December 15, 2006 at 8:07 pm #37331
One thing I’ve discovered and brought to the attention of Gavin, is that the Fastest Options settings do not disable dynamic lighting. He has added this change along with disabling trees to CVS fo Fastest Options. I found that if both of these options are off, you get a nice increase in FPS… So anyone who is testing this out, be sure to see what disabling these options manually does for you.December 15, 2006 at 9:41 pm #37332
Here are my findings, so far. Using a 566 Mhz, 128mb RAM, Geforce 4 MX 440, Win 2000 machine and playing with Fastest Options (including trees and dynamic lighting off), camera window disabled, I get an average of 30 FPS.
I’m going to test it with my integrated card enabled and will come back soon with my findings.December 15, 2006 at 9:42 pm #37333
@laptops Daddy wrote:
I think you have to say “minimum…” and it should be accurate. If some poor kid with a 1/2Mbit connection spends 3 hours downloading, only to find it runs at 6fps…
Minimum reqs. from what I can see are a 32MB? Nvidia TNT/ATI Rage 3D era graphics card*. That’s pretty much any card made within the last decade. (Do capacitors even last that long?)
Trust me. I’m an outsider.
*That’s: graphics performance equivalent to one of those cards. (A modern shared RAM/IGP would do it).
but the trouble is, there are too many other factors that determine playability. I can guarantee you that you could find two guys with the same card, same processor, and one plays at 30 fps, and the other at 6. The amount and speeed of RAM, the OS, the condition of the OS and number of background processes play a major part, as do many other variables.
I recognize the desire to “draw a line in the sand”, but given that whatever line you draw is going to be wrong for many people, I’m not sure how to decide where to draw it.
cbxDecember 15, 2006 at 9:52 pm #37334
Minimum should be given with the general “feel” of what everyone can run it on, in my opinion. And to me, it would still be more useful than providing just “safe” requirements.. even considering someone’s OS and things like processor type and RAM speed.
And if they are running background processes, that’s their problem. Not ours.December 16, 2006 at 12:22 am #37335
but the trouble is, there are too many other factors that…
I agree that there are other factors. I thought about that when I made my (second) post. But I think if you specify a particular generation of graphics card, you can assume the rest of the system will be from the same era
and it only has to be a guideline
I’m not saying that you couldn’t find freak circumstances (or maybe an unbalanced/mismatched whatever system) to throw off the figures if you wanted to.
What does Scorched actually use RAM wise? I made it about 64MB on the old system I tested it on.
: ) Not really any of my business. Just the kind of thing I know about is all.
You said something before about most games minimum reqs. being too high. (Can’t be bothered to find the quote). I don’t think that’s true. In fact, from my experience, it’s the opposite. (Spose it depends on the game). In Scorcheds case, it’s still good with all the pretty bits turned off. (Lots of other games aren’t).
“fast options” button…
I haven’t confirmed this, but it looked on one of my systems as though setting texture size to large gave better performance. (Making better use of the G. Cards RAM maybe?) Might be worth looking at.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.