Project Reality Forums

Who here gets over 60FPS all the time in these maps with everything high and using antialiasing? I've bought a new PC and going insane after reading I shouldn't be dropping down to the 50's and even 40's on some occasions in these maps.

My PC specs are [email protected], HD 4870 512Mb, 4GB RAM(3,25 in use on 32bit XP). Resolution is 1440x900.

Korengal's gonna be fixed in .85, so there won't be any framerate issues. As for the rest of the maps mentioned, they're pretty graphic-intensive, and yeah, framerate drops below 40 fps quite often on my PC. You should be running them without such problems, tho.

Some of your specs are slightly above mine but I run at 1680x1050. I used to get a slight drop below 50 in some areas of those maps but since I put my AA down to 4x (which makes barely any difference in BF2 compared to 8x) it seems fine and I have no trouble with fps on those maps at all.

TheOak82 wrote:Who here gets over 60FPS all the time in these maps with everything high and using antialiasing? I've bought a new PC and going insane after reading I shouldn't be dropping down to the 50's and even 40's on some occasions in these maps.

My PC specs are [email protected], HD 4870 512Mb, 4GB RAM(3,25 in use on 32bit XP). Resolution is 1440x900.

Yeah you should be doing very good with this spec.

Its no big deal to have over 60 fps on any PR maps at anytime with everything maxed out including AA if you have a new high performance gaming computer.

I have 100 fps sometimes on PR. Everything maxed.

TheOak82 wrote:Who here gets over 60FPS all the time in these maps with everything high and using antialiasing? I've bought a new PC and going insane after reading I shouldn't be dropping down to the 50's and even 40's on some occasions in these maps.

My PC specs are [email protected], HD 4870 512Mb, 4GB RAM(3,25 in use on 32bit XP). Resolution is 1440x900.

I turn off AA for ramiel and quinling, my FPS tanks on those maps with a Phenom II @ 3.6ghz, HD 4870, 4gb ram. On all other maps I always have 100fps at max settings.

Skodz wrote:Yeah you should be doing very good with this spec.

Its no big deal to have over 60 fps on any PR maps at anytime with everything maxed out including AA if you have a new high performance gaming computer.

I have 100 fps sometimes on PR. Everything maxed.

I beg to disagree. My old PC was pretty much the same spec except had an 8800 GT 512Mb and with that too the FPS wasn't 60FPS all the time in the maps I mentioned. In Korengal FPS dropped to under 40 when looking down the main road leading through the village. And I'm positive everything was just right with that machine. So, now I've had 2 mid to high end PC's that couldn't and can't do what you say is "no big deal".

TheOak82 wrote:I beg to disagree. My old PC was pretty much the same spec except had an 8800 GT 512Mb and with that too the FPS wasn't 60FPS all the time in the maps I mentioned. In Korengal FPS dropped to under 40 when looking down the main road leading through the village. And I'm positive everything was just right with that machine. So, now I've had 2 mid to high end PC's that couldn't and can't do what you say is "no big deal".

Korengal is currently using a texture file for a certain static on the main area that is a HUGE resolution compared to what it should be, and thus is resulting in poor performance. Expect that to be fixed in .85.

As far as Ramiel, well, it had roughly 10,000 objects to be lightmapped, so its got a LOT of things to load...

In the end, 40-50 FPS is nothing to complain about... still hardly, if at all noticeable. And surely doesnt affect your playability. Only frustration

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz, ATI HD4870 X2 2GB, 8GB DDR2 Ram on Vista 64 Home Premium running at 1920x1200 with all settings at max.
Rarely goes below 80 fps on any map



E-Penis +1

TheOak82 wrote:I beg to disagree. My old PC was pretty much the same spec except had an 8800 GT 512Mb and with that too the FPS wasn't 60FPS all the time in the maps I mentioned. ... So, now I've had 2 mid to high end PC's that couldn't and can't do what you say is "no big deal".

There's your problem. Lightmaps, AA & textures all require oodles of video memory [VRAM] but your upgrade only increased your processing power. The amount that your video card could address at any given time didn't increase, and thus you suffer the same issues with the new card as you did the old, albeit slightly improved due to better processing efficiency at each frame, but the buffering delay remains, nonetheless.

