OFP has fu**ing low framerate

[RN Malboeuf 12]

ther duron is a cut down from the athalon not the T-Bird

there are three AMD Products

Duron >950 mhz 100-133 mhz FSB

Atholon >1400 mhz 100-133-200 mhz FSB

Atholon T-Bird >1400 mhz 266 mhz FSB

then the XPs

the durun is not the problem other wise he would be getting stalls in windows all the time as well

Also he's not o/c so his duron should be working just fine

[Unl33t 0]

I have a P3 1ghz

256Ram

Geforce2 GTS

I get from 10-50 FPS at 1024x768x32

[RN Malboeuf 12]

800 mhz AMD 256megs

ATI Radeon 32 DRR

I had 90 FPS at 1024 32 bit

with my upgrade

14@1.6 ghz AMD 256megs

ATI Radeon 32 DRR

I had 110 FPS at 1024 32 bit

I now run in 1600x1200for SP and 1200x1024 for MP

average 45-55 FPS 32 bit

[Drewus 0]

<just like the Celeron is a cut down verson ( of an already s**tty CPU ) Pentium>

Not true. A Celeron CPU is actually a Pentium chip that didn't make it past recommended overclocking/heating tests. If the Pentium chip fails at a temperature or marking grade below the recommended Pentium grading then it will be classified as a Celeron chip.

I actually read about this in a magazine once. They went into the whole analysis of how different hardware components are tested and graded. Wish i still had the article it was great.

[BoonieRat 0]

Whatever!, they're still crap!,a year or so ago, you HAD to buy one if you're not rolling in cash!, nowadays theres NO EXCUSE for owning a Duron, , and as for a Pant$ium!!! or !!!!, well what can you say?!!,...

[RN Malboeuf 12]

we know they're crap, but our point is that it's not his Duron proccessor that is causing the problems, and telling some one to get a new proccessor and by doing so it will fix thier problem is BAD advice and a waiste of thier money

[MrManiac 0]

That's bulls**t, that the Duron is a bad CPU for gaming. My Duron is faster in every Benchmark, then any PIII. Either in 3D or in "Working" benchmarks. The only thing, why the Duron is cheaper is that it only has 64kb L2 cache. And I already said, that the problem isn't my PC's performance. My friend has got a Celeron 700, 256 MB RAM and a Geforce 256. He can play OFP at 1024x768x32 and everywhere highest details smooth.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

theres more then just that

Durons work fine and do out bench mark the Pentiums that have a FSB of 100 only

other wise there the same

Duron processors are stable and work well

but in the end they are still a lower product compared to the real gaming chip

Atholon T-Bird 266 1.4 ghz will kill a P4 1.7ghz any day

[MrManiac 0]

ok, of course the Athlon is faster than the Duron, but the Duron isn't bad at all. And I don't have so much money that I'm able to buy the newest CPU every week. And I started this thread because a problem with OFP, not because a problem with my CPU's speed. But thx anyway guys !

[Reefer 0]

Not sure if this will help but I was having all sorts of problems with my geforce 2 pro with those new XP 4 in 1 drivers.All my games where stuttering until I used the XP feature to roll the geforces card back to the GTS drivers windows xp originally installed.Games appear to be a lot smoother although I havent fully tested this assumption yet.

On another note can we not jump to the conclusion that the only way to fix small issues is to spend a fortune on upgrading your PC every time ,its so unhelpfull and its not gonna happen.Sorry to all the genuine helpers out there but it really makes my blood boil.

[MrManiac 0]

Thanks for your post, I tried it, but it doesn't work But as I said, the problem exists since Win98 over Win2000 to WinXP. I really don't know what the problem could be....

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Getting BACK to problem

If you have a freind with a better card or say a Radeon 32 DDR ask him to swap for a day so you can both see what runs better

it does not hurt to do your own testing, and you'll find the answer doing so

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

On re-reading your original post, I can see that nobody has got the point of what you’re saying. I have exactly the same problem… it’s not _general_ performance, only when you’re looking at something real close… like a tree through a sniper scope? I just live with it. I would imagine that it’s something to do with the way that the engine is optimised – it’s designed for wide open spaces, not for close quarters.

