Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (
More info?)
Everything is low-lower or lowest or non present.
Its hard to sacrifice more - perhaps lower sound detail to 16 bit or cut
them totally. Stupid sugestion !
Thanks anyway.
"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5lrgk0pos078baguqslcv71pk8ucbjtlce@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:25:50 +0200, "Ole Bech" <olebech@e-mail.dk>
> wrote:
>
>>Umark results
>>ONS-Torlan|12|Current|1600x1200|7.305167|66.784851|122.234352|66.895905|
>>ONS-Torlan|12|Current|1280x1024|7.788085|76.131226|132.232605|76.253746|
>>ONS-Torlan|12|Current|1024x768|8.437962|66.901421|119.342278|67.007187|
>>ONS-Torlan|12|Current|800x600|12.305897|66.443253|120.162048|66.551750|
>>ONS-Torlan|12|Current|640x480|8.372972|66.470230|120.513290|66.584747|
>>
>>It does look playable, but I dont like tke cuts in framrate. Thats where I
>>die in combat - I think -- it has nothing to do with skills
>
> As you can see, there's virtually no difference in performance when
> using different resolutions, which is proof that the game is CPU
> bound. There is an anomaly at 1280x1024... I get it on my system too.
> Must be a bug somewhere.
>
> You used the "Current" detail level, which means it's reading your
> current .ini file for quality settings. Try re-running with "High
> Image Quality", which uses a pre-built .ini file and forces the same
> settings on everyone. That way you can compare your scores to mine.
> Speaking of which:
>
> ONS-Torlan|12|High|1024x768|9.242808|59.218941|104.406761|59.301037|
> ONS-Torlan|12|Current|1024x768|5.735960|83.847084|138.822693|83.975937|
>
> As you can see, there's a massive difference between my usual settings
> and the high quality settings. If you want better framerates, you
> have to sacrifice a bit of eye candy. Here's what I do:
>
> Set all graphic settings to Normal. Then set World Detail to "Low"
> and Shadows to "None". Now un-check Decals, Projectors and Foliage.
> Then re-run using "Current" settings and see what type of improvement
> you get.
It's not as pretty, but it still plays great.
>
> Specs:
>
> P4 2.53
> 512 Memory
> 6800 GT (I got the same scores with a Ti4400)
>
> Good luck!
>
> Oh yeah, I die in combat due to hardware issues too! <G>
>
>
>>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>news:ef5ek0d7dlrpjs88skqesfjjk635ph9m2q@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:17:30 +0200, "Ole Bech" <olebech@e-mail.dk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I must be stupid.
>>>>I dont understand this: no matter what resolution from 800 all the way
>>>>to
>>>>1600 I get the same framerate. Just about 30-35, which is way too low
>>>>according to my opinion.
>>>>
>>>>There must be a bottelneck somewhere in my system.
>>>>
>>>>Specs:
>>>>P4 2.4 (overclk 2.6)
>>>>1 gb pc2700
>>>>128 gf4 (POV overclk + 30%)
>>>>Audigy 1
>>>>
>>>>Any sugestions??
>>>>
>>>>HaglStorm_DK
>>>
>>> How are you measuring performance? And in what game types?
>>>
>>> The best way to benchmark is by using UMark, which you can download
>>> here: http://www.unrealmark.com/
>>>
>>> Pick a map for your preferred gametype, run it, and report the results
>>> here.
>>>
>>> The Unreal engine is, by and large, CPU bound. That's why you don't
>>> see much in the way of performance change with different video
>>> resolutions, although I would expect you to see *some* reduction in
>>> performance at 1600 with your GF4.
>>>
>>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram