Soldato
I was running 80-100fps in beta, so no idea why people with c2d and 8800's are having problems.
(1280x1024 max settings.)
(1280x1024 max settings.)
**The Official S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow Of Chernobyl Thread**
- Thread starter Tom|Nbk
- Start date
X1900XT @ stock
E6600 @ stock
2GB RAM
Vista
1024x768 everything high, 2x AA, 4xAF gives 40-50fps dips down to around 35 during combat
1280x1024 everything high, 2xaa, 2xaf gives 35-45fps which then dips to around 29 during combat.
It gets a lot better later on in the game also
Screenshots do NOT do the game justice
So I've heard
E6600 @ stock
2GB RAM
Vista
1024x768 everything high, 2x AA, 4xAF gives 40-50fps dips down to around 35 during combat
1280x1024 everything high, 2xaa, 2xaf gives 35-45fps which then dips to around 29 during combat.
It gets a lot better later on in the game also
Screenshots do NOT do the game justice
So I've heard
Last edited:
funny thread tbh, i reckon half the 'innocent' on here have bagged a game from a torrent or a tv show or music etc
the game just doesnt interest me, too long in development, 5yr old gfx from every shot ive seen .. dont get me wrong ill try out a sp demo, but from the vids and pics diakatana(sp) the 2nd .. so any news of a demo ?
the game just doesnt interest me, too long in development, 5yr old gfx from every shot ive seen .. dont get me wrong ill try out a sp demo, but from the vids and pics diakatana(sp) the 2nd .. so any news of a demo ?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 43
I have noticed on the official forums for the game some people with Vista have had problems after installing. One person claimed the only way he fixed the framerate issue was by reinstalling Vista. Since doing it his framerate is fine.
The devs also claim that the game will run well on lower spec machines within the recommended specs. They say that because it is a game that is old in terms of development, turning down some of the settings will let older cards run the game very nicely. How true that is I do not know.
The devs also claim that the game will run well on lower spec machines within the recommended specs. They say that because it is a game that is old in terms of development, turning down some of the settings will let older cards run the game very nicely. How true that is I do not know.
Last edited:
Associate
Probably a poorly setup machine. All sorts of crap running on the persons machine, that doing a format cleared.Vanishing Point said:
But time will tell...
No I'm not kidding. Everyone else is able to be fairly sensible mainly addressing the quality of the game and not refering to how their mates are playing it. Just save the anti-piracy talk for the posts that actually break the rules.
z0mbi3 said:
2 posts certainly did break copyright infringement laws...the rest just went along as if it was normal.
Whats mature about piracy absolutely nothing... There was absolutely no need to post stuff from the cracked SP copy of the game (not referring to you) coz there was a MP beta. So easy enough to talk about that.
I dont know about you but if i was playing a game i like to know if its a legal version or not. Yeah i would be concerned if it wasnt. The impression you have given is that you dont give a toss as long as you get to play the game... fair enough thats your opinion and i have mine.
Soldato
regulus said:
So the game is 4-5 times more demanding than the beta? I highly doubt that.
killer_uk said:
I don't know about the performance increase (FPS) from your c2d compared to my 4400+, but im guessing its going to be about 5fps-10fps, meaning im going to get an average of 27-37fps? How can a game thats been in development for 5 years and doesn't even have decent gfx play that bad.
Associate
Maybe there is something wrong with the actual game, I thought a patch was going to be available for release anyway? Oh wait the people that have it now have "questionable" versions... Maybe you should just wait for the patch or something?
**edit**
lol people are going onto the official forums and saying "I'm having trouble installing" lol
**edit**
lol people are going onto the official forums and saying "I'm having trouble installing" lol
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
ok, for someone playing on max settings at 1280x1024, you do realise its almost 50% more pixels at 1680x1050, most people playing "high" settings would be playing with a higher resolution. what exact settings did you use?
anyway, i get, somewhere between 40-70fps at a guess utterly maxed out (tell a lie, AA only 1/2lvl up but no idea what actual aa setting that would be and if nvidia is doing good/bad/fast aa there). but every bar maxed, full dynamic lighting. thats at 1680x1050 with a cd2 @ 3.5Ghz and a 8800gtx on vista64. although thats utterly unstable, i said "I", opps, i clearly meant my m8 just told me that ¬_¬
however, it might be that vista 64 doesn't like the dynamic lighting or something because turn that off and it goes from completely unstable to not a single issue with graphics............... notice i said issues with graphics
its still kinda crap so far, i got a couple rifles and they, suck, i ..opps, my m8 tried to kill a guy 10 metres away, who was unsuspecting, i unloading a automatic rifle into him with standard ammo and i dunno, i got hit several times and it musta taken 4/5 bursts probo 2-3 shots in each to take him down. its ridiculous.
while i can load up ammo in the shotty for range and less damage, or less range and high damage, i can sometimes pump 4 shots into a mutant pig thing 10 metres away and not kill them, or use standard pistol ammo and kill them at 30 yards with two shots. makes utterly no sense.
the graphics issues with heavy equipment needed, its just like having an x800 on hl2 with hdr, without it game runs great, with it, it doesn't so much. the dymanic lighting, with it turned off i was running like 130-160fps, its an overly used, quite pretty at times but way way to overused graphical effect. without it i would imagine a lower end system would easily play it even with other thigns at higher detail levels.
