Posted by poisonic on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 2:19pm
the lowest fps i get is 78 fps on a en7800GT 256MB ddr3 with 1024MB system ram and a AMD Athlon 64 3700+ san diego
This map is exelent.....
A tip sometimes it helps if you cut your skybox in smaller parts instead ofonebig overlapping skybox.......You will notice that the the compiling goes faster.....
to boost gaeplaye even moreis using custom models for the architectal details........ a to detailed brushwork can cause an horrible laghead><link rel="stylesheet" href="themes/standard.css" type="text/css"></head><body topmargin=2 leftmargin=2>
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 9:26am
? quote:
? quoting mazemaster
However, HL2 doesn't run half-bad on my 6-year-old box. I don't see all the fancy shaders, but it still looks good and gets decent fps.
I played through HL2 on a Geforce 2 MX. Believe me, once you get a better card you'll be shocked what you missed.
Also it's good to have a standard card for mapping. island17 (one of my favourite HL2DM maps) has bad cubemaps (not showing up) which is really unecessary. You could have tested it with a Radeon 9800. Not that expensive anymore also.
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 7:27am
Basically any non-trivial shader contributes to the swap buffers.
Posted by Dark_Kilauea on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 7:12am
? quote:
do shiny surfaces contribute to the 'swap buffer' budget graph?
Yes, they do. On lesser cards this can turn into serious lag.
Posted by Belgarion on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 1:32am
haha. that is awesome. hey if it still works, might as well continue using it, right? if you can get the same, or nearly the same experience with far less expense, there's not much reason to go to high expense for low return. course, a decent computer that will run HL2 with everything cranked up isn't too hard to do any more. as far as computer expenses go anyway. 600 bucks is still 600 bucks no matter what you are buying.
do shiny surfaces contribute to the 'swap buffer' budget graph?
Posted by mazemaster on Tue Apr 18th 2006 at 1:14am
? quote:
? quoting Orph
I suspect that either you are waiting to buy a better machine.
Bingo. However, HL2 doesn't run half-bad on my 6-year-old box. I don't see all the fancy shaders, but it still looks good and gets decent fps.
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Apr 17th 2006 at 10:52pm
? quoting mazemaster
? quote:
? quoting Orph
my card is a 9800 pro.. I feel thats the bottom of the list for cards.
my card is a 9800 pro.. I feel thats the bottom of the list for cards.
I run HL2 on my GeForce2... Yeah... 
By choice or are you comfortable doing so?
Its a serious question because I have a 1.8 ghz P4 with a 9000 ati 64 meg that I really don't like using and its a bit better than a GeForce 2.
I suspect that either you are waiting to buy a better machine, or a better card, or both. I doubt you enjoy your experience with that card.
Posted by mazemaster on Mon Apr 17th 2006 at 10:36pm
? quote:
? quoting Orph
my card is a 9800 pro.. I feel thats the bottom of the list for cards.
my card is a 9800 pro.. I feel thats the bottom of the list for cards.
I run HL2 on my GeForce2... Yeah...
Posted by Forceflow on Mon Apr 17th 2006 at 8:05pm
Awesome map, but to make it more accesible to the public, you need some optimization.
Posted by Dark_Kilauea on Mon Apr 17th 2006 at 7:38pm
You do have too many reflective surfaces, and some of them could be removed without being too noticable.
I'm working on a list of sugessions for improving your optimisation. It might be done by tonight.
Good work so far.
