STiFU on 8/12/2005 at 12:51
I tried the textures. They look really nice but i have a critical decrease in FPS... I made up a tiny level(only a big cube 1024³) and added some 64³ cubes and 4 standard-lights. Then i apllied your textures in order to have a look at them. But when i looked from the far side at the cubes i got about 1 fps. Dont know where that comes from. Probably the uncompressed normal maps. I have a Athlon XP 2600+, 1024 mb ddr ram, gforce 4ti with 128 mb vram. Its not high end but a scene like that should run without any problems.
However i think that you'd better ship your library in a seperate matlib, because i had to backup all my textures before testing. Thank god i did that, because with so low performance i wouldnt be able to play on :) .
And I have another question: If we used the textures with their vast size, wouldnt the size of the FMs increase as well? That would be a big problem because they are yet too big at the moment.
New Horizon on 8/12/2005 at 13:15
Quote Posted by STiFU
And I have another question: If we used the textures with their vast size, wouldnt the size of the FMs increase as well? That would be a big problem because they are yet too big at the moment.
That's going to depend on the ability of the community to strip the resources from the .ibt files and then reconstruct them on the players system. As for now, the answer would be ..yes, it will make them very big. :)
Ziemanskye on 8/12/2005 at 15:21
Krypt did mention that Speculars were removed from most textures because of the perfomance hit, and you mostly out-gun me STiFU, so I've got no hope with them.
OrbWeaver on 8/12/2005 at 15:25
I don't see how texture resolution can make such a difference to frame rate, unless the memory of the graphics card is exceeded. The engine must be doing something really daft in the way that it renders textures in order for that sort of performance drop to occur.
anak1n on 8/12/2005 at 16:44
has anybody tried making custom loadzones similar to HL and HL2, this would add to the realism of the game
OrbWeaver on 8/12/2005 at 16:49
Quote Posted by anak1n
has anybody tried making custom loadzones similar to HL and HL2, this would add to the realism of the game
Loadzones were part of the original game, and they certainly do not add to the realism.
New Horizon on 8/12/2005 at 17:05
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Loadzones were part of the original game, and they certainly do not add to the realism.
You got that right.
ascottk on 8/12/2005 at 17:26
Here's my system specs:
* Iwill K266-R (with modified bios to turn the raid controller to a regular ide)
* Athlon XP 1800+
* 512 megs ram
* one 6 gig hard drive with Windows 2000, 20 gig hd (previous 2 is on the 66 mhz ide bus), one 80 gig hd divided into 2 partitions through a usb2 enclosure
* ASUS CD/RW. Sony CD/RW
* firewire 400 card & usb2 card
* Gainward Ultra/650 XP Golden Sample (nVidia GeForce 4ti 4200 with Video-In/Video Out) 128 mb w/nvidia forceware 81.85
* SB Audigy 2 ZS w/beta drivers for openal support
The only major hit I'm getting is through the editor flesh viewer. In game it's the same as usual for me. Another thing about my system is the poor quality ram.
Renzatic on 8/12/2005 at 21:55
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
I don't see how texture resolution can make such a difference to frame rate, unless the memory of the graphics card is exceeded. The engine must be doing something really daft in the way that it renders textures in order for that sort of performance drop to occur.
Back in the day it didn't, but with these new fandangled realtime lit engines a high res texture increases your per-pixel count and can become a bottleneck on slower graphics cards.
That's why Doom 3 and Quake 4's average texture size is around the 256x - 512x range.
