0.85 demands higher performance?

NyteMyre · Post by **NyteMyre** » 2009-01-23 18:12

Is it just me, or is 0.85 far more demanding for your computer then 0.8?
Fallujah Wests seems to be very very laggy (more then my first few minutes on Ramiel..which usually disappears). And when it runs quite smoothly, the suppression effect makes me lag.

Tartantyco · Post by **Tartantyco** » 2009-01-23 18:22

-I've noticed a few times during matches I lose a few frames for just a split second, and it takes a little longer to load up the map(once you're in-game). Haven't noticed anything else and the ones mentioned are in no way messing stuff up.

Post by **Rudd** » 2009-01-23 18:25

I turned my graphics UP it ran better

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2009-01-23 19:22

Yes every version will get more and more lag from the same video card.

Skodz · Post by **Skodz** » 2009-01-23 20:38

lol thats a direct answer

NyteMyre · Post by **NyteMyre** » 2009-01-23 22:35

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:Yes every version will get more and more lag from the same video card.

Delay 0.9 until I get a new NASA computer please

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2009-01-23 23:01

Ha. 0.9 will be even bigger. You got a few months to get ready.

Fallujah West does have some lag issue for a few people. Best thing to do is upgrade.

I know its hard to upgrade sometimes. But with out a paid debugging team we can only optimize so much to a point.

-CJ- · Post by **-CJ-** » 2009-01-23 23:07

'[R-DEV wrote:CodeRedFox;913469']Ha. 0.9 will be even bigger. You got a few months to get ready.

Fallujah West does have some lag issue for a few people. best thing to do is upgrade.

I don't think everybody got the money to upgrade. Or some people have other priority. I stopped Pr because of that

. I don't have enough free time to play PR so I am not buying new video card and ram for a game I am playing 2 time a week.

DesmoLocke · Post by **DesmoLocke** » 2009-01-23 23:09

Just get a good ol' 8800GT for $100 U.S. dollars and you should be good to go. I can play everything on high at 1680x1050 with dynamic stuff low. Always near 90 FPS.

PlaynCool · Post by **PlaynCool** » 2009-01-23 23:13

I think we should stop rasining the requrements, not all of us can handle that, and i dont have the time the spare money and the will to upgrade.

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2009-01-23 23:19

PlaynCool wrote:I think we should stop rasining the requrements, not all of us can handle that, and i dont have the time the spare money and the will to upgrade.

Wow that's selfish

Sorry guys but at least for me my maps will always be pushing the engine. And I doubt any Dev's or Con's are going to create 2005 aeests.

PlaynCool · Post by **PlaynCool** » 2009-01-23 23:24

Well ok, but not all of us have the latest PC technology, therefore not all of us can enjoy the great mod created for a game which was released a while ago...

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2009-01-23 23:30

Which is why we've push it farther. We see the lower end use and try to do what we can for them. Hell I fixed Korengal FPS for lower end users even though a large majority didn't have any issues.

Plus but everything on low and you shouldn't have any issues

-CJ- wrote:I am not buying new video card and ram for a game I am playing 2 time a week.

So bring down the games quality for a guy who doesn't even play that much....

I'm really trying not to be a snob about it but come on!

cyberzomby · Post by **cyberzomby** » 2009-01-24 00:07

Yep not be a kiss *** but if your not even a hard-core PR player than you cant expect the designers to let cool and amazing stuff not make it in the final map just so a few people more can enjoy it. The DEV's have said several times that they are basically making this for themselves to see how they can push the engine

But! One thing I noticed: Black graphical patches on the maps. in T&T they advised me to change some graphic settings so will try that out tomorrow.

-CJ- · Post by **-CJ-** » 2009-01-24 00:22

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote: So bring down the games quality for a guy who doesn't even play that much....

I'm really trying not to be a snob about it but come on!

I didn't ask to bring down the quality, I was just saying I really like PR but I can't play anymore, That's sad

DenvH · Post by **DenvH** » 2009-01-24 00:23

You could also try to clean your pc from all the dust inside if you haven't done it already... It helped a lot when i did mine, fps gained by at least 40 frames. But i gess that's what you get when you haven't cleaned your pc for a year or so...

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2009-01-24 00:29

Should start a used computer parts forum for PR players. I got like three video cards, two sound cards and plus a few chucks of ram. :loL:

Post by **Rhino** » 2009-01-24 00:33

if you have problems all you need to do is turn down your gfx a little.

Yes, PR v0.8 is more hardware intensive but that dose not mean that players can not play it, just turn down your gfx and if you can not turn them down any more its simply time to upgrade.

NyteMyre · Post by **NyteMyre** » 2009-01-24 01:00

Well, it's not a case of just buying a new video card.

I think i bought the last VGA motherboard ever created. (although i think it does support a PCI card).
I need at least a new motherboard / CPU / DDR and new Power Supply before I can get a new card. Also, i haven't had an upgrade for 2/3 years or something. So I'm totally out what's the best at the moment.

Motherboard
ASRock 939 Dual-SATA
Processor
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
Memory:
2x 512DDR - Dual Channel
Video Card
ASUS ATi X850xt

-CJ- · Post by **-CJ-** » 2009-01-24 01:15

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;913582']if you have problems all you need to do is turn down your gfx a little.

Yes, PR v0.8 is more hardware intensive but that dose not mean that players can not play it, just turn down your gfx and if you can not turn them down any more its simply time to upgrade.

Is there a very low option ?

@ CoderedFox : I think you should give 'em to somebody who really need 'em and really like PR since 0.5

0.85 demands higher performance?

0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?

Re: 0.85 demands higher performance?