Bjossi on 10/4/2007 at 15:13
I was wondering the same thing, the game isn't even 6 GBs big.
By the way, the game wants at least 2 GBs big page-file as far as I know.
Malleus on 10/4/2007 at 15:14
Quote Posted by ToXiCFLUFF
20-35fps? Yow. I just couldn't find that enjoyable to play, no matter what the graphics.
I play with 15-25 all the time. Both STALKER and ArmA performs like that, while they look awesome (med-high). It's good for me, not distracting at all.
Toxicfluff on 10/4/2007 at 16:36
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
What? I've seen the old DOS version of Doom running at well in excess of 35 FPS.
Either your eyes have very bad sensitivity in this regard or you were watching someone play a Doom source port, because it IS capped at 35fps. That's the rate that the gameworld is updated at, hence the cap -- same reason for the Doom 3 renderer's cap at 60fps.
(
http://www.bluesnews.com/doomtips/#FRAMERATE)
(
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/december03/doom/play/)
(
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=85I&q=doom+35+limit+-%22Doom+3%22+-%22Doom+III%22&btnG=Search&meta=) google results
Quote Posted by Malleus
I play with 15-25 all the time. Both STALKER and ArmA performs like that, while they look awesome (med-high). It's good for me, not distracting at all.
Dunno, I've just always found low FPS difficult to deal with along with framerates that vary wildly (I'd rather take a constant 35 than 35 - 60). There was a lot of console games I just couldn't play for this reason. I suppose I'm a bit spoiled because I'm used to playing older games where I'm constantly above 60 (above which any increase is imperceptible for me). Strange thing is the brain can't detect that rate, so I can only assume it's something with the timing of the refreshes, because I can reliably tell when a framerate is below 60 / 50 (tested with com_maxfps caps in Quake III).
Bjossi on 10/4/2007 at 16:38
Though it is very easy to remove the 60 FPS cap in Doom 3.
Toxicfluff on 10/4/2007 at 16:45
Quote Posted by Bjossi
Though it is very easy to remove the 60 FPS cap in Doom 3.
Except because the game updates at a constant rate of 60 times per second, you'll just be rendering exactly same image more than once.
Bjossi on 10/4/2007 at 16:47
Hmm, that might explain why I get hyperspeed at high framerates (80+).
Apostolus on 11/4/2007 at 00:19
I never understood why people get bent all out of shape over sub 40 fps. "OMG how can you stand playing at 30-35 fps? I gotta have 60+!!" As long as it doesnt dip into the teens during tight spots then I cant really tell the difference.
Bjossi on 11/4/2007 at 01:00
They are just spoiled bastards I guess. ;)
Jashin on 11/4/2007 at 03:13
Stalker plays as fast or as slow as you like, so fps is really not that important.
Rogue Keeper on 11/4/2007 at 08:18
It seems to me that performance in Stalker depends more on lighting complexity than polygon complexity of the scene. Ironically, in some open areas I am getting far better framerate than in tight rooms full of dynamic light sources.
Again I compare this to Oblivion. The framerate in dense forest was a struggle, everybody who played O. knows that - all that complex grass, trees and HDR made the GPU work rally hard. But in dungeons the framerate was quite high. In Stalker you don't have too many trees (at least in the areas which I visited so far) and also the grass complexity seems to be more simple.
In Stalker I walk the Dark Valley with all settings turned nearly on maximum and I get average framerate of about 30. I suppose this is because sun never shines in the Valley, you have no shadows cast by the sun. But in the Bar there are some light sources which reduce the fps to as low as 14. I have switched to Object Lighting in hope it improves, but the average FPS in the Bar has raised only by 1, so it seems that the overall performance difference between Object Lighting and Full Lighting doesn't seem to be so big - under condition that I leave other settings at high levels, of course.
