PlaneShift
Support => Technical Help: Problems BEFORE entering the game => Topic started by: Charon on June 01, 2003, 10:17:47 pm
-
many people are reporting, that the client is running unplayable slow on their systems ...
as far as i can see, many of them have Intel systems and a graphiccard with about 32 mb ...
Please do the following:
add the line
System.PlugIns.iBugPlug = crystalspace.utilities.bugplug
to your psclient.cfg to get the FPS counter.
start the client an write down your average fps
please post your system information into this thread:
processor brand:
processor speed:
amount of main memory:
graphiccard brand:
graphiccard chip:
amount of memory on graphiccard:
operating system:
average fps:
example:
---------------------
processor brand: Intel Celeron
processor speed: 1 GHz
amount of main memory: 256 Mb
graphiccard brand: Guillemot
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 2 MX
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 Mb
operating system: Windows XP
average fps: 0.6 fps
Thank You ...
-
Ok ill do that
-one small problem is that sometimes i cant even start up the game with the \"initializing world\" taking forever
[only 3 times i came to actually playing was when i left for like a 100 years and came back -but then the unplayable lag/warpyness]
-
processor brand: Pentium III
processor speed: 1GHZ
amount of main memory: 256
graphiccard: Geforce 2
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32MB
operating system: XP
FPS range: 0.3 - 198.98
FPS facing Temple: 0.3 - 5
FPS Inside temple: 20 - 40
FPS round houses: 10 - 20
FPS facing whole city 3 - 6
FPS stood still on edge of map facing away from city: 90+
average fps: 12
-
processor brand: Intel Celeron
processor speed: 1.7 GHz
amount of main memory: 512 Mb
graphiccard brand: Intel
graphiccard chip: Intel 82845G/GL extreme graphics chipset
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 Mb (shared)
operating system: Windows XP
average fps: 7 fps
Definitely not a game playing computer because of the graphic \"card\" using shared memory, but I can run games with fairly intensive graphics not too badly. Morrowind is an example.(runs fairly slow, but with the settings turned down it\'s very playable.) I know that doesn\'t really mean that much because different engines run differently etc.
-
Two systems:
1:
processor brand: AMD K6-2+
processor speed: 450MHz
amount of main memory: 256MB
graphiccard brand: nVidia
graphiccard chip: GeForce2 Pro
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB
operating system: WinXP SP1
average fps: 0.12
2:
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP 1600
processor speed: 1.4GHz
amount of main memory: 512MB
graphiccard brand: nVidia
graphiccard chip: GeForce FX 5200
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128MB
operating system: Win XP SP1
average fps: 0.02
Now, the slower (first) system I\'d expect to not be able to play the game well - it\'s an older system, but for some reason it actually plays the game a little better than the faster (second) system. However both in reality are unplayable. Following the pattern, I\'m guessing I\'d need something in the 66MHz range to get the game to run smoothly (hehe).
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon
processor speed: 1.1 GHz
amount of main memory: 312 MB
graphiccard brand: nVidia
graphiccard chip: GeForce4 MX 440
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB
operating system: WinXP
average fps: I dont even know. After the 25 minutes of waiting for the world to \"initialize\" the program just sat there moving one screen every 5 minutes or so. Getting an average fps count on my comp was a joke.
-
processor brand: Celeron
processor speed: 466 MHz
amount of main memory: 256 MB
graphiccard brand: MSI
graphiccard chip: GeForce2 MX400
graphiccard driver: nVidia Omega Drivers (Performance setting)
grpahiccard speed: overclocked from 181 MHz to 231 MHz core and mem clock
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 MB
operating system: Windows 98
average fps: 8-20 FPS (depends heavily on movement and view)
--
Greetings,
E.
