Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
huzarowu

Trees fps problem

96 posts in this topic

I can only speak for myself' date=' but I think he means 1.20.1. For me this was when issues started. I have a very crappy system, but up until that patch I got better FPS than some guys in my squad with higher end PCs. Once 1.20.1 hit I could only play in cities other wise the stutters are too much. I wonder if we can't get more graphics settings options. Im sure it would open it up the game to more people. I can't play anymore because of this, but I keep my subscription cause I hope it will be fixed.[/quote']

Roger that Dunny.

Drop me a line with your dxdiag if you'd like and I'll take a look. gophur@playnet.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehehe its must be my end of course, ummm NO lol.

see what i mean about other people with the problem.

how about you post a STICKY one day when you actually fixed it and maybe just maybe i'll consider throwing dollars your way for something WORTH it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should one expect problems running the game on a system such as this?:

------------------

System Information

------------------

Time of this report: 12/5/2005, 15:50:02

Machine name: DELL

Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519)

Language: English (Regional Setting: English)

System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.

System Model: OptiPlex GX620

BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A03

Processor: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.40GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory: 1022MB RAM

Page File: 230MB used, 2225MB available

Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS

DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode

------------

DxDiag Notes

------------

DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.

Display Tab 1: No problems found.

Sound Tab 1: No problems found.

Sound Tab 2: No problems found.

Sound Tab 3: No problems found.

Music Tab: No problems found.

Input Tab: No problems found.

Network Tab: No problems found.

--------------------

DirectX Debug Levels

--------------------

Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a)

DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)

DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)

DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)

DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)

DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)

DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: ATI FireGL V3100

Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.

Chip type: ATI FireGL V3100 (0x5B64)

DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5B64&SUBSYS_01021002&REV_80

Display Memory: 128.0 MB

Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Monitor: Dell 1905FP (Digital)

Monitor Max Res: 1280,1024

Driver Name: ati2dvag.dll

Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6561 (English)

DDI Version: 9 (or higher)

Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Driver Date/Size: 9/9/2005 19:46:34, 205312 bytes

WHQL Logo'd: Yes

WHQL Date Stamp: n/a

VDD: n/a

Mini VDD: ati2mtag.sys

Mini VDD Date: 9/9/2005 19:46:16, 1273856 bytes

Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-1824-11CF-136A-082121C2CB35}

Vendor ID: 0x1002

Device ID: 0x5B64

SubSys ID: 0x01021002

Revision ID: 0x0080

Revision ID: 0x0080

Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my situation. I have two comparable systems. One's the one pasted in my previous post' date=' the other is the one pasted in this post. They're both in the same room. Both using the same internet connection. Both using the what I believe to be comparable video cards. The Dell has the problem, the Gateway doesn't. What gives? Is there that much difference in the cards?[/quote']A Radeon X600 is faster than the FireGL V3100. I wouldn't play at screen resolutions above 1024*768 with it however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure but 180$ is my monthly payment.

But it doesnt matter the problem is that my radeon9550 works fine at normal circumstanses i have 40fps and its enough for me (tv has only 25) but when i look at trees since 1,20 i have 6fps. So it can be changed doesnt it?

My graphic card is good for ww2ol but not for ww2ol 1,20 trees.

So saying that cards are outdated are rubbish because it isnt problem in cards but in those trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Radeon X600 is faster than the FireGL V3100. I wouldn't play at screen resolutions above 1024*768 with it however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read in several of the tweaking/tuning posts in this forum that you should always play the game at the same resolution as your desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean stutters that are abrupt frame rate stalls (like when flying into new areas), than this is not dependent on the graphics card.

Make sure that you don't have any applications like virus scanner running when you run the game. Things like this can cause stutters.

The topic here is low frame rates caused by a bottleneck on the graphics card in a scene with dense foliage (new trees, grass, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get a low frame rate when looking on trees, than your graphics card is definitely the bottleneck. There is really no question about it (only exception if you have an extremely slow CPU).

There must be something wrong on your end (settings, etc.) if you think you get a different impression regarding this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what Jaeger's saying.

I've got a 3000+ venice..., with an old ti4200.

Offline as infantry, can walk 'round at 100fps --but raise binocs and stare at trees, drops fps down to 12-14 fps.

That's dropping 80-90 frames in a high fill scene.

The fillrate on the ti4200 is 1 billion pixtels/s.

Obviously, 1 billion pixels fillrate doesn't cut it, no matter what card is used.

This week i'm installing a 6800 --5.6 billion pixtels/s fillrate.

Bet the top end fps doesn't change much, but the high fill scenes certainly will.

Plus, be able to run at higher rez, and higher AA/AF with much less hit to average frames.

I'll post before and after scores for comparisions.

So, fillrates matter.

Ratszo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you get a low frame rate when looking on trees, than your graphics card is definitely the bottleneck. There is really no question about it (only exception if you have an extremely slow CPU).

There must be something wrong on your end (settings, etc.) if you think you get a different impression regarding this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the same note, I have a choice between two high end cards that I can use for playing the game. Wanted your opinion as to which would be better suited specifically for WWIIOL purposes:

Matrox Parhelia 256MB PCI

ATI Radeon X850XT 256MB PCI-Express

I have both cards already and can use whichever would be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get what Jaeger's saying.

I've got a 3000+ venice..., with an old ti4200.

Offline as infantry, can walk 'round at 100fps --but raise binocs and stare at trees, drops fps down to 12-14 fps.

That's dropping 80-90 frames in a high fill scene.

The fillrate on the ti4200 is 1 billion pixtels/s.

Obviously, 1 billion pixels fillrate doesn't cut it, no matter what card is used.

This week i'm installing a 6800 --5.6 billion pixtels/s fillrate.

Bet the top end fps doesn't change much, but the high fill scenes certainly will.

Plus, be able to run at higher rez, and higher AA/AF with much less hit to average frames.

I'll post before and after scores for comparisions.

So, fillrates matter.

Ratszo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had hideous problems with a Nvidia 5950 XT, upgraded to a 6600GT and everything peachy.

The fill-rate requirements on those trees must be monstrous though, that is the only thing that caused an issue with the older card.

It basically made looking through a magnified gunsight at a tree background drop fps to the single digits.

Hopefully something can be done about the requirements of those trees.

If it isn't just the fillrate it's something else that then later generation cards can do that the previous one couldn't because pure speed-wise for most things the 256mb 5950 isn't that far off the 128mb 6600GT I have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I switched out my 9600 pro for an x700 and my fps more than doubled looking at the trees. Its all about fill rate, the x700 has 8 pipes ,the 9600 only 4. . Low level flying is much much better too. I also run the X700 at much higher video settings .The AGP 256 meg x700 only cost 150 Cdn .

My celeron 2.4@3.0, 1 gig 3200 dual channel and 256 meg X700 can run this game just fine 90% of the time.

Slaterat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear all.

Gf4's are getting really long in the tooth to support and while Gf5s arent too old (we still have some laying around) they are not much of a technological leap over the 4s.

The real leap came with the 6 series which is effectively twice as fast at every price point and the 7 series is effectively twice as fast as the 6 at every price point.

This is pretty much the sme on the ATi side, no real huge jumps in performance until you get past the 9xxx series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.