Project Reality Forums

ShockUnitBlack wrote:I'm gonna try out PR vs. an OCed 4770K processor hooked up to a Maximus VI Formula and an H100i in a couple of days. Should be interesting.

uhu, OC'd to what? With watercooling you should be able to push that beast to infinity...AND BEYOND!

As high as it will go. I'm building a new computer right now but I haven't got all the parts quite yet (still need the motherboard which is in the mail). If I win the silicon lottery and the thing goes to 4.9GHz, then I'll try it at 4.9GHz.

Should be fun

ShockUnitBlack wrote:As high as it will go. I'm building a new computer right now but I haven't got all the parts quite yet (still need the motherboard which is in the mail). If I win the silicon lottery and the thing goes to 4.9GHz, then I'll try it at 4.9GHz.

Should be fun

Nice, wish you much fun in your endeavor. I also like to tweak and experiment around and know how much fun it can be.

Jagdpanther wrote: I was on gaza strip AAS and I looked south westish from one of the buildings and I was getting tons of lag, then when I looked back away my fps boosted up to normal playable levels, then when I looked back, tons of lag, when I looked away, normal.

I am really confused here.

+1 same here.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:You can blame EA for a lot of terrible things - DRM, lack of mod support, terrible PC sports game ports (not that they do them any longer); WWII - but I seriously don't think you can blame them for PR's current FPS woes.

That's a good point sir, but then again Refractor 2 was made for Call of Duty sized maps and 64-players!

Raklodder wrote:That's a good point sir, but then again Refractor 2 was made for Call of Duty sized maps and 64-players!

Cause Fushe Pass and Highway Tampa were CoD sized maps.... right.

Why all the hate for vBF2 and Refractor 2? The engine was amazing for 2005 and its still one of my favorites.

DesmoLocke wrote:Cause Fushe Pass and Highway Tampa were CoD sized maps.... right.

Why all the hate for vBF2 and Refractor 2? The engine was amazing for 2005 and its still one of my favorites.

If you had read my previous comment sir, you would know for a fact that I don't hate Refractor 2.

Raklodder wrote:You're not alone, sir! My GPU (HD6970 2GB) only uses about ~15% processing power at full PR-load or usage, but still only manage to render about 20-60 fps at Fallujah West, but I honestly don't think the PR-development team are to be blamed, but rather EA & EA DICE for releasing a sloppy (unpolished "Refractor 2" or "BF2" if you will) game engine.

Raklodder wrote:That's a good point sir, but then again Refractor 2 was made for Call of Duty sized maps and 64-players!

? 234567

No, but refractor has been able to handle map sizes well over CoD's standards since it's birth. And if DEV's had full access to the engine PR would be 10 X the game it already is.

Games that have fps problems are 50% playable from the get go. For first person shooters fps which leave you no problems and frustrations are 60+. everything below 60 is noticeable. 25-40 fps is bad, bad. it would ve been ok if it was turn based strategy.

Qside wrote:Upgraded to a r9 280x from a 5770 and i have worse fps now than before (still more than playable, except fallujah ^^).

7970@1180/6400 Memory and Fallujah drops into the 30s.... Refractor 2 was good but today it is somewhat lacking (No multithreading support, 8 player in vehicle max, limited destruction, etc) and with the DEVs adding so much it is amazing it is still quite functional. CE3 should fix the majority of problems associated with the vBF2 engine and we shall all be satisfied (Once the people with 8800GTs upgrade )...

I have to assume the engine is just horribly optimized, for what PR has done with it. None of my hardware is even close to 100% usage playing at maximum 1440p, I think the game just isn't meant to have 100 players.

The game engine is old yes, but there is some content that haven't really been optimized, goes with models, textures, effects, etc. So there's a lot that needs to be optimized content wise on our part. But seeing how we're limited on man power, and only a very few select people in our team that can do the work to optimize the content, it will take a very long time and pressure for those developers. Is it needed yes, but like I said it's a lot of hard work for a select few.

Holy **** guys with a GTX 680 4GB i am getting over 60 FPS on all maps so it could be your drivers maybe? The max FPS i got was 112 fps on Archer. On Falluajah i get over 60 the whole round never dip below 42 fps ever

SPECS: Memory: 16 GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz RAM 2x8GB
(Had 32gb of ram but it was pointless so i sold it on ebay)

GPU: EVGA Geforce GTX 680 4GB

Processor: Intel 3.4 GHz i7-4770K

Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt


So i have a good gaming computer with awesome fps so you cant say it the game or mod


Now on some maps it do dip a bit but never under 30 fps for more than 1min.

Try to see if EAX is enabled in your sound settings. If you dont have an EAX capable board, this solved many problems pre-1.0.

SIDEKILL3R wrote:SPECS: Memory: 16 GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz RAM 2x8GB
(Had 32gb of ram but it was pointless so i sold it on ebay)

GPU: EVGA Geforce GTX 680 4GB

Processor: Intel 3.4 GHz i7-4770K

Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt


So i have a good gaming computer with awesome fps so you cant say it the game or mod


Now on some maps it do dip a bit but never under 30 fps for more than 1min.

You get less than 30fps sometimes in a 8 year old game with a NASA computer, where the GPU alone costs more than 600$ and you think that's good?

Acemantura wrote:Try to see if EAX is enabled in your sound settings. If you dont have an EAX capable board, this solved many problems pre-1.0.

I had it enabled, so I'll see tonight if that helps FPS at all.

On christmas I ended up getting a massive CPU upgrade which is a AMD FX 8350 and a a ram upgrade for a total of 8 gigs of mem.

Needless to say I no longer have the lag issues that I used to have. I am 90% sure it was the CPU upgrade that made the difference.