🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in message news:<o3OTc.258628$2o2.15248641@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > How'd you get that kind of speed?  On 800x600, medium detail my athlon
> > 2000 with ti4200/128 only gets 25fps (that's on the 2nd run - 1st run is
> > around 21)
> >
> > Bob
> 
> He said he's running it at the lowest settings.


At the lowest possible settings, I got 33.4 fps.  But then I switched
on Anti-Alias X2, which helps a *lot* because I'm running the game
only on 640X480.  I also used medium detail settings instead of low
detail settings.  Timedemo (with cache) consistently yields 33.2 fps.

If I go ahead and turn on High Quality SFX and Specular lighting, I
get 32.6 fps.  Once I activate V-Sync along with all that, the
framerate drops to 30.1 fps.  By this time, I would've had medium
settings on 640X480, and pretty much all the advanced settings
activated except for "shadows" and "bump mapping".

Now, I'm not kidding myself.  I know 30fps in a game like Doom 3 would
be barely considered "playable".  Whenever I see a big boss, a big
room, or an area with lots of 3rd party movements, the game will slow
to a crawl.

I'm just surprised that a PC that barely meets the minimum specs of a
game will actually be playable (albeit barely).  I mean, try playing
Morrowind on the minimum specs (450 MHz P-III, 64MB RAM), or Deus EX 2
(800 MHz PIII), or Far Cry (1 GHz PC) and the game is a slide show. 
They are unplayable under even the lowest gamer standards, even in the
lowest possible setting.  I'm surprised that the FCC hasn't caught on
to the cheese tactics of game companies constantly misrepresenting
their "minimum requirements".  Anyway, I'm just glad Id Software was
more honest about their minimum specs.