cRPG
cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Elmuri on March 22, 2012, 06:43:46 pm
-
I've heard that there are quite a many people who have fps-problems in city maps and maps with lots of trees or lots of other stuff. Many claim that they dont have bad computer. I have the same problem. First I thought it was just in one or 2 maps but I think the situation went worse a couple of patches ago. Now almost every second map in EU1 is like 35-60 fps, while open plains etc. have constant 110. Honestly I dont have shitty computer and last year I didn't have any problems. My drivers are updated etc. and other games like Batman Arkham City and Deus Ex are running perfectly with medium settings.
My processor is Intel Core i5 with 3,2 ghz, I got 4 gb ram and my graphics card is Ati HD 6700.
-
one problem I see is even though fraps or in-game monitor says 60/70 fps, I feel like I'm playing at 15 or 20. Certain textures at certain resolutions just seem to bog everything down horribly
-
I really feel the difference when the map changes from some stupid town to a realistic battlefield. The game feels much smoother and more importantly, weird quantum physics things like people teleporting, blocks and attacks failing, people walking through each other etc. seem to happen a lot less.
-
I've lost about 40% of my FPS over the last few patches. Still doesn't drop below 70FPS in the worst of situations but it looks and feels like, as said above, 20FPS. I have no idea why that is.
My machine is due for an overhaul when the IB's and Z77's come out in a month. Hopefully that will help me out.
Just for reference:
Q9650 @stock
4GB @~1010
HD6850 @1200p
70-125 FPS, 125 being what I've capped it at.
-
When I run in fullscreen I get anywhere from 25-70 FPS, with probably 50 being average. When I play in windowed mode my average is 125 in the range of 70-160.
-
Yeah I played on an old Pentium D in the summer till January - I couldn't even load that god-forsaken city / gallows map. If it had more than a dozen trees there was a chance I couldn't load it too, haha.
Just running a core 2 duo, E7500, and doing fine though. That's what, an office processor for a point of sale system these days? I saw it get worse and worse and eventually unplayable for some maps over the course of patches though, which was kind of interesting.
For the record, geforce 450 gts, 4 GB ram
-
I have mine capped at 60 and it rarely ever moves (sometimes it moves to 59 for a second) then back to 60. Uncapped I get like 80-120.
-
GeForce GTX 550 Ti (1 gig of memory)
intel i5-2400 (that's 4x3,10ghz)
6gig RAM of DDR3
Here
There's hardly a map I'm running below 120 fps (and even then it's something between 80 and 100 fps). That's with dx9 and everything fancy maxed out.
What I can recommend is:
Close all applications you don't need if you're low on RAM (used to have only 2 ram half a year ago and it really helped. There are several free programs that can help you to decide if this application is not worth its memory or completly necessary and needs to be booted everytime you start your computer. You can still get yourself some more RAM modules ofc. I got my 4 additional gig for 15, sure worth the investment)
There are guides out there what options you can tick/untick if you want your game's fps to increase (some may come at the cost of visual performance ofc). Read them.
Keep your computer clean. A GPU is easily the most dust ridden part in you computer. You can really suffer a performance decrease if it gets too dirty. Clean it every now and then.
Get yourself an additional fan. Might really help if you got a small computer case. My ambient case temperature dropped by 5C° after installing a 120mm fan at the back of my PC. Cost me like 15 again.
-
Doesn't matter if you can run much more graphically impressive games when the engine is the bottleneck. WB has simply never been a well-optimized game.
-
Lots of Flickering Textures from inexperienced Map creators. That fucks with your graphics a lot.
-
Got an old i7 920 at 2.67 Ghz (unclocked at the moment, usually around 3.8 Ghz), 12 gig okey DDR3 (it was cheap, okey?!), GTX560 and a decent SSD drive. And yet, the game sometimes lag for me. The more content, the more lag it seems. One can always hope for some spring cleaning..
-
DX7 all lowest settings, fps from 30-120, rarely goes bellow 30
DX9 almost everything maxed, fps from 30-120, pretty much random fps all the time, drops bellow 10 at the start of each round.
Also, since I have less than 2 gigs of RAM game CTD after few hours because of memory leak.
-
Got an old i7 920 at 2.67 Ghz (unclocked at the moment, usually around 3.8 Ghz), 12 gig okey DDR3 (it was cheap, okey?!), GTX560 and a decent SSD drive. And yet, the game sometimes lag for me. The more content, the more lag it seems. One can always hope for some spring cleaning..
