PDA

View Full Version : Why is the monitor FPS rate so low compared to other games?



Outlier2004
10-31-2007, 03:16 PM
Whenever I play Counterstrike Source, I get a FPS rate of well over 125 fps and can play at the highest resolution. However, when I installed Rainbow Six Vegas last week and put it at 1280X960 (which is lower than the Counterstrike resolution), the FPS rate was less than 10! You can't play at that fps so I reduced the resolution to 640X480 and the FPS is between 30-40 fps. That's better than nothing and I can still play with that, but does anyone know how to increase the fps?

I have Intel Duo Core at 2.66 GHz each, 3 GB RAM, 256 MB nVidia 8400GS. I tried turning vSync on and off and it doesn't seem to have any effect.

I have heard that this is a result of bad coding of the software. Does anyone know if this is true or if there is a way to increase the monitor fps rate?

Mysticaly
10-31-2007, 03:28 PM
I can't really tell you why the FPS is so low compared to other games.
R6V and Medal of Honor: Airborne which are running on basically the same engine both suffer from this.

A few people that knows more about this than me have blamed the Unreal engine (calling it beta), apparently the engine that have been distributed to both UBI and EA sucks.

Epic have even been sued for there distributed engine (I'm not sure why tough so it might be for some other reason)
Basically what I'm saying is that UBI might not actually be the one to blame for the poor optimizing in this game...

However, to tweak your game for better FPS you should check out this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3801065024/m/8361088135
It haven't helped me much, but others are reporting that it helps them.

Good luck

hoellenfeuer
10-31-2007, 03:50 PM
No (or bad) optimization. That's all you've to say about it.

Other games running (and looking) much better with this engine are:
- Bioshock
- Stranglehold
- Unreal Tournament 3

Want2Snipe
10-31-2007, 06:27 PM
Didn't have problems with MoH:A playing at Max and at 1680x 1050 nor I had to tweak my PC like I had to do with this game.

Nah, It is UBI's fault for sure, first for doing such a bad job porting the game from the console instead of making it for the PC to begin with and then, double shoddy job for not optimizing the porting as other port game have done before. Triple bad job if you consider 6 patches in almost 1 year than have done deadly squat but to fix a few minor issue... but I digress! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Outlier2004
10-31-2007, 10:07 PM
By the looks of it, it seems people are already familiar with this monitor issue with this game. So I guess the next question is, is there anything that can be done about it to raise the fps significantly? If the tweaks only raise it by 10-15 fps, I'm not even going to bother. I was hoping there was a way to get it to over 100 fps like my other games. Is this unreasonable to hope for? Anyone know how?

If it's impossible I hope the game developers are reading this and improve (if not for this game, for their future games). In the meantime I'll have to settle with 30-40 fps if nothing else can be done. That's too bad, because it seems like a really cool game and I would have loved to play it with a high fps rate.

Mysticaly
10-31-2007, 10:53 PM
You don't need 100FPS in this game, it would not make any difference in gameplay at all. This is not CS or Source engine.

30-40 FPS or 100 is no difference, it doesn't matter. (60 would possibly be ideal)

Outlier2004
10-31-2007, 11:29 PM
I agree with you. I can still play the game at 30-40 fps just fine and still appreciate it. It just would have been nice to experience the full resolution that the game (and my computer) is capable of, that's all. Even with 30-40 fps, I would still recommend the game.

Want2Snipe
11-01-2007, 02:03 PM
Being that this is a krappy console port and there is no real optimization for resolutions or widescreens res, having 100 FPS won't make the game any more smooth than having it at 30-40 FPS.

Yes, the game is very playable once you get over the CTD's and other letdowns.

jennymnb
11-01-2007, 06:31 PM
i have played all the ue3 games(or demos) and vegas is the only one that is laggy. the others range from 30-60/70 fps.

i laugh when people tell me the other guys got newer versions. first off there is no way to tell which version is newer unless they release it to the press. they have not. secondly, those developers were simultaneous developing it for pc, and others still were developing for the pc independently.

so want to know the real cause? lack of dev expertise(a known ubi trademark) and the byproduct of shoddy port job(again ubi has a well known habit of producing direct ports)

Outlier2004
11-01-2007, 09:52 PM
Just to be clear, I don't mind playing at 30-40 fps but I'm getting this with 640X480 resolution! What a waste of this new 22" widescreen monitor. I've heard of other people playing with 30-40 fps but they're at least doing it with 1280X960.

When I go to the R6 video menu, the highest possible resolution it shows is 1280X960 and the lowest is 640X480. So I'm playing at the lowest resolution with a new widescreen monitor and new video card (256 MB nVidia 8400GS). Somehow this doesn't seem right!

