Author Topic: Amount of data being pushed?? (Read 577 times)

humble · « **on:** May 21, 2005, 10:42:10 PM »

I took a printscreen "snapshot" of my screen during a run in tanktown and copied it over to the other thread. It took so long to upload to webhost I went and checked and its 3.5 M....wow!!

I'm showing total vidmem used of 67.7 and an available of 380.3. From what I recall in hardware forum skuzzy said you need about 4 x so 68 x 4 = 272. Which is over the 256 my card has "officially but less than its reporting to AH (I know that 256 is min mem and many cards have a functionally higher #) System mem use is 603 and tex mem is 47 meg...

Game was running on "normal" vs "AH" settings so has 47 open processes and 274MB of "overhead" memory use vs 23 processes and 174 meg...but as I stated in other thread benchmark diff is less than 1/2 a %. There was very little sound. I believe the round in the screen shot is mine outbound but other than that not much else going on at that moment...

eskimo2 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2005, 11:01:32 PM »

bitmap

culero · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2005, 01:42:30 AM »

humble keep in mind the video display is all in your front end, its not being "pushed".

As Eskimo pointed out, the screenshot is that size because its saved as a bitmap. Convert it to a jpeg and it'll be a lot smaller.

culero

humble · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2005, 12:10:16 PM »

That was my question....I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to the various formats for digital imaging....thanx.

culero · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2005, 12:30:52 PM »

humble I've followed your discussion of your FR problems, I just haven't had anything useful to suggest in the way of "fixes".

I will reiterate what others have said - the system specs you have indicate you shouldn't have a problem. I say that because I recently upgraded for the first time since 1999, so I did a bunch of investigating as to what works and what doesn't. Your stuff should.

I've done enough tech support at another game to have the experience to say this - you have an issue with drivers, setup, background processes, etc. I'll leave it to others to help you solve that, but I'll say you'll probably slap your forehead when you figure it out

culero

bj229r · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2005, 12:54:03 PM »

my system is essentially the same as Humble's; Athlon 3200 (ASUSK8V SE m.b.) a 5700 vid card, 1 gig ram--I had 70 frames EVERYWHERE when I first fired it up in Jan.--had to roll back from the newest drivers because of blue screen on alt-tab--that knocked me down to 60 EVERYwhere (every setting in vid setup is MAXED). When patch with new terrains came out..average frame dropped to 40's...20ish in trees, low teens when looking thru zoomed in main gun on tank, with trees in background. Mebbe there are things I Can tweak to being it up, but my box has stayed the same, and game has become far more taxing on resources

Enduro · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2005, 01:27:19 PM »

I've been having frame rate problems down near the deck and in furballs ever since the new terrain came out. I'm currently researching what I can to fix it.

Anywho, humble, if you wanna read up on how to kill the right background processes, this site is highly recommended by all: http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm
It's the material that USED to be available at http://www.blackviper.com (site is down).

Good luck!

FWIW, my specs:
P4 2.4GHz
768MB RAMBUS
ATI 9700 (128MB) Video - Omega 4.7 drivers
currently have about 30 processes on start-up (too many)

tapakeg · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2005, 01:33:46 PM »

not only change it to .jpeg, but clip out the unnecessary parts around the edges you don't need. This will make the file size smaller as well.

Tapakeg

eskimo2 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2005, 02:29:14 PM »

This bitmap is 1,288 Kilobytes:

This GIF is 220 Kilobytes (and is a little bit smaller physically)

This low quality jpeg is 33 Kilobytes

This mid quality jpeg is 80 Kilobytes

This high quality jpeg is 355 Kilobytes

eskimo

DamnedRen · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2005, 03:33:41 PM »

I thought it was only dealing with or without 256 colors. It would appear there's not much change with the jpg's as a result of the colors.

I cud be wrong....

nopoop · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2005, 04:41:40 PM »

Just tested the high quality jpg converted to grey scale. Drops it to 260.

humble · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2005, 05:15:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by culero
humble I've followed your discussion of your FR problems, I just haven't had anything useful to suggest in the way of "fixes".

I will reiterate what others have said - the system specs you have indicate you shouldn't have a problem. I say that because I recently upgraded for the first time since 1999, so I did a bunch of investigating as to what works and what doesn't. Your stuff should.

I've done enough tech support at another game to have the experience to say this - you have an issue with drivers, setup, background processes, etc. I'll leave it to others to help you solve that, but I'll say you'll probably slap your forehead when you figure it out

culero

You might be right, but so far I cant find anything. Now, I can bump things down a bit and be fine. For example I can run with the bottom two sliders maxed out but need the detail slider a bit right of default....or I can run in ,shift> F3. If I slide the detail setting all the way to the left I get single digits even at 128 textures. Normally I run with everything set 1/3 or so from left edge and I think I should get reasonable performance with my configuration. I'm not running hi res with detail slider "maxed"....