That rig is pretty good imho. Should run dozen of Warbands at the same time if it was properly optimized...
Biggest problem is that town map, with underground passage. It's not optimized at all.
-
Engine is a piece of garbage.
That's it, really.
Mods that add dozens of additional models just make it even worse.
Biggest problem is that town map, with underground passage. It's not optimized at all.
Riot in swadian city..
There is another "swadia city" map like that. Those maps are ridiculous, not just from performance, but from a gameplay point of view.
Wish I'd know who made them. :twisted:
-
Biggest problem is that town map, with underground passage. It's not optimized at all.
its an awesome map. Always a lot of ways to backstab people!
Never had any fps drops on that map. But suffered a lot on that new huge map, dont remember what its called :\
-
I've heard that there are quite a many people who have fps-problems in city maps and maps with lots of trees or lots of other stuff. Many claim that they dont have bad computer. I have the same problem. First I thought it was just in one or 2 maps but I think the situation went worse a couple of patches ago. Now almost every second map in EU1 is like 35-60 fps, while open plains etc. have constant 110. Honestly I dont have shitty computer and last year I didn't have any problems. My drivers are updated etc. and other games like Batman Arkham City and Deus Ex are running perfectly with medium settings.
My processor is Intel Core i5 with 3,2 ghz, I got 4 gb ram and my graphics card is Ati HD 6700.
I'd guess it's the video card, since I got Intel Core i3 2100, 3.1GHz and Asus AMD Radeon 6850HD, and I got 360+ FPS with all settings maxed and graphic improvement mods in full forest maps, on normal / field maps I'm always at 500 FPS, wich is where my limiter is set to. But I am really having hard time believing that the difference between 6700 and 6850 would be this big.
-
In old cRPG and older cRPG I don't remember having problems with FPS. Not until recently did I notice FPS problems. My computer can run Skyrim fine and other games, so... why not Mount and Blade/cRPG!? Don't know how that makes any sense o.o
-
Also do you guys tweak your OS at all? I have disabled all services I don't need and removed all "fancy" windows 7 shit. Also cleaning registry & all the useless trash every once in a while helps a bit, also defragmenting hard drives should be done regulary.
And everything below 100 is almost "unplayable" for me ...
Cool story but human eye can't see the difference in 60+ FPS.
-
Cool story but human eye can't see the difference in 60+ FPS.
Cool story but Warband has this odd thing with FPS, you can notice the difference between let's say 60, and 130.
Hell, not just Warband, but this game is really like that.
This "lol eyes can't see more than 24/60fps you can't see moar fps than dat!!!11one" dogma is getting old.
-
Cool story but Warband has this odd thing with FPS, you can notice the difference between let's say 60, and 130.
Hell, not just Warband, but this game is really like that.
This "lol eyes can't see more than 24/60fps you can't see moar fps than dat!!!11one" dogma is getting old.
Facts never get old. Human eye can't see the difference in 60+ FPS. DOT.
-
Facts never get old. Human eye can't see the difference in 60+ FPS. DOT.
You don't get it. DOT.
Wasting my time here..
-
Facts never get old. Human eye can't see the difference in 60+ FPS. DOT.
Protip: more FPS = less latency regardless of what the eye sees
-
just draw a 1 on top left of your screen
TADA fps problem solved!
-
Yup,can play any game on best Graphics (except Battlefield 3) and i'm getting weird frame drops,sadly, usually when i engage the enemy :|
-
I get lots of random frame drops and stutters
Phenom 3.2 Ghz
Radeon 6950
-
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,19037.0.html
Ignore the wanna be tech support. Or believe them and keep playing crappily, I don't care.
The biggest help I found was capping the game's frame rate to your monitor's refresh rate. All the laggy stuttery maps became instantly playable.
-
I have 120 fps all the time - the problem is on your side not on the games
-
My suggestion - clean your Pc/laptop, get a program to maximize your coolers, buy a new graphics card
-
Had the same problem untill i blew the dust of with an air compressor, and everything runs fine now. What card do you have
-
I have 120 fps all the time - the problem is on your side not on the games
Only if you capped it. FPS will vary with any card in this game as you span across different densities of objects. The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. If you did you would bounce between 120 and 200 (or max setting) if 120 is your floor. :idea:
-
I have 120 fps all the time - the problem is on your side not on the games
I love how ignorant your statement is. People are able to run other games in HIGHER detail that is FAR more demanding on hardware than Mount & Blade. The game and likely mod are not very well optimized and devs havent even TOUCHED the subject of why their mod performs poorly.