Outlier2004
01-11-2008, 08:54 PM
Well after starting this thread I finally found a solution to the low FPS rate and having to play at the lowest resolution - I bought a new video card. This seemed to do the trick and now allows me to play at the highest resolution and boy is it noticeable! (not just with this game but with other games as well)

It's not like the video card I had before was bad, it was an nVidia GeForce 8400 GS (256 MB) which came with my computer. That card is not a bad card. It allowed me to play CounterStrike Source, Half-Life 2 and all the HL2 Episodes at the maximum resolution with high FPS rate and no lag. So I guess I can conclude that the Source engine is a mighty good one, compared to other engines.

Anyway, the new video card I got was the very latest from nVidia as of this date, the nVidia GeForce 8800 GT OC (512 MB) and I paid around $300 for it including taxes. This is supposedly the best graphics card out there for gamers. In the game Crysis, when I let the game determine the best settings, it used to set all the settings to "Low" with my old card. Now with my new card it sets all the settings to "Very High" and I can definitely see a difference. I always knew that the graphics cards made a difference but I had no idea that it made this much difference.

Again, it's unfortunate that only the Source engine allowed me to use my old video card (which is certainly not old). The inability of the other engines to compare have made me upgrade and spend this money for a new card. So I guess the graphics engine of the game has a lot to do with it. In the end, you can't go wrong by getting the best equipment!

I also realized that other people may have been playing with a higher resolution than me because I'm using a larger than average monitor to play. My 22" widescreen probably requires a better video card to attain the same levels as a smaller monitor.

ConsolesR4Kids
01-11-2008, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Outlier2004:
Whenever I play Counterstrike Source

You would never see a sentence start like that in the old days of Rainbow Six http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

bent_scissors
01-12-2008, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Outlier2004:
Well after starting this thread I finally found a solution to the low FPS rate and having to play at the lowest resolution - I bought a new video card. This seemed to do the trick and now allows me to play at the highest resolution and boy is it noticeable! (not just with this game but with other games as well)

It's not like the video card I had before was bad, it was an nVidia GeForce 8400 GS (256 MB) which came with my computer. That card is not a bad card. It allowed me to play CounterStrike Source, Half-Life 2 and all the HL2 Episodes at the maximum resolution with high FPS rate and no lag. So I guess I can conclude that the Source engine is a mighty good one, compared to other engines.

Anyway, the new video card I got was the very latest from nVidia as of this date, the nVidia GeForce 8800 GT OC (512 MB) and I paid around $300 for it including taxes. This is supposedly the best graphics card out there for gamers. In the game Crysis, when I let the game determine the best settings, it used to set all the settings to "Low" with my old card. Now with my new card it sets all the settings to "Very High" and I can definitely see a difference. I always knew that the graphics cards made a difference but I had no idea that it made this much difference.

Again, it's unfortunate that only the Source engine allowed me to use my old video card (which is certainly not old). The inability of the other engines to compare have made me upgrade and spend this money for a new card. So I guess the graphics engine of the game has a lot to do with it. In the end, you can't go wrong by getting the best equipment!

I also realized that other people may have been playing with a higher resolution than me because I'm using a larger than average monitor to play. My 22" widescreen probably requires a better video card to attain the same levels as a smaller monitor.
now you know why console games are taking over the fps market. You just spent almost the price of an xbox 360 to get a video card that could play the game to your satisfaction.The sourtce engine came out when the 6800 ultra was king of cards. It is 4 years old. The card that cane witgh your computer is a cheap dir 10 card not able to play most current generation games...It looks like ATI and nvidia have recently changed their strategy from expensive new card innovations, to coming out with mid-range cards at more affordable prices. It may be too late for the pc game market to recover, we'll see

Outlier2004
01-12-2008, 03:26 PM
I agree with you. But I don't think I had to purchase the most expensive video card to get the games to play to my satisfaction. I think alot of people would be satisfied with less expensive cards or even no upgrade at all. In my case I also want to watch HD DVD or Blu Ray through my computer so I just got the best video card. I'm also playing using a 22" widescreen. I don't think I'd need such a powerful video card if I was using a smaller monitor. For games purposes I could have probably spent a lot less on a card, so everyone don't think you need to spend as much as I did.

Also, I've already invested a lot into my computer hardware to begin with, mainly because of work (hence the card could be written off as an expense). I use the computer every day anyway and I also already own many pc games and there are a few games only available on pc (Crysis, Bioshock, etc. The Half-Life series first started on pc only). So in my case, it was probably better to upgrade the video card than purchase a new console game. But again, for games purposes I'm betting I could have spent less than half the price and still be satisfied.

Although the Source engine may be 4 years old, it seemed to have done its job - allowed me to play at maximum resolution (on a 22" widescreen) and no lag with my existing video card. A more recent example is The Orange Box game (which includes the more recent HL2 Episode 1 and 2) which had excellent graphics with my old card with no problem (and at highest resolution). I guess the point is, video card upgrades can probably be minimized with the proper graphics technology implemented in the games. Keeping with the best technology would definitely keep the pc game market competitive.