On August 23 2012 03:29 genius_man16 wrote: This is going to make me sound like a gigantic asshole but I kind of don't understand how this many of you have computers that can't play this game on low settings? How old are you computers? 10 years?
I have a 5 year old computer that can run the game on Ultra. Is it that hard for you guys to buy a $100 graphics card that would let you play the game?
I'm not trying to be an asshole just asking a legitimate question, a new graphics card would allow you to play other games and help out your computer run faster aswell, so you can't use the "im not gonna waste $100 on a game i already paid $60 for" argument
Edit: for those of you who are having this problem and are on a Mac: My condolences.
5 year old pc runs sc2 on ultra? Are you kidding me?
Well i could sort of understand it if you had a watercooled rig which was very heavily OC'ed for its time but .... But im very skeptical.
My 3 year old OC'ed rig dose sometimes have problems running on ultra in late game, so i think you may be tugging your e-peen abit much with this one. :p
Yeah, I call BS on this one too. My Core i7 rig from late 2009 suffers from FM problems while running ultra at late game too. Although his phrasing, "can run the game on Ultra", doesn't say anything about his PC's actual performance.
If you want i can give you specs: video card: GeForce 9600 GT 2.5 ghz 6 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Quad Win 7
Now I will say that i can't play team games on ultra but i was under the impression that everyone is complaining about not being able to play 1v1
I can run on ultra, but late game frame rate suffers depending on whats on the feild. The worst i get is it stutters. Not to bad i know :p. Also preloader really helps. lol.
ANYWAYS......... Your system has around about the specs of my older system. I can tell you now, there is NO way in hell that thing would run SC2 on ultra. That thing can bearly run trackmania nations on anything decent letalone SC2. lol
On August 23 2012 04:55 kaokentake wrote: ill never for the fucking life of me understand how blizzard takes something many people love (old low graphics) and remove it for no seeming reason... the hell seriously
if you want slightly improved low graphics, then just make that a option. dont remove a setting people like
my god
The new low setting has better ground textures and is less demanding to the graphics card's memory. It allows an appearance of ground textures similar to the medium setting for less cost than the old low setting. I would say: Thank you, Blizzard.
That sounds great except it doesn't work as intended and actually makes it worse, hence the existence of this thread.
I assume it works for the most. But instead of looking for the real cause of the performance it's easy to blame the apparent visual change. If there are issues with the new low mode, there are not really issues with the new low mode but instead performance issues with any setting. Maybe the user didn't let the client finish the data loading so that he streams data during play? I don't know, but the new low mode itself does not increase the load on the computer.
On August 23 2012 03:29 genius_man16 wrote: This is going to make me sound like a gigantic asshole but I kind of don't understand how this many of you have computers that can't play this game on low settings? How old are you computers? 10 years?
I have a 5 year old computer that can run the game on Ultra. Is it that hard for you guys to buy a $100 graphics card that would let you play the game?
I'm not trying to be an asshole just asking a legitimate question, a new graphics card would allow you to play other games and help out your computer run faster aswell, so you can't use the "im not gonna waste $100 on a game i already paid $60 for" argument
Edit: for those of you who are having this problem and are on a Mac: My condolences.
5 year old pc runs sc2 on ultra? Are you kidding me?
Well i could sort of understand it if you had a watercooled rig which was very heavily OC'ed for its time but .... But im very skeptical.
My 3 year old OC'ed rig dose sometimes have problems running on ultra in late game, so i think you may be tugging your e-peen abit much with this one. :p
Yeah, I call BS on this one too. My Core i7 rig from late 2009 suffers from FM problems while running ultra at late game too. Although his phrasing, "can run the game on Ultra", doesn't say anything about his PC's actual performance.
If you want i can give you specs: video card: GeForce 9600 GT 2.5 ghz 6 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Quad Win 7
Now I will say that i can't play team games on ultra but i was under the impression that everyone is complaining about not being able to play 1v1
Edit: I average around 40 frames, no OC
Wait what ??? You try to say , that you run Sc2 on ultra playing 1v1 , and you got 40 fps ? on this computer ? This is a joke yes ? On this computer you can play medium/high max , with smooth gameplay.
There are some things you have to do: - Rename your current patch variables.txt file to oldvariables.txt and put the new variables into the folder. - Before making the new variables "read only" open it and change the "height = 0" and "width = 0" properties to your resolution settings. - After this save the file and make the file "Read Only" that's it, you should be getting the same fps before the patch after this.
Hope this works for everyone.
Edit: Just to note though, after further testing i realised that you might get better fps when you enable alternatelowtextures under heavy load like 200/200 battles. It seems like blizzard managed to make it use less memory in that kind of situations with the new rendering. ( alternateLowTextures=1 is how you enable it)
On August 23 2012 04:55 kaokentake wrote: ill never for the fucking life of me understand how blizzard takes something many people love (old low graphics) and remove it for no seeming reason... the hell seriously
if you want slightly improved low graphics, then just make that a option. dont remove a setting people like
my god
The new low setting has better ground textures and is less demanding to the graphics card's memory. It allows an appearance of ground textures similar to the medium setting for less cost than the old low setting. I would say: Thank you, Blizzard.