Blaming people and their hardware will only go so far, when 1/3 or more of the community is complaining about performance issues on a 3+ year old engine, guess what....ITS PROBABLY THE GAME'S FAULT.
-
I love how ignorant your statement is. People are able to run other games in HIGHER detail that is FAR more demanding on hardware than Mount & Blade. The game and likely mod are not very well optimized and devs havent even TOUCHED the subject of why their mod performs poorly.
Blaming people and their hardware will only go so far, when 1/3 or more of the community is complaining about performance issues on a 3+ year old engine, guess what....ITS PROBABLY THE GAME'S FAULT.
How come some people (like me) run the game with 500 FPS then, all settings maxed? If the game engine would make the FPS lag, then everyone would have it, no?
-
Re: Why do so many people have problems with fps?
Because not enough people read my guide (not stickied :( )
EVERYONE GOGOGO
Topic: Guide to maximizing FPS and performance without hideous graphics!
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
-
If its the games fault i should be having some problems right? My graphics card isnt stellar either, its a mid range HG 6650M. But i take care of it with regular cleaning as well as software cleaning my entire system with various programs. With my last card which was outdated i had exactly the same fps drops described untill i downloaded a optimizer for my coolers and cleaned it which also solved that problem. The game AGAIN worked perfectly smooth after that. So i will repeat again: the problem is on the users side.
-
Game runs for me at a steady 300 fps, doesn't go any higher, rarely drops below 280.
Maps where there are clashing textures drops your FPS exponentially, your card tries to process the same texture twice for every frame you would normally get, so, while in angle-of-vision for that particular part of the map, your FPS performance is going to be cut in half.
Take it from me, I'm a doctor.
-
Adding a new cooler or cleaning up your graphics card has no effect whatsoever on a normal rig. Sure if the GPU or CPU is overheating a lot it might throttle and cause lag but you would probably have noticed this long time ago with bluescreens or crashes.
I can run the game maxed up at 1920x1200 most of the time pretty ok. Only thing causing drop is those city maps combined with 120 players. I switch to other servers those times.
-
instead of 160 fps , i got 120 fps on eu1 when all the players spawn now , god fuckin dammit!
-
Always tought that fps drops and game lag is a different story. I've got lags, stuttering and teleporting with 480gtx and 120 fps. Same with 60 fps.
Problems appeared with ingame character meny implementations. March of 2011. Then with «rubber surface» patch - do you remember this diver horsemans after horse kill?
And this works flawlessly in 2010 year, without new scripts (early attacks) and tons of non optimized models\textures\maps.
Add here 2-5 leechers with 500-800 ping, and viola - you've got unplayable game
-
The only time I ever have issues is when I join a server. I'll get stuttering for a couple seconds then the game works fine.
-
I keep a stable 120 for pretty much all maps and I rarely drop below 100. The problem is the map makers. Ive made a few CSS maps and learned from experience that overlapping walls, if trees go through the floor, bridge into floor, or buildings cutting through floor any situations likes these will cause a loss of fps.
-
City maps have to be delete from the rotation on eu1. Too many players for those maps
-
City maps have to be delete from the rotation on eu1. Too many players for those maps
+1
-
Always tought that fps drops and game lag is a different story. I've got lags, stuttering and teleporting with 480gtx and 120 fps. Same with 60 fps.
Problems appeared with ingame character meny implementations. March of 2011. Then with «rubber surface» patch - do you remember this diver horsemans after horse kill?
And this works flawlessly in 2010 year, without new scripts (early attacks) and tons of non optimized models\textures\maps.
Add here 2-5 leechers with 500-800 ping, and viola - you've got unplayable game
Stuttering huh? Read my guide. Force single threading to keep from freezing for seconds at a time.
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
Maybe I shouldn't post this...keeping the laggers and freezers in the dark helps my KD to be even greater.
