Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: chris_2xtreme on December 05, 2003, 06:03:28 pm
-
Are there anything in the registry that can make the game run much faster or do i need something like a HT&L build (this is with normal FS2 EXE)
System Specs
Pentium III 850Mhz
640MB of Ram
Geforce 2MX 400
30GB hardrive
Win ME
DX 9b
Nvidia Drivers 45.23
my problem rather resembles this
(http://home.comcast.net/~mattrub/SCPHTLscreen02.jpg)
ths picture is form a different thread but this is the example of what happens in-game
-
Have you tried HT&L, cuz Vanilla FS2 will always poop out bad framerates like that...
And since your PC isn't much better than mine, I highly suggest the HT&L builds of FSO, and play the main camp that way...
Edit: Or I think I may have misunderstood you.
You want to speed up how long it takes to get to where you're going?
Try Shift + > to increase, and Shift + < to decrease the time lapse settings. Max is 4x speed.
-
Can someone move this to the SCP forum please
On-topic:
My screen looks similar to that with HT&L in 3.5.5.
500mhz k6-2
256mb pc100
GF4mx 420 64mb
with nothing, and I mean nothing, on the screen I get about 22 fps.
-
I agree that your framerate is pretty low. Are you playing a standard FS2 mission or one with lots of SCP features.
If you're getting such a low fps with standard FS2 then I doubt HTL will help much. Something else is wrong.
If you've got lots of SCP features like glowmaps, shinemaps etc all running at once and you're getting a low frame rate then HTL probably will help.
-
Ooh... that's his problem... Yeah, it's his videocard. My GeForce 2 MX 400 never get's more than about 24-25...
There was one time, however, that I managed a 48fps run, but it never happened again.
It was also in 32-bit mode, oddly enough.
-
ok which is the lastest build which is fast with HTL Because that seems like the best option
also how come Vanilla FS2 like you say runs bad when it does not have graphical enhancements like HTL supposedly run smoother
-
Check the SCP forum for a thread called latest builds.
-
500mhz? Looks like you were in a desperate need of an upgrade 2 years ago.
-
Eh? I'm running a Duron at 600 Mhz. You want me to upgrade, send me an Athlon64 ;7
-
I gonna try and do a little upgrading after book buyback in a week. I spent over $250 on my books so I should have at least $100 to burn.
-
Only 250? Lucky bugger... Mine cost me about 360...
-
To the SCP forum with you.
Btw, chris_2xtreme, is that Newcastle in Australia, or elsewhere? Welcome. Errr, kinda. :)
-
Don't tell me Aus has one too...
-
Wow. I was able to play Vanilla FS2 with 40+ FPS on my old Voodoo III 3000 without problems, untill.... well... untill the card died :p
After it did, Glide mode only showed a black picture, D3D crawled around at 2-10 FPS as soon as some fighters were on my screen at 640x480, well it was pain :)
The bad thing about my Voodoo III was that the max colour depth is 16-bit, and that it was so uncompatible that I never managed to get SCP to work on it. But it was damn fast for its time :D
The problem is definately not your processor. I had an AMD K6-2 533. If you had a Duron or a Celeron, that would be understandable. But a P III shouldn't be that bad :)
Proves my point. Geforce = teh suck.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Don't tell me Aus has one too...
Small town about 2 hour's drive North of Sydney with a few buildings and a UNSW campus. Why?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Don't tell me Aus has one too...
Yep, and half my in-laws live there. :D Its like the highest concentration of Italians anywhere outside of Italy (or it seems that way anyway). And the beach is gorgeous. :)
-
Proves my point. Geforce = teh suck.
Oh come on, that's like saying that Radeon's suck since the Radeon 7000 is worse than a TNT2, and we all know that Radeons are great. :lol:
-
Then lets revise: GeForce2 MX =teh suck.
I have the same card, and although my computer is faster (I get half-decent framerates most of the time) I get weird crap-outs all the time and some of the stuff in HT&L refuses to work right. Get a better card, and you'll get better performance.
-
Radeons only started to get good with the 9000 series. Anything before that is, TBH, even worse than Geforce :)
A better card does not always mean better performance. A really important thing is your bus speed (and memory speed) as well as your OS.
