ulbe001 on 20/3/2006 at 23:01
My machine (Fujitsu Amilo laptop, 1.5GB RAM, 2ghz PM, Geforce 6800 256MB) runs games like HalfLife 2, BattleField 2 and Need For Speed Most Wanted at highest settings without a hitch - but with Deadly Shadows it can't see to keep a stable framerate at all. I believe my average framerate is around 40-45 (measured with fraps) - when standing still in darkness. I run Thief at 1280x1024, highest detail, bloom and low light-cutoff.
Simply walking through Garrets apartment (which in fact seems to be the "heaviest" area in the entire game) drops those frames to <20 - and there's not a single AI entity to draw, no distances no nothing. There is a fireplace and two windows, and those "particle effects" seems to be the biggest performance hogs of this game.
I'm running WinXP Pro SP2, the latest DirectX and nVidia-drivers of course, and Thief was not written for either of them, but if these are to blame then a lot of you guys must have the same issues?
If not, I can only conclude that this engine most be the most ill-optimized piece of code to ever be compiled and used for a game.
I've got loading times at >30sec, although I've got fairly quick SATA-drives and speedy RAM. Has anyone manage to get quickload to actually load quickly?
T-Smith on 21/3/2006 at 01:31
Jeez, sounds like something may be wrong on your end. My PC isn't anywhere near those specs, but I still run at about 25 fps, with the occasional dip to 15. And like I said, my specs aren't anywhere NEAR yours (so I have to run everything at the lowest settings). My load times aren't all that bad either - typically 8-10 seconds.
New Horizon on 21/3/2006 at 02:10
I dunno, for the settings he has turned on...it sounds like he's just suffering from the ill optimized T3 engine. Yes, it is quite poorly optimized ulbe001.
GlasWolf on 21/3/2006 at 02:11
Quote Posted by ulbe001
I've got loading times at >30sec, although I've got fairly quick SATA-drives and speedy RAM. Has anyone manage to get quickload to actually
load quickly?
Sounds bizarre, but I know this worked for at least one other person - try changing the vsync setting in options then test again.
Gestalt on 21/3/2006 at 04:08
It's poorly optimized, but I don't think it's bad enough to cause that.
Has anyone checked to see if Garrett's apartment is properly portalized? There've been a few complaints about FPS problems in there, and I sort of wonder if they forgot to seal it off properly or something.
bikerdude on 21/3/2006 at 10:31
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104812)
As ive been having 'issues' with this engine. And I have a much beafer system.
I would hazzard a guess and say its due to the fact that game came out on the X-box first with third person view in mind. The problem we are all having is because we want to play it in first person mode and this is where this engine is proving inadequate.
biker
Gestalt on 21/3/2006 at 14:08
I don't think it's that, since it actually has to render fewer things in first person and has a smaller field of view.
ulbe001 on 21/3/2006 at 14:17
Quote Posted by Bikerdude
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104812)
As ive been having 'issues' with this engine. And I have a much beafer system.
I would hazzard a guess and say its due to the fact that game came out on the X-box first with third person view in mind. The problem we are all having is because we want to play it in first person mode and this is where this engine is proving inadequate.
biker
I'd rather think the difference in resolution would be the issue. Indeed I'd say, it is faster playing in first-person view, since Garret's modell isn't visible at all.
Rogue Keeper on 21/3/2006 at 14:42
Having about 25-45 FPS at 1280x1024, highest detail, bloom and low light-cutoff doesn't sound very tragic to me. Afterall this is not a wicked shooter which demands constant quick movement. I suppose this "body awareness/movement physics" thing consumes a lot of processor performance, since Invisible War built on the same technological base (and no actual player body in first person view) gives me personally better FPS at 1280x1024 and all details on max (A64 3000+, 6600GT128MB, 1GB RAM). That's why I decided to play TDS in 1024x768. The FPS gain is significant. Also Bloom is a far lesser performance eater than Multisampling, but I prefer MS over Bloom, which makes all colors kinda washed out.
Afterall anything above 25 is supposed to be fluent for human eyes.
You can always significantly improve your framerate by looking to the ground while walking.
But hey, they mentioned in readme it's not recommended for laptops, didn't they.
OrbWeaver on 21/3/2006 at 19:01
Quote Posted by BR796164
Afterall anything above 25 is supposed to be
fluent for human eyes.
Above 24/25fps we see continuous motion rather than a series of static images. This doesn't mean that we can't detect judder though - just look at a fast motion scene during a film and you can easily see the jerkiness.
Quote:
But hey, they mentioned in readme it's not recommended for laptops, didn't they.
I would guess that it is something to do with the laptop too - you just can't expect the same performance from a laptop even if the numerical specs seem good.
