Project Reality Forums

back in 0.7 i play PR with All on High
in 0.8 i reduce it to Medium\high
in 0.85 i reduce my grafick to Medium\high\low

i understand that new maps are soo baddass so yes they req more power.
my question why in 0.8 when i play muttrah on Medium\high i got around 30 fps. now when i play muttrah ( 0.85) on MeDium\high\low grafick i got 20 fps.
why release have soo high damands for pcs ?

The stuff thats in PR currently is of the Highest visual quality released to Date from us, so naturally with the ammount of stuff thats goes on in a PR round and the size of the maps your going to suffer from reduced performance compaired to previous versions

Bf2 is a old game now, and people should have no problem running it on medium settings especially considering the Minimum specs for some newer games are far greater than that of PR

its a case of either Upgrade, or lower your settings

The models are getting more and more detailed and maps bigger and bigger

oddly enough I actually had a FPS increase from .8 to .85, try reoptimising ur shaders a couple of times.

only faludja west is bugged and one or two others rest are ok.

You say bugged, i say a work of art that your old rig can't handle.

badmojo420 wrote:You say bugged, i say a work of art that your old rig can't handle.

Yep, sadly my mid range rig cant handle it either. It makes me sad.

i dont understand how my pc can run pr smooth as silk in all high settings with 4x AA and so many people with better rigs are complaining about their fps. my rig is not even that badass its about 2 years old i have:
core 2 duo 6400 2.1ghz
680i motherboard
nvidia 7950gt video card
2 gigs ram
see my rig isnt anything special anymore. i run pr at the highest resolution you can run it in, i forgot what it is exactly, and it runs smoooothh so why are so many other people having problems?

I recommend people use their nvidia control panel or the ati equivalent rather than use ingame graphics options. It works better in my experience.

charliegrs wrote:i run pr at the highest resolution you can run it in, i forgot what it is exactly,

Do you mean the highest it will change to in the menu? Because you can get it to run in higher resolutions with a command line argument. For example i run it in 1920x1200 which can not be set in the menu.

It's amazing how some of those higher resolutions demand vastly better hardware in order to run smoothly. You can have a system that will run smoothly on max in 1280x720 (For example) and then bump that up to 1920x1200 and it will slow to a crawl. I found this out the hard way when i decided i would buy an expensive new monitor. That ran 1920x1200 native. The hardware i had at the time was running PR great on my old monitor. But switching to the new one, with a higher resolution i was forced to change stuff to lower settings. And even then it was having huge FPS drops on some maps.

bf2 engine is old now, and people should have better PCs nowdays. And its good that the people whos making this mod have the free feeling to know that they can put the bf2 engine to its maximun, maybe even more. I got 1gb RAM and play on LOW, its actually not so fugly, the only differnce when you play on high is that everythings is much more sharper, and for some reason I think that low is much more good looking then high, maybe because I loved when OpenGL came out and changed the graphic in games, LOW settings kinda reminds me of those days when it was just about the engines graphic.

The bottom lines is we dont have a full testing team that has a wide range of processor and video cards. Some times things get over looked. Take Korengal for example, while I had no issues a few had fps so low it was unplayable. all it ended up being was a large texture that lower end gfx cards coulnt handle. And then on to Fajita West myself and and another tester have almost the same rig but while I get high fps he get BAD fps.

So only bug reports and users specs will help us find the problems. Which is why its so important for you and us.

And on to why the mods so heavy? we are working on cutting out allot of fat which should start to bring the size down a bit, until we add more. But its not an easy process as removing on ladder static could be a child static on all the maps.

Where working on it, but dont expect the mod to get lighter on size or lighter on graphics cards.

Fajita? Ha!

Kinda hungry.....

I couldnt even play training at Kashan today, frame rate was rediculous. Im gonna turn everthing down to low and see how it goes, might even have to step down to 800x600 res. Im running 2ghz duo processor with 2gb ram in my Sony Vaio, had no issues regarding lag or slow frames on the last version, today was way beyond unplayable. Btw, did the Chinook ever come out?

Won't you crash to desktop if you run it under 1024x768?

Either way, if you plan to run it on 800x600, maybe its time to upgrade...

DesmoLocke wrote:Won't you crash to desktop if you run it under 1024x768?

That was the last version

well my pc work only for PR and MSN
i not going to upgrade.
btw my question was why same map from 0.8 have fps drop at 0.85 nothing change
like on ramiel i got 30 fps in 0.8
and in 0.85 i got 15-20 fps ( same place )
map not change as far as i know