-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
pleasantly surprised
- Thread starter Jono8
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Demo was buggy and I aint installed Full Game yet, and I wont be installing my copy of vista to play the DX10 either as its not a pure DX10 PC coded game.
The full game seems to run at around 45fps at all max with shadows on medium, 16xAA/AF at 1600x1050 with an 8800GTS, so far I only get around 22fps with 16xAA/AF all high with shadows at medium 
, I'm hoping its just Lost Planet been picky with hardware and that other DX10 will run better, DX9 is the same for me too, runs like **** on my system.
, I'm hoping its just Lost Planet been picky with hardware and that other DX10 will run better, DX9 is the same for me too, runs like **** on my system.
meh, all the games ive tried seem perfectly playable at 1680x1050 withh aa and af , all looking very nice.
Its a pretty tall order to expect all games to run on at 60fps+ at high res's and settings i reckon. Especially on a new operating system and new api.
Its a pretty tall order to expect all games to run on at 60fps+ at high res's and settings i reckon. Especially on a new operating system and new api.
BubbySoup said:Oh the irony of a mis-type
On topic, your frame rates are pants for a FPS running on top hardware using a "revolutionary" API.
im sorry but i dont think the framerate is pants at all. Its all perfectly playable.
Plus. i would re-check the definition of irony
Jono8 said:im sorry but i dont think the framerate is pants at all. Its all perfectly playable.
Plus. i would re-check the definition of irony
Well from reading your first post those frame rates seem pants for an 8800GTX, a guy with an 8800GTS is getting higher than those.
Jono8 said:i don't think so. Mine seems right in the ballpark. is a bit higher than a lot of the benchmark reviews as well.
Well I was talking to someone, he has an 8800GTS and its clocked at I think 690/2Ghz or something like that, he uses 16xAA/AF, all high with shadows on medium at 1600x1050 and he gets around 45fps on average. At the same settings I get around 20fps so I'm kinda pi$$ed off at this game and aint going to play it untill somethings sorted.
willhub said:
i take framerates that people say on forums with a pinch of salt (now i do realise the irony there in relation to my post
), When i change the nvidia control panel to 16xaa, it makes no difference in lost planet.Also it depends on where he is. I mean inside caves i get about an average of 60 , but outside more like 35/40 so i suppose i could average that out to about 45/50.
Anyway im happy with performance and it plays beautifully smooth in my opinion. If youre getting 20fps just turn AA down to 4xaa, your not goinbg to see a huge difference in visual quality above 4x/8x anyway.
Jono8 said:i take framerates that people say on forums with a pinch of salt (now i do realise the irony there in relation to my post
Also it depends on where he is. I mean inside caves i get about an average of 60 , but outside more like 35/40 so i suppose i could average that out to about 45/50.
Anyway im happy with performance and it plays beautifully smooth in my opinion. If youre getting 20fps just turn AA down to 4xaa, your not goinbg to see a huge difference in visual quality above 4x/8x anyway.
With me, the 4xAA/AF stll has performance go down to crap levels, near 20fps still :\, AA/AF dont work in the NV control panel, well I dont know, I enable 16xAA/AF in NV Control Panel and it seems ot blur edges but everything is still jaggy. I am trying to broken 162.15 drivers again and trying the LP DX10 demo to see if its the actual full copy of the game.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 988
- Location
- Preston,Lancs
paradigm said:
I run XP, it's stable as hell for me. rock damn solid. I've run ME I know what true instability is ( and the fear associated with it ) XP wasn't broke and we didn't need vista, The only people who "needed" vista were the accountants at MS
Ahahaha brilliant.MoD_Callidus said:
If that is the case, we didn't "need" windows at all, DOS was fine, it was stable it did what was required.
Vista is inherently more stable than XP will EVER be just down to the way its written, and the way its drivers are handled.
Its not about what was broken and what wasn't, its software evolution. It was time for an upgrade, we got one. If you can't afford it, don't take it out on Microsoft.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,873
- Location
- UK
XP was stable sure, still had a few BSOD. I'm not a Vista uber fan, in fact I hated it to start with. I have to say now it much less likely to crash than my old XP install. And I haven't found any games I can't play yet without a few tweaks, most run within a few frames of XP. I've finally dumped the XP install, forces me to fix the Vista problems.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,629
- Location
- East London
Tom|Nbk said:
isnt there a problem with AA though? or something along those lines i dont keep up with it
I have to say on my x1800xt Oblivion seems fine on Vista as well as XP, a bit slower on Vista but not so much as to spoil the experience! Im pretty much using Vista now and thats that done with It is really a lot more stable as an OS and I just like it!
If i need to play competively online however in games like BFME2 ROTWK im on XP since Vista creates an OOS error in clan games
It is really a lot more stable as an OS and I just like it!If i need to play competively online however in games like BFME2 ROTWK im on XP since Vista creates an OOS error in clan games