Having issues around smoke and firing from wirbles. Please help

[PewterC5]

Albeit that video card is a bit on the lower end...if people with 7300GT AGP graphics cards can run the game decently there is no reason that 8500GT can't.

No offense to Ripley or Charge...tossing money at something is not always a viable solution for the average person...$90 is not a paltry sum to throw into a household utility item, especially for someone with a family to feed.

Pewter, you have 2 obvious things going on...as was pointed out, your paging file usage is huge...just idling (no open programs) that system shouldn't be running anymore than somewhere around 500 to 600 MB paging file usage. You need to get rid of all the "bloatware" running on Vista (sidebar, widgets, aero interface, etc...)...set windows peformance settings to run at max performance, not best graphics...if your anti-virus is a Symantec/Norton, McAffee or Trend Micro product, uninstall it and get a better "freeware" anti-virus...get a good registry cleaner and clean out your registry...then, before going into the game, turn off your anti-virus and use the game booster program.

Turn your video card resolution down, your dxdiag says you're running it 1920x1080 @60Hz...that's maxed out...1440x900 is more than adequate, and you might be able to set your refresh rate to 72Hz (you will start with 72 frames in game)...set your game resolution to 1280x920 with 512 textures...turn off all shadowing and detailed water.


Your frame rate should stabilize...if not, use a lower in game resolution (1152x860 ???).

 I did all of the things you said and while the frame rate improved dramatically and my specific problems stopped the game looks horrible. I would rather be stuttering without detailed terrain on then run the game at the lower resolution.

If you're really running an AGP system the 3850 will be a good upgrade. That will most likely be the last upgrade you should make to your computer before getting a totally new one with a PCI-E x16 slot. AGP cards are getting rare.

Two things are almost certain IMO anyway: Getting a new power supply will not speed up your computer. Your pagefile is also not a problem as you have 3 gigs of ram and plenty available. Vista likes to live large if you catch the drift.

The power supply may become an issue, however, if you upgrade to 3850 or any other new card. At which time you should read the requirements for power and check that your power supply can supply the demand.

You will most likely be able to gain a lot of fps by dropping your resolution down. But that comes with a heavy hit in image quality (I assume you run LCD screen with native resolution at the moment). The high resolution is the reason the 8500GT bends under pressure.

Here's a small comparison (albeit on another game)

(Image removed from quote.)

I dont know for sure if it is an agp system. the computer was built in late 07 I believe. Would a picture of the old video card help determine that? I have it sitting in front of me. And you are correct with the lcd at native resolution.

[PewterC5]

Some points of consideration........

even with vista that page file is way out of hand, you need to trim the fat

agreed that resolution is way too high for that 8500

throwing money at the problem is fine if you want to throw money at it, or you could simply fix what you have and be perfectly happy, your hardware could run detail fine at a better resolution and not have problems

a 10 second look finds that you have a PCI-Ex16 slot on the computer, which is where you installed your 8500GT, no idea where the assumption that you have AGP comes from

bigger is better is not always true in power supplies, you need to look at the +12volt rails

although its a decent card and not criticizing it at all the 3850 is not the best bang for the buck in PCI-E, if you want to invest money and upgrade a good starting point would be somewhere around the 9800GT

also you can look at all the charts you want but dont just assume they are the holy grail....... they rarely even agree with themselves..... most charts compare apples to oranges and can be made to show whatever you want

when i run the game booster and then run a dxdiag it drops to 700ish mb page file so it definitely comes down.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

If the computer is late 07 model then I think you must have PCI-E already. Which is good as you have plenty of more options to choose from now.

Check http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2387.html for some comparisons.

[gyrene81]

I did all of the things you said and while the frame rate improved dramatically and my specific problems stopped the game looks horrible. I would rather be stuttering without detailed terrain on then run the game at the lower resolution.

I dont know for sure if it is an agp system. the computer was built in late 07 I believe. Would a picture of the old video card help determine that? I have it sitting in front of me. And you are correct with the lcd at native resolution.

I didn't say turn off detailed terrain...just detailed water and shadows...your original post said all you had on was bump map on, with the settings I recommended, you should be able to turn detailed terrain on without an issue.