I have an Athlon 900(100 fsb), 512mb pc133, GeForce2 MX(OEM).

I use the following settings:

Under additional properties for the graphics card –

(That’s: Start->Settings->Control Panel->Display->Settings->Advanced->GeForce xxxxxxx Properties->Additional properties)

3d Antialiasing Settings

Manually select the antialiasing mode

Off

Direct3D Settings

Enable Fog Table Emulation = Ticked

Display Logo when running D3D apps = unticked

MipMap detail level = Blend (Minimum you can run OFP with)

Use Upto _128_ MB of system memory for textures in PCI mode.

More Direct3D…

Vertical Sync = Disabled (this requires non-WHQL drivers and a registry hack)

Render no more than = _3_ frames ahead.

Everything else is irrelevant to performance in OFP.

In OFP preferences:

Display Device = Direct3D HW T&L (This is CRITICAL if you have a GeForce card, it improves performance MASSIVELY, even if it is a bit buggy in 16 bit mode)

Resolution = 1024x768x16

Advanced

Performance

Total Memory = 256MB

Texture Heap = 16MB

File Heap = 16MB

Geometry Performance = 1783

Effect

Object Shadows = Unchecked

Vehicle Shadows = Unchecked

Explosions/Smoke = Checked (this is a must, as grenades and smoke grenades don’t work (for you) if you have them disabled.

Additional Lights = Explosions, Missiles and static all ticked.

Textures

Cockpits = 64

Objects = 64

Landscape = 64

Special Effects = 32

Auto drop-down = 4x

Details

Max Objects = 256

Objects LOD = 0.032

Shadows LOD = 0.050 (irrelevant, as shadows are disabled)

In Game:

Visual Quality, Frame Rate = Maximum possible.

One thing – have you checked your BIOS settings? Toms Hardware Guide (www.tomshardware.com) did a BIOS tweaking article not too long ago, think it’s in the motherboards section.

Some points about what has been said on the thread.

*Athlon vs Duron.*

The Duron, is almost IDENTICAL to the Athlon, except in the amount of level 2 cache. The Athlon has 256KB, the Duron has just 64KB. The similarity is demonstrated very well by benchmarks involving certain wire-frame rendering software – where the Athlon and Duron perform EXACTLY the same (this is not bull-s**t, I couldn’t believe it myself). Where the Duron falls down compared to Athlon, is when it comes to handling large amounts of contiguous data… like bitmap images like… oooh, textures! That’s why the Athlons out-perform in games, but the difference isn’t massive.

In short, the only reason your Duron can’t cut the mustard, is because it runs at 900/1gig, not because it’s a Duron.

*Drivers*

Drivers can be important. However, if you have the latest Via 4in1 and Detonator, that should be all you need.

*Cel-it-on vs P 3*

The Celeron and P3 are very different, unlike Athlon/Duron. The celeron was, until recently, based on the P2. When it was taken up to 100mhz FSB, the core was changed to a cut down P3, the main difference being the reduced L2 cache – 256KB on P3, 128KB on Celeron oh yeah, and the Celeron only works at 100mhz fsb, compared to the 133mhz of the P3. Whoever said that Celerons were P3s that failed QC is talking through his arse (sorry). That was something that happened to the very early 486sx/dx. The Celeron was ALWAYS _designed_ to be the way it is. They designed it to be cheap deliberately, not by accident.

Have fun

Eddy

[AndyZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from MrManiac on 4:39 pm on Nov. 22, 2001

My ASUS V7700 is about a 3/4 year old and has got DDR RAM, but I can't imagine what it could have to do with my problem, because my PC's performance can't be the problem.

<span id='postcolor'>

I have V7700 Deluxe. I found out that it's faster with newest Asus driver, than whith general Nvidia Detonator ones. Try do unistall Detonators and install latest Asus drivers.