-
hello,
I\'m also having problems with extreme slowness while playing the game. I added the line posted above, but the fps counter does not appear. If I look at other characters in the game, I can see that I get about 1 frame every two seconds. Yet when I issue a command
(i.e. move forward) it takes about 1 minute before it
is actually executed.
one other peculiarity is that, when I launch the game, there is a yellow bar on top of the title screen that says \"No Hardware Acceleration\"
that\'s quite strange, because my graphics card has its latest drivers, and has always been working correctly, so I\'m quite sure its configured correctly.
processor brand: AMD
processor speed: 1,1GHz
amount of main memory: 256MB DDR
graphiccard brand: unknown
graphiccard chip: nVidia gForce 2MX 400
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB
operating system: windows xp proffesional
average fps: about 0,5
I run 1024 x 768 x 16bit NOT full screen
the loading of the world is quite slow too, but it\'s survivable (about 5 mins, which is still quite slow, since I have a T1 connection)
Hope this gets solved soon!
many thanks in advance
greetings,
Maldarke
-
processor brand: AMD
processor speed: 800 MHz
amount of main memory: 256 MB SDRAM
graphiccard brand: unknown
graphiccard chip: nVidia gForce 2MX 400
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32MB
operating system: windows 98
average fps: 7-16 while moving turning and 22-27 while standing still with no moving char in vision
1024 x 768 x 16bit full screen
-
Maybe the speed problems are related somehow to Windows XP, as you have the same grpahics (nearly) as I have.
I have also noticed, that who suffers from software OpenGL (i.e. no hardware acceleration) are ALL using Windows XP.
Originally posted by Maldarke
the loading of the world is quite slow too, but it\'s survivable (about 5 mins, which is still quite slow, since I have a T1 connection)
The load time does NOT depend on the connection, as the world is loaded from your local harddisk. Parsing the world file just takes some time.
--
Greetings,
E.
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP 1700+
processor speed: 1467 MHz
amount of main memory: 512 MB SDRAM
graphiccard brand: Gigabyte GV-GF1280
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 2 MX 400
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 MB
operating system: Linux (Slackware 9.0)
average fps: 10
-
two Systems:
one:
processor brand: AMD Athlon
processor speed: 600 MHz
amount of main memory: 128 Mb
graphiccard brand: Elsa
graphiccard chip: NVidia TNT 2
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 Mb
operating system: gentoo linux rc_1.4
min fps: 0.2
max fps: 12
average fps: 5-6 fps
two:
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP
processor speed: 1533 MHz
amount of main memory: 1 Gb
graphiccard brand: Elsa
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 3 Ti200
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 Mb
operating system: gentoo linux rc_1.4
min fps: 2-5 (without lag)
max fps: 120 (for more than a moment)
average fps: 40-50 fps
-
processor brand: Intel x86
processor speed: P600
amount of main memory: 128 MB
graphiccard brand: 3DFX
graphiccard chip: Voodoo 3
amount of memory on graphiccard: 16 MB
operating system: Linux (Redhat 9)
average fps:
-
Comp 1:
processor brand: Intel Pentium 4
processor speed: 2.66 GHz
amount of main memory: 512 MB ddr ram
graphiccard brand: unknown
graphiccard chip: SiS651 Integrated Graphics with Real256? 2D/3D Graphics Accelerator (edit: My boyfriend told me that its integrated in the motherboard, so no upgrades for me :,()
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 MB shared memory (64MB max)
operating system: Windows XP home version
average fps: 7.00 in open spaces (lots of processing needed)
16.00-25.00 in closed spaces (chapel/subterranian dungeon)
Also depends on movement speed and actions taken, of course.
Comp 2:
processor brand: Intel Pentium 4
processor speed: 1.3 GHz
amount of main memory: 120 RD RAM
graphiccard brand: unknown again
graphiccard chip: nVidia TNT2 PRO
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 MB
operating system: Windows XP professional edition
average fps: .2
On this computer, I never got past the World Initialization. It just killed my computer and my processor started dying and crying out in agony. ?.?;
Both were in 640x480, 16-bit.
-
processor brand: Intel Celeron
processor speed: 500 Mhz
amount of main memory: 160 Mb
graphiccard brand: unknown
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 2 MX 400
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 Mb
operating system: Windows XP Pro
After 10 minutes of loading...
average fps: 0.03 fps
maximum fps: 0.14 fps
-
processor brand: Intel Inside
processor speed: 1.8GHz
amount of main memory: 80GB(I think)
graphiccard brand: Nvidia
graphiccard chip: Geforce 4
operating system: Windows XP
average fps: I cant tell. it takes like, 10 minutes just to get 2 or 3 frames.