Are you getting a stuttering effect with detailed terrain on and the settings I recommended?



Which one of these resembles the slot you put your video card into?

[PewterC5]

I didn't say turn off detailed terrain...just detailed water and shadows...your original post said all you had on was bump map on, with the settings I recommended, you should be able to turn detailed terrain on without an issue.

Are you getting a stuttering effect with detailed terrain on and the settings I recommended?



Which one of these resembles the slot you put your video card into?
(Image removed from quote.)

you were correct as i could run detailed terrain on and not get stutter (although frame rates ould still drop to 30ish) at the lower settings. However the lower setting just look horrible on this monitor and even a little blurry at times.

As far as the picture goes, without a scale to show the actual length differences I am going to say the pci express .  The slot is approximately 3.5" long (measuring the old card).

[gyrene81]

you were correct as i could run detailed terrain on and not get stutter (although frame rates ould still drop to 30ish) at the lower settings. However the lower setting just look horrible on this monitor and even a little blurry at times.

As far as the picture goes, without a scale to show the actual length differences I am going to say the pci express .  The slot is approximately 3.5" long (measuring the old card).

Try setting your game resolution to 1440x900...I had to try 5 different settings before getting things to where frame rates and graphics were proportionate and clear...the blurry look is usually from the refresh rate, some monitors can do 75Hz better than they can handle 72Hz and vice versa...you're gonna have to tweak it. Note, lower video resolutions will allow you to run higher refresh rates but some widescreen LCD monitors don't like less than 1152x864...and that resolution in AH looks like the old 800x600 grainy graphics.


If you have the long pci express graphics slot, your system should be able to handle a better video card...just have to watch that power supply, HP is notorious for underpowered PSU's.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

the blurry look is usually from the refresh rate, some monitors can do 75Hz better than they can handle 72Hz and vice versa...you're gonna have to tweak it. Note, lower video resolutions will allow you to run higher refresh rates but some widescreen LCD monitors don't like less than 1152x864...and that resolution in AH looks like the old 800x600 grainy graphics.

On LCD/TFT's refresh rate is 60 and has nothing to do with blurry picture. Running in non-native resolution degrades the quality.

[gyrene81]

On LCD/TFT's refresh rate is 60 and has nothing to do with blurry picture. Running in non-native resolution degrades the quality.

Really? Am I understanding your statement correctly here? LCD's can only run 60Hz refresh rate and any resolution other than "native resolution" will result in lower quality graphics?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Really? Am I understanding your statement correctly here? LCD's can only run 60Hz refresh rate and any resolution other than "native resolution" will result in lower quality graphics?

Some special LCD's can run on other refresh rates than 60 (one example is monitors designed for 3D that run at 120hz) but yes, generally speaking LCD's are designed to run at 60hz. And yes, running at anything but pixel perfect modes on LCD will result in much degraded image quality due to interpolation required. The only exception to the rule is when you set your monitor not to scale the image and leave black lines around (wasting viewable area).

[Denholm]

Gyrene, LCDs come with one resolution, their native resolution. Any other resolution used is the monitor's attempt to emulate that resolution. Therefore on most LCDs, setting the resolution to anything but native will distort or blur the picture.

[gyrene81]

I think you're mistaken in part but it's your world...    

This middle of the road monitor for example gets excellent video quality at 1440x900 75Hz even though "recommended"/native resolution is 1680x1050...after a lot of experimenting that is the best peformance setting for it...no blur, no distortion, solid fps in all games...and it's connected to a mediocre 9500GT 512MB DDR3.

Brand Acer
Model V223Wbd
Cabinet Color Black
Display
Screen Size 22"
Widescreen Yes
Recommended Resolution 1680 x 1050
Viewing Angle 170°(H) / 160°(V)
Pixel Pitch 0.282mm
Display Colors 16.7 Million
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 2500:1
Response Time 5ms
Horizontal Refresh Rate 30 - 80KHz
Vertical Refresh Rate 55 - 75Hz

[MrRiplEy[H]]

While you may get 'good' image quality running certain resolutions it's still not optimal. It depends on how well the monitor is able to scale the image.