-
damn i'm jealous of some of the comps here,
i only have a
athalon (no idea the model, even comp can't figure it out) 2.71ghz single core
nvidia gforce 9400gt with 1gig of memory
2 physical gb of ram and 4 virtual
and i have the fps capped at 50
-
no problem here ; i5 2500k , gtx 460 , 8 GB RAM.
Stable 120 FPS , 250-300 uncapped at 1920*1200 , with 100+ players.
you guys need better cpu.
-
Stuttering huh? Read my guide. Force single threading to keep from freezing for seconds at a time.
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
Maybe I shouldn't post this...keeping the laggers and freezers in the dark helps my KD to be even greater.
Forcing single threading will force rendering to run in the same thread with game logic, meaning that game logic runs slower, rendering runs slower, input handling runs slower, network handling runs slower...
Unless you have a single core CPU or an older weak dual core that is utter garbage at handling threading, yours is a horrible idea. Try enabling that option on a decent PC and enjoy your frame rate being halved.
-
Got an old i7 920 at 2.67 Ghz (unclocked at the moment, usually around 3.8 Ghz), 12 gig okey DDR3 (it was cheap, okey?!), GTX560 and a decent SSD drive. And yet, the game sometimes lag for me. The more content, the more lag it seems. One can always hope for some spring cleaning..
I've got pretty much the same setup and it's laggy sometimes for me aswell.
-
no problem here ; i5 2500k , gtx 460 , 8 GB RAM.
Stable 120 FPS , 250-300 uncapped at 1920*1200 , with 100+ players.
you guys need better cpu.
CPU has very low effect on the game performance. I have INtel Core i3 2100 and overclocked Radeon 8650 HD, and I get 500 FPS with all settings maxed on open field maps, 300+ on heavy forest maps. It's mostly about the GPU...
-
Forcing single threading will force rendering to run in the same thread with game logic, meaning that game logic runs slower, rendering runs slower, input handling runs slower, network handling runs slower...
Unless you have a single core CPU or an older weak dual core that is utter garbage at handling threading, yours is a horrible idea. Try enabling that option on a decent PC and enjoy your frame rate being halved.
the game's multithreading is coded like shit and becomes desynced. this causes 3 second long freezes in some cases.
by all means, don't follow my advice if you experience freezing. i'd love to slaughter you during your frame freeze.
-
the game's multithreading is coded like shit and becomes desynced. this causes 3 second long freezes in some cases.
by all means, don't follow my advice if you experience freezing. i'd love to slaughter you during your frame freeze.
its pretty fun tbh
-
Meows optimalization files a little bit solved this problem for me - but not completely. I guess its something with the new textures/maps.
But final solution was to buy another PC, now i can run everything on maxed out settings. But before i didn't have a bad PC either, I had i7 2GHz, 8GB ram, NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M 1GB ram.
And I remember absolutely clearly, that with this PC i was able to run cRPG on maxed out settings smoothly as well a few months ago.
-
the game's multithreading is coded like shit and becomes desynced. this causes 3 second long freezes in some cases.
by all means, don't follow my advice if you experience freezing. i'd love to slaughter you during your frame freeze.
Never experienced freezes, so my point about your PC being shit still stands.
Also lol @ "multithreading is coded like shit and becomes desynced", it's funny when people talk about things they know absolutely nothing about and you can already see it from the terminology they use.
-
Never experienced freezes, so my point about your PC being shit still stands.
Also lol @ "multithreading is coded like shit and becomes desynced", it's funny when people talk about things they know absolutely nothing about and you can already see it from the terminology they use.
This is only a guess, but given that TW has done horribad memory management, I wouldn't be surprised if there where some errors in concurrent code too.
-
the problem is the mod. it is very poorly developed.
-
This is only a guess, but given that TW has done horribad memory management, I wouldn't be surprised if there where some errors in concurrent code too.
I wouldn't be surprised either, all software has bugs. That still doesn't justify the guy with a blotware filled computer who's giving universal (wrong) advice based only on his (biased) observations.
-
The difference between 60 fps and 120 fps is just retarded in this game. 60 fps feels like 20 and 120 feels nice and smooth, as 60 should be. Having the game run smooth is really important for my performance, but I get quite a lot of framedrops even though my rig should be up to it. Used to play at max settings, but some maps just kill fps.
-
CPU GPU has very low lower effect on the game performance. .. It's about the GPU CPU. (100+ players)
fixit for ya.
