|
On August 22 2012 21:25 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +Standard textures are 1024x1024 in DXT5 compression format (with Alpha channel) while low textures are in DXT1 format (no alpha) and with half resolution per axis (512x512 resolution.) That means: Standard textures support up to "ultra" texture detail level while low textures only support up to "high" texture detail level.
The alpha channel for standard textures doesn't seems to be used for alpha (= transparancy) though, it looks more like a monochrome version of the texture – probably used for some lighting effects. But in result they eat less memory because less "layers" of alpha and normals. Right? Normal maps are in additional files which are probably not loaded on the low setting. The stripped alpha channel in the alternative low base maps for ground textures however should safe some memory.
So, yes, the new textures for the low mode introduced with patch 1.5 should be less demanding than the old low mode.
|
On August 22 2012 22:28 Imzoo wrote: I really hate the new low setting, i prefere to not play. With some work you can restore the old low setting, you need to use write protection once you edited your variables.txt file.
On August 22 2012 21:55 Little-Chimp wrote: So this basically bricks the game of anyone who could only run the game on low? What the hell is blizzard thinking? The new low mode is less demading than the pre-1.5 low mode.
|
Guys, this was even in the patch notes... come on now.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
With some work you can restore the old low setting, you need to use write protection once you edited your variables.txt file.
You don't need, just use second variables-files that is located in same folder in Accounts/<numbers>/..here..
It overrites main variables-file
|
On August 22 2012 22:34 Existor wrote:Show nested quote + With some work you can restore the old low setting, you need to use write protection once you edited your variables.txt file.
You don't need, just use second variables-files that is located in same folder in Accounts/<numbers>/..here.. It overrites main variables-file Good tip, I need to check it out and expand my post which explains the new textures.
|
In the screenshots i notice this new info line i have not seen before.
What to press to see the "stalls/min ms" line under the fps? And what exactly do the numbers in this info line say?
Sry if off topic.
|
On August 22 2012 10:40 stormchaser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 10:37 ejac wrote:On August 22 2012 10:29 rogzardo wrote: Hmm, do I spend a grand on a new computer or stop playing sc2....
Easy enough decision I guess. WP blizz! I'm not going to defend blizzard and the change they made as it is silly, but that being said spending not even a hundred bucks on a graphics card would make the problem go away in all likelihood. You wouldn't need a new computer. What world do you live in where everyone has some perfectly upgradable machine? Laptops cannot be upgraded in such a way and most desktops aren't able to hold the latest and greatest in their motherboards due to pci slot stuff.
Bit about laptops is true... desktops is not even remotely true. We've been using Pci 2.0 forever, and 3.0 cards are backwards compatible. a 100$ graphics card can nearly max SC2 at 1080P. The only real constraint you'd get would be power and space, but generally even shitty PSU's can handle a 30$ card that can play SC2 on low/medium.
|
On August 22 2012 22:37 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 22:34 Existor wrote: With some work you can restore the old low setting, you need to use write protection once you edited your variables.txt file.
You don't need, just use second variables-files that is located in same folder in Accounts/<numbers>/..here.. It overrites main variables-file Good tip, I need to check it out and expand my post which explains the new textures.
thx it's work
|
Wait.........are people actually complaining that their crappy computers can't play SC2 properly? If someone's computer doesn't meet the system requirements to play the game, that's not blizzard's problem.
It's like when my students fail the course because they don't do homework or study for exams.
If your comp can't handle the game, then play a different game. If you're not willing to put in the work to pass a course, find an easier course to take.
|
On August 22 2012 22:49 KingofGods wrote: Wait.........are people actually complaining that their crappy computers can't play SC2 properly? If someone's computer doesn't meet the system requirements to play the game, that's not blizzard's problem.
It's like when my students fail the course because they don't do homework or study for exams.
If your comp can't handle the game, then play a different game. If you're not willing to put in the work to pass a course, find an easier course to take.
