| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Baron
Guest
|
Your 3dmark 2k1se score is not going to correlate with morrowind performance, I had beta drivers and such, that gave me 10000+ score in 3dmark. This ran morrowind like crap, so i switched over to better drivers and tweaked some settings and it worked beautiful, eventhough my 3dmark score would be lower. |
Thu May 09, 2002 4:50 am |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
have a P4 1.8/GeForce3 ti 200 combo and have none of the problems you are talking about. It has to be a system configuration problem on your end, bud.
LOL, nice try Dude, that was actually funny  |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 4:56 am |
|
|
Guest
|
If an Athlon XP 1900+/Abit KR7A/512 pc2100/and a Ti4600 aren't fast enough to play this game without choppyness then I believe there is something wrong with the graphics engine. I purposly, purchase graphicly intensive games, because I love what my computer can do. RTCW/Medal of Honor/Nascar2002, etc, etc are all a blast, and I can spoil myself with having the option to crank it up all I want. Morrowind is truly a great game, but the FPS performance issues detract from it's appeal. Some claim these lovely FPS numbers and boast of "no issues" , but that doesn't get any traction because it flies in the face of the vast majority and reviewers and folks just like me, who claim otherwise. You can claim all the glorious numbers you want, but frankly I will believe it when I see it, so maybe post a pic or two, so we can see just how good those FPS numbers really are.
Scott |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:10 am |
|
|
Zameir
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 25
|
What OS are the people with low frame rates running? I'm starting to think it might be XP/2000 machines with the problems. Then again I could be wrong. Might do some testing on the weekend by re-installing my 'puter to dual boot if I can stop playing morrowind long enough. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:18 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Well Im going to attempt to link an image, no sure if this site uses tags
[image]http://geforce3asus.homestead.com/files/ScreenShot_1.jpg[/image] |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:21 am |
|
|
Guest
|
whoops, guess not  |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:21 am |
|
|
beefcake122
Village Dweller
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 10
|
Well here is the link anyway
http://geforce3asus.homestead.com/files/ScreenShot_1.jpg
You see my FPS is 42 which is pretty good with all the water effects and stuff, yet in other areas where there is nothing going on its 27-30 FPS. That's what I talking about.
Scott |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:27 am |
|
|
beefcake122
Village Dweller
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 10
|
BTW Im the "Guest" that's been posting, just forgot to log in. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:29 am |
|
|
Stiler
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
Posts: 230
Location: TN, USA |
beefcake, you can use image tag its
[img] ------ [/img] no spaces.[/img] |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 5:44 am |
|
|
Guest
|
MW might be a bit slow, but it isn't as bad as most of these "frame rate whiners" are making it out to be. I'd have to say that if you're getting anything below 15 fps in town areas, then your system is either too slow or just POORLY CONFIGURED FOR THIS GAME (ie, too much eye candy turned on).
In the town of Balmora, I get an average of 18-22 fps, but have also seen it jump to the 25-35 fps range (depends on where I'm standing). Out in the open areas it's usually running between 30-50 fps.
Game settings:
View distance = far (when set to half the frame rate never drops below 28 fps in Balmora)
AI distance = near
Real-time shadows = off
Sound quality = high
Screen resolution = 1280 x 960 (same as desktop)
Using "patched" .exe file
Video card settings:
FSAA = none
Ansiotropic filtering = level 1 bilinear
My system specs:
AMD Athlon XP 1800+ @1.53 GHz
Shuttle AK35GTR
512 MB Crucial PC2100 DDR RAM (memory timings are maxed)
VisionTek Xtasy 6964 GF3 Ti 500 @240/500 (using 28.32 drivers)
SB Audigy MP3+
Windows XP Home
Last 3DMark2001 SE score recorded: 8545
IMHO, the performance of MW isn't that bad if you can get it running at 20+ fps in the town areas. In my experience, the game was only "choppy" when I had FSAA set to 2X and ansiotropic filtering set at level 2 (tap 16). Frame rates dipped to 15 aand below. BTW, I leave several background programs running like anti-virus, mouse utilities, etc. I saw little fps gain by turing them off. Experiment. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 7:19 am |
|
|
Mephisto
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 300
Location: Holland |
quote:
Originally posted by Hyperion
The performance envolope can always be pushed. The Devs could have decided to use a custom built engine that may have allowed them to squeeze out better performance on today's hardware given the level of detail and amount of effects they wanted to incorporate. They chose not to and I can only assume that the development costs in doing so out weighed their desire to provide a better performing game.
Not 100% true. You must not underestimate the power of the almighty publishers. The NI engine is a very 'bare' engine, and allows plenty of modding. If they had to make their own engine from scratch, it wouldnt be out before xmas. Yes, money is an issue, as always, but they had to draw the line somewhere.
The major problem, IMHO, is not that the engine is crappy, but it requires a 100% clean (defragged, updated and patched) pc to function. Most people just dont know how to run that, and who can blame them?
Take that Mamo dude, I said exactly the same thing when I got ef2000, in 1996 I believe. A GREAT game, stunning graphics, but run like shit if you didnt completely optimise your pc.
Its a very tough situation. People want the best graphics, best AI, best of everything, and they do NOT want to turn something off. And you cant have everything, sadly enough. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 8:47 am |
|
|
beefcake122
Village Dweller
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 10
|
Well, if I can run 11,020 on 3dmark 2001 (no overclocking), which uses many of the same graphical features that this game does, I'd say I'm pretty much optimized. At least at the present time I can say that my system is blazing fast. I'm sure the folks who made this game want to know what the issues are, so I wouldn't call us whiners. Someday, miricle-boy the shoe will be on the other foot.
There are very few things that can be done to optimize the game, to run better, as there are very few things that you can mess with. The end result is by time you set it up to where the fps stay high enough to not induce a headach, then it doesn't look so pretty anymore, and you begin to wonder what's so great about the graphics in the first place.
I stay above 25fps usually, even outside, but the graphics do not look that good as to warrant being such a resource hog.
Scott |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 12:21 pm |
|
|
Hawk71
Guest
|
Ok, 1.4Ghz Athalon XP, 512 mb DDR, GF4 4600 (det 28.90), SB Audigy, XP pro. Nascar 2002 does not run smooth as glass for me (exit of turn 4 at Daytona seems to be my low water mark, sans a crash). MOHAA is a nightmare at the beach landing. Ms flight simulator dies where there are hills and water. I see these very same threads in all of those forums; "The frame rates suck" I don't think that's any of those games problem though. It's no big secret that games are designed to push hardware. That's why they put the bloody sliders in there.
For any given game I personally feel that the only valid benchmark is fun. Turn off the FPS counter, set the graphics so it plays ok and go from there. In Nascar I need about 30, in MOHAA I need about 25, MS flight simulator I *limit* the frames to 15, in Morrowind I can do with 15 (no, really!) Everything else is just Freudian. No doubt your limits are different, but the concept is the same.
So anyway to get a low water 15 at 1600x1200 I have veiw distance at 3/4, everything else maxed. At least in Balmora. There are posts floating about listing tweaks that I have done to accieve this. Due to system eccentricity though mileage will vary. My personal biggest problem was with the SB Live! 5.1. I thought Ghost Recon was slow and had flaky sound until I got rid of that. Same for Nascar. (I'm talking 20% speed improvement) I also had a screwy registry from driver installs. Also accept that any benchmark prog is not an all knowing god.
Sorry for the rant. Sorry if I have offended anyone. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 2:22 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Beefcake, turn off your shadows man. That is the big performanve hit right there. |
|
Thu May 09, 2002 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