-
Originally posted by Kundalf
two Systems:
one:
min fps: 0.2
max fps: 12
average fps: 5-6 fps
two:
min fps: 2-5 (without lag)
max fps: 120 (for more than a moment)
average fps: 40-50 fps
You are aware that higher fps = faster frame rate/better playability, right? Sorry, just looks to me that maybe you have your numbers switched around. Then again, I wish I had framerates anywhere within the same area code of either of your systems.
-
\"My boyfriend told me that its integrated in the motherboard, so no upgrades for me \"
I have crappy 4mb graphics integrated into my motherboard, I just had to get a PCI video card (geforce 2) and switch a little jumper on the motherboard to turn off the chipset.
comp: E Machines (yea! :P)
processor brand: intel celeron
processor speed: 466MHz
amount of main memory: 256mb sdram
graphiccard brand: Creative
graphiccard chip: Geforce 2mx
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32mb
operating system: Windows XP Pro
average fps: 0.2ish (this is in OpenGl at 640 x 480 and 16bit fullscreen)
-
I think this must be some sort of OpenGL problem.
I\'ve been experimenting a bit, and my client runs better when I choose software rendering.
when a look at open areas (like across hydlaa plaza or someting alike) I have around 4fps, when I look at close objects, like walls and stuff, I between 7 and 8 fps
when I got in the entrance of the big orange building,
I even got up to 20fps (for a moment that is)
I think these are the values one could expect when choosing software rendering. So my guess is that it\'s something to do with the OpenGL, especially since I get the \"no hardware accelleration!\" message when I choose OpenGL (see my posting above)
now all we need is someone to find out exactly what it is, and someone to fix it :)
greetings,
Maldarke
-
processor brand: AMD
processor speed: XP 2000 +
amount of main memory: 1.25G DDR400
graphiccard brand: ATI Radeon
graphiccard chip: 9700
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128 Megs
operating system: XP Home
average fps: 50-60 (But very dependant on perspective and movement)
My memory is overclocked a little bit. Although it\'s never hindered performance with any hog programs. I must say.. My performance is very.. inconsistant. I honestly don\'t know how most people here even get it running. Very big hog. I\'ll try lowering my settings. Suprised you didn\'t want that info but here it is anyways. 1024 x 768 16-Bit textures. I\'ll give an update with my new CPU coming in the mail. AMD XP 2500 + 333FSB. -smiles to himself-
-
Seems like some of you might be running opengl with software drivers, which i REALLY slow. Try updating your drivers, make sure you aren\'t using the drivers integrated in Winblows, since those are an old, software version (if you don\'t have a usable graphics card, try using mesa).
The general performance should improve when the game matures.
-
The OpenGL drivers on my systems are the ones included in the drivers for both video cards, and are not software. From the looks of things, I\'ve still got the slowest (listed) framerates. Curiously, I tried the software renderer on the slower system I have listed above, and got an average FPS of 1.8, as opposed to the average 0.12 FPS I was recieving from the OpenGL renderer. So, while it still was pretty much unplayable, the software (slow) renderer proved to be actually better for the system.
-
processor brand: Intel
processor speed: PIII-733 mHz
amount of main memory: 64 SD RAM
graphiccard brand: Nvidia
graphiccard chip: Riva TNT2
amount of memory on graphiccard: 16mb
operating system: windows 98
average fps: dunno, but it\'s REALLY slow
-
processor brand: Pentium III
processor speed: 500 mhz
amount of main memory: 128 mb
graphiccard : ATI Radeon 7500
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 mb
operating system: Win 98
average fps: After waiting about 15 min to initialize world, I enter the game with an fps between 10 to 0.18 and after about 5 min in the game it just crash. After the game crash I have to restart computer because nothing will work. (internet and other program bug after the game crash)
Well I know my computer is very old and I need to update but as I can see, there isnt a large difference between the fps range of ppl with fast comp and ppl with slow comp. Any suggestion about that would be appreciated.
-
processor brand: Pentium 4
processor speed: 1700mhz
amount of main memory: 256 mb
graphiccard : TNT2 64
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32 mb
operating system: Win 2k pro
average fps: 4, 5
-
I don\'t know if this helps, or has anything to do with the problems I\'ve been having with bad FPS, but apparently *any* CrystalSpace3D-based game I install on these two computers suffer from bad framerates.
-
I have a possible solution for all people who run winXP
It seems that, if you change the compatibility of the psclient.exe file to win98/Me compatible, that the client runs a lot better!