People who meet the system requirements are having much more lag then ever before. It has nothing to do with system requirements.
|
So in my variables file I don't have a frameratecap = value. Can I add that in by just writing in frameratecap=60? And what does framerateglue do?
|
On August 22 2012 22:49 KingofGods wrote: Wait.........are people actually complaining that their crappy computers can't play SC2 properly? If someone's computer doesn't meet the system requirements to play the game, that's not blizzard's problem.
It's like when my students fail the course because they don't do homework or study for exams.
If your comp can't handle the game, then play a different game. If you're not willing to put in the work to pass a course, find an easier course to take.
What courses are you teaching that change the requirements over 2 years in?
|
Just macroing up as terran; as I reach 200/200, I get 50fps with this shitty patch. Don't let me get started on how much it dips during firefights on creep. This is fucking ridiculous, Blizzard.
|
Idk why everyone is so worked up about this, if your computer cannot handle sc2 on low then your comp shouldn't be playing sc2. I understand that its a problem, but you can't blame blizz for upgrading the game and then you get out of luck because your comp can't handle the game.
|
Well, the interface has gotten better over the last 2 years (objectively speaking), so it does make sense that the requirements changed. I'm also not the same teacher I was 2 years ago so I do indeed expect different things.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
Playing on extremely low, no problems.
|
On August 22 2012 22:34 Existor wrote:Show nested quote + With some work you can restore the old low setting, you need to use write protection once you edited your variables.txt file.
You don't need, just use second variables-files that is located in same folder in Accounts/<numbers>/..here.. It overrites main variables-file
Thanks for the tip. Just tried it out and it works. Starcraft does not auto-change that second variables file like it does the main one. So it is for example possible to once again add "simplifiedshaders=0" to get more visible force fields on low settings.
|
On August 22 2012 22:49 KingofGods wrote: Wait.........are people actually complaining that their crappy computers can't play SC2 properly? If someone's computer doesn't meet the system requirements to play the game, that's not blizzard's problem.
It's like when my students fail the course because they don't do homework or study for exams.
If your comp can't handle the game, then play a different game. If you're not willing to put in the work to pass a course, find an easier course to take.
I hope you don't teach English, that analogy is terrible and not at all applicable.
It's more like when you have a structured syllabus that details the requirements, then decide halfway through the semester a TI-89 is needed in the course, not the TI-83 that you listed back in August. Some kids will be fine, some kids will have to buy a new one, others will not have the money and be out of luck.
|
Personnaly i can turn sc2 on high but i prefere to play with the old low, it's what i want
|
On August 22 2012 23:50 DrowSwordsman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 22:49 KingofGods wrote: Wait.........are people actually complaining that their crappy computers can't play SC2 properly? If someone's computer doesn't meet the system requirements to play the game, that's not blizzard's problem.
It's like when my students fail the course because they don't do homework or study for exams.
If your comp can't handle the game, then play a different game. If you're not willing to put in the work to pass a course, find an easier course to take. I hope you don't teach English, that analogy is terrible and not at all applicable. It's more like when you have a structured syllabus that details the requirements, then decide halfway through the semester a TI-89 is needed in the course, not the TI-83 that you listed back in August. Some kids will be fine, some kids will have to buy a new one, others will not have the money and be out of luck.
We're talking about 2 years after the game has come out....... With the speed at which technology changes these days, why wouldn't you expect things to get better? Even if you bought a top of the line computer 2 years ago it will most certainly be outdated now. Still functional, but outdated. I understand that gamers are resistant to changes but realize these changes are intended to be for the better.
Oh, and if the TI-89 was not out 2 years ago obviously, I can't put it on the syllabus. But 2 years later when it does come out, sure I can put it on the syllabus. The people who would be hurt by this change would be people who are are still in my class now as they were 2 years ago using the exact same calculator. If someone is on the same computer as they were 2 years ago, expect that it won't be as good comparatively.
|
|
|
|