now maybe you do die way to easily in the game, or maybe you just need to get used to constantly bandaging/medkit using in battle which you don't really do in many fps games. but so far i would say you die far too easily with enemy's and beats being too accurate while you can't kill them that easily. but this is why the AI's lame, they often i guess semi realistically spread out and walk around, but the part where the AI is lame is. if you use shotty with high damage low range stuff, you can simply run at the nearest guy you can get stupidly close before they'll even start to fire and only the nearest guy will, you can blow them away in two shots, then run/reload to the next guy. the groups seem to be utterly retarded.
anyway, i get, somewhere between 40-70fps at a guess utterly maxed out (tell a lie, AA only 1/2lvl up but no idea what actual aa setting that would be and if nvidia is doing good/bad/fast aa there). but every bar maxed, full dynamic lighting. thats at 1680x1050 with a cd2 @ 3.5Ghz and a 8800gtx on vista64. although thats utterly unstable, i said "I", opps, i clearly meant my m8 just told me that ¬_¬
however, it might be that vista 64 doesn't like the dynamic lighting or something because turn that off and it goes from completely unstable to not a single issue with graphics............... notice i said issues with graphics
its still kinda crap so far, i got a couple rifles and they, suck, i ..opps, my m8 tried to kill a guy 10 metres away, who was unsuspecting, i unloading a automatic rifle into him with standard ammo and i dunno, i got hit several times and it musta taken 4/5 bursts probo 2-3 shots in each to take him down. its ridiculous.
while i can load up ammo in the shotty for range and less damage, or less range and high damage, i can sometimes pump 4 shots into a mutant pig thing 10 metres away and not kill them, or use standard pistol ammo and kill them at 30 yards with two shots. makes utterly no sense.
the graphics issues with heavy equipment needed, its just like having an x800 on hl2 with hdr, without it game runs great, with it, it doesn't so much. the dymanic lighting, with it turned off i was running like 130-160fps, its an overly used, quite pretty at times but way way to overused graphical effect. without it i would imagine a lower end system would easily play it even with other thigns at higher detail levels.
now maybe you do die way to easily in the game, or maybe you just need to get used to constantly bandaging/medkit using in battle which you don't really do in many fps games. but so far i would say you die far too easily with enemy's and beats being too accurate while you can't kill them that easily. but this is why the AI's lame, they often i guess semi realistically spread out and walk around, but the part where the AI is lame is. if you use shotty with high damage low range stuff, you can simply run at the nearest guy you can get stupidly close before they'll even start to fire and only the nearest guy will, you can blow them away in two shots, then run/reload to the next guy. the groups seem to be utterly retarded.
Soldato
For all those worried, on my specs it runs fine on preset medium settings (1024x768 res), averaging 30-35 fps...
Game is ok, shame about it having no spoken text in the other missions next to the main ones, gfx look a bit oldish, but i need to play it more to make a jugement.
Agree with above, weapons are unbalanced, ai has more powerfull weapons and health as u.
Game is ok, shame about it having no spoken text in the other missions next to the main ones, gfx look a bit oldish, but i need to play it more to make a jugement.
Agree with above, weapons are unbalanced, ai has more powerfull weapons and health as u.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
meh, incase no one bothers reading all that,
1680x1050, 8800gtx, 3.5Ghz core duo, full dynamic lighting 40-70fps outdoors with distance of everything set to high(NOT just maximum in the basic menu).
no dynamic lighting and i go up to 140-160fps or something, as it looks, the gfx themselves are crap and judging by my fps the textures and draw distance themselves aren't an issue and a much lower card should be able to push them well at lower speeds, its just the lighting effects, which don't change how the characters textures look, or the scenery or anything, just how they are lit, is whats killing performance. lower end system don't use it, i will check fps with only object dynamic lighting on, and see if theres even that big a difference between all three.
1680x1050, 8800gtx, 3.5Ghz core duo, full dynamic lighting 40-70fps outdoors with distance of everything set to high(NOT just maximum in the basic menu).
no dynamic lighting and i go up to 140-160fps or something, as it looks, the gfx themselves are crap and judging by my fps the textures and draw distance themselves aren't an issue and a much lower card should be able to push them well at lower speeds, its just the lighting effects, which don't change how the characters textures look, or the scenery or anything, just how they are lit, is whats killing performance. lower end system don't use it, i will check fps with only object dynamic lighting on, and see if theres even that big a difference between all three.
Associate
Hmn. Once it is officially released patches should be pretty soon, I heard they are working on one at the moment so that on release once the patch is applied some of the bugs mentioned in the Reviews and such are gone. But thats just gossip of course.regulus said:Im getting ready to cancel my order after all the mini reviews and comments so far.
Soldato
Yeah im sure i heard there will actually be a patch on release date.
-
About gfx i think there great, ignore hl2 as thats a diff style of texturing. I like the textures and models myself. More suited to the gameplay.
-
About gfx i think there great, ignore hl2 as thats a diff style of texturing. I like the textures and models myself. More suited to the gameplay.
Its a good game, but the AI does kind of suck, the damage model is very poor given the fact that AI can picky you off at 40 yards using burst fire, and yet with the same gun, crouched down, single shots and with iron sights it takes a lot of shots to pick them off. Same thing with close range fire, you can empty an entire mag into someone and they wont go down.
Other than the AI issues though, the atmosphere is great and so is the overall map/mission design. I can see it getting a bit boring though if it keeps following the path of giving you a task to do and getting ambushed by countless bandits on the way to the objective.
Other than the AI issues though, the atmosphere is great and so is the overall map/mission design. I can see it getting a bit boring though if it keeps following the path of giving you a task to do and getting ambushed by countless bandits on the way to the objective.