mgeorge on 9/1/2010 at 03:08
Thanks Malleus.
The full game made a huge difference in performance for me. The game defaulted to 1280 X 1024 with everything on med. I thought for sure I'd have to lower the rez, but it ran fairly well surprisingly. I changed it to shader model 2 and that seemed to help as well without making much difference in the way it looks. Very happy either way and the game is very atmospheric!
I should still try the patch?
Thanks again.
gunsmoke on 9/1/2010 at 06:18
Quote Posted by mgeorge
I changed it to shader model 2 and that seemed to help as well without making much difference in the way it looks. V
Strange, SM 3.0 is much more efficient than 2.0 usually
Malleus on 9/1/2010 at 11:29
Quote Posted by mgeorge
I should still try the patch?
Yes. Apart from improving overall optimization, it fixes bugs, and memory leaks which have a strong impact on performance on some levels. If you have performance problem with the falling icicles (it adds icicles to the levels which serve as ammo for a new weapon), you can reduce the icicle number with the init.cfg setting 'g.broken_icicles_count = ' (you have to start a new game for init.cfg changes to take effect).
Jason Moyer on 9/1/2010 at 14:02
Depends on your hardware. From what I've read, ATI users get a big boost going from SM 3.0 to SM 2.0, all else being the same, which seems weird (the limiting factor should be PhysX, not the shader model). In my experience with an older Nvidia card (8800 GT) the game actually runs a lot better with everything cranked up than it does with it set to the lowest settings.
I ultimately settled on a tweaked init.cfg that I found somewhere to get the performance up, although it still doesn't run really well for how it looks and the amount of physical interaction going on.
Sulphur on 11/1/2010 at 20:53
Well, I'm playing this with everything on high and 4x anti aliasing on at 1280x1024. Averaging out to 40-50 FPS and about 30-35 for fights and generally taxing scenes with the 1.1 patch. The patch seems to have reduced performance a bit. Is it supposed to be this bad? 4890 and Core i5 750 with 4 gigs of RAM here.
mothra on 12/1/2010 at 02:30
well, you got a strong machine, no problems there. I struggle more with it.
Andarthiel on 12/1/2010 at 14:01
I got up to the stage called Fear(11, I think) and now it's become really unstable. Keep crashing a lot on this one bit where I fight the second guy with the helmet(after the dog bit). It CTDs a lot.:(
gunsmoke on 12/1/2010 at 14:33
I wish I had the horsepower to give this bitch a go. Sadly, I don't, and it is a real shame as it sounds right up my alley. :(
mothra on 12/1/2010 at 14:36
with so many discounts you could just buy, try and if not working, play it later. Just turn off physx and use a lower resolution and you should be fine. What I can't predict is how it behaves on single-core machines, I only saw it running on 3 different dualcore-setups.
Sulphur on 12/1/2010 at 15:03
Quote Posted by mothra
well, you got a strong machine, no problems there. I struggle more with it.
Just wanted to check if that sort of performance was within the norm. Guess the game really does run, to quote the EG review, like an exploded dog.
Performance aside, I love the atmosphere so far. Really does feel like you're alone in the freezing cold and dark, numbly fighting off things whilst always on the look out for some source of warmth. The sound design's fantastic, too.
