| |
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
|
|
|
|
mr_d
Village Dweller
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 4
|
Using the D3D frame rate measuring program Fraps, I've determined that Gothic runs at an almost consistent 20fps (give or take a couple of fps) when a key has just been pressed or is being held down. If I release all the keys, the game will slowly speed up, reaching around 60fps (assuming the hardware config I'm using can handle it at the selected resolution) after several seconds. If I press any key, regardless of whether it has any purpose in the game, the frame rate will instantly plummet back down to 20fps. Changing the detail level and resolution doesn't help at all.
I'm almost totally sure that this is neither a driver nor a RAM issue. I've patched it up to 1.08k (though 1.08j was exactly the same), and have tried it with the following configs:
PC 1 - Epox 8KHA+ mobo (VIA KT266A chipset), XP1500+ (usually run at 1.6GHz, but returning it to default makes no difference), 384Mb RAM, Radeon 8500LE or Voodoo5 PCI, Videologic Sonic Fury, Win98 and Win2k
PC 2 - ECS K75SA mobo (SiS735 chipset), Athlon 1.33GHz, 256Mb RAM, Matrox G400 Max, SB Live! Value, Win98 and Win2k
With PC 1, I've tried it with the Voodoo 5 in Win98 and the Radeon 8500 in both 98 and 2k, using both the most recent driver and the recommended driver set (4.13.7191) in 98. With PC 2, I've only tried Win98. I've set the swapfile to 2Gb - I'n not convinced it actually worked in 98, and in 2k it roughly halved loading times but had no effect on performance.
The only common component across the two computers (apart from IBM 60GXP hard disks, and I really can't see how they could make a difference) is their D-Link network cards, so I took that out of PC 1 to no avail. As I said, I can't see how it could be drivers as both PCs are running entirely different driver sets, and I've tried it with three graphics cards in total.
All I can think of is a lack of RAM, but there's no hard disk crunching, and the frame rate drops to a steady 20fps. I'll try putting 512Mb of RAM in PC 1 later on, but I'll be amazed if it makes a difference.
So has anyone come across this problem before, and if so, do you have any suggestions that might be appropriate given that the problem exists on two entirely different systems? |
Sat Feb 09, 2002 3:56 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
First, why do you care what the fps is? Second, you didn't say you SAW a performance problem - just that you saw the fps number go down. If the game PERFORMS fine, then the fps number is totally irrelevant. My fps does about what you describe - but the key is that even when the fps is at 20, the game PLAYS just fine - so who cares.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 4:02 pm |
|
|
mr_d
Village Dweller
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 4
|
It doesn't run fine at 20fps, it's appallingly jerky. I really didn't think that needed saying. Regardless of whether you personally find 20fps playable (and I don't), a problem exists that needs solving.
I only decided to run Fraps after I'd noticed the problem to determine exactly what the frame rate was. There's no way I'm even going to consider playing it until I can get it running at the speed it's capable of running it (which is at least 60fps judging by its performance when no keys have been pressed).
Edit: Just noticed you said that you experience the same problem - so there's no solution to it?
[ This Message was edited by: mr_d on 2002-02-09 10:47 ] |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 4:39 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
On 2002-02-09 10:39, mr_d wrote:
It doesn't run fine at 20fps, it's appallingly jerky. I really didn't think that needed saying. Regardless of whether you personally find 20fps playable (and I don't), a problem exists that needs solving.
Jerky?
I did not even noticed this "20 fps" until someone started discussion about it here (some time ago).
But you find it jerky...
quote:
I only decided to run Fraps after I'd noticed the problem to determine exactly what the frame rate was. There's no way I'm even going to consider playing it until I can get it running at the speed it's capable of running it (which is at least 60fps judging by its performance when no keys have been pressed).
Edit: Just noticed you said that you experience the same problem - so there's no solution to it?
It is also my problem and not only mine, but... Can somebody run it with more than 20 fps?
I do not say it is not problem... It was not for me.
Do you know marvin console command
toggle frame
which allows you to watch framerate without using some external program (I do not maybe you are using it for some other reason).
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-02-09 11:07 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-02-09 11:08 ] |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 5:06 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
20fps is the desired minimum framerate. Use the search function for a detailed explanation. The engine accelerates from 20fps and calculates graphics and AI. The moment both become asynchronous for a very short time the whole thing is reset.
If your systems were fast enough to compute both graphics AND AI you would get 100 fps!
On the bigger machine the framerate should stay constantly slightly above 20fps. |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 5:59 pm |
|
|
mr_d
Village Dweller
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 4
|
I suppose I should've looked at some of the earlier forum posts, as I would've discovered that the game's frame rate limiter is set to 20fps. Why this should be deemed necessary or desirable when every other third-person 3D game of the past few years has had it set to a considerably greater value I don't know.
Frame rate tolerance seems to be a highly subjective matter. For me personally, it's almost an understatement to say that the difference between 20fps and 60fps is night and day. I appreciate that some people consider 20fps to be playable or even smooth, I just don't understand it 
So is there a workaround for this? I've tried gothic.exe - zMaxFramerate:xx but this doesn't seem to make any difference regardless of how large or small a figure I use. I'd be happy for the game to drop to single figure frame rates every now and then (as has suggested in another thread would be the case if the limiter were set high, though I can't for the life of me think why) so that it's at least smooth the majority of the time rather than none of the time. |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 6:04 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
This is not 3d game - or not normal 3d game. You can not compare it with RtCW, MOH, SS, SS2 etc.