AndyZ

[MrManiac 0]

Do you mean the ASUS drivers, based on the 21.81 Detonator ? I tried. There was no speedup and at pc startup Windows freezes for about 10 secondes, because there's a problem in anvshell32.exe, the desktoputilities. And Andy, the problem is n-o-t the general performance.

[JPSgerman 0]

at first.....sorry for bad english

hhmm..

Normaly you must Install the Chip-Drivers (Motherboard CD) after Install Windows (all versions)

- any chips on Motherboard cant find by OS, incl. AGPport for VidCard

- After that you must change the ScreenClocking (Refreshrate of Screen between VidCard and Screen)

Standard is on "Optimal"...change it to 100 or higher -- testing this

This is the most Problem by W2000 and XP because this WindowsVersions handle other Refreshrates internal.

And W2K and XP working on NT-Kernel there is a big Problem between D3D and OpenGL. D3D has many problems with Games.

thx for listening

JPS-German

[WisdoM 1]

GTS sucks and is too slow for this game

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

JPSgerman.

I'm sorry but what you have written about refresh rates and windows 2000 is not correct.

The 'Optimal' setting that you refer to, will push the monitor refresh rate to the maximum, for the screen area. To set your monitor refresh rate to 100hz is suicidal for 2 reasons: Most OEM 17" and almost all 15"/14" are not capable of displaying 1024x768 at 100hz, if you try to force the monitor to this refresh rate, you may damage your monitor, but more than likely, you'll just get a blank screen. (Incidentaly, to fix this, go into safe mode, reset the refresh rate, then restart, or just remove your display driver from device manager)

Besides, this only effect the _monitor_ NOT the graphics card. This is a control of how many times per second a new video signal is sent, not how fast it refreshes the frame buffer. As to whether refresh rate of the monitor is linked to the refresh rate when VSYNC is enabled, in this case, is irrelevant, as Mr Maniac has already stated that he has disabled VSYNC in the display drivers.

As for Win 2K / XP and DirectX. I cannot agree with what you say. 2K does run on the NT-style kernel, but it has been re-written. Win2K/XP actually use DirectX for ALL the video functions! While I must agree, I have encountered some problems with Win2K/DirectX and certain games, the vast majority were solved by the v11.xx nVidia drivers. Point being, that it is generally drivers that are the issue with 2K/XP. OK, there are many games that have problems with 2K/XP, but atleast with these, you don't need to restart your computer every time one crashes out...

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

Just to re-iterate.

The problem that MrManiac is experiencing, is NOT, N O T, repeat _IN NO WAY_ a GENERAL performance problem. His GENERAL performance is FINE.

His problem, is very specific and is one that I have encountered.

One good example:

You are sniping. You find yourself a nice, cosy bush, go prone, then switch to your scope... if you happen to catch the bush in your sight, or turn so you are facing the bush, the frame rate with drop DRAMATICALLY, for me and, from what I've read, for MrManiac, it almost becomes Jerk-o-vision.

This is a very specific problem. It is extremely interesting, as, in 3D games, say for example Quake, if you are staring at a simple surface, such as a wall, your frame rate will shoot right UP, it's only when you look at a wide open space, with lots of objects, that the game will slow down.

This is the EXACT opposite of what we seem to be experiencing, looking at open spaces is fine, it's when you're looking at a single object it goes to s***.

Reflecting on this, it may well be a disign feature *sigh*, as understandably, the game would have been optimised for open spaces, rather than confined ones.

[MrManiac 0]

Yeah, ScreamingWithNoSound got the point !

It's enough if i crawl into a bush and see the branches in front of me. The framerate goes down immediately.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

I only have that problem if I was running LOTs of Apps B4 I play OFP or Durring

never have it on a fresh Boot with little running in the tray

[BoonieRat 0]

You got any other D3D games?, wot d'they run like?,

PS i dont think anyone actualy said Duron's are crap, i said Pantiums are crap!, cause,well,...they are!(this is my opinion, it is non~negotiable;) )

(Edited by BoonieRat at 1:41 pm on Nov. 25, 2001)

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

*Sigh*

Boonie, yes, someone DID say Durons were crap, in fact, it was MrManiac who said they were.

