo w/ dual channel ddr, 2x256=512mb pc3200 ram, 30gb 15000rpm scsi hd, radeon 9700 pro, 22" flat screen CRT
I run HL (and mods) at 1024x768 and I get 73.9 fps the whole time, unless I run the command fps_max 100, then I get 99.9 <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> For some reason my HL boots up with the lower fps maximum, it doesn't affect performance for me so normally I leave it at 73.9.
My computer is actually kinda old as well, AMD 1.4 T-Bird, Radeon 64 DDR VIVO, 512 DDR ram.
I've got a good job this summer, so I think I'll just build a better one and keep this baby as a server <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
o.O
Pentium 3 800MHz
384MB RAM
GeForce2 MX 32MB
Windows 2000 Pro
I've used the functionality in nVidia's new Det drivers to turn of VSync and refresh issues, which pulled me from 40-60fps up to 100 in some circumstances. I had a little trouble with crashing, which was strangely fixed when I set my HL resolution to my desktop resolution (1152x864).
The coolest thing by far, IMO, is that on my new dual monitor setup, I don't get any fps depression even when I leave Trillian and other programs running on my 2nd monitor. (:
The software may be mostly the same (NS, being a mod, is not exactly the same code as HL, but the heavily CPU-consuming engine is the same), but the data, especially the levels, of NS are much more complicated than HL levels. Also, the number of objects in NS grows to much higher numbers than in HL, you just didn't get WoL's or turret farms in HL.
For a comparision, most people who use spreadsheets are used to almost instant updates when they change a formula. I once made some cheats with so many formulas that an update could take over an hour, or just made the spreadsheet program crash.
I have a P3 450MHz, 384MB PC100 SDRAM, TNT2 Ultra, SB PCI 128. Gives excellent performance in standard HL, reasonable performance in most NS maps (20 to 40 fps with lower values in heavily turreted regions, 40+ in readyrooms), and horribly bad performance on ns_caged (I don't recall ever getting higher than 20 there, and later in the game with much stuff built it doesn't go above 10 anymore).
For comparision, the HL requirements straight from the box: Pentium 200MHz, 32 MB RAM, SVGA card (needn't even be 3D-accelerated). I pity anyone trying to run NS on such a machine.
Something funny from that Valve survey, for video cards the third place is taken by "Microsoft Corporation GDI Generic", which is not a video card at all but the software OpenGL driver (the OpenGL you get if you don't have a 3D card), which gives better image quality but even worse performance than the HL software renderer. I didn't expect HL to be playable with that.
I get an average of FIVE (5) FPS during combat. Just running around levels with small battles gives me 14 FPS, never going above 20 FPS. It doesn't bother me, I still manage to do pretty well during combat.
I run a Gateway '98
-Pentium II Celeron proccessor
-ATI Rage PRO Vid Card
-160MB HD
-ADSL Connection
On average I ping about 125-225, not bad. I run in Direct 3d, at 614x***, OpenGL seems to slow/lag me more. In games like CS, DoD, I get a ping of about 60-100.
Athlon XP 1800+
512mb 333mhz ddr
geforce2 pro 64mb
40gb 7200rpm
120gb 7200rpm
48x16x48x cd-r
16x dvd-rom
winxp pro corp
19" flat crt monitor
ms wireless optical mouse
but only a 256k wireless dsl connection (although when my isp gets messed up i've gotten up to 4mb/s <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
but i get a pretty decent ping on most servers and average around 99 fps most of the time at 1600x1200 res
muffin you narnar go into video config and change the video mode from 640x480 SOFTWARE to 1024x768 OpelGL. voila your game will run 3x as nice and look better too.
512 pc1066 Ram
Geforce 4 4600 (asus)
I get steady 100 the entire time.. but I got a steady 100 with my geforce 2 pro as well in the same system.. maybe the people who are gettin 20-40 need to look into the optimization threads floating around here
Pentium 3 800MHz
384MB RAM
GeForce2 MX 32MB
Windows 2000 Pro
I've used the functionality in nVidia's new Det drivers to turn of VSync and refresh issues, which pulled me from 40-60fps up to 100 in some circumstances. I had a little trouble with crashing, which was strangely fixed when I set my HL resolution to my desktop resolution (1152x864).
The coolest thing by far, IMO, is that on my new dual monitor setup, I don't get any fps depression even when I leave Trillian and other programs running on my 2nd monitor. (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm confused. I have an 850mhz AMD althlon, 128mb RAM, and an nvidia vanta. I NEVER go above 30fps no matter what I do.
Is this normal?
I wouldn't say I'm by any means the "average" half-life player, but here's my
setup:
Pentium II 400mhz
384MB PC100 SDRAM
Geforce3 Ti500
Windows 2000 Pro with tweaks out the wazoo
I get a good 30-40fps with it in NS, which is plenty for me.
Oh, and this is subject to change of course, don't take my word for it blah blah blah but I haven't seen much in the way of a framerate difference between 1.0 and 1.1.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy crap, thats a slow CPU for that video card. Can you say bottle neck?
