Printable View
It runs simply marvellously , so I decided to stress it out alll at more than max ....
I made a battle of 4 teams with 13667 men on field all settings to max , anysothropic filtering to 16x and antialiaising to 8x .... I had lag may be around 22 framerate....
what settings?
Is this a brag thread?
Yeah what resolution? I have one too (BFG's) and I have my PC hooked up to my 40" HDTV with M2TW running in widescreen at 1900x1080 and the graphics settings maxed you and all is pretty fantastic. In fact I have used the Nvidia control panel to "enhance the application settings" for the 3D configuration. I force the x8 AA which is the new funky CSAA...
The machine is a Core 2 Extreme withj 2GB RAM (etc).
I set normal units and had a 6 army (2 team) custom battle with all peasant armies (20 units x 75 individuals = 1500 men per army). 9000 solders total and was totally playable but I have to admit it did chug a little at first...
I have the 97.02 driver...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan.o6
ya... I think so. :dizzy2:
As I said I placed in field 13667 men, everything at max and huge sized units ....resolution is 1920 1200 ....
That is very nice if you either
a) do not pay the energy bill
b) pay for neither the card nor the energy bill
c) earn enough every month to afford a huge energy bill and lots of hardware besides your normal life
and in addition to that the chances are not bad that you don't have a girlfriend/wife, except if you are really rich.~;)
One might say I'm jealous, but I am quite happy with my somewhat slower new rig as well.~:)
I think there is a point when upping the resolution is useless. Using a higher resolution then the units were rendered in - in the first place, is not going to magiclly create more detail on the units. You get more screen real estate at the cost of fps.
Thank you for sharing PROMETHEUS. It's nice to get some performance reports.
What resolution I play at (currently 1920 x 1200) has everything to do with the LCD panel I am using and it's default resolution and not anything to do with wanting a better picture. That said, with a 7900GT card I get great results in normal campaign battles. I just built a new computer for a friend with a 8800GTX and that thing flies. But I just can't see spending $600 for a video card myself. When the 8800GTS gets to about $300-$350 I will upgrade.
Yes I use a 32" LCD with a native res of 1280X768 so thats what I run at. If you use anything other then the native res of your LCD panel, your graphics card or sometimes the LCD itself will have to stretch or shrink pixels and this results in a loss of picture quality.
Sometimes it even slows down performance to go to a lower res because the card has to do interpolation calculations.
My screen is 1400x1050 native, so that's where I play.
Even if my first post sounds different, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
My system lags at around 3-4 fps with 12000 soldiers on the field and I have a Core 2 duo E6600 with 2GB RAM and a 7950GT, using highest settings.
The drawback is my mainboard uses only PCIexpress x4, I wonder how much there is to gain with a real x16 board.
CPU usage is between 50% and 70% even in big battles so I don't really see a problem there(or the game somehow does not use the full power), normal battles are running fine, only the message about replacement armies not being fielded because my CPU was too weak is weird considering that CPU usage is so low.:shrug:
Interesting read Prometheus. Now if you don't mind, go ahead and ship me that card of yours so I can verify the results. For a year or two... :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well I have noticed that the Core 2 processor can score low on points simply because they are measureing only the core processor speed, which is significantly slower than the extreme single core CPUs...
We need some pics.
Well the graphics are pretty much the same you get with all at max , but I took the GTX 8800 becouse :
A I was going to buy an new PC
B I work with 3d stuff and I wanted something that coulfdhandle my renders fast
C I wanted a direct X 10 card
D I assembled it myself so I saved some money
E I have a high res Monitor and it needs a very good graphic GPU ...
D Dunno what else but this card is great ...
at any other setting inferior than the ones I posted the game runs smoothly and fast ...
On my other pc wich has a ati 9800 mobile with 256mb ram the game runs fine if I deactivate shaders 2 and actually looks running a bit better than RTW itself ...
Btw you notivced that on huge settings we no more have 200 men units?
i have a virtually identical system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
C2D 6600
XFX 7950GT
2GB of PC6400
i guess you probably also have an Intel P965 chi[pset motherboard like me?
only the second 16x physical slot works at 4x electrically, the first slot is 16x electrical, therefore full bandwidth.
OT: i run at 1920x1200.