Maybe there could be better optimalization, but FPSs are not calculating NPCs etc. It is really different.
|
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 6:39 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
On 2002-02-09 12:04, mr_d wrote:
I suppose I should've looked at some of the earlier forum posts, as I would've discovered that the game's frame rate limiter is set to 20fps.
Didnīt I just say the opposite?
quote:
Why this should be deemed necessary or desirable when every other third-person 3D game of the past few years has had it set to a considerably greater value I don't know.
I also answered this. The reason is AI. A conventional shooter has a few NPCs with close to zero intelligence in a rather small area. Gothic has hundreds of NPCs with more or less intelligence in one gigantic world.
You shouldnīt compare an S class Mercedes to a Formula 1 racer.
quote:
Frame rate tolerance seems to be a highly subjective matter. For me personally, it's almost an understatement to say that the difference between 20fps and 60fps is night and day. I appreciate that some people consider 20fps to be playable or even smooth, I just don't understand it
You are right, itīs very subjective.
20fps are acceptable for an RPG, because you donīt need to react in a split secind like in UT. Todays PCs simply canīt compute graphics and AI fast enough in a 3D game with complex AI. What do you want in an RPG, good graphics and good AI, or crappy graphics and excellent AI? I think PB found the correct compromise.
quote:
So is there a workaround for this? I've tried gothic.exe - zMaxFramerate:xx but this doesn't seem to make any difference regardless of how large or small a figure I use. I'd be happy for the game to drop to single figure frame rates every now and then (as has suggested in another thread would be the case if the limiter were set high, though I can't for the life of me think why) so that it's at least smooth the majority of the time rather than none of the time.
Afaik you can change this with the ModKit, on cost of stability.
Smooth has nothing to do with higher framerates. To make an animation look smooth you need a constant framerate. Take a DivX for example. If you convert a PAL DVD to a PAL DivX you get 25fps. This is by far fast enough to display movies adequately.
What you really mean is responsiveness. No doubt every shooter is far more responsive. But again, you canīt have everything. Donīt you think id-software wouldnīt give you more complex AI and bigger areas if they could?
Live with the 20-25 fps you get, turn on FSAA on the Radeon 8500 and the Voodoo5 and get used to it.
|
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 7:09 pm |
|
|
mr_d
Village Dweller
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 4
|
quote:
Didnīt I just say the opposite?
It's not much use being able to run at more than 20fps if you have to stand still. Thus I consider 20fps to be the maximum, not the minimum.
Whatever their reasons for deciding to limit the fps while keys are held down, I can't see why they would've chosen to set it as low as 20fps. Even 30fps, while still slow, would be a massive improvement.
quote:
What do you want in an RPG, good graphics and good AI, or crappy graphics and excellent AI? I think PB found the correct compromise.
All the RPGs I've played recently have been capable of running at far beyond 20fps. If Gothic is genuinely incapable of running at more than 20fps with any presently available CPU (and I find that extremely difficult to believe), then in my opinion they should've held the release back until the hardware world is ready for it. But I suspect that 20fps is an arbitrary limit and that my PC is capable of a fair bit more than that, which frustrates me greatly.
If this apparently revolutionary AI that reduces the frame rate to a fraction of that in almost every other RPG since Ultima IX is central to the game, then yes, I would definitely prefer the 'crappy graphics and excellent AI' option if it meant the game would run faster.
quote:
Smooth has nothing to do with higher framerates. To make an animation look smooth you need a constant framerate.
I've never seen a satisfactory argument supporting the view that a consistent 60fps is required for perceived smoothness in games, I just know that I personally find this holds true. 20fps in Gothic looks exactly the same to me as 20fps in Quake 3 - very choppy. I'd agree that a lower frame rate is required for an RPG to be playable than for an FPS as responsiveness is less important, but not to the extent that 20fps is a desirable maximum. That's just me, I'm sure we'll never agree on this |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 8:08 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
On 2002-02-09 14:08, mr_d wrote:
All the RPGs I've played recently have been capable of running at far beyond 20fps.
Please name one RPG similar to Gothic...
(I surely agree that we can have different opinions )
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-02-09 14:24 ] |
|
Sat Feb 09, 2002 8:22 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
The graphics and models in gothic really remind me of Vampire The Masquerade. Gothic's environment however is much, much, much better than that in VTM. There are many more objects lying around and is deffinately more expansive and interactive. The environments in VTM were very static and stale. Even though the models had more polygons than those of Gothic, they seemed much less life like and always travelled a very simple path using only 4 animations each. Large battles in VTM become matrix like fights where your party moves at the speed of slugs. The fact that Gothic can maintain a constant FPS even during large battles with special effects (magic) is a great feat. I never found the game sluggish and only very rarely did the game become "jerky". I did not know that Gothic ran at a constant 20fps unless standing still, but I never really noticed before either, and actually felt that the lack of slowdowns was incredible. I do agree that they could/should have set the min/max fps to 30 or 35 but perhaps they ran into problems with these settings and had to set it down a bit. |
|
Sat Feb 16, 2002 2:33 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
