Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DM-Shrift by genthly --- MSU top10 --- DevMods contest winner --- 3DBuzz top10

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by genthly View Post
    Thanks AnubanUT2
    Yay I won!!
    Yes i know it needs a bit more optimisation, i'll make a 1.1 version in some time. And yes i won a PS3 so i can finally test my maps on it
    But... wow on your quadcore with both vid cards you have lack of fps? Maybe your System is overfloated or something? On my pentium dualcore and single 8800gt i get MIN 40 fps in one place on shrift with about 8 bots
    I'm in the same boat as AnubanUT2. I get really bad framerates around the cavern area. Outside not a problem but the underground cavern/tunnel area get's the framerate on my PC into the low teens. What rez do you run the game at that keep's ya framerate that high? I run mine at 1680x1050with full settings.
    If ya can find the time to see if you can optimize it more in the near future it'd be greatly appreciated.
    Apart from that Gratz on winning! It's a gorgeous looking map!

    Comment


      #92
      Congrats on winning, Genthly. You sure deserve it. Good luck in the 3dbuzz contest too.

      I use full settings, and 1280x1024 resolution (my LCD won't go higher). I get the full 62 fps in Shrift mostly (I keep the "smooth framerate" setting enabled), but in a few spots it drops down in the 50's. Core2 Quad Q6600, with a BFG Nvidia 9800GX2 OCX (recently upgraded the video). So I'd say the map isn't as bad as some.

      But believe it or not, the video card made virtually zero difference to UT3. I was getting the very same performance in the maps with my 8800GTS that I replaced. Other games benefit from the video card, but not UT3. The CPU isn't completely maxed out while playing either. (I logged it while playing and no core got over about 75% load on the worst maps, and not for long periods).

      I was expecting to see some improvement in some of the real kludgy maps that are out there, but performance is identical, in every spot.

      Comment


        #93
        Grogan,

        If you activate the "smooth framerate" setting, you won't go higher than 62 since this value is the maximum value in the ini file. If you want to have much higher fps, edit the ini and change the default value 62.000** to something high like 200.000** and disable the "smooth framerate" and also vsync if it's the case.

        That way, you'll see the true fps.

        To give you an idea, I'm playin in 1680*1050, everything to max and getting between 40-120 fps on my current hardware (see my post in page 9).

        Cheers.

        Comment


          #94
          Thanks Steve, yes I am aware of that which is why I mentioned the smooth framerate setting. I'm not really concerned with the maximum fps, what I'm concerned with is where it drops down below 62 (like around 40 it starts to feel very wrong at 1280x1024). In this game, 62 fps is good. It doesn't make the game feel slow (like UT2004 with vsync enabled), it just keeps the motion smooth and consistent.

          I have turned that off for testing purposes and in some maps it can get pretty high. Another part of my point was that the new video card didn't make it get any higher and in the maps that have poor fps, there was no improvement. My other games drastically improved (e.g. Crysis doubled)

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Grogan View Post
            Thanks Steve, yes I am aware of that which is why I mentioned the smooth framerate setting. I'm not really concerned with the maximum fps, what I'm concerned with is where it drops down below 62 (like around 40 it starts to feel very wrong at 1280x1024). In this game, 62 fps is good. It doesn't make the game feel slow (like UT2004 with vsync enabled), it just keeps the motion smooth and consistent.

            I have turned that off for testing purposes and in some maps it can get pretty high. Another part of my point was that the new video card didn't make it get any higher and in the maps that have poor fps, there was no improvement. My other games drastically improved (e.g. Crysis doubled)
            Humm...

            The lowest fps I got with my BFG 8800GT is ±39 fps in 1680*1050 everything set to max. So you should manage to get at least a minimum of 80 fps in 1280*1024 with your 9800 GX2. It is documented on several review site that the "smooth framerate setting" will slow you down and suggesting do not use it. I don't understand that in UT3, you get some improvement in some maps and no improvements at all in others maps !