There are some frame drops but its not that dramatical to be honest.I am sure that the developer team will consider this problem and make some improvements for the new release

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]OkitaMakoto;903729']Korengal is currently using a texture file for a certain static on the main area that is a HUGE resolution compared to what it should be, and thus is resulting in poor performance. Expect that to be fixed in .85.

As far as Ramiel, well, it had roughly 10,000 objects to be lightmapped, so its got a LOT of things to load...

In the end, 40-50 FPS is nothing to complain about... still hardly, if at all noticeable. And surely doesnt affect your playability. Only frustration[/quote]

Yea, I have no problem playing on any map and you're also right that it's just me being frustrated cause I keep reading conflicting posts on the subject.

[quote="Psyrus""]There's your problem. Lightmaps, AA & textures all require oodles of video memory [VRAM] but your upgrade only increased your processing power. The amount that your video card could address at any given time didn't increase, and thus you suffer the same issues with the new card as you did the old, albeit slightly improved due to better processing efficiency at each frame, but the buffering delay remains, nonetheless.[/quote]

That VRAM thing is one thing I've been wondering about. I've stayed with 512Mb cards cause on every forum people say above 512Mb VRAM is only useful with resolutions of 1920x1080 and above. I'm beginning to think this isn't so, at least in PR.

TheOak82 wrote:That VRAM thing is one thing I've been wondering about. I've stayed with 512Mb cards cause on every forum people say above 512Mb VRAM is only useful with resolutions of 1920x1080 and above. I'm beginning to think this isn't so, at least in PR.

Those people are providing information based on other forum hearsay. I tested with a rivatuner plugin that showed VRAM usage.

Qwai river
- 1680x1050
- All Settings HIGH including lighting
- 4x AA [It could have been 8x, this was a while ago]
VRAM usage peaked at 482MB.

Qwai's view distance and static count pale in comparison to the likes of ramiel, and so pushing near the 500MB mark with Qwai does not bode well for 512MB users wishing to 'max out' their experience on something like Korengal or Ramiel

Go out there, get a program with an OSD [On screen display] that shows VRAM usage, and see how much you use at various points in the game, I think you'll be surprised.

Check your GPU utilization during the game play.
Can use Rivatuner,GPUz or everest

edit*
I've seen video ram usage peak to 700mb+ on the big maps
1600x1200 AAx8/all high

make sure that
1.
the fps is unlocked
2.
for AMD/ATI (cpu/gpu) it helps to set the affinity to 1 core/cpu

I've seen massive FPS increase doing these 2 steps

providing your FPS are above 30 there is no problem...

Better grafic=lower FPS. If you have like 80 on average it ensures you have 30 in demanding situations. Can one tell the difference between 30 and 80 fps ? You cant. Maybe you can tell the difference between 30 and 35, but even the best pair of human eyes can record only so many pitures per second. It aint 80.

vsnyc is a must have otherwise eye cancer so all under 60 is a problem for me. but only on some places and some maps most run 60 fps stock with all maxed and 16 AF

I get really decent on all of them the only one that sucks in Quinling so I never play it

You should all wait on this thread until 0.85 come out as a few tweaks have been done.

With my new system i've never had any noticeable drops in frame rate. On any maps. I run at 1920x1200 with highest AA and settings. 2 8800Ultras in SLI, q6600, 4gb ram. I believe it's the amount of vram i have that makes PR run so good at that high a resolution. I used to have a 3850HD with 512mb and it struggled to run even downtown Al Basrah at that resolution without a little stuttering.

As long as your lowest framerate is still above 30, the numbers don't matter as our eyes can't see anything faster.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:providing your FPS are above 30 there is no problem...

Quite right but the variation between 30 and 100fps is a pain and distracting.

It can feel like lag, the solution is to actually limit the maximum frames possible and thereby reduce the variation and laggy feel

During the game, in the console type game.lockfps 40 and you will adjust to the lower frames it'll feel better overall, less is more

It will also help improve your aim as the game will render more consistently in reaction to your mouse movements


I play at 1600x1200 without AA and pr will use over 512meg vram. Also the game will continue to load the map during the game so until you have seen every part of the map you will experience some loading lag.
At this point pr will use the maximum amount of memory which could cause problems (lag, low fps) if you have less then 3gb main memory, 4gb if your on vista