Project Reality Forums

You do not notice the drop in FPS to 35. I have a decent graficcard myself. Its only because of fraps that I know that in some areas of the maps FPS go as low as 35. The human eye does register only so many images per second.

But if you want max fps all the time look up the ATI HD 6990.

Actually, what I see here is that people with ATi cards seem to have these framerate drops much more severe than me, while I run this with a 'relatively' old (compared to the HD6950) GTX260, without too many issues. I often times get around 55/60 FPS (max FPS is higher if I turn off VSYNC), which only goes lower in certain points of a map. The issues people describe on Fallujah are nonexistent here though. I drop back to maybe 45 or 50, and that's it.

Could this be a remnant of the Refractor 2 engine liking nVidia cards better than ATi ?

I usually have 15 FPS. But i compensate cause im smart.

TheComedian wrote: Refractor 2 doesn't have multi-core compatibility.

Yes, it doesn't have multi-core support, but the video driver!
So if you force BF2 to a single core, you get much lower FPS.

maniac1031 wrote:Omg I run at a constant 15 fps don't complain with 35 fps. And pr is very poorley optimised pr all low 15 fps crisis medium high 40 Ish fps

Same.

Except that I cannot even start Crysis...

Nixy23 wrote:Actually, what I see here is that people with ATi cards seem to have these framerate drops much more severe than me, while I run this with a 'relatively' old (compared to the HD6950) GTX260, without too many issues. I often times get around 55/60 FPS (max FPS is higher if I turn off VSYNC), which only goes lower in certain points of a map. The issues people describe on Fallujah are nonexistent here though. I drop back to maybe 45 or 50, and that's it.

Could this be a remnant of the Refractor 2 engine liking nVidia cards better than ATi ?

Quite possibly, but remember, my dad has 2 ATI Radeon 5770 HD video cards, he drops to 15 and stays there, maxed everything... I myself run a single nvidia 250gts, and I can't get above 25. Neither of us have viruses or nothing. We should blow PR out the water, well my dads rig should, im getting a new video card soon enough, but I had nothing but problems with Nvidia cards not performing(I only get 20-30 fps max on Arma2.

Phenom 955 wrote:It's unplayable for me considering I'm able to run all my games =< 60 FPS.

This includes much more graphically demanding games than PR, such as:

Bad Company 2
Modern Warfare 2
Medal of Honor
etc

Stopped reading the thread right here tbh.

Trooper909 wrote:Stopped reading the thread right here tbh.

BC2 uses the frostbite 1.5 engine,
MW2 uses what? the same engine it's been using since MW1...)Unreal 3 I think?
Medal Of Honor uses two engines, Unreal 3 for the SP, and Frostbite for the multiplayer, they aren't really demanding games... Try Crysis or GTAIV, Arma2 perhapss

On minimum visual settings, my fps never reaches double digits! 25 fps would be delightful but the 3-5 range isn't playable.

Running Windows xp
AMD Athlon 64 x2 dual core 3800+
2.00 GHz 3.00GB of RAM
Motherboard : MSI MS-7191

Pls help!

1. AMD/ATI bundles Catalyst "Application Profiles" in the main driver release for most games which automatically adjust graphics options when the game's exe launches. It may not make any difference, but you might try saving a new custom profile preset for the game.

2. The Anti-Aliasing in Catalyst is a huge fps killer, so turn it off completely. If you can't live without AA, try SMAA or FXAA in the SweetFX injector. SMAA is almost as good as real driver MSAA but it won't kill your performance so drastically.

3. You can also try installing old driver releases to see if one of them runs better on your card. GPU makers are notorious for releasing drivers that run good on their latest cards but crappy on the old ones.

P.S. You may know all this stuff already but it might help a newbie.

tatne wrote:Well, you could start by using vertical sync so it wouldn't lag so much when fps drops (60->35fps is NOTHING compared to 100->35fps!)

The finn speaks the truth!

Do that and you should be ok, also turn FPS counter off as Bozo said.

tatne wrote:Well, you could start by using vertical sync so it wouldn't lag so much when fps drops (60->35fps is NOTHING compared to 100->35fps!)

If your GPU doesn't support adaptive Vsync turning on Vsync will just make it even worse.

Reason why you experience "lag" when going from 100->35 fps is more likely because a couple of frames are much slower than 35 fps. Don't think you can do much about that except lowering your graphics settings.

100 fps = 10ms per frame
35 fps = 28,5ms per frame

Lets say 3/4 of a second the fps drop to 13 fps = 77ms per frame it will still be shown as 35 fps, but the user can easily spot the 77ms between frames.

The most recent patch 1.2 has made it better IMO.

Fallujah is still a lagger

Its quite normal for a map to have areas where fps is higher and situations/areas where fps is lower. The sensible gamer gets a card where his lowest is a playable 30ish fps. How many frames per second can the human eye even see? Movies are 25 to 30 frames per second and nobody complained about ironman stuttering.

Cassius wrote:How many frames per second can the human eye even see?

Your eyes don't detect fps but they will pick up changes and differences. Also you can't compare a movie with a game mainly because a movie is using motion blur to cover up there low fps on action shots.

In certain cases you will be fine with 10 fps and in other cases you won't be happy with even 100 fps

A lot of people get headaches playing games with less than 60 fps so generally +60 fps is a good number to aim at for games.

When there is a big change in your fps your eyes might also spot this change. Like I explained before it might be the catastrophic drop in fps that you see and not the change from 100 down to 35 fps.
However if you run a benchmark you would be able to figure out if Vsync might actually help you a little, but most of the time I would say that it only helps with screen tearing.

Cassius wrote:. How many frames per second can the human eye even see? .

My eye doctor told me 120 fps in terms. But when you get older (from 45-70) it decreases to about 85-105

But it's almost impossible to tell. Since we are human.

And I noticed something.

I use a 16gb USB drive and use it as virtual ram. I notice a 20 fps difference. On fallujah I had about 17-28 avg. now It go up to about 30-67. Depends on ur sys

matty1053 wrote:My eye doctor told me 120 fps in terms. But when you get older (from 45-70) it decreases to about 85-105

But it's almost impossible to tell. Since we are human.

And I noticed something.

I use a 16gb USB drive and use it as virtual ram. I notice a 20 fps difference. On fallujah I had about 17-28 avg. now It go up to about 30-67. Depends on ur sys

is it work with windows 7 ? How did you set it ?

'paratrooper[BG wrote:;2011235']is it work with windows 7 ? How did you set it ?

Turn ReadyBoost on or off for a storage device - Microsoft Windows Help

You only benefit from this if your system is running out of available memory and is starting to write memory to a virtual memory pagefile on your regular harddrive.

Gracler wrote:Turn ReadyBoost on or off for a storage device - Microsoft Windows Help

You only benefit from this if your system is running out of available memory and is starting to write memory to a virtual memory pagefile on your regular harddrive.

i will try thank you.