SB i3 ~ enough performance for the game.
-
Re: Why do so many people have problems with fps?
Nerf trees, especially in maps like "Forest Lake". Nerf scene props , especially in "Riot in Swadia", "Battle in Swadia". These maps can cause massive lag.
-
Long freezes are problems with texture LODs I think.
When Low Resolution Textures and the Optimization was still working I had stable 120 fps when I put it on. No other performance mod worked as well as that one. However, after that we first got Dede's armors and many more. I think that game can't support amount of gear we have in this mod.
Only things that helps cRPG performance are texture details, quality and character details and quality if you play overpopulated server. That is the proof that we have too many textures in this mod.
-
Never experienced freezes, so my point about your PC being shit still stands.
I never experienced ______, so nobody has a problem with it. 8-)
-
I never experienced ______, so nobody has a problem with it. 8-)
I experienced _______ and solved it with ********, so ******** solves it for everyone. 8-)
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
I experienced _______ and solved it with ********, so ******** solves it for everyone. 8-)
From my guide:
If you have ever experienced freezing in which you are unable to control your character for seconds at a time, this is probably what you need to do to fix it. This option fixed all of my freezing AND increased FPS to boot (Core2Duo).
But yeah, go ahead and keep making up shit I didn't say. Thanks!
-
The difference between 60 fps and 120 fps is just retarded in this game. 60 fps feels like 20 and 120 feels nice and smooth, as 60 should be. Having the game run smooth is really important for my performance, but I get quite a lot of framedrops even though my rig should be up to it. Used to play at max settings, but some maps just kill fps.
i really don't get why people complain about their fps when its above 40, as the human eye can's see more than 40 fps so you really shouldn't be able to notice and diffrence in it.
however if the games fps counter is wrong then i can under stand, but that seems highly unlikely
The human eye processes about 20 frames per second, but can go as high as 60 when in panic.
from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_frames_per_second_can_your_eyes_see (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_frames_per_second_can_your_eyes_see)
-
i really don't get why people complain about their fps when its above 40, as the human eye can's see more than 40 fps so you really shouldn't be able to notice and diffrence in it.
however if the games fps counter is wrong then i can under stand, but that seems highly unlikely
That's complete bullshit. Anyone who's ever played FPS's of any kind can tell you that. Yet the "but it won't matter if you have more than 40 or 60 FPS because that's all the human eye can see" argument pops up all the time.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Or from wiki:
"The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information.[12] A related question is, how many frames per second are needed for an observer to not see artifacts? However, this question also does not have a single straightforward answer. If the image switches between black and white each frame, the image appears to flicker at frame rates slower than 30 FPS (interlaced). In other words, the flicker fusion point, where the eyes see gray instead of flickering tends to be around 60 FPS (inconsistent). However, fast moving objects may require higher frame rates to avoid judder (non-smooth, linear motion) artifacts and the retinal fusion point can vary in different people, as in different lighting conditions. "
And
"Additionally some games such as Quake 3 Arena perform physics, AI, networking, and other calculations in sync with the rendered frame rate - this can result in inconsistencies with movement and network prediction code if players are unable to maintain the designed maximum frame rate of 125 FPS"
And
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
" The overwhelming solution to a more realistic game play, or computer video has been to push the human eye past the misconception of only being able to perceive 30 FPS. Pushing the Human Eye past 30 FPS to 60 FPS and even 120 FPS is possible, ask the video card manufacturers, an eye doctor, or a Physiologist. We as humans CAN and DO see more than 60 frames a second."
-
From my guide:
But yeah, go ahead and keep making up shit I didn't say. Thanks!
From your post:
Stuttering huh? Read my guide. Force single threading to keep from freezing for seconds at a time.
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
Maybe I shouldn't post this...keeping the laggers and freezers in the dark helps my KD to be even greater.
Referred to someone who has a good PC (= doesn't need your "fix"). But yeah, go ahead and keep making up shit I said. Thanks!
-
i really don't get why people complain about their fps when its above 40, as the human eye can's see more than 40 fps so you really shouldn't be able to notice and diffrence in it.
however if the games fps counter is wrong then i can under stand, but that seems highly unlikely
This is demonstrably wrong.
