EPTThanks in advance
qaz
Stable/Playable fps for SC2?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
Thanks in advance qaz | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
| ||
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
On February 27 2010 10:40 CharlieMurphy wrote: why do fps really matter in rts? because when your framerate changes rapidly in battles etc so does your ability to control units and scroll your screen honestly i feel anything below 60 is jittery as hell when i move my screen around and i really cant tolerate that, but if you can then id say about 40-45 as a minimum when in big battles and stuff. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On February 27 2010 10:40 CharlieMurphy wrote: why do fps really matter in rts? For the exact same reason why it matters in every other game...so the game looks smoother and better. | ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
3.2ghz dual core 4670 ATI with 512 ddr3 2gb of ddr2 ram and that should be it... and it should be able to run on medium smoothishly, but it doesnt! it was default at high... but the avg fps im ALWAYS getting is a minimal 40fps, are you guys sure blizzard didnt make this game to be playable with like 24fps or something? | ||
|
Windblade
United States161 Posts
your worst point is the 2GB RAM | ||
|
radiumz0rz
United States253 Posts
On February 27 2010 12:42 Windblade wrote: why is 40 fps bad? your worst point is the 2GB RAM Actually his graphics card is limiting his fps but not to 24 fps unless his settings are on ultra. | ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
On February 27 2010 12:42 Windblade wrote: why is 40 fps bad? your worst point is the 2GB RAM Because my fps plummets to about 10-20 fps on med settings when im playing BY MYSELF ... | ||
|
PGHammer
United States132 Posts
On February 27 2010 10:23 qazqwezxc wrote: Hi guys, im just curious as to what the stable fps for this game is like. For the most part so far, the game seems to run on a locked 24 fps which is what sc1 originally had, can anyone confirm what the stable fps sc2 is usually minimal to at the very least? Thanks in advance qaz Compared to what? I'm not in the beta (I just watch replays in the client, and I've gotten a semi-sandbox add-on that works with the current client), and I said that the *original* beta was easily one of the best looking game titles *period* at merely 1360x800x32-bit/everything at medium detail except Physics (off) and movies (3D/high) and I wondered if Blizzard's coders could improve on it. With the second patch, performance has actually gotten better. Same maps, same cast of characters, increased level of detail (Physics got moved to medium), yet frame rates went up from a low of 19 fps to a low of 24 fps. I've actually asked for those actually in the beta to mirror my settings (just so I could be sure I'm not seeing things). Increased detail, two patches, and performance goes up? I said in the Graphics vs. Gameplay thread that there is little reason for the average gamer to move the settings above medium detail (except bragging rights) as even at medium detail, SC2 is one of the best looking games period, regardless of genre or platform. I'm still planning on upgrading my graphics hardware (the planned upgrade had nothing to do with SC2, but more because I tire of having wimpy graphics hardware); however, other than resolution, I have absolutely no planned changes from my current settings for SC2. That's something I didn't expect to say about a still-in-beta title, let alone an RTS. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
optimal fps would be whatever your monitors refresh rate is for most people that is 60. | ||
|
Dgtl
Canada889 Posts
| ||
|
DanceDance
226 Posts
Please ask Blizzard to enable a vertical synch option in the video settings menu. What is vertical synch? Vertical synch allows a computer to go above a locked frame rate. Almost every LCD monitor is locked at 60hz, which means that fps can never go above 60fps. Vertical synch removes this lock, allowing a LCD monitor to achieve a higher fps. Here is an example: When playing Counter Strike, with vertical synch on I can only get 60fps (because my LCD monitor is set to 60hz). With vertical synch off, I achieve 150-200fps which is a HUGE improvement in performance. | ||
|
PGHammer
United States132 Posts
On February 27 2010 15:29 mahnini wrote: we have a giatn thread for this here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=113094 optimal fps would be whatever your monitors refresh rate is for most people that is 60. While you would *normally* think so, I actually think that the optimal fps for SC2 is less. I have noticed something about detail levels and frame rates (sustained vs. average) in all games (not just shooters or even RTS/MMOs). The higher the average detail level, the lower sustained and average frame rates you can get away with. (Look at Guild Wars; it has one of the highest detail levels of any RPG; higher than World of Warcraft, in fact. World of Warcraft itself is no slouch in that department. They have the highest detail levels and highest framerates of