It\'s not perfect, but its playable!
I get framerates of about 20FPS when looking at open
places and about 40FPS in closed space.
it\'s not perfection, but it certainly is A LOT better than the 0.02FPS that I had before!!
I hope this can help some people,
greetings,
Maldarke
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP 2100+
processor speed: 1.7ghz
amount of main memory: 512mb pc2700 DDR333
graphiccard brand: ATI Radeon
graphiccard chip: 9000 pro
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128
operating system: XP home
average fps: 2-3fps
-
processor brand: GenuineIntel
processor speed: 1,5 GHz
amount of main memory: 750 Mb
graphiccard brand: Guillemot
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 2 MX
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 Mb
operating system: Windows 98 SE
average fps: -1.0 fps
-
Hope this will help:
processor brand: Intel
processor speed: 1400mhz
amount of main memory: 512mb RDRAM
graphiccard brand: Nvidia
graphiccard chip: Geforce 4 Ti4200
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128mb
operating system: XP
average fps: 13 in deep in the city.. 24 in that circle
-
Originally posted by darksidegirl
processor brand: GenuineIntel
processor speed: 1,5 GHz
amount of main memory: 750 Mb
graphiccard brand: Guillemot
graphiccard chip: NVidia GeForce 2 MX
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64 Mb
operating system: Windows 98 SE
average fps: -1.0 fps
-1.0 ....... are you sure your not just reading from the start up screen ....
-
processor brand: Intel Pentium III
processor speed: 700 MHz
amount of main memory: 384 MB
graphiccard brand: PowerColor
graphiccard chip: NVidia Geforce 2 Ti
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB DDR
operating system: Windows XP Pro
average fps: differs
-at an edge of the town, e.g. near the fenced tower : 30-50
-going through the town: 5-10, mostly 5, sometimes less
-looking at the ground or facing a wall inside the town: 10-15
-walking on the spawn place with the statue: 3-5 when looking at the town, 15-25 when looking at the floor
- inside library: up to 115, sometimes drops to 15 when I see more from the surrounding; in 3rd person view when I can see things outside the house it?s only 15-30 most of the time
-entrance of the cathedral, with _only_ the walls, char and floor visible: up to 130 in 3rd and 200 fps in 1st person view; no sudden downfall in framerate
-going inside: the usual 15-25 again, with sudden drops to below 5 fps about every 2 seconds; not better in the labyrinth
the worst thing is probably the sudden drop, the game often abruptly stops every 1-5 seconds with about 1-4 fps for a second at almost any situation (probably dependent from your current position), even when I got 25 fps, which makes you often walking the direction from where you came or walking in a circle (most annoying) and in the labyrinth then you don?t know anymore from where you came because of the steady change of your direction
-
AMD XP
1.4ghz
512 pc2100
Gainward
Gf3ti200
64 ddr
Windows XP Corp
1 frame every 5 seconds
in task manager it says ram usage 300mb, unplayable from the start of the game.
-
Win 98
700 mhz
Pentium 3
127 mb ram
Intergrated Graphics
FPS range = 1 per minute - 20 fps(under city or in a corner nt facing anything big)
avergae fps= 5
My comp is old and that probably has a lot to do with it being slow.
-
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (runs at 1.25GHz, I feel ripped).
512MB DDR Ram
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB DDR Graphics Card
Cable @ 200Mb/sec
0-10 FPS on OpenGL
40-60 FPS on Software (Redhat 8\'s vesa driver sucks)
using fire gl driver fglrx with DRI and OpenGL on
I am running Linux Red Hat 8. I had problems before with software rendering as well. I could only get about .02 - 10 FPS before. Now, because I switched from the Redhat vesa driver to the fglrx driver for my Radeon, and am using software rendering instead of OpenGL, things are great. I can get about 40-60 fps, but sometimes when viewing a large open space outside in planeshift, the fps drops to about 5 FPS.
I believe that the OpenGL problem is on my end, and I haven\'t figured out how to use it properly yet.
I also believe that the planeshift developers just need to tidy up their code. I have read that they are working on implementing LOD, which is a mechanism that will display only the graphics needed on the screen, not all the graphics for the world. That should speed things up considerably.
I have to say that for an alpha build, this is pretty freakin good! I don\'t think the developers deserve half the flack that\'s being dished out to them. It\'s a cool game, and it\'ll get better with time.
