Printable View
I'd rather run it at my native 1600x1200 :) I don't even attempt AA because it does not work right at 1600x1200 with my soft9700 patch. It does not matter because not much is playable with those settings.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
It runs just fine on my system. You dont need to play it with any AA or AF. Or even at 1600x1200.
Eric
Not sure if it has been mentioned but vsync doesn't CAUSE low fps (like 30 or 40) it just keeps things smooth (by syncing with the monitors refresh rate) and caps the fps at 85 which is where you want them to be.Quote:
Originally posted by speedstream5621
Maybe somebody already said this, but you are getting those lows because you have vysnc enabled. Try turning it off and see if it helps any.
Under 50 is choppy. Playing at 85 compared to 50 is like night and day in a FPS. It is "playable" though.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I seriously doubt the reason why Unreal 2 runs slow is due to unoptimized code. Stop complaining about under 50FPS. That is still a very good framerate.
Why cant the answer be that programmers are designing games that run fair on current hardware but better on future hardware?
Stop complaining people.
I haven't used AA that much but why would you need it at 1600x1200?? All the jaggies are practically gone at such a high resolution!Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
I'd rather run it at my native 1600x1200 :) I don't even attempt AA because it does not work right at 1600x1200 with my soft9700 patch. It does not matter because not much is playable with those settings.
Eric
It looks really nice :) Q3 was actually playable. I had vsync set and it stayed around 60fps the entire time. But it crashed about 10 minutes into the game. Depending on the program it either crashes or I get the soft9700 checkerboard problem. Or I get like 10-20fps :)Quote:
Originally posted by Paladyr
I haven't used AA that much but why would you need it at 1600x1200?? All the jaggies are practically gone at such a high resolution!
Eric
I've turned AA/AF on inside the video control panel, and I do see the difference, both in IQ and FPS. I don't play at 1600x1280 as I'm afraid of what my framerate would be even with AA/AF off. I'd just like to be able to play it @ 1280x1024 w/ quin AA and 4x AF. I know I'm asking too much, as the software is way ahead of the hardware again. I'm hoping my 9700p coming in the mail will allow me to get closer.
No there is nothing wrong with that, in fact there are only a few games that I think really need a resolution higher than 1024x768. You don't need AA or AF but the games look so much better with 2x AA and 4x Anso. With my GF3 and P3 750 I'm playing the majority of my games at these settings and am getting acceptable results. The Unreal series, however, really needs resolutions above 1024x768 to appreciate the detail, otherwise it could of just have been Quake 3. I'm anxious to upgrade my system, but the propects of playing the soon to be released next generation of games only adequately leaves me cold. I want to spend about $600 for the CPU, M/B and Memory and up to $300 for a good video card. The poster was right that said that software development was outpacing hardware development at the moment. That isn't a bad thing. I just think all the hoopla over the GF GX verses 9700 PRO is pretty irrelevent as neither card will be able to truly show D3 it all it's glory. Even the 3Ghz CPU's aren't cutting it for 2xAA and 4x Anso over 1024x768, 32bit color, at a constant 60 FPS. I'm trying to guess with the $900 upgrade will achieve those results, best guess Jan '04. I read the HardOCP article where they set up an overclocked 4.2 GHz Pentium 4 system. They said the Radeon 9700 Pro was the bottleneck in that system. Good thing that TFC is such an awesome game. LOL!Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
It runs just fine on my system. You dont need to play it with any AA or AF. Or even at 1600x1200. Just cause you dont like it dipping into the 18's doesnt mean a thing. It is very playable with a low end P4 with a GF3 card with all the eye candy but maybe 1024x768 but without AA or AF. I dont see anything wrong with that.
Rhettro, you should see quite a boost in performance with the kind of upgrading you want to do. I think after that, you might see that those "acceptable framerates" you mentioned won't be so acceptable anymore :)
I get a minimum of around 38fps in UT2003 at 1600x1200. Average is close to 60. My benchmark comes to 95.89/54.74. I just installed the 3.1 Catalyst drivers. I can now turn AA on. Running Q3 at 1600x1200 4XAA and 16XAF (quality setting)I still get over 80fps. Fired up Alice and I get upper 20's to mid 30's. I will not even try anything newer :)Quote:
Originally posted by LAG
I've turned AA/AF on inside the video control panel, and I do see the difference, both in IQ and FPS. I don't play at 1600x1280 as I'm afraid of what my framerate would be even with AA/AF off. I'd just like to be able to play it @ 1280x1024 w/ quin AA and 4x AF. I know I'm asking too much, as the software is way ahead of the hardware again. I'm hoping my 9700p coming in the mail will allow me to get closer.
Eric
You can turn AA on at that resolution on ut2003 and it not bog out with the new drivers? What lvl of AA you running, and I'd be interested to see you're benchmarks on it. I've got a premodded 9500 coming in the next few days, and its an upgrade over my current 4600. I'm disappointed in the performance of the 4600 with either AA or AF on, and I've heard nothing but good things about the 9700 class of card and AA/AF abilities. Should be fun.