That sounds great except it doesn't work as intended and actually makes it worse, hence the existence of this thread.
I assume it works for the most. But instead of looking for the real cause of the performance it's easy to blame the apparent visual change. If there are issues with the new low mode, there are not really issues with the new low mode but instead performance issues with any setting. Maybe the user didn't let the client finish the data loading so that he streams data during play? I don't know, but the new low mode itself does not increase the load on the computer.
whatever the cause is, it makes it worse for some and that's the bottom line and that's where you should stop trying to put blame on users.
For some people, modifying the variables.txt so it used the old textures fixed the problem, and that's the bottom line and that's where you should stop discussing technicalities.
for some people old = better, new=worse, and that's not an opinion. apparently for some it even became unplayable. those people don't care about the real cause of performance issues, all they know it was made worse, and they had a fix and now the fix was removed.
On August 23 2012 03:29 genius_man16 wrote: This is going to make me sound like a gigantic asshole but I kind of don't understand how this many of you have computers that can't play this game on low settings? How old are you computers? 10 years?
I have a 5 year old computer that can run the game on Ultra. Is it that hard for you guys to buy a $100 graphics card that would let you play the game?
I'm not trying to be an asshole just asking a legitimate question, a new graphics card would allow you to play other games and help out your computer run faster aswell, so you can't use the "im not gonna waste $100 on a game i already paid $60 for" argument
Edit: for those of you who are having this problem and are on a Mac: My condolences.
5 year old pc runs sc2 on ultra? Are you kidding me?
Well i could sort of understand it if you had a watercooled rig which was very heavily OC'ed for its time but .... But im very skeptical.
My 3 year old OC'ed rig dose sometimes have problems running on ultra in late game, so i think you may be tugging your e-peen abit much with this one. :p
Yeah, I call BS on this one too. My Core i7 rig from late 2009 suffers from FM problems while running ultra at late game too. Although his phrasing, "can run the game on Ultra", doesn't say anything about his PC's actual performance.
If you want i can give you specs: video card: GeForce 9600 GT 2.5 ghz 6 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Quad Win 7
Now I will say that i can't play team games on ultra but i was under the impression that everyone is complaining about not being able to play 1v1
I can run on ultra, but late game frame rate suffers depending on whats on the feild. The worst i get is it stutters. Not to bad i know :p. Also preloader really helps. lol.
ANYWAYS......... Your system has around about the specs of my older system. I can tell you now, there is NO way in hell that thing would run SC2 on ultra. That thing can bearly run trackmania nations on anything decent letalone SC2. lol
What's more important than your graphics settings, is your resolution.
I can run everything on Extreme with 50+ Fps on: Athlon II x4 3.4 ghz Severely Underclocked GTX 460 768mb(its a lemon, need to rma it....) 4GB RAM
But I play on 1360x768. That guy probably isn't running a high end resolution either.
Isn't anyone else curious what Stalls/minute is? If you hit Ctrl+alt+F in Sc2, you will pull up an FPS toggle, that displays: FPS GPU Temp Stalls/minute (this isn't always displayed, start clicking on menu buttons real quickly)
What the fuck is stalls/minute and what does it mean.
And how do I pull up System Information, that orange tab with the fps, and why does it have a different fps.
Edit: Just to note though, after further testing i realised that you might get better fps when you enable alternatelowtextures under heavy load like 200/200 battles. It seems like blizzard managed to make it use less memory in that kind of situations with the new rendering. ( alternateLowTextures=1 is how you enable it)
Finally someone realised that! -_-
It was already said many times that these textures requires less memory.
On August 23 2012 03:29 genius_man16 wrote: This is going to make me sound like a gigantic asshole but I kind of don't understand how this many of you have computers that can't play this game on low settings? How old are you computers? 10 years?
I have a 5 year old computer that can run the game on Ultra. Is it that hard for you guys to buy a $100 graphics card that would let you play the game?
I'm not trying to be an asshole just asking a legitimate question, a new graphics card would allow you to play other games and help out your computer run faster aswell, so you can't use the "im not gonna waste $100 on a game i already paid $60 for" argument
Edit: for those of you who are having this problem and are on a Mac: My condolences.
5 year old pc runs sc2 on ultra? Are you kidding me?
Well i could sort of understand it if you had a watercooled rig which was very heavily OC'ed for its time but .... But im very skeptical.
My 3 year old OC'ed rig dose sometimes have problems running on ultra in late game, so i think you may be tugging your e-peen abit much with this one. :p
Yeah, I call BS on this one too. My Core i7 rig from late 2009 suffers from FM problems while running ultra at late game too. Although his phrasing, "can run the game on Ultra", doesn't say anything about his PC's actual performance.
If you want i can give you specs: video card: GeForce 9600 GT 2.5 ghz 6 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Quad Win 7
Now I will say that i can't play team games on ultra but i was under the impression that everyone is complaining about not being able to play 1v1
I can run on ultra, but late game frame rate suffers depending on whats on the feild. The worst i get is it stutters. Not to bad i know :p. Also preloader really helps. lol.
