[MiniSiets]

I am a big fan of Volition's FreeSpace games and now that I finally discovered this new SCP Mod, I was hoping I would be able to get the graphics update that FreeSpace deserves. However, upon installing 3.6.7, I have noticed no major differences in the graphics. I don't know what the problem is, I have all graphics settings enabled and at the highest possible settings and yet the game still looks the same to me despite the major differences I've seen in graphics of the game from screenshots on these forums...

I have never previously attempted to download mods for this game, so please bare with me if I seem a little noobish. =/

Do I need to download more files than just the 3.6.7 patch, or is it just supposed to look like this? (Also FYI if this has anything to do with the problem, my graphics card is a Radeon 9600 Pro, and yes I have tried using both OpenGL and Direct3D)

[Wanderer]

Try reading the last posts in this thread first. And the links provided in it.

Improved graphics and models are provided in MediaVP files. Which can be downloaded from the SCP site (link to it should be in the linked thread)

Oh and welcome to HLP forums

[Mongoose]

Yup, the MediaVP files are what contain the actual graphical improvements to the game.  You can find them here on the SCP site.  Download everything except for mv_cell.vp; it has cell-shaded textures for use with a command line, and it'll overwrite the original textures for those particular models.  The easiest way to set things up would be to put the MediaVPs in the main FS2 directory; as an alternative, you could put them in a subdirectory and use the mod feature in the launcher.  Both of the Wiki links at the bottom of the thread that Wanderer linked to contain a lot of helpful information about getting things up and running.  If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[MiniSiets]

Thank you guys. I appreciate the help, and now everything is properly installed and functioning. I really like all of the improvements that have been made.

Although, now I'm experiencing random instances where the game will be running perfectly smooth and then there will just be this sudden massive framerate drop, and I'm talking about like down to 5 FPS or less. Sometimes these drops would last only a few seconds, which at first I was OK with, but other times it would last for up to several minutes before I could start playing again. I don't get what the deal is, especially since my computer can handle lots of ships flying around at once with little loss of framerate, but then to just have these spontaneous drops... they would just surprise me.

Is this a problem with the game that you guys are working to correct or is it some sort of problem with my computer and it just simply can't handle everything?

Again, my specs are a Radeon 9600 Pro card, 1 GB of RAM, and some decent AMD Athlon processor (not sure of specifics).

[karajorma]

Were the several minute long stops in the techroom by any chance?

Cause all that's happening there is the game is converting the model to the internal format FS2 uses. It will happen the first time you see that model in a new set of VP files and then it shouldn't ever bother you again (unless you run a mod).

[StratComm]

First things first, please list out your command lines (copy-paste from the features tab in the launcher).  Some are much more resource-intensive than others.  For instance, I can tell you right off the bat to turn off -pcx32 if you're using it.

If it's happening in-mission (which I suspect it is, if it's interfering with playability) then the problem is almost certainly that something big is getting paged in to memory.  The most common causes are sounds (helped by "preload mission game sounds" in the launcher), animated maps (the shockwave, shivan glowmaps, etc) or effects firing off at a certain time.  If you can link the slowdowns to sounds playing, to weapons firing, or to ships arriving, that might help clarify how to better optimize your performance.

Unfortunately, the MediaVPs are really targeted at a high-end machine, so people with less ( <1GB Ram, <128MB graphics cards) are going to have performance issues with the graphics set you're looking at.

[Flipside]

Does anyone still use the -pcx32 extension any more? From reading recent threads it seems to be more or less considered obsolete, I haven't used it for ages I know that.

Edit : In fact, it actually seems to be becoming a wee bit of a liability?

[StratComm]

It is becoming a liability.  New users automatically tick it because they assume that it's one of the "great new features".  That's why, every time we have this discussion with a new member, someone always ends up commenting on it being a memory hog and tells the new guy to turn it off.  I was just making an educated assumption, but it's usually a valid one.

EDIT: And in truth, it's not really obsolete.  For what it was designed to do (make the interface cleaner and not pallete-restricted) it still works well.  But the cost at which it achieves this is usually quite prohibitive.

[CP5670]

I don't think pcx32 has ever had any real use. As far as I can tell from the description it just upsamples the 8-bit pcx files to 32-bit, which does nothing at least for ingame textures.

[Mongoose]

I always leave it turned on because I don't like how grainy the interface looks with it off.  It may be a slight performance hit, but I'm anal about things like that.  I only have 512 MB and a 64 MB video card, but I can get by pretty well even with adveffects installed.

[Flipside]

I've never noticed the slightest difference tbh.

I always thought it was something to do with converting textures on models. Maybe it would be a good idea to move the -pcx32 option on the launcher to 'developer' or the like to discourage use without reading up on it? It would, at the very least, mean one less thing on the 'possible problem' list in posts like this?

[MiniSiets]

Yeah I too thought when I saw "Enable 32-bit Textures" meant that it would improve the pixel quality of textures on in-game models. So are you guys saying that by disabling this feature it will only affect the interface?

And to answer a question earlier, yes these problems happen during gameplay. Here's basically how it lays down. I'll get into a game, it will be running smoothly with a high framerate, and suddenly the FPS will drop dramatically for sometimes a few split seconds and other times for around a minute. Then, it will return to normal, and I can keep playing, but often this will occur more than once during a mission, so it really gets frustrating.

Currently I have all features enabled except for cell-shading and disabling scale-to-windows, but please fill me in a little more on this -pcx32 extension's functions. I do like to have all graphics in my games maxed out if possible, but I can accept disabling this extension if it doesn't really change the graphics all that much.

[Fenrir]

If you have mv_adveffects it could be those animated glowmaps raping your system.

[WMCoolmon]

Creative description, but yeah, move out adveffects if you're having slowdown problems for sure.

Try the other mediaVPs as well. Everything save _core and maybe  _music can take up a lot of extra memory. You can probably narrow it down to one or two VPs that're causing the slowdown, and keep the rest in.

Methinks that -pcx32 should be renamed, and/or moved to the 'experimental' section.

[MiniSiets]

Nope. I've isolated the problem and it was in fact the -pcx32 extension. I have disabled it, and now the game has no massive FPS drops, but I still would like to know by disabling the -pcx32 extension what sort of graphical losses have been made.

[Fenrir]

I've only ever seen it make the interface art look better. In mission I don't notice anything except my laptop being even more angry with me for forcing FS2_Open to work on it.

[WMCoolmon]

It's only been reported to cause noticeable changes to new, large, nebula graphics for the background, and in the interface.

If you can't tell the difference, go ahead and leave it off (Good rule of thumb for any graphics option.)

[StratComm]

Originally posted by MiniSiets
Nope. I've isolated the problem and it was in fact the -pcx32 extension. I have disabled it, and now the game has no massive FPS drops, but I still would like to know by disabling the -pcx32 extension what sort of graphical losses have been made.

I must be psychic!

All it does is allow PCX graphics to use full 24-bit (no alpha, so the last 8 bits are wasted) palletes, which allows interface art to be rendered a little bit more cleanly.  Most high-end backgrounds, textures, etc are either TGA or DDS, which are not impacted in any way by this flag.  And the HUD graphics are all actually greyscale (8 bit too) so they won't improve either.  Basically, there are no tangible benefits to having it on unless you're willing to sacrafice other things to compensate for the radical increase in memory on the PCX files that get loaded.

Your "I want everything" attitude is precisely why I don't like the naming, placement, and really existance of this flag in the launcher.  You shouldn't be using it unless you need it, and 99.9% of the time you won't need it.

[MiniSiets]

OK, that's what I needed to know. I can live with that, I guess. I honestly notice no real difference in the graphics at all since I've disabled this option, other than the fact that the game doesn't get choppy as hell. ^_^ Though I am a picky person and like to have the best graphics possible, it's not worth the kind of crap I have to go through before I can finally play a mission.

Thanks again for all the help guys, have a cookie.

[DrunkenPirate]

Welcome to the forum, enjoy the new stuff.

I too agree that the pcx32 flag should either be renamed or moved to another section, or at least not applied when a user selects "All features on"