If you put it to a table its like:
Win95 - 100% performance, crashes all the time (100% since it's reference), also it's not compatible with today's needs
Win98 SE - 70 % performance, pretty stable
Win ME - 20% performance, crashes like crap, acts up, and has Microsofts little trick inside :) *1
Win XP is better again when it comes to performance, still not as great as Win98 SE ;)
*1: Since Windows ME, Microsoft uses the following trick to fool customers: You will get to see your desktop quite soon in bootup but it's only a fake to prevent the user from seeing the system is not even half way booted yet. So it just gives you the waiting curser and you cannot open any tasks while Windows finishes booting slowly. :)
-
Where does Win2000 rank on there?
-
Win2000 is very stable, but rather slow. Its a bit faster than XP, probably still heaps faster than ME.
ME definately was the Worst-Windows-Ever (TM).
-
'The Windows That Should Not Be'.
-
Naw, that belongs to Windows 1.0
WindowsME is the second worst Windows XD
-
Thats really strange... Before I um.. found my Xp disk I used ME on everything and it was fine. Hardly any crashes.
-
Windows 2 was pretty bad too though.
-
Heh, Windows ME is underrated. Almost everyone who bashes it, is just trying to feel accepted by the crowd, since they haven't even used it before. It's all negative hype. I personally am having no trouble since I have gotten it, which was years ago... and I'm still using it. The only thing I don't like about it right now is that it won't run graphical programs designed to run on 2000/XP systems, like Maya, Softimage XSI, and Photoshop CS. If the newest Lightwave only runs on XP/2000 I'll be royally pissed...
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Heh, Windows ME is underrated. Almost everyone who bashes it, is just trying to feel accepted by the crowd, since they haven't even used it before.
Well, then take it from me, who has had experience from Windows ME: It's as bad as they say. Every time I use my parents' computer, which has ME installed, I have to be careful. I open Word and a folder at the same time, BSOD. Oops.
I am a big advocate of installing 2K (Which my computer has).
-
Heh, Windows ME is underrated. Almost everyone who bashes it, is just trying to feel accepted by the crowd, since they haven't even used it before. It's all negative hype.
I think that you don't understand my viewpoint here. My Win98se system was up continuously for 6 months. That's right, 6 months. This was under normal usage (i.e. mirc, video playback, some games, word processing and web browsing).
So compared to that I really don't see what's up with ME.
To be fair, I really didn't go about trying to get ME to stay up as much as I did so with Win98se.
But what really irks me about WinME is that there was little reason for its existance.
Frankly, I never liked Win95 either, but since I've never actually owned a computer with that installed, I can't really form a real opinion.
-
I would agree with you DC, as I only upgraded from it because of some virus issues and the need for a more stable operating system, but ME was an absolute abomination. It added a few pretty bells and whistles (most notably the stupid intro movie that tried to play 500 times when I first got the thing) that you could also add by installing the necessary updates/plugins for 98se, and it detracted from performance so badly I can't even begin to describe it. What did it add? Some home networking support, "integrated" multimedia support (which I never got, because it seemed pretty integrated with 98se), System Restore (the most useful virus backup program ever), and something else really trivial. Right before my update, my dad's PC (a 700MHz PIII with 128Mb RAM running 98se) was outperforming my P4 1.4GHz with 512Mb RAM. It had some useful home networking features, and that was about the extent of it as far as I could tell. Add that to the fact that it predated XP by like 9 months, and there really was no reason to release it in the first place. Microsoft would have been giving people a better product if they had just released 2k standard on all platforms.
-
Well you see, I didn't say "everyone", I said "almost everyone". Also, most of the time its just user error, as much as I will hate the reaction to what I just said.
Again, I have never had a problem with ME, never had video playback problems, never had to look at that dumb windows video(except the 1st time I started up, after that, nothing). I don't think I've done a hard reboot in 6 months(except from SCP freezing up my computer, as people with any other operating system has had happened to them). So really, its really user error, or you aren't being careful with the programs you're downloading.
I seem to be having the opposite effect with ME as StratComm. My 1600+ XP GeForce4Ti4200 outperforms my dad's Windows XP , Athlon XP 2000+ GeForce4Ti4600 by quite a bit. We have the same amount of DDR Ram too. So I don't know what you guys did with your ME systems, but I know I haven't had any problems. And there's no way in hell I'm spending hundreds of dollars on a dumb operating system built by microsoft.
-
Windows 3.1 was the best. Minesweeper = Best game ever
-
Btw, chris_2xtreme, is that Newcastle in Australia, or elsewhere.
well to answer your question seketh its newcastle in England