Project Reality Forums

I have

RAM: 8GB HyperX Fury (1866MHz, CL10)
CPU: AMD FX-6300 Black Edition (3.5GHz, Turbo Clock: 4.1GHz)
GPU: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X TOXIC Edition (Clock: 1150MHz, Memory: 1500MHz, VRAM: 2GB GDDR5)

Would this suffice to run everything on highest with 8x AA, 60 FPS?
I believe it should, however, by default my graphics were set to Medium and I don't know why.

You can run PR at the highest settings. Just don't expect constant 60 FPS. PR is very CPU intensive and requires fast single thread performance due to reaching the limitations of the Refractor 2 game engine.

DesmoLocke wrote:You can run PR at the highest settings. Just don't expect constant 60 FPS. PR is very CPU intensive and requires fast single thread performance due to reaching the limitations of the Refractor 2 game engine.

hey does any1 have a graphics preset made ... becouse i want performance(frame and vizual)

There arent that many things to customize. If you have a halfway decent rig it will run without issues on high.

Just try it out and report back?

At highest settings I get all the way from 36 to 90 FPS.
Usually after a while FPS just settles at around 45-50, and that is just too low.
When I lower settings a bit, it doesn't seem to really change.

The only thing I could say I've experienced affect FPS really in any way, and that is not very much, is turning anti-aliasing from 8x to 2x or off. But even that doesn't do much.

The worrying thing is that I know that my CPU, RAM and GPU are nowhere close to 90% or 100% in use. It only consumes slightly less than 2GB RAM, my CPU is at around 8% occupied looking from task manager. And I know that the game definitely isn't using 2GB of my GPU's VRAM.

Not sure what exactly is causing these performance issues.

But, the main difference to FPS I've noticed being:
1. Being near a lot of players (10 for example) drops FPS by 10 or even more.
2. Looking in direction where there's a lot of players or vehicles.
3. Facing towards the center of the map from the edge.

But none of this should be a problem, since my CPU, GPU, RAM usage is nowhere close to what it is meant to do. I know this from the fact that my CPU even runs below its standard clock as it is so idle. Even thought I haven't taken benchmark software for exact live use of CPU cores, GPU and RAM, I know for sure that it is nowhere close to its full capacity because fans run as silent as almost when PC is idle. And if it were under load, such as when I'm playing games like Mortal Kombat X or Witcher 3, then the fans would be heard much louder and PC would be much hotter.

Now, I am going to take benchmark software to measure exact use and FPS at the same time.

Though, if someone could post a) their specs, b) their graphical settings and c) their FPS in-game, that would be really nice for reference.

EDIT: Oddly enough, I've noticed lower FPS in kit menu, but when I spawn it goes to 100. And then all the rest goes to happen as the game progresses.

P.S. Why do in-vehicle textures look so horrid? Running everything at highest and they still look just plain ugly, blurry and pixelated, you cannot make out anything.

Snaiper wrote: P.S. Why do in-vehicle textures look so horrid? Running everything at highest and they still look just plain ugly, blurry and pixelated, you cannot make out anything.

project reality devs had to downscale many textures to prevent some memory crash issues. maybe you got one of the textures. i also noticed some static objects got lowres textures, which were highres few releases before version 1.3.

Keep in mind you're complaining at the graphics of a MOD of a game that's over 10 years old. Of course it's going to look like shite compared to todays games. Here's some games from the same era:

Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2
Guild Wars
Quake 4
Call of Duty 2
Star Wars Battlefront 2

PeppeJ wrote:Keep in mind you're complaining at the graphics of a MOD of a game that's over 10 years old. Of course it's going to look like shite compared to todays games. Here's some games from the same era:

Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2
Guild Wars
Quake 4
Call of Duty 2
Star Wars Battlefront 2

I am complaining about texture quality.

Texture quality of modifications does not depend on the core game, in most cases anyway.
And you can notice that seeing that in PR a lot of, especially weapon, textures are more detailed.

I have noticed significant differences in texture quality of some objects, mostly of some vehicle interiors, compared to others. And I was wondering if that were there on purpose or a bug or a client-sided issue. I forgot the name of the exact vehicles, but I could see the difference transitioning from some factions on some maps to others.

And the explanation above stands that it is there on purpose to prevent memory leaks, and was introduced in 1.3.

I'm still trying to tweak the game/mod to get optimal performance, because it's simply terrible. And I've seen people have lower specs than me and run it far better.

Some vehicle interiors are lovely: kiowa, fenneck some are OK like the Huey UH1, some are horrible, US truck and humvee.

Don' forget when looking at CPU use, that PR is one core so 25% CPU can be one thread filled to capacity.

Snaiper wrote:At highest settings I get all the way from 36 to 90 FPS.
Usually after a while FPS just settles at around 45-50, and that is just too low.
When I lower settings a bit, it doesn't seem to really change.

CPU limit. Refractor 2 engine doesn't support multithreading and therefore puts all the CPU load on one core. It's more noticeable on maps with lots of objects (static and dynamic) on them. You'll just have to live with it like everybody else. On the bright side, I don't think 40+ fps are too bad in this game, other engines seem to stutter more at this fps range.

Snaiper wrote:At highest settings I get all the way from 36 to 90 FPS.
Usually after a while FPS just settles at around 45-50, and that is just too low.
When I lower settings a bit, it doesn't seem to really change.

I hope you do understand that 45-50 fps is actually really good compared to between 20-30.

Cossack wrote:I hope you do understand that 45-50 fps is actually really good compared to between 20-30.

Indeed it is. However, I'd expect more. But, this engine is not made to utilize more than one core and modifications can double the single-core performance it requires. I am, in my free time, trying to tweak settings and see FPS differences. I also did benchmark the usage a bit, however that was with old settings, I will do it again with different settings, and I will post on forum about it all.

Anyone having FPS issues, first thing to do is to turn off AA, completely or to 2x.

I have usually 30-60 fps in game,sometimes it goes up to 100 but just for a second.I set AA to off and quality to medium.My PC specs:

RAM : Kingston HyperX Fury 1866MHz, CL10
CPU : AMD FX-6300 Black Edition 3.5 GHz
GPU: Nvidia Ge Force GTX 750ti 2GB DDR5

Can somebody tell me what is the porblem and how to fix it ? Thanks in advance !

The FX AMD CPUs are notorious for having really shitty IPC performance. That's your problem. You can A) overclock or B) ditch the AMD for Intel

Back in the day a thread title like this would get you an infraction.

I thought this thread was about Foxtrot. Or to salute.

Anyway I always play in windowed mode so I can easily read stuff when I am wounded

*Pressing F to pay respect*