I did not write the post AT anybody, I merely used my experience of PCs and what I've read in THG and others to clear up some misconceptions that had been put forward on the thread.

I do NOT appreaciate people (YOU) taking something that I had made as a GENERAL COMMENT to a whole forum and turning it against me in a personal way. I do not give a flying f*** what YOU did or did not say. If I was, I would have emailed you directly.

Did you receive and email from me directly?

<pause for silence>

But since you raised a point about the P3, I will return:

I do not consider the P3 to be crap. I consider them to be inferior to the Athlon in many ways, but they are not 'crap'. If you want 'crap', you want Cyrix MII. Clearly, the P3 is far supperior to this processor. Indeed, the P3 has many features which are superior to those included in the Athlon, least of which is it's in-built thermal protection. If you do not know what I mean, please read the review of the Athlon, P3 and P4 thermal protection on www.tomshardware.com.

In the same way, the P3 does have many shortcomings when compared to the Athlon. The Athlon was designed from the ground-up, wheras, the P3 is largely based on the same design as the original Pentium, a technology that is now 7 years old.

The main factor with the P3, is it's price. The P3 is a perfectly good processor - I work in PC support for a company that mainly sells Celeron/P3 systems. Athlons account for a far greater proportion of CPU replacements, despite very few of these being sold, relative to Celeron/P3. They are, however, overpriced. Price/performance, they simply cannot and never have, competed with Athlons. This is why I have not bought an Intel processor since 1996 and have no intention of doing so in the future, unless I have to build a mission-critical system, in which case, I may consider a P4 for obvious reasons. (If it's not that obvious to you, read the review on THG that I pointed you to earlier.)

Just in case you missed it the first time:

I do not like people making something I say personal, unless _I_ make it personal first.

Thank you.

[MrManiac 0]

(Ermmm, it was not me, who said Duron wiould be crap.)

Yes, I have many Direct3D games more and they are running very good. Better than OpenGL games ran under Win98, e.g. UT runs in D3D/XP about 2 times faster than in OGL/98. But OFP never ran smooth.

Some D3D examples: NHL 2002, UT, HL, AvP2 (D3D?), The Sims, Max Payne, Commandos 2 (it isn't Direct Draw, it actually is D3D) etc. No problems with this titles.

[BoonieRat 0]

Dude i did'nt turn anything against you!, i did'nt mention you, i did'nt even think of you!, man!, you're paranoid!,,now if you'd like to explain 'Just How?' i ''turned something against you'', or ''Made It Personal'', i'd be happy to see your explaination!, and if i remember rightly,Mr maniac got a bit 'peeved' cause, (whoops!! ),i did actualy say durons were crap,when what i meant to say was'ANYTHING BELOW A T~BIRD IS CRAP!!', especialy Pee3's,haeing owned one ,thats my opinion, its non~negotiable, he never said they were crap hisself, what is crap, is argueing about peeples opinions, its a no~win situation, and in my (non~negotiable;) ) opinion, complete and utter Pants!, i'm sorry about writeing this crap in your post Maniac, i wont do it again,

*Back to topic*

Man this is a poser!, you dont *just* get it when zoomed in,with the Binos' or scope no?, its when you just look @ things?,up close?,have you tryed getting the NVmax (or whatever its called ) proggie?, and fiddleing with some of the more 'arcane' settings?. if other D3D games are OK, then i'm inclined to think this is actualy a general performance thing with OpF/P specificly, and this is just how its manifesting, how does it go with the new single~player mission?, the one with hundreds of AI's in the field all at once?, is it still only slowing when you 'close up' on something in that mission?,or is it choppy all through?,

have you contacted BIS yet?,