Subliminal messages have always been a uncanny phenomenon and often subject to scientific and public debate. A subliminal message is a signal in the form of a picture or sound that is designed to pass the normal limits of perception. That means that people perceive it with their subconscious while not perceiving it consciously. This technique is sometimes used in movies and advertising to influence the subconscious of the viewer.
If the eye did not see it, the subconscious would have no means of perceiving it. The technique is well documented. So while you may not "see" it, the brain knows that it is not receiving as much information from 40 fps as it does from 120 fps. So yes, gamers can tell the difference.
-
Referred to someone who has a good PC (= doesn't need your "fix").
Congratulations, you have absolutely no experience with freezes! This makes you masterfully knowledgeable about them.
-
So.. how many of those 120 FPS you might see listed in the corner are displayed if your monitor is set to 60Hz refresh rate.. anyone?
-
So.. how many of those 120 FPS you might see listed in the corner are displayed if your monitor is set to 60Hz refresh rate.. anyone?
Since you can't force the frame to render exactly when the screen is refreshing, there is a difference between 60 and 120.
There is no visual difference between 120 and 180 (again, assuming your monitor is set to 60Hz), but there still is a difference in input smoothness.
-
Since you can't force the frame to render exactly when the screen is refreshing, there is a difference between 60 and 120.
There is no visual difference between 120 and 180 (again, assuming your monitor is set to 60Hz), but there still is a difference in input smoothness.
What kind of difference? we talkin 0.1 Hz?
So if the video card is chugging out 2 or 3 times the graphics the monitor can handle that is going to make input smoother? How would that work, is game logic dependant on display?
I do kinda miss my old CRT with 85Hz sometimes...
I played a game that was capped at 30fps, and it was noticeable - constant strobing. I accidentally got it to run using open glide once - so much better (then it crashed).
-
So if the video card is chugging out 2 or 3 times the graphics the monitor can handle that is going to make input smoother? How would that work, is game logic dependant on display?
FPS doesn't always mean graphics frames; in Warband for example it's the amount of times the main loop executes in a second, which includes input code, game logic and all that stuff...
-
i really don't get why people complain about their fps when its above 40, as the human eye can's see more than 40 fps so you really shouldn't be able to notice and diffrence in it.
however if the games fps counter is wrong then i can under stand, but that seems highly unlikely
It puzzles me too, in general my experience with games is that 60 fps looks smooth as hell. Just try limiting your fps to 60 and then to 120 and see if you notice a difference. I do and its quite huge, it even affects my blocking when its not totally smooth.
-
FPS doesn't always mean graphics frames; in Warband for example it's the amount of times the main loop executes in a second, which includes input code, game logic and all that stuff...
Ah, so does that mean the FPS counter in warband is not showing the displayed FPS then, but the overall game?
For some reason I am thinking of slomo (or go slow or whatever it was called) for DosBox.
-
I dont think its computer based.
If I play 2100 GMT I can block decent 1 handers etc reasonably consistently. Played this afternoon from 1300 to 1430 and was seeing swings after they hit. Total waste of time, ended up wearing light armour and spamming since no point playing properly. Mostly dont even bother around 1900, lag so bad.
Not sure its my connection, play native on IG servers/nditions and lag is very rare.
-
I dont think its computer based.
If I play 2100 GMT I can block decent 1 handers etc reasonably consistently. Played this afternoon from 1300 to 1430 and was seeing swings after they hit. Total waste of time, ended up wearing light armour and spamming since no point playing properly. Mostly dont even bother around 1900, lag so bad.
Not sure its my connection, play native on IG servers/nditions and lag is very rare.
Damn it, man. You got to be a time traveler.
-
i hope i don't jinx myself by typing it now :)
I have had horrible lags on Mustikkis townmap (underground caverns) several months back, now it is smooth like peachskin.
Same with other town maps. I didn't change anything in my settings or any new grafic stuff, so if there had been improvments, in my case they likely would have been server site or with crpg download/update. Well one thing is new a new version of divx codec, but i don't think this would have anything to do with fps would it?
-
I blame rain...only get bad FPS when the map has rain.
-
I blame rain...only get bad FPS when the map has rain.
Try turning off particle effects.
-
Newer Nvidia drivers are terrible with mount and blade, they cause stutter, roll back to older drivers and problem fixed.
If you have an older video card older drivers that were made at the time for your video card are the best for the card.
-
Texturefiltering set to max. performance in the nvidia center helps performance drastically.