ANYWAYS......... Your system has around about the specs of my older system. I can tell you now, there is NO way in hell that thing would run SC2 on ultra. That thing can bearly run trackmania nations on anything decent letalone SC2. lol
What's more important than your graphics settings, is your resolution.
I can run everything on Extreme with 50+ Fps on: Athlon II x4 3.4 ghz Severely Underclocked GTX 460 768mb(its a lemon, need to rma it....) 4GB RAM
But I play on 1360x768. That guy probably isn't running a high end resolution either.
Isn't anyone else curious what Stalls/minute is? If you hit Ctrl+alt+F in Sc2, you will pull up an FPS toggle, that displays: FPS GPU Temp Stalls/minute (this isn't always displayed, start clicking on menu buttons real quickly)
What the fuck is stalls/minute and what does it mean.
And how do I pull up System Information, that orange tab with the fps, and why does it have a different fps.
I think its this collect data thing for blizzard , to fix performance issues. They write that , they will add something in 1.5.2 to collect more data from users. And its not only Stalls/minute , its change from time to time , sometimes it show network spikes.. and some other stats to.
Here is my post abouth that
On August 22 2012 10:51 pallad wrote: Really.. why all you people are so dumb.. i dont get it. There was some thread on TL showing WITH PROOFS , that new textures use less memory and they got better performance , if someone write that he got MORE fps , after patch 1.5 , with "old" low grapfics he simple lie. Show some proof maby ? or stfu.. Problem is in other place , and we need wait for fix from blizzard. They are working on it http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6246945462?page=1 And they add more tracking date to 1.5.2 patch to find this issue , so calm the fuck down people and wait a bit..
We have been digging through all the data provided with this thread along with our internal testing, trying to identify the cause(s) of the performance issues that appeared with 1.5. Unfortunately we have been unable to identify an easy fix with our existing data tracking combined with your reports, hardware information, and variable data. With 1.5.2 we have added more data tracking to the actual game so we can have a clearer picture of what crept into the game with 1.5. We understand that this is not a perfect or fast solution to the performance issues but we are getting closer. Sadly, it has proved to not be as simple as “reverting code” back to the way the game was in 1.4.4.
As it appears that we have gained as much data as we can from pre-1.5.2 reports I will be locking this thread. Thank you all for being so diligent and providing this information, it has been very useful even though we have not been able to find an easy solution.
Thank you blizzard. Game was fine even with 200/200 battles on creep with the low graphics, now that you changed it and made it impossible to fix it back in the Variables.txt, I have to all in every game before we reach to 200/200 because I wouldn't be able to win then.
Great job, really great job. And to the ppl saying we should play other game or buy a new PC since ours are so shitty, you should start thinking and use your brain to your full potential, because that is not whay you are doing atm.
On August 24 2012 21:18 lolspoon wrote: Thank you blizzard. Game was fine even with 200/200 battles on creep with the low graphics, now that you changed it and made it impossible to fix it back in the Variables.txt, I have to all in every game before we reach to 200/200 because I wouldn't be able to win then.
Great job, really great job. And to the ppl saying we should play other game or buy a new PC since ours are so shitty, you should start thinking and use your brain to your full potential, because that is not whay you are doing atm.
You acre still able to change variable.txt, Just go SC2>Accounts>(numbers)>Variable.txt do your changes here.
I don't even care about the performance (even though it may rum slower), it's just that I find the new textures uglier than what we had before, plain smooth looks
On August 24 2012 21:18 lolspoon wrote: Thank you blizzard. Game was fine even with 200/200 battles on creep with the low graphics, now that you changed it and made it impossible to fix it back in the Variables.txt, I have to all in every game before we reach to 200/200 because I wouldn't be able to win then.
Great job, really great job. And to the ppl saying we should play other game or buy a new PC since ours are so shitty, you should start thinking and use your brain to your full potential, because that is not whay you are doing atm.
You acre still able to change variable.txt, Just go SC2>Accounts>(numbers)>Variable.txt do your changes here.
Errm no? 1.5.2 changed it and it resets back to default, so the old low is still the new low, and you cant play on old low.
On August 24 2012 21:18 lolspoon wrote: Thank you blizzard. Game was fine even with 200/200 battles on creep with the low graphics, now that you changed it and made it impossible to fix it back in the Variables.txt, I have to all in every game before we reach to 200/200 because I wouldn't be able to win then.
Great job, really great job. And to the ppl saying we should play other game or buy a new PC since ours are so shitty, you should start thinking and use your brain to your full potential, because that is not whay you are doing atm.
You acre still able to change variable.txt, Just go SC2>Accounts>(numbers)>Variable.txt do your changes here.
i got alternateLowTextures=0 and simplifiedCloaking=0 simplifiedShaders=0
looks exactly the same as before the patch.
SC2>Accounts>(numbers)>Variable.txt do your changes here instead it does the same as the other variables and doesn't change back.
I even got bakeTerrainLighting=0 to work. Just save whatever changes you want in your 'Number' 'Variable.txt'. This will override the previous variable.txt
Please follow the instructions above and make sure the right 'Number' in your account.
EPT
