User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
| News Comments > Call of Duty 2 This Month |
 |
| 7. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 5, 2005, 23:27 |
Slothy |
|
|
It means your framerate at 2048x1536 would be more than twice as slow as 1024x768.
Here, let me explain better. At 1024x768 there are 768,432 pixels on the screen. At 1280x1024 there are 1,310,720 pixels, so almost twice as many pixels on the screen. So it's probably going to be about twice as slow at 1280x1024 than at 1024x768, because the performance is tied to the number of pixels on the screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty 2 This Month |
|
| 5. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 5, 2005, 23:09 |
Slothy |
|
|
There's some confusion here. First of all, the resolution it runs at is fairly unrelated to the amount of texture memory you have. With more texture memory you get higher resolution color maps, bump maps, and specular maps. To get the highest resolution versions of all of that, you need a 512 meg card. That doesn't mean the game looks bad on a 256, just that you're not getting the highest resolution of everything. The game looks awesome on a 256 meg card.
Now, doing all of those maps means we are using a lot of pixel shaders. That is going to mean your performance is going to be directly related to how fast your card can process pixel shaders. As you know, as you increase resolution, the number of pixels increases exponentially, so that's why people running the dx9 renderer see a non-linear framerate falloff. Note that this has nothing to do with texture memory, and everything to do with pixel shader processing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty 2 Demo |
|
| 74. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 27, 2005, 03:42 |
Slothy |
|
|
Acleacius, yeah, it's surprising that those cards can't run the game faster, but it is no trickery on our part. Every texture has a few different maps on it (bump map, spec map, color map, etc), and cards that aren't very modern just can't chug through that many pixel shaders. Believe me, I was sad to learn my home machine wasn't even fast enough to run dx9.
If you increase the resolution on a game and the framerate dies, you are framebuffer bound. That's not really an engine issue (well aside from the engine using lots of pixel shaders), that's just your card chugging.
I apologize if I misunderstood you earlier. It does look like we're choosing resolutions for people that are 1024 and lower, but there are some newer cards that can handle higher resolutions. It's just a question of prettiness versus resolution, and obviously our balance of the two wasn't a good match for your tastes. Did you try turning off zfeather, shadows, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty 2 Demo |
|
| 63. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 26, 2005, 22:34 |
Slothy |
|
|
Optimized for console resolutions doesn't really make sense. Every video card has its own quirks and settings to run the game well. A very high resolution will require a video card that is very fast at pixel shaders, since those have a per-pixel cost. That might be your bottleneck, or something else might be.
That's why I suggested using the optimal settings (default). We've taken the time to figure out settings that will run well.
If you go and change all your settings, and then complain that the game runs slowly on your video card, you should try putting it back to the optimal settings again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Call of Duty 2 Demo |
|
| 60. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 26, 2005, 22:13 |
Slothy |
|
|
Acleacius, you should use the default settings. We spend a lot of time finding the best configuration for every card. The aspect ratio is not going to have a big impact on performance, but resolution will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > More on id and Creative |
|
| 18. |
Re: |
Jul 29, 2004, 17:18 |
Slothy |
|
|
I know MindStalker already pointed it out, but it's worth mentioning again.
Patents do NOT have to be defended. You will not lose your patent by allowing someone to "infringe" upon it. It's your choice.
Only Trademarks have to be defended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
9 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