all RPGs; oddly enough, GuildWars beats WoW in both areas. WoW players keep coming back because, other than Guild Wars, no other MMO comes close to, or exceeds, that level of detail.) RTS titles have suffered, in the main, in the LOD department, compared to shooters primarily, and now to MMOs (especially to GuildWars) in the days between BW and SC2's beta launching. SC2, however, puts RTS titles back into the LOD race (if not actually taking command). To be quite blunt, SC2 today, at medium detail, is the best looking game on my PC. Period. (I have other RTS titles, that I play at resolutions both below and above that I use for SC2, and at supposedly-higher in-game settings as well; the most well known being Sins of a Solar Empire, which I play at 1920x1080 with all settings at the ceiling. No; it's not as graphically demanding as SC2. That isn't the point, though. SC2's LOD is so high that I can stay *under* the magic 30 fps (but above 20 fps) and barely notice (or care). SOaSE, on the other hand, is less forgiving (far less forgiving).) What was the last RTS that stood expected LOD on its ear? You guessed it; the original StarCraft. Games (PC games in particular, and strategy titles most of all) have tended to overpromise and underdeliver in the LOD department (even the original Supreme Commander was so demanding of graphics hardware that it was called, and not without reason, "the Crysis of RTS games"). Therefore, in the case of the SC2 beta, even after seeing Blizzard videos of earlier code, I was thinking "Meh." (Among the lead developers of RTS games that I have are Chris Thomas, Brian Reynolds, and Sid Meier - *all* have underdelivered from an LOD point of view, and all the underdeliveries have been *since* the release of BW. Of course I thought I'd get burned again.) It's nice to see a developer step up to the plate and not only deliver the promised detail, but overdeliver. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On February 27 2010 15:47 DanceDance wrote: To anybody in the beta, I ask you to make this suggestion on the official beta forums. Please ask Blizzard to enable a vertical synch option in the video settings menu. What is vertical synch? Vertical synch allows a computer to go above a locked frame rate. Almost every LCD monitor is locked at 60hz, which means that fps can never go above 60fps. Vertical synch removes this lock, allowing a LCD monitor to achieve a higher fps. Here is an example: When playing Counter Strike, with vertical synch on I can only get 60fps (because my LCD monitor is set to 60hz). With vertical synch off, I achieve 150-200fps which is a HUGE improvement in performance. Ok this post was really confusing, it sounded completely wrong in the first paragraph, but the second contradicts it. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
p.s ( i forgot to mention i have a 1280x 1024 resolution) | ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
4 PC Intel Pentium D 940 @ 3.21ghz (2 core) GPU: ATi Radeon 4670 DDR3 512MB RAM: 2GB DDR2 Setting: Medium/High from guideline computers | ||
|
never_Nal
Costa Rica676 Posts
| ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
30 FPS doesn't seem that bad with Starcraft 2. I'm guessing it's because of the top down view. anyways, this has already been mentioned, but ideal is whatever your monitor's refresh rate. ideal and playable framerate are two very different things though, and people have different views of what they consider playable (different tolerances for framerate hitching, framerate drops, and screen tearing). | ||
|
qazqwezxc
Canada91 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
It's not that 24-30 fps isn't playable, it's the fact that 1) in heated combat, things drop lower, and 2) if he's got everything toned down to low, his hardware should VERY CLEARLY be getting better performance than that. | ||
|
Cpt.Cocaine
Canada299 Posts
On February 28 2010 11:39 never_Nal wrote: Does it really matter?, the human eye can only see 24 FPS, normaly a internet vid would have between 25 and 29.7 Frames per second, and it still looks smooth :D 24fps is the standard for TV broadcast, but the human eye can potentially see much more than that. | ||
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
On February 28 2010 11:39 never_Nal wrote: Does it really matter?, the human eye can only see 24 FPS, normaly a internet vid would have between 25 and 29.7 Frames per second, and it still looks smooth :D the human eye doesnt see in frames, people need to get the fuck out with that shit. been seeing this on forums since 2001, you'd think everyone would learn that its wrong. If you can't tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 you need to get your head checked, although here's a better idea when you have no comprehension of framerate just stop posting so like i said, the human eye doesnt see in frames, but air force pilots have been reported as being able to spot an image at up to 500 frames per second, so take from that what you will. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
RiGun
Argentina155 Posts
| ||
|
SirNeb
United States243 Posts
| ||
| ||