And what goes for the refresh rate I wouldn't run the monitor at anything but regular 60hz. LCD's do not flicker and going past 60 is just asking for trouble really.

I have 6 lcd's here at home alone. One Apple Cinema HD 24", One Macbook Pro 15", Samsung BW226, HP v2007, HP 17" laptop and they all run 60hz + native resolution as the only troublefree setting.

The available refresh rate at 1920x1080 is limited also by single-link DVI which is used on most cheaper LCD's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

    * Example display modes (single link):
          o HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (139 MHz)
          o UXGA (1600 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (161 MHz)
          o WUXGA (1920 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (154 MHz)
          o SXGA (1280 × 1024) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (159 MHz)
          o WXGA+ (1440 x 900) @ 60 Hz (107 MHz)
          o WQUXGA (3840 × 2400) @ 17 Hz (164 MHz)

    * Example display modes (dual link):
          o QXGA (2048 × 1536) @ 75 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 170 MHz)
          o HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 126 MHz)
          o WUXGA (1920 x 1200) @ 120 Hz with GTF (2 x 154 MHz)
          o WQXGA (2560 × 1600) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 174 MHz) (30-inch (762 mm) Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, NEC, Quinux, and Samsung LCDs)
          o WQXGA (2560 × 1600) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (2 × 135 MHz) (30-inch (762 mm) Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, NEC, Quinux, and Samsung LCDs)
          o WQUXGA (3840 × 2400) @ 33 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 159 MHz)

[gyrene81]

While you may get 'good' image quality running certain resolutions it's still not optimal. It depends on how well the monitor is able to scale the image.

See, now I completely agree with you, and had you stated that from the get go, no argument since that is factual.

And what goes for the refresh rate I wouldn't run the monitor at anything but regular 60hz. LCD's do not flicker and going past 60 is just asking for trouble really.

I have 6 lcd's here at home alone. One Apple Cinema HD 24", One Macbook Pro 15", Samsung BW226, HP v2007, HP 17" laptop and they all run 60hz + native resolution as the only troublefree setting.

The available refresh rate at 1920x1080 is limited also by single-link DVI which is used on most cheaper LCD's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

True, the LCD's don't "flicker" like the old CRT's but you can get one to appear as if it's flickering if you set the refresh rate too low, and you can make it really wig out bad if you go too high. Running only "supported" refresh rates for the corresponding resolutions will not adversely affect the monitor, it's when you push those boundaries by going to "unsupported" refresh rates that you run into trouble...if you're running at "native"/"recommended"/"maximum" resolutions, then yes you do stand a greater chance of having problems by running refresh rates higher or lower than the recommended.

It is not required to run an LCD monitor in native/recommended/maximum resolution by any means...and depending on what you're doing, it is sometimes better to run lower resolutions/higher refresh rates as long as your monitor has a decent dot pitch, can handle the proper scaling and you don't exceed the maximum refresh rate for that monitor.



I don't suppose you have had to support anyone with less than perfect vision?

[PewterC5]

If the computer is late 07 model then I think you must have PCI-E already. Which is good as you have plenty of more options to choose from now.

Check http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2387.html for some comparisons.

looking at that link I think I have narrowed it down to the XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card  or a XFX GeForce GTX 260 896MB Video Card. I am assuming these cards will allow me to run full resolution at full detailed settings? This is really the only game I actually play so as long as they run AH I'll be fine. Where do you guys recommend I buy from?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

looking at that link I think I have narrowed it down to the XFX Radeon HD 4870 Video Card  or a XFX GeForce GTX 260 896MB Video Card. I am assuming these cards will allow me to run full resolution at full detailed settings? This is really the only game I actually play so as long as they run AH I'll be fine. Where do you guys recommend I buy from?

I cannot recommend any shopping site for you but I have one advice: Make sure that if you choose the Geforce 260 it is made with the 216 core. Older one is slower.

Oh I failed to mention I have the 4870 and it's still running most games great. In AH I get 150-300 fps vsync off at 1920x1200 no AA and visual quality pegged. I cannot run 8k shadow map without serious hit in fps however I think the reason is 512Mb videoram is limiting the texture size. But 4096 works adequately at 45-60 fps with everything else maxed and 1920x1200 res.