*Edit*
My specs:
Athlon XP 2000+ (1.66Ghz).
Asus A7N8X Mobo (Non-Deluxe)
256Megs PC-2700 DDR RAM
Gainward GeForce 3 Ti-200
448 megs of sdram.. this lets me run windowsxp and half life and trillian and load the NS maps at the same time with some ease. ram is good. more than 512 meg is overkill and gives no benefits to 95% of users.
geforece3ti200 this lets me display flashy graphics with nice antialiasing at 50 FPS. this lets me run any game thats been released to date at decent levels of quality. a video card is key to keeping your whole system going nice in games. business types dont need any such thing.
pentium3-800mhz this is now moderately slow, but a processor only really handles calculations so it is good for opening up word or excel and yall with 2ghz can do this faster than i can. its also good for software that uses manual calculations and not video cards (like winamp visualizer). a beefy processor is nice, but not a requirement. playing half life doesnt take a whole lot of calculations if you arent the serverhost. heavy calculation capacities will speed up compile times if you are a designer or programmer.
i have a motherboard with only 2x agp, this means it wont send data to the video card at huge rates like newer motherboards, however, for 99% of uses you dont need that! for massive rendering like doom 3 or for loading the game you will want more than 2x, but for playing halflife you wont need it. the video bus (the thing 2xagp refers to) will only get a flood of information when you are connecting to the server and it is loading the playermodels and structure models into your video card's ram. my video card has 64 meg of ram so it holds jsut about all of NS without needing to constantly update from the system ram to the video ram. a game with models more than 64 meg would start to use up my video bus during gameplay. basic idea is that my games may load slower than a ubercomputer but it they play fine!
---
people ask why i spent 200$ ricing up my case, and the answer is that my computer specs are perfect for my needs. when doom 3 comes out i will need some bigger hardware, but until then my mediocre specs will run bf1942 and ut2k3 perfectly! (those are the most complex games i could come up with off the top of my head)
--
don be fooled by people telling you you need more than 700 mhz, if you have a nice video card youw ill be able to do anything you want to.
AMD Athlon 1.3ghz
256mb pc2100 DDR ram
Gainward GeForce 3 Ti500 128mb
id say im set for awhile, maybe get a little more ram for newer games whenever i get a job
= Gaming system =
Athlon XP 2000+
Asus A7N8X Deluxe
512MB Corsair PC3500 DDR
GeForce4 Ti4200 @ 275/550 (Ti4400 speed)
Onboard Soundstorm audio
= Server =
Athlon 1.25GHz
Asus A7V333
768MB Corsair PC2700 DDR
GeForce2 MX 400 64MB
Onboard CMI8738 Audio
Both run at 1024x768x32bit @ 85Hz, with fps_max set to 100. The gaming system rarely drops below 99fps, while the server is usually hovering in the nineties, with drops whenever it has to render a lot of structures at once.
512 mb ddr
80 gig hdd
GF4 Ti 4600
SB Audigy Gamer
roughly 70-100 fps all the time, with 4x antialiasing on too ..
going to try turning on 8x Anisotropic Filtering tomorrow, last time I tried it though, UT2K3 cried ..
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I run it at 1280x960 at 32-bit textures with max detail, so the Anisotropic Filtering just kind of ... eh ...
/me shrugs
i sometimes get 99 fps in NS.
my setup is good for Half Life engine but not so good for Quake3 engine games and quite bad for UT2003. it must be appalling on Unreal 2. i saw it on TV on a show called Evolver. the frame rate was horrendous and Evolver is a professionally done program. i can't see how anyone would be able to play Unreal 2. has anyone got it to go higher than 5 fps? if Evolver accidentally put Unreal 2 on a crap computer then i can see some massive sueage heading their way from the makers of Unreal2 coz it really did look crap being that choppy.
ok i'll say again how you HL users get higher frame rates:
in config.cfg file is a setting called fps_max. change it to 100. this setting is weird, other games don't have such a setting they just run as fast as possible. it's also weird that despite this setting HL will not go higher than 99 fps. other games don't do things like this. btw there is a config.cfg for every HL mod.
go to properties on desktop and disable v-sync. v-sync makes your frame rate try to exactly match the refresh rate of your monitor. if you like v-sync then set your monitor refresh rate, in properties also, to whatever is the highest it can go without blowing up your monitor and sending glass shrapnel through your eyes into your brain. even if you have v-sync off then put your monitor refresh rate at the maximum it can manage coz it is better for your eyes (except if you go above the maximum obviously <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
now for people that have super poweful set-ups. if you are always at 99 fps easily then you could be wasting your hardware. try to use your hardware more by increasing the resolution and/or the FSAA (supersampling) of your graphics and also switching on 32bit color and trilinear using some secret codes that i mentioned elsewhere. btw i still don't know the secret code to switch on the full-color skyboxes instead of the fugly palletted versions. anyone know it?