-
Originally posted by linuxr0x
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (runs at 1.25GHz, I feel ripped).
Dunno why, if memory serves, an Athlon XP 2000+ roughly benchmarks at the same pace as a P4 2 GHz processor, and it only needs to run at 1.25 GHz. I\'d not complain about needing to use less electricity to do the same job personally. It\'s called a 2000 instead of a 1250 so that you can get a rough estimate as to how fast of a P4 you\'d need to get the same processing power.
And I\'ll agree, kudos to the developers - it\'s looking like it will be an awesome game - I\'d help with the coding if I had a system/time to spare for development (which I sadly don\'t currently).
-
processor brand: Intel Pentium III
processor speed: 800 MHz
amount of main memory: 256 MB
graphiccard brand: LeadTek
graphiccard chip: nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4200
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128 MB
operating system: Windows 2000
average fps: 15
When standing *perfectly still*, FPS is about:
8 when looking at open areas
25 when looking in closed spaces
Tends to completely pause for several seconds between frames when moving. FPS rarely goes above around 30.
Also, \"Initializing World\" takes about 3 minutes... Don\'t know if that\'s normal...
-
processor brand: Athlon
processor speed: 1.5 GHz
amount of main memory: 768 MB
graphiccard brand: nVidia
graphiccard chip: nVidia GeForce 4 Ti 4200
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128 MB
operating system: Windows XP
average fps: 15
It jumps a lot from 1 to 35 or so especially when turning (lower FPS) and when the dreaded rain comes(again lower FPS). Moving forward it usually averages 15 FPS. I have to run it in safe mode to do anything though. The openGL mode is too slow.
-
I guess part of the problem for me is that ATI, XFree86, or DRI don\'t support Hardware Accelerated 3D for the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro yet. At least I hope it\'s a yet.
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP
processor speed: 1800+ (1533)
amount of main memory: 512MB RAM
graphiccard brand: nVidia
graphiccard chip: nVidia GeForce 4 440
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB
operating system: Windows XP Professional
average fps:
0,1FPS - When looking on the castle and buildings
20FPS - In library
My brother says that It\'s becouse the graphiccard is waiting for response from CPU and CPU from graphicscard and it loops forever cousing the engine is so \'jumpy\'.
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP
processor speed: 2400+
amount of main memory: 512MB RAM
graphiccard brand: ATI (hercules)
graphiccard chip: ATI 9500 Pro
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128Mb
operating system: Windows 2000
average fps: 30-40
-
processor brand: Intel
processor speed: Celeron
amount of main memory: 256
graphiccard brand: PNY/Verto
graphiccard chip: nVidia GeForce 4 MX/Ti
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64
operating system: Win 98 SE
average fps...
I was getting avg 0.06-0.34 fps when nearing a building entrance, and 10-20 fps walking around (as long as I wasn\'t facing a building entrance)
I have gone from 16 bit to 32 bit screen depth in pssetup.
It still gets slow when entering buildings, about 8-10 fps, but at least I can get inside them now.
I can get up to 100 fps if I\'m looking at the ground. :)
Mostly I get avg 40 fps.
-
Intel
Pentium 4
512
nVidia Geforce 2 Mx/400 Pci
64
Windows Xp Professional
Don\'t Know Where To Check FPS. Guessing 20-40, Although Texturted Area Lags Slightly. Some areas froze it.
-
Pentium 4 1,5 GHz
256 MB Ram
Nvidia Geforce 2 MX 64 MB
Win XP
With Open GL i have frames around 0.02 and it crashes after a few minutes, but i also had moments where i had up to 40-60 Frames.
When I switch to Software I get about 1 Frame per Second, but it also crashes after a while and my Taskmanager shows me a CPU usage of 100%
-
processor brand: Pentium 4
processor speed: 2.5 ghz
amount of main memory: 256
graphiccard brand: Nvidea
graphiccard chip: Geforce 4
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64
operating system: XP home
average fps: dismally low...i dont want to put an average because it would be wrong...much of the time it is under 1 fps but everysooften it will jump to 100 or so for like 5 seconds
I also have a question about Open GL. Mainly what is it? It seems most people with nvidea graphics cards have this so I was wondering what it does and if there was a way to turn it on and off or whatever to help my fps\'s.
