Keith Smith Posted February 21, 2008 at 02:38 PM Posted February 21, 2008 at 02:38 PM (edited) I recently realized that the amount of space required to hold the loaded textures (580MB for my given settings) exceeded the VRAM on my video card (512MB). The average frame rate was ok, but a little jittery at times. More important, certain features, such as volumetric fog, and the presence of broken or scattered clouds were absolutely punishing on the frame rate. So last night, I turned the texture resolution down one notch from extreme to 'very high'. The loaded texture set went down to roughly 260MB. The frame rate increased dramatically, and the skips and jitters completely went away. I was able to enable volumetric fog with no change in frame rate, and even had a low broken layer of clouds (1.0 and 1.0 on the cloud settings) with barely a change in the rates. This was a relatively briefly test, but I thought the results were worth sharing. This is with a NVidia 8800GT, XP9b23 and a dual core CPU. Edited February 21, 2008 at 03:34 PM by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Williams 877539 Posted February 21, 2008 at 03:09 PM Posted February 21, 2008 at 03:09 PM Keith, Absolutely. Making sure you're not trying to store more textures than the video card can hold is extremely important to performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Willis 1027702 Posted February 21, 2008 at 04:35 PM Posted February 21, 2008 at 04:35 PM Yep, i decided on Very High textures. I can get away with extreme in various parts, but the AA needed to clean the textures up really hurts my Nvidia 8600GT 512mb. Dual Core 2 gig ram setup. I get 76+ fps sometimes ( sometimes with the fog ) and the scenery still looks like the real world. OYSQ Yemen, ( cool scenery ) i just clicked 80fps. $150 Aus for the Nvidia card. Bargain for the performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts