FPS in JO/JOE after update or card ?

[JimDirt]

Need some help here guys!! , i have been running a TI-4200-128 , i just got a FX-6800-Ultra-256
When i was playing JO/JOE with the 128 i was getting around 42-62fps ,lowest was 19 for a brief second or 2 , now that i have the 256 i get exactly the same fps and if i set the settings on the card to Quality , i get around 19-34fps
my specs are as follows:
MSI-K7n2-Delta(latest bios)
AMD-Athlon-XP-3000+-333fsb
Evga-FX-6800-Ultra-256-6.6.9.3 driver
1024pc2700 Dual Channel Ram
DirectX9.c
SoundBlaster512pci
WinXP-home-sp1(no other service packs or updates(hate them)
MadDog-PurePower-550wPS
1500dn/1024up-DSL-Actiontec 4 port DSL router
CPUtemp 109degF...Systemtemp 84degF at idle
CPU 113-116degF... Sys 89degF at full load

I noticed this after the last update, but i figured i would notice some difference with a $500.00 video card , basically everything seems the same as before i changed the card

[JimDirt]

i changed the game config file and got the fps up to 72-75 , but it should do better than that, and it would occasionally go down to 5fps then the game would almost freeze , NEVER had that happen before!!

[G.I.JOE*MFA*]

the human eye only can see 12 frames a sec...if youre above that you wont have any problems...if you go higher than 12 you wont notice anything different...so whats the point on forcing your system to run harder to max out your frames?

[Steve]

ever played a game at 12 fps!? pretty much unplayable

i think the human eye still interprets 12 fps as 12 separate images as apposed to motion.

the faster the fps the more smooth the image is. personally i can tell if the fps is less than 60-70 fps. if my fps is less than 40-50 then i'll turn it off as its too annoying.



the only thing i can think of right now is the video driver, i cant check right now because i cannot get onto any nvidea website :/ (and i use ATI).

i would be tempted to do some benchmarks like '3dmark' so u can compare your system to others.

also check agp x8 is enabled. sometimes people miss this.

[Hellfighter]

as you are in the game Press ~ type in fps you get the count what it really doing.

i call Novalogic up tech told me (get this) 10fps is really good.

i am sorry 60-80pfs is really fair, 120fps is super good.

if the game go under 12fps it really unplayable.
getting to 3-9fps game will seem to lockup or skip around a lot not good game play. i like FPS be around 70fps and up

new update JOTR: http://files.novalogic.com/JOTR/jo_update_112304_xx.exe
do think it the 1.5.1.5 virsion release last 2-3days now

[JimDirt]

Steve , I have the latest Nvidia driver,6.6.9.3 and Chief , those framrates are within the game, as thats how i check them, , thing is i dont notice ANY difference between the TI-4200-128 , than the FX-6800-Ultra-256 , thats whats bothering me
i would think i would see and feel a big difference
and can u give me a link where to benchmark my pc!
Thanks guys!!!

[atholon]

Animations use 26 fps and Videos use 30fps....

[JimDirt]

ok i edited the game.cfg file and set
lock_framerate = 0
force_vsync = 0
reduce_mouselag = 0
and set my monitor refresh rate in my display settings to 144Hz
that brought my avg fps to 62 ,up to 97 , but i still get a occaisional 5fps for a few seconds here and there, but i think that has to be a bug in the update!!!

[atholon]

Grrr. I don't think that is worth $400. In a few months it will be outdated anyway...(learned that the hard way). I should have just gotten a semi nice gfx card and then bought an Xbox that you don't have to keep upgrading

[G.I.JOE*MFA*]

Originally posted by Steve
ever played a game at 12 fps!? pretty much unplayable

i think the human eye still interprets 12 fps as 12 separate images as apposed to motion.

the faster the fps the more smooth the image is. personally i can tell if the fps is less than 60-70 fps. if my fps is less than 40-50 then i'll turn it off as its too annoying.



the only thing i can think of right now is the video driver, i cant check right now because i cannot get onto any nvidea website :/ (and i use ATI).

i would be tempted to do some benchmarks like '3dmark' so u can compare your system to others.

also check agp x8 is enabled. sometimes people miss this.

lol you really want my 3dmark specs...lol

u must have super eyes if below 40 frames a sec you can see...lol

12 frames a sec is a fact...you dont need more than 20 but if you want your system to run hard then go for more...its up to you and how long you want your system to run...

my system runs smooth and im cool with 15-25 frames a sec stock...im not gong to max things out on the most graphic intensive games thats out to date...in about 5 years i may overclock to squeeze more out of the processor and vid card when those games are out...but not with todays games - no point to brag about frame rates like todays kids do that dont have a clue about the human eye and PC specs


not a knock on any1 just a fact

[G.I.JOE*MFA*]

oh though what i could get from 3dmark it was very impressive...STEVIE CHECK PM

[JimDirt]

so where do i go to get 3dmark???? so i can test my system!

[Hellfighter]

Originally posted by JimDirt
so where do i go to get 3dmark???? so i can test my system!

here you go a link to their site: http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml
==========================================

i updated it today to: 1.5.1.5
8-15fps gone down even when i not even close to the battle are it that low. was 25-40fps now it gone down hill again for me.

[JimDirt]

ok i ran the test it came out at 11732 is that good???

[Steve]

Originally posted by G.I.JOE*MFA*
u must have super eyes if below 40 frames a sec you can see...lol

i'd say that was pretty normal, i think 99.9% of people here could tell the difference between 40 fps and 100 fps for example. the faster it is the smoother it is, and the smoother the better for me.

basically you are saying as the fps increases, you dont notice any difference? that's just not possible.

at 12-20 and 40 fps the game is jerky for me. there is no otherway i can say it clearer than that. maybe you play really slow paced games not to notice?

ok 12 might be the very minimum the eye needs to interpret movement but by no means is that playable.

video is ok at 30 (ntsc) or 25 (pal) but this is only because that single frames can have blur (perceived by the eye as movement) whereas games dont have any blur at all and each frame is a clear, sharp image. so the sequence of frames in games appears jerky at 30 fps

if games could implement motion blur then 30 fps would be acceptable. but its not possible to do correctly as if there was a blur at a particular frame then the character is not in one exact position when moving.

the US airforce proved that the eye can recognise or see an image displayed for only 1/220th of a second, so the eye can at least detect 220 fps so why is is so ridiculous that i can tell when a series of clear images is only being displayed at 40fps?!

there is no current way of measuring the limit of fps the eye can see because technology is no where near as good as the human eye, there is theoretical limits but no way of proving. but it could be in excess of 1000fps

i'm not an optician but i have read up on this and i have seen the facts and figures from many sources. i'm not just one of 'todays kids' who says stuff without any info.

[G.I.JOE*MFA*]

ive been playing games at 10-20 frames a sec for 3 years now and havent had a problem...

now with the new PC things r running from 20-60 and it isnt a big change...

maybe the monitor cant handle high frame rates?