[lost_soul]

First things first, this isn't meant to flame or insult anybody. After playing many FMs though, I've noticed that some have much lower FPS than others on a good C2D system with 4 gigs of ram and a GF9800GS. For example, I get about 30 FPS in the church at the end of the first mission in NHAT, while other FMs run perfectly smooth. Does anyone else experience this? I do as the wiki says and close doors after I traverse them. I also ran the benchmark demo, and got 73 FPS whether I played in 1024x768, or 640x480. It doesn't seem to be a video card bottleneck.

Does it have to do with how the map is sectioned off? The training map runs very well, and it also looks great. I suspected it had to do with the number of AI, so I just ran "killmovables" and killed them all from the console to see how that impacts things. There was no difference. Any thoughts?

[Tels]

lost_soul, on 23 July 2010 - 05:43 PM, said:

First things first, this isn't meant to flame or insult anybody. After playing many FMs though, I've noticed that some have much lower FPS than others on a good C2D system with 4 gigs of ram and a GF9800GS. For example, I get about 30 FPS in the church at the end of the first mission in NHAT, while other FMs run perfectly smooth. Does anyone else experience this? I do as the wiki says and close doors after I traverse them. I also ran the benchmark demo, and got 73 FPS whether I played in 1024x768, or 640x480. It doesn't seem to be a video card bottleneck.

Does it have to do with how the map is sectioned off? The training map runs very well, and it also looks great. I suspected it had to do with the number of AI, so I just ran "killmovables" and killed them all from the console to see how that impacts things. There was no difference. Any thoughts?

Yeah, vizportaling your map plays a large role. But also make sure you turn v-sync off for benchmarking, because otherwise your framerate is limited to 10 FPS, 20 FPS, 30 FPS, 60 FPS but nothing between.

[Baddcog]

And I wouldn't say 30 FPS is bad by any means. Especially in that church section, I got about 30 too I think, but I ran through an early un-optimized version and it was CHOPPY, maybe 10 fps, so he optimized it well. It was fun to look at but not play.

I think once you drop below 20 it is 'bad'. I had 20 (vsynch) in the courtyard at the beginning of 'Heart' but it wasn't choppy. It's usually below that that it tends to get choppy.

I think sometimes people just make too big of a deal out of FPS where choppyness/effect on gameplay is actually more important. If it's choppy then you should look at improving it. If it just seems 'low' then what's the problem?

Sure it's nice to get a ton, but that almost always requires the most high end system for any game. When I was playing T2 I was getting 20- FPS, so if I get that now in TDM I'm fine with it.

With TF2 people complain if their FPS is under 120, but you probably can't even tell the difference between 30-60. (It's also because one FPS command shows you the average which nobody looks at (which would be 30-60), and there's another which shows Max/Min... You get a max of 200+ when the map loads, so everyone assumes they should get 200 in game - basically alot of people bragging/complaining about numbers they don't understand).
--------
Oh, and at the title descript, No I don't think that area is going to be any better optimized. To do any more would probably require turning off shadows on everything (and we don't want that), removing AI (might help, but I thought it was a very well balanced area), or getting rid of lights (I wouldn't want that either).
Lose gameplay and detail just so a number is 60 instead of 30?

[LEGION]

Years ago I read that 15 FPS is the lowest border for getting smooth (in German we say 'liquid') gameplay.

I played that mission without the FPS-counter and performance was never bad. In benchmark I got 59FPS with V-sync, not 60! :P

[grayman]

On my older computer, I'm happy with anything above 10. The game seems pretty smooth to me at that level.

[aidakeeley]

Quote

First things first, this isn't meant to flame or insult anybody

I don't see how your comments can be seen or heard as anything but fiery flaming flames of assaulting and insulting insult.

Vicious.

[stumpy]

you cant see faster than about 18 fps anyway, the lag your seeing is game lag nothing to do with whats being visually seen.

You can get away with pretty smooth animation at 8fps, so what your seeing in the slowdown is the game itself trying to make everything run at the same speed, this includes all the stuff you cant see.

This post has been edited by stumpy: 23 July 2010 - 11:25 PM

[Bikerdude]

I try to get 50-63fps at 2AA/8AS@1024*768 running TDM in windowed mode so I have a benchmark level to aim for so I can cater for players with older machines.. And so far I am managing to do that with only a few exceptions on both my contest map and my other map oldtown (with the help of Baal on the VP optimization front).

But I have a lower gfx powered laptop to test TDM on in case issues come up during beta testing etc..

This post has been edited by Bikerdude: 24 July 2010 - 12:57 PM

[Mr Mike]

stumpy, on 24 July 2010 - 05:20 AM, said:

you cant see faster than about 18 fps anyway, the lag your seeing is game lag nothing to do with whats being visually seen.

I've got to say this really isn't true. I don't think we can say what FPS humans can perceive at on a screen, since we're all different, but I would think almost everyone can see difference in anything less than 60 frames per second. I remember Q3 on my old CRT i would notice whenever it was below 90. Thankfully I'm lucky enough to have TDM at a constant 60fps during all but the toughest times.

[LEGION]

My goodness, a Fake-Account!:blink:

[Fidcal]

Yes, I think you're right. Generic name and generic text. Now he's getting a generic reputation. :laugh:

[Tels]

Fidcal, on 31 July 2010 - 08:17 AM, said:

Yes, I think you're right. Generic name and generic text. Now he's getting a generic reputation. :laugh:

Can an admin please generically delete the generic spam account? :)

[Komag]

I'm fine with 20-30fps, but I can absolutely tell the difference between 30 and 60, as can most people if you actually compare side-by-side or if you have worked with video much. Human eyes can actually detect extremely high FPS, upwards of 300 or more. Here is a pretty good explanation: http://www.100fps.co..._humans_see.htm

[ungoliant]

Komag, on 31 July 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

I'm fine with 20-30fps, but I can absolutely tell the difference between 30 and 60, as can most people if you actually compare side-by-side or if you have worked with video much. Human eyes can actually detect extremely high FPS, upwards of 300 or more. Here is a pretty good explanation: http://www.100fps.co..._humans_see.htm

If I can detect things at 300 fps then how does the old "hand is quicker than the eye" type magic work? I figure your eyes miss some "frames" there, so you don't see the "illusion". as fast as I can move my hand in 1s, if I cut that into 300 pictures, theres no way I'm going to be able to hide any shenanigans.

[Komag]

Well with magic performance there's deception, misdirection, attention focusing, audience expectations, etc.