-
Originally posted by LilZoIsaGnome
[...]
I also have a question about Open GL. Mainly what is it? It seems most people with nvidea graphics cards have this so I was wondering what it does and if there was a way to turn it on and off or whatever to help my fps\'s.
Hi LilZoIsaGnome,
OpenGL stands for Open Graphics Library (I think :) ) and is a standard like DirectDraw or Direct3D. That means not only people with Nvdia graphic cards can use OpenGL but every one who has OpenGL drivers for his/her graphic card. As far as I can see, PS only works with OpenGL and Software mode (should be slower than OpenGL). But I prefer OpenGL rather than DirectX anyway. So turning it off (and using Software mode then) shouldn\'t be wise I think ... ;)
You can find more information here (http://www.opengl.org/).
Greets
Rayd
-
Don\'t forget that DirectX is specific to Windows exclusively. That is the Microsoft\'s little \"we don\'t want to play by everyone else\'s rules, we will make up our own\" policy, which many of the windows technologies works off of. OpenGL on the other hand extends across many different platforms, from SGI\'s own systems (SGI developed OpenGL) to Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. While originally it was a misnomer (the technology wasn\'t really \"open\" in the same sense as open-source projects), I think (not 100% certian) than it has been made less proprietary & more open as of late.
There\'s also an audio version (called, funny enough, OpenAL) which is being worked on, but it hasn\'t taken hold as much, and I don\'t believe it\'s even the same group (or even a group related to the OpenGL developers) that is working on it.
-
processor brand: Pentium III (Coppermine)
processor speed: 930 Mhz
amount of main memory: 512 Mb
graphiccard brand: Matrox
graphiccard chip: G400 AGP
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32
operating system: Debian GNU Linux Sid (Unstable)
I get 2-7 fps on the main square en 10-20 fps in \'simple\' places.
I use Opengl, 8 bit color and a res. of 800x600, fullscreen.
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (Thoroughbred)
processor speed: 1.667GHz
amount of main memory: 512MB DDR PC2700
graphiccard brand: Sapphire Radeon 9000
graphiccard chip: ATi Radeon 9000 (RV250)
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128MB
operating system: Windows XP Professional, Service Pack 1
average fps: around 4.30
Using the latest Catalyst drivers (03.5).
Running PlaneShift in 800x600, Windowed, OpenGL, 32bit.
Can gain about 5-10 extra FPS if I turn the music and sound off.
Changing the renderer too Direct3D I get MUCH better speeds.
Opening psclient.cfg and changing
; Video Driver
System.PlugIns.iGraphics3D = crystalspace.graphics3d.opengl
too
; Video Driver
System.PlugIns.iGraphics3D = crystalspace.graphics3d.direct3d
Gives me 20-30fps outside, and up too 60fps inside houses.
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon 900 TB
processor speed: 900mhz
amount of main memory: 512mb
graphiccard brand: Gainward something
graphiccard chip: NVidia Geforce2mx
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32mb
operating system: W98SE
average fps: ~1.2 fps
And, when initing world,
PSCLIENT caused an invalid page fault in
module at 00de:03060c7b.
Registers:
EAX=00000000 CS=0167 EIP=03060c7b EFLGS=00010216
EBX=ff000000 SS=016f ESP=006bf654 EBP=000001ff
ECX=00000003 DS=016f ESI=02b5001b FS=a09f
EDX=00000000 ES=016f EDI=00000004 GS=b676
Bytes at CS:EIP:
89 5f fc 75 c3 5f 5e 5b 5d c3 00 00 00 00 00 00
Stack dump:
696bcd90 006bf708 004df300 00000200 696bcdbf 02b50018 00000000 00000200 696b8b94 004df300 006bf708 02b50018 00000000 00000000 004df300 006bf708
Have fun.
-
For some reason, the game is more than unplayable on m computer.
It is an Athlon XP 1.6Ghz
256 or 512 DDR 2700 - forgot
GeForce Ti4600 128mb
Winxp
My other computer that is slightly slower plays it alright -- I can move and chat there, but my computer is slow as can be.
No other progs running of course
I tried -console, but no console was shown in-game and my fps read .03 most of the time, but it was far worse than that in actuality.
