Battle FPS...seems low

[olaf73]

I have an XP2700+/1gig/9800 Pro on XP Pro. I am using Cat 3.9s, but I was using the 3.7s and the FPS was the same, bad.

At normal detail, I get about 24fps at 1600x1200 screen res. That seems low to me, what are you guys getting?

olaf

edit: I am not here for the graphics, but if there is something I can do so that I can boost my FPS and/or the detail, I am all for it.

[ December 16, 2003, 06:59: Message edited by: olaf73 ]

[Saber Cherry]

If you are running 75 Hz refresh, try increasing it to 85 Hz. Or turn off vsync.

I get about 50 fps with much lower specs and an Nvidia Geforce 4600.

[ December 16, 2003, 07:13: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Delphinium]

I have an Athlon2600, Radeon 9700 and can't get better than 25fps. My son's spec is Athlon2000, GeForce Ti4200, he gets 33fps.
Perhaps for this its the Radeons/drivers.
Both machines are 512MB otherwise identical. We both run LCD screens, Steven runs a cheap analogue screen, mine is digital.

The question is what is the main determining factor in the FPS, Steven has an overclocked Ti4200. What does anybody else get ?
I'd expect Saber Cherry to get in the 30's or better with a 4600, I was interested to see how other Radeon usesr fared, as I'd felt let down by 24/25. Resolution makes no difference either.

[olaf73]

I am running 85Hz. Why would Vsync on be killing the frames? I will try that, but I dont think thats it.

It seems more likely to be an ATI vs Nvidia issue, as I installed it on my work machine and get better FPS on it, and its a significantly weaker machine. Its a P4 2G/1gig/Ti500 and it gets 30FPS at the same res.

olaf

[NTJedi]

make sure your display settings are set for 16-bit colors instead of 32-bit.

[Johan K]

A word of warning though. Dom II in 32-bit color looks decidedly better than 16-bit. So reducing the number of colors kind of negates the benefit of having a high resolution.

[Delphinium]

On my Radeon 9700, it makes no difference on 16/32 colour modes. I can live with 24 - maybe if I overclock http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Refresh rate:

I found that in various configurations, my framerate was always 25 fps, 33 fps, or 50 fps. Those are all common factors of 100 when divided by low integers (4, 3, and 2) and I was running at 100Hz refresh=)

[Keir Maxwell]

I get 50fps at low or very low detail and it tails off from there. I'm have a 1.6 p4 with a GeForce4 MX 440 64MB, win2000 and heaps of RAM. Refresh rate is 75Hz as this is the fastest my old 17" monitor will allow.

16 bit or 32 bit colour doesn't make a difference to speed for me.

Those missiles sure are annoying - I keep the detail down at low and its still a pain. At 20fps?? Eeck.

Cheers

Keir

[Johan K]

The missiles will not fly faster at 100 fps than at 10 fps. They always travel at 70 mph (?) unless you have a very very low number of fps.

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Johan K:
The missiles will not fly faster at 100 fps than at 10 fps. They always travel at 70 mph (?) unless you have a very very low number of fps. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does this mean that you can increase the speed missiles fly easily? That would be really, really great. Having got into Tien Ch'i I find myself using alot of archers and I don't watch the combats much due to the time they take. IMO its the missiles that are the main problem with replay speed.

Cheers

Keir

[ExitJudas]

I have a p4 2.6 ghz and a radeon 9600pro with the newest omegadrivers installed., ,1GB ddr ram. I also get 25 FPS in every resolution. It seems there is a problem with some setting that limits the fps, since 25 FPS is too low to be a hardware issue. any ideas?

[Sindai]

Originally posted by ExitJudas:
since 25 FPS is too low to be a hardware issue. any ideas? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think it really is just a hardware issues. I just got the demo, but IIRC it uses OpenGL, and ATI's main line of drivers drivers are infamous for horrendously bad OpenGL support. I think this thread holds to that pretty well; all of the Nvidia cards are getting higher FPS than even far superior ATI cards.

[DimmurWyrd]

hmmm, P4 3Ghz, 1GB ram, SB audigy 2 platinum, albatron GF FX 5900 turbo...

too high, 1024x768 40fps

good nuff for me... too bad missiles fly at a constant speed regardless hehe makes those archer hordes somewhat painful to watch but the Q key does help a lot there lol.

[PDF]

Some weeks ago I had an Athlon500 with GF2MX440 card, fps were 20-12-8 in 1024*768 16bits at low/med/high level detail
On my new Athlon2400 Radeon9800 I have 40/20/13 under same conditions...(with Omega drivers, fps were half of that with the standard Radeon drivers).
The increase of +100% seems low compared to the hardware increase (I now run smoothly KotoR that is MUCH more graphic intensive and won't even run on the old box), and all other complaints are also with Radeon Users - I think there's something with the Radeon...