Ns framerate
etalian
Join Date: 2002-10-01 Member: 1397Members
Join Date: 2002-10-01 Member: 1397Members
hello,
I was wondering if you get the same, or lower framate in reference to halflife. For example in some MODs I have noticed a lower framrate since they use large volume maps/large open space maps which makes the HL engine puke. Also in Day of Defeat tons of action makes my computer puke as well. So in NS do you still get a comparable framerate to halflife even when you have a couple of level 5s charging you. I just hope NS will have a few optimizations so i keep the resolution of my computer nice and high.
regards,
etalian
I was wondering if you get the same, or lower framate in reference to halflife. For example in some MODs I have noticed a lower framrate since they use large volume maps/large open space maps which makes the HL engine puke. Also in Day of Defeat tons of action makes my computer puke as well. So in NS do you still get a comparable framerate to halflife even when you have a couple of level 5s charging you. I just hope NS will have a few optimizations so i keep the resolution of my computer nice and high.
regards,
etalian
Comments
-
Flayra took the HL engine and transformed it... When you play you see things you wouldn't think possible for HL... however, it takes more then normal HL on CPU power too... but not much
I have a PIII666 + TNT2 + 128 MB RAM and everything works <span style='color:yellow'>perfect</span> with me...
<!--EDIT|[Shuvit.Viper]|Oct. 08 2002,14:43-->
Gee, I hope that was asked as a jest.
Similar to asking: "How does a Dodge Viper handle in comparison to a kcar?" or something along those lines. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Framerate is purely individual to each system, and depends on what operating system your using. I've found that Half Life (and thusly, its mods) tended to run better under Windows 98. I had a good 50-70 fps in Win98, upgraded to WinXP, and my framerate dropped to 25 <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
That was with an ATI 128 Rage Pro 32 MB. They however have known issues with WinXP, a fact I discovered later. I however swaped that card with a Matrox Millenium GF2 32 MB, pretty much the same card, and I now get 99 FPS most times. Go figure <!--emo&???--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo-->
Regardless, your fine. Your only choke point is the graphics card, seems rather punny in respect to the rest of your listed stats. But still, unless theres 16 models on the screen, with particles flying hither-nither and non, I doubt you'll ever notice choppiness.
[offtopicadvice]
You do realize that with a system like that, your bottleneck is that crappy video card, right? If I were you I would spend $70 or so and get a Geforce 2, or better if you have the cash. Trust me, you won't regret it. :P
[/offtopicadvice]
I'm glad NS will run on my system... (otherwise I've been waiting for nothing!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
/me kicks his computer
Hopefully it's tested well on a computer with low ram and an old video card? I'm using 64 megs of ram and a velocity 128. I hope it can still run smoothly..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have tested on a variety of platforms. Basically, if you meet the minimum hardware requirements of HL or CS, you will be able to play NS (those are Pentium133, 24MB RAM, and about 200MB harddrive space). For it to run nice and smooth, you would want your PC to be a little bit better, and you would want a video card that can render in OpenGL (D3D and Software mode will be signifigantly slower, like all HL games).
I have personally tested it on hardware as bad as a P350 with 32MB of RAM and a Voodoo2 8MB and Riva TNT2 16MB with an average FPS of about 40-50 at 800x600x16bit. This does not account for being in a very complex particle environment with lots of action going on, but that is a rare circumstance. The maps have been very carefully tested to ensure r_speeds are kept low, and models have been designed with fewer poly's for that reason also.
So, basically, you're in good shape unless your PC is absolute bottom of the barrel.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 08 2002,13:19-->
Get a TI!!! MX == GF2 with a new name!
But yeah, on the topic of requirements.... Yeah, MonsE covered it.
<!--EDIT|Moleculor|Oct. 08 2002,14:00-->
A thing to keep in mind is most of the map based particle systems (dripping water, steam, etc) can be disabled in the options menu too.
Weapon or game based particles such as resource nodes, the welder, or acid rocket however, those are all forced on AFAIK. Maybe they are reduced when the option is off, maybe not. I have no idea as this is one setting I never bothered to try ;) /me huggles GF4
You'd think this would be obvious to people, but it isn't. Resolution has a huge impact on FPS. Even color depth makes a difference.
Make the choice - higher FPS or prettier graphics.
fps_max 100
It really won;t appear any different to you though, as most people's eyes can't differeniate.
Display properties --> Configuation --> Advanced Properties ---> GF3 tab ---> OpenGL ---> V-sync --> Always off (or off by default)
Edit: Damn... someone is faster than me at typing
Monse is right though, If your gettin 60 fps per second i wouldn't worry about the vsync, id rather have 60 fps then tearing images. Your eyes detect 30 fps as smooth motion, movies are something like 24 fps, and your eyes really can't even see more the 60 images a second. just a word of advice. But if your not experiencing image tearing go for it anyways, everyone likes to brag about fps!
/me kicks his computer<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cool thats the same system stats that I have.....except mine has 328mb of ram and very good Voodoo3 drivers <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Adverage fps of 40 for me.
Anyways, resolution does impact a lot on fps....
Me with 1024x768 = 30 fps.....
Me with 800x600 = 50 fps.....
Me with 640x480 = +70 fps......
Guess wich resolution i use =)
Re: Earlier post where someone claimed that FPS depends on operating system - I think what you'll find is that FPS largely depends on the drivers used, which can be different depending on what operating system you're using. Did you upgrade to the latest w2k drivers before testing?
Curiously, with my Geforce4 Ti4600, I've found that my best FPS comes from using the 28.84 detonator drivers. They give me something in the region of 6600 3DMark2002 SE points, whereas the latest drivers give me marks of around 4000.
3DMark is a useful tool for determining if drivers have improved your GFX speed or not. You can grab it from <a href="http://www.madonion.com" target="_blank">http://www.madonion.com</a>.