-
processor brand: Pentium 3
processor speed: 551 mhz
amount of main memory: 256
graphiccard brand: ATI
graphiccard chip: ATI RAGE FURY
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32
operating system: XP Pro
average fps: when it is intilizing world it goes up 126.70, but in gameit goes to about 12fps, rain it goes down, near the plaza it goes really down like to 2fps. It used to work really good (no lagging) before two days ago when i tried the stress test, now it takes like 1 1/2 to load and i cant move for another 1 hour. It sucks!
I heard someone else changed the 3d rendering to direct3d, im gonna try this and report what happens.... hopefully it will be good!
-
I got between 10-90 Frames Per Sec
Specs are:
Athlon XP 2500+ (1833Mhz @ 333Mhz fsb)
1GB Ram
Geforce 4 MX 128 MB
Only tried in under windows xp might try it under my gentoo linux if anyone thinks it\'ll make a diff?
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP
processor speed: 1700+ Mhz
amount of main memory: 512 DDR
graphiccard: ASUS V8200 Deluxe Geforce 3
amount of memory on graphiccard: 64MB
operating system: Windows 2000
FPS facing town square: 6 - 20
FPS Inside temple: 35 - 60
FPS round houses: 20 - 35
FPS Standing on the tower facing the city 5 - 12
loading screen: 138
average fps: 20~30
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon Thunderbird
processor speed: 1.133 Ghz
amount of main memory: 512 Meg
graphiccard brand: ASUS V8460
graphiccard chip: GeForce 4 Ti 4600
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128 Meg DDR
operating system: Windows XP Pro
average fps:8 FPS
min fps: .11 FPS
max fps: 22 FPS
During loading .... as in at the load screen i got 500 FPS
-
processor brand: Intel Pentium 4
processor speed: 2.0 gHz
amount of main memory: 256 MB
graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
memory on graphic card: 32 MB
operating system: WinXP Home
average FPS: 0.2
min FPS: 0.1
max FPS: 1.4
as is obvious that\'s totally unplayable..
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon XP 2100+ 1.73 ghz
processor speed: 2.0 GHz
amount of main memory: 1 GB Ram
graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti 4200
memory on graphic card: 128 MB
operating system: WinXP Pro
When the game started I went straight down to .3 fps and then after I got the second fraim it stayed fairly constant at:
average FPS: 0.03
min FPS: 0.03
max FPS: 0.05
exept before the game initialized in which I got around 800
Internet connection (in case it\'s important) T1 (shared)
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon
processor speed: 900
amount of main memory: 512MB PC133
graphiccard brand: NVidia
graphiccard chip: GF2 MX400 AGP 2x
amount of memory on graphiccard: 32MB
operating system: Win98SE DX9 Nvidia 45.23 reference driver
net connection: 56k dialup shared from a linux box on my 100MB LAN
I start PS with this command from a batch file:
start psclient.exe -video=opengl
average fps: 10?
-on top of the tower looking at the city is about 4 FPS when standing still
-in low lag areas I can get a short time of about 40FPS
-when I get stuck in/on objects in the world I drop to as low as 0.1 FPS.
-I\'ve also dropped to 0.1 FPS when someone ELSE got stuck in a wall near me; that seems like a strange cause/effect.
-sometimes the meter shows short times of +100FPS.
I notice that the lag spikes I get involve an FPS drop, a short HDD read and game engine lags in response for a short period of time. In some rarer cases the FPS drops below 1, the HDD is more active and the net connection has a lot fo tx/rx, I usually have to walk or /spawn away from the area I\'m in when this happens.
I am posting this to hopefully help with your troubleshooting and understand that there are still bugs to work out so please don\'t take this as a complaint.
Darin Triplett
darintrip71 at hotmail dot com
-
I usually got 4 times less fps than everyone else with same hardware for all CS apps.
I don\'t even try any longer to run PS. Having lag on default CS tests is enough for me. If i remember correctly, i usually got between 1 and 3 fps in front of the temple and 5~6 in the basement.
I doubt on my hopes to run CB :(
CPU: 2GHz
3D Card: GeForce 4 (sorry i don\'t know the full reference) with 64 RAM i think
RAM: 512 Mo
OS: Linux (Mandrake 9.1)
Running X in 24 bit color depth.
