!!POLL!! Experiencing lower than expected frames per second?

[Gregs2k2]

My rig as follows:

AMD X2 4200 Dual Core CPU
1GB DDR 400 RAM
Nvidia 7800 GT 512MB
Windows XP SP2
Sound Blaster Audigy 4 Pro

I have latest drivers for all hardware. I wouldn't say the game is unplayable at max details, but I have to tone down down details somewhat.

Considering my system spec....shouldn't it be silky smooth? Even at 1024x768 with most of the next gen features disabled it's not as smooth as I thought it would be.

Am I missing something?

Cheers.

[obi_wan]

hard to believe that you get low fps with such a computer, and all effcts turned off... there must be something wrong.

Do you expect to run the game at a constant 300 fps value ?

[morfar]

P4 3.6 GHZ
2 GB RAM
ATI x700 pro 256MB
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

I except more fps. And I don't think its only because of the player models.
I think Darkplaces is to blame. I used to get more fps in fteglqw engine (last time I tried).

[SavageX]

Even at 1024x768 with most of the next gen features disabled it's not as smooth as I thought it would be.

Can you provide numbers?

[SavageX]

P4 3.6 GHZ
I except more fps

Can you provide numbers?

[morfar]

P4 3.6 GHZ
I except more fps

Can you provide numbers?

Around 50 fps on Silvercity (NO BOTS, NO PLAYERS). Default gfx settings at 800x600.

I allways use latest drivers.
My computer is completly clean from adwares, trojans and viruses (use best-in-test antivirus software and its up-to-date).
Windows XP sp2, plus patches.

Acctually, I don't except to get more fps from a free game, and I can't demand more either. But if this was a comercial game I would excect far more (around 250 fps maybe)

[SavageX]

Around 50 fps on Silvercity (NO BOTS, NO PLAYERS). Default gfx settings at 800x600.

Ah, I see.

I just tried on my rig (Athlon 64 3000+, GeForce 6800 LE (slower than a 6600GT), 1 Gig of RAM) with *7 bots* on default settings (800x600) and it hovers between 50 fps and 70 fps.

Personally I don't expect more frames because I know that this shitty level (hate hate hate) puts some rendering stress onto the GPU. I do agree it doesn't deliver good looks for that speed at all.

Here's a comparison between our gfx cards - on the paper the X700 should be faster.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php ... &card2=322

[Tobberian]

Got an older computer (amd800 768mb gefti4400).. and framerate ain't what it could be.
I could play quake 3 with 42-99.
Nexuiz waddles along at no more then 20-50 fps. eeehm? maby its because i can't get fullscreen working i don't know (which sux btw). But 1.0 was also a bit slow
GG thought.

[Gregs2k2]

P4 3.6 GHZ
I except more fps

Can you provide numbers?

Well, still running at 1024x768 with key features turned off I was getting abround 30-50 (maybe lower when the game got hectic). This was with 5 bots on too.

I'm not bitching about it, just surprised that it's the first game that's bought my PC to struggling point!

Hope this helps anyway.

Cheers!

[SavageX]

Well, still running at 1024x768 with key features turned off I was getting abround 30-50 (maybe lower when the game got hectic). This was with 5 bots on too.

This is your rig?

AMD X2 4200 Dual Core CPU
1GB DDR 400 RAM
Nvidia 7800 GT 512MB
Windows XP SP2
Sound Blaster Audigy 4 Pro

Now, right - that's what I'd call unexpected framerates...

I think I read that DP may have a dual-core problem and that forcing it to one core would solve those problems... can someone comment if I'm talking bullshit?