Dead Bodies eat fps..turn em off.
I got 8x AA and SuperSampling, all the other stuff maxed and it pretty much is silI love youmooth.
-
Dead Bodies eat fps..turn em off.
Yeah I got significant FPS drop about 2 patches ago. I turned off dead bodies and have had no problems since.
-
Newer Nvidia drivers are terrible with mount and blade, they cause stutter, roll back to older drivers and problem fixed.
If you have an older video card older drivers that were made at the time for your video card are the best for the card.
This. With 260.99 version it's like another game. Smooth and beautiful. Choose this version because I remember that it was good in 2010. With this driver I've got same stable game with all new armors etc.
M&B is only game at my PC. I don't bother about other games.
My PC
Win7 64
Core 2 duo E8500
4 gb ram
480 GTX
It was awful with 296, 295, 280 versions.
So, if you have stuttering, jerky animation and nvidia card - check archive drivers at nvidia site.
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en-us
-
Yup. The new Nvidia drivers are horrible for warband. Lots of strange lag.
-
Well I changed to dx7, and fps is now between 80 and 110. Bad graphics don't bother me but it's just annoys me that I should be able to play nearly with the best settings
-
This. With 260.99 version it's like another game. Smooth and beautiful. Choose this version because I remember that it was good in 2010. With this driver I've got same stable game with all new armors etc.
M&B is only game at my PC. I don't bother about other games.
My PC
Win7 64
Core 2 duo E8500
4 gb ram
480 GTX
It was awful with 296, 295, 280 versions.
So, if you have stuttering, jerky animation and nvidia card - check archive drivers at nvidia site.
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en-us
Yup. The new Nvidia drivers are horrible for warband. Lots of strange lag.
Hmm, Since I use a GT240 anyway, I might try this.
So, 260.99 is what you suggest? I'll try it right away.
Mostly I play only warband and a few not so old, but not so new games either.
-
Hmm, Since I use a GT240 anyway, I might try this.
So, 260.99 is what you suggest? I'll try it right away.
Mostly I play only warband and a few not so old, but not so new games either.
Please report back when you do. If this'll help, I'll try it out too. :)
-
If that's true, it's huge. The first time ATI's driver is better than NVIDIA's. :lol:
-
Sadly, I need most of my bloatware and newest nVidia drivers.
So I did some not so scientific tests, WaltF4 accept my apologies.
with my set up...
tried setting fps cap to 120.
FRAPS and in game fps seem similar - one 'lags' behind the other (fraps updates more frequently).
DX7 offers no noticeable or slightly worse performance. (old machine did fine on DX7)
Turning texture detail to low offers poorer performance with shader quality set to low on both DX7 and DX9. That's a head scratcher.
I refuse to turn off bodies or ragdolls.
Usually (about 80 people on NA1) FPS ranges from 120-110, with some drops to as low as 85.
Join lag (start of round) stuttering is noticeable.
There are some wtf moments - such as people dying before I think I hit them.
Some maps are just hogs, and feel like playing at 15 FPS, even if displayed FPS is 105 or so.
Ultimately the experience convinced me that capping fps to 59 (my LCD's refresh rate) is likely the best option - 0 stuttering, and display stays constant 59.29/59.35
-
Win7 Ultimate x64
Intel Core to Duo 3,0Ghz (45nm)
8GB DDR2 RAM (4 of that are new, but theyre the same as before. Some G.Skill stuff)
GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Playing on DX7 (DX9 brings some lags... at least it brought. maybe I'm trying it again, soon.)
I reinstalled my windows (from x86 to x64) in January and got nearly no lags or drops of FPS. At least I did not see any. I will keep my eyes open and report back.
Why I wrote here when I got no problems? Not to brag. But to show you that my PC is not the best anymore and that its not the PC that causes problems.
When you go inGame and to Options => Video, you can change your graphics there... on the right there is a percentage for the performance. Check that one. I try to keep mine on above 90 percent. Maybe you should do that, too.
-
I switched over to the Jan 2011 WHQL certified ones, 266.something and it seemed to help greatly. Played that city map with tunnels with 60 people and could actually move.
I'm using i3 & Geforce 9500GT
-
Ppl. have to go Dx 7 in 2012....
Jesus fucking christ.
Now I know how Africa feels in terms of food....the miss a lot, just like many ppl. here.