-
AMD Athlon 1600XP (Running at stock 1400mhz)
512 MB PC2100 DDR ram (2 X 256)
Geforce 2 Ti Deluxe (Running at stock 250mhz)
64 MB DDR ram at 400mhz
Windows XP Version 2002 (SP1)
Average walking through streets - 10-12. Occasionally chunks.
Average in center of plaza (looking at temple etc) 1-10 (sits at about 6, sometimes goes up, frequently \'chunks\' and drops to 1fps)
Average in temple 40ish, depending on how open the room is. In enclosed spaces upto 120, but thats looking at once wall.
Pretty playable, as long as you\'re not planning on sightseeing :)
-
Note that you cannot compare DirectX and OpenGL, you can compare Direct3D and OpenGL.
So what\'s with the FPS? Is it PS, CS, or both?
-
processor brand: AMD Athlon
processor speed: 1.33GHz
amount of main memory: 256MB SD-RAM PC2100
graphiccard brand: ATI Radeon 8500
graphiccard chip: Hercules 3D Prophet 8500 LE
amount of memory on graphiccard: 128MB DDR-RAM
operating system: MS-Windows XP Professional
average fps: fluxes frequently between 1.64FPS to 2.54FPS
-
im not going to bother with that FPS tool becuase it takes me a minute to turn around....
i just started this game so naturally im stuck in the middle of town.
anywayz, here are the specs of the computer i bought less then a month ago (emachine, go figure)
Emachines T2742 -
Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.7 ghz
RAM: 256mb DDR SDRAM
Graphics Card: Intel Extreme 3D (on board)
VID RAM: 64mb
OS: XP
AVG FPS: are you kidding me? some of you actually have frames per second!!??!
wtf is this? it cant be my computer, really, so let the dead horse be and look at somthing else. i really dont think there is a need for this survey, the first 10 billion people who told you they get literally no frames per second should be enough to say \"ok, we have a problem here and its not them\"
so, this has been going on for how long now?
you are using your server for other things than ps? well there ya go! get a new server for just PS! its not that expensive, i got this machine for $300 new at office depo.
if PS is ever to become a real MMORPG the devs have to be a little better then this. if lag was such an unsurpassable thing we wouldnt know of such games as shadowbane, or WoW. why is this such a problem for you?
it doesnt seem to me that anyone has made any REAL effort to do anything about it. if this was your job you would bust ass to get it done, but your volenteers so i guess u deserve a little slack... but not a year\'s worth...
-
if you really think this is a graphic related problem then why dont you implement and option to lower graphics settings?!? this is the only game (that would need one) i have ever seen without one. how about some texture compression? mabye a little less dynamic lighting... i dont know what engine this game is running with or how you guys are putting this together, but i know there are many solutions to this problem, that is if the problem really is graphics related.
here is another idea, let us in on it! so your all volenteers, and your looking for more. well the internet is littered with devs of all types. so why not create a forum to put your latest issues, that we may be able to assist you in. rather then us posting problems we have and getting no results, for over a year so far it seems (by the looks of the date on the first post).
im sorry but this really is a disturbing matter, not only becuase i want to play the dam thing but becuase its such a ridiculiously common problem, one would think with so many people working on this it would be fixed in less then a freakin year!
no issue should take a dam year to resolve....
*sigh*
-
first, let me correct myself, i read the first post date wrong... its actually more like 9 months... but thats not really much of a dam diffrence
i read this is the FAQ
1. My game locks up when I connect. It just says \"Initializing world\" but Windows says it is not responding!
This is ok. On some machines, Planeshift believes it needs to recalculate the lighting, which can take up to 2 hours the first time you run. If you let it run to completion, it will load quickly every time after that
\"This is ok\"
it is? ok cuz i bet if this was a game for sale your customers would really consider this ok..... no, what you should say instead is
\"this is not ok, its a problem we still have yet to fix. but dont worry, this wont kill your machine, just your pateince and respect for this game.\"
that sounds a little more accurate.....
how can you think its ok that it takes some machines up to 2 hours (actually up to 4 according to my comp...) to load a dam game!!
and then it goes on to say \".... it will load quickly every time after that\". first, it doesnt load fast enough to say it loads quickly after that. this should also be changed. somthing more like this.
\"... everytime after that it will load. however, the time it takes to load the game the first time is fairly relative to the FPS you get in the game\"
this can be fixed, i know it, so why cant it just be done.