            BTW, I reinstall Crysis on my new PC and I got graphics issues I'm searching since yesterday for a solution but did not find some tangible solution. Did you encounter some graphics with this game with 1.21 patch ?

            Comment


              #96
              I didn't actually install the 1.2.1 patch for crysis because I don't play it online, but I have no graphics issues with Crysis 1.2 and the latest Nvidia drivers, 175.19

              Hmm, OK, I will try turning off the smooth framerate setting then and just get used to it that way. However, that makes no difference in the maps that are really bad. Shrift is good, as I said it dips down in the 50's in a few spots but most spots are perfect.

              Examples of maps that are bad here are CTF-Atlantea (that's ridiculous... it drops down in the 20's in some places), and DM-AS-Rising_Sun_XL (30's and 40's).

              Comment


                #97
                Wow this map is really good looking, it's just a shame for the texture loading when I go into the caves considering how perfect it is, apart from that it's awesome.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Thought I'd drop a quick message to say I get a nicer framerate in the cavern area when running with the 175.19(current) nvidia drivers. I'd been a bit slack and was still running with previous version drivers (169.something).

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Indeed, the 175.19 are better than the 169.xx. Still FYI, the 175.16 are better than the 175.19 in term of performances.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by stevelois View Post
                      Indeed, the 175.19 are better than the 169.xx. Still FYI, the 175.16 are better than the 175.19 in term of performances.
                      In most places, I get better performance with 175.19 in Vista 32. I've tested both (a while ago some enthusiast sites were reporting regressions.... turned out to be missing game profiles because they used a driver cleaner and the Windows XP Nvidia installer didn't put them back. Apparently it's fixed now). I tested both for myself when I got my 9800GX2.

                      I get better scores in 3DMark Vantage with 175.19 (e.g. avg 5 fps higher, with noticably higher FPS in spots while the demos are running). I get very slightly better performance in the Crysis game (not a big deal) and slighly poorer performance in the Crysis benchmark (it's more of a fly through than actual game play). There is no change to Unreal Tournament 3 whatsoever. So I stuck with 175.19.

                      However, I bought Gears of War the other day and was getting a bit of stuttering in places. I don't see the FPS drop when it happens, it just stuttered in spots. Almost feels like the right textures aren't in graphics memory or something and have to be loaded... that kind of stutter. I had the feeling something was wrong, so I uninstalled 175.19 and went back to 175.16 and noticed significant improvements in Gears. Since that's the game du jour for me right now, it's the one that matters most so I'll stick with 175.16.

                      I love Gears of War, by the way. I'm so glad I got it (I didn't think I was going to like it because it's a third person thing, but the perspective is more like first person). The campaign is fabulous, and I even checked out a few addon SP maps from here.

                      I'm still getting great performance in Shrift with 175.16 (I never did have a problem in those caverns though) and poor performance in those other examples I mentioned in a post above.

                      Comment


                        A quick note to tell that I don't have any issues anymore about Crysis.

                        I replace my PSU and now everything is fine.

                        I did some indeep testing before/after the replacement in terms of power stability with a lot of software and playing in stressful maps in UT3/Crysis and I even got some tiny FPS gain.

                        Simply great

                        Comment


                          This map is definitely one of the best UT3 maps I've played.

                          It is all about fun.

                          Great job.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Taffy View Post
                            This map is definitely one of the best UT3 maps I've played.

                            It is all about fun.

                            Great job.

                            Wait until Gen reveals his new map Project Genesis.
                            IMO its another Musthave map

                            Comment


                              Genthly, was there ever a "Final" of this and VCTF-NightShrift for PS3? Just checking back for it, like all good map getterers should always do.

                              *Edit - I missed your earlier post, sorry. Let me know when you're on PS3! Meantime...... I got PC! Waaaahhhh!!!! As soon as I figure out how to move and shoot, I'll look for you!

                              Comment


                                Holy **** bro, this looks so **** nice.

                                Very nice job!
                                /me downloads.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X