Full Dynamic Lighting absolutely kills my system in STALKER!

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: CP5670
I am planning to pick up this game in a week, once my final exams are over. I'll probably turn off the dynamic lighting right away, as it seems that it is the only way to get decent framerates. The graphics don't look that great anyway, so it won't be a big loss as long as the game is good otherwise.

Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on

I agree. If a game falls below 60 more than just intermittently, I turn down some graphical settings right away.

Also agreed. I can see a diff between 30 and 60fps. I shoot for 60+ when setting detail levels.

I'll patiently wait for a patch to run it in Vista. Off topic, but I'm liking the looks of Bioshock, coming in August.

 

[CrystalBay]

BioShock FTW, sorry eeek

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: CP5670
I am planning to pick up this game in a week, once my final exams are over. I'll probably turn off the dynamic lighting right away, as it seems that it is the only way to get decent framerates. The graphics don't look that great anyway, so it won't be a big loss as long as the game is good otherwise.

Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on

I agree. If a game falls below 60 more than just intermittently, I turn down some graphical settings right away.

Also agreed. I can see a diff between 30 and 60fps. I shoot for 60+ when setting detail levels.

I'll patiently wait for a patch to run it in Vista. Off topic, but I'm liking the looks of Bioshock, coming in August.

why would you need a patch to run STALKER in vista? I have had STALKER running quite nicely in Vista for over a month now without a single issue.

 

[postmortemIA]

I can't get over 25FPS on 1920x1200 in Dx9 path that is dynamic lightning, X1950, single core A64 @2.5GHz.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I can't get over 25FPS on 1920x1200 in Dx9 path that is dynamic lightning, X1950, single core A64 @2.5GHz.

I couldnt get over 20 fps with Dynamic lighting and I have a faster CPU and GPU.

Are you using Vista?

 

[Hauk]

why would you need a patch to run STALKER in vista? I have had STALKER running quite nicely in Vista for over a month now without a single issue.

Random crashs to desktop Vista 64 bit. Fresh install, latest drivers, removed overclock, new hardware, no avail. Found similar posts and a crash fix:

Vista crash
Vista crash

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I can't get over 25FPS on 1920x1200 in Dx9 path that is dynamic lightning, X1950, single core A64 @2.5GHz.

I couldnt get over 20 fps with Dynamic lighting and I have a faster CPU and GPU.

Are you using Vista?

XP, I figured dynamic lightning only for the objects was enabled, not the FDL.

 

[0roo0roo]

30 fps is smooth with motion blur

 

[40sTheme]

At maximum settings EXCLUDING:
Grass Shadows
View Distance at 75% (makes no noticeable difference)

I get between 25-40 fps constantly on the computer in my sig which consists of:
Pentium D 820 @ stock (2.8GHz)
2GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800
eVGA 7950GT @ 550/1550

STALKER, I have found, is still pretty smooth to play even when the fps hits ~20. 25+ accounts for rather smooth gameplay. But, if you care about vsync... not so much.

 

[BFG10K]

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

no it isn't 😛

i call BS

stalker runs no worse than any other game at 30 fps ... in fact it is surprisingly smooth as long as it does not fall below 30

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

you're an idiot.

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

you're an idiot.

I think not, Stalker seems very unresponsive at those framerates. Turn it to Static and the game runs how it should with firefights intense instead of Lag fights with Dynamic Lighting on.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Eomer of Aldburg

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

you're an idiot.

I think not, Stalker seems very unresponsive at those framerates. Turn it to Static and the game runs how it should with firefights intense instead of Lag fights with Dynamic Lighting on.

Bullsh!t...I've been playing STALKER for over a month now at 1280x1024, FDL, Maximum Quality...I get a little higher than 30 fps Average frame rate and it runs nice and smooth with no stutter or lag even during large battles.

STALKER run perfectly fine at 30 fps...if your rig runs it like a slideshow then you aren't getting an average frame rate of 30 fps.

 

[v8envy]

Um. 30 FPS means ... 33 milliseconds per frame. I can absolutely tell the difference between counterstrike at 30 fps and 100. (20 ms lag) Going from DSL to cable lopped 20-30ms off of my ping times to my favorite servers, and my stats improved significantly.

I wouldn't call 30 fps a slideshow -- 25 is pretty much the slideshow threshold for most people and perfectly acceptable for an RPG or strategy game. For an action game it's way too low.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Eomer of Aldburg

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

you're an idiot.

I think not, Stalker seems very unresponsive at those framerates. Turn it to Static and the game runs how it should with firefights intense instead of Lag fights with Dynamic Lighting on.

i am *impressed* at how well STALKER looks and runs above 30 FPS

there are NO lags ... anywhere that i have discovered so far - with FRAPS running continuously ... not outdoors with grass and sun maxed nor indoors ... nor at night with everything illuminated by lightening and muzzle flashes

 

[Munky]

I play at 1280x960, and with an x1900xt I get average fps in the 40's, with full dynamic lighting, which is perfectly playable for me in this game. Maybe if you try to run and gun like a twitch shooter it would be unplayable, but with that style you won't last long even at 100fps unless you play on n00b mode.

 

[BFG10K]

you're an idiot.

No, you're blind.

 

[Ibiza]

Originally posted by: apoppin
and you are full of it

perhaps you don'k know how to optimize your rig ... who cares
😕

i DID run FRAPS ... in game for a long time .. over several maps .. it *runs* consistently in the 30s .... from low 30 to high 30s ... everywhere

and since you will call me a liar - anyway - i don't need to prove anything to someone who is a complete jerk to me :|

apoppin, you have to remember that ulfhednar is mentally unstable and takes enough drugs in a day to kill a large horse, he confessed this on this very forum. Boy, he's one ugly SOB too.

Just laugh at him buddy 😀

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Eomer of Aldburg

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

This is totally false; 30 FPS is an absolutely slideshow in a FPS like Stalker.

you're an idiot.

I think not, Stalker seems very unresponsive at those framerates. Turn it to Static and the game runs how it should with firefights intense instead of Lag fights with Dynamic Lighting on.

Bullsh!t...I've been playing STALKER for over a month now at 1280x1024, FDL, Maximum Quality...I get a little higher than 30 fps Average frame rate and it runs nice and smooth with no stutter or lag even during large battles.

STALKER run perfectly fine at 30 fps...if your rig runs it like a slideshow then you aren't getting an average frame rate of 30 fps.

30fps is a "slide show" relative to an ideal minimum of 60fps when it comes to FPS games. I'm not even talking average, I'm talking minimum. If you're averaging 30fps I say you're even more full of it, because then you're going to be hitting minimum frame rates below 30fps which is most definitely a slide show.



And I'd like to add in that I find it cute how people use descriptions such as "perfectly fine", "playable", or "surprisingly smooth" - isn't it obvious by such choice of words that it isn't ideal? Perfect, silky smooth, more than playable - enjoyable - if you're not willing to lie over the internet by using actual convincing descriptions, then you know guys like BFG10K and I are right on this (of course even if you did lie it would certify you as insane, so I guess the only saving grace here is that at least it is obvious you know the truth, you're just not willing to openly admit it)

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you're an idiot.

No, you're blind.

QFT

The only kind of game that I consider very playable at 30 fps is RTS type...

FPS style needs 45+ fps for a half smooth experience IMO... Saying you dont notice anything above 30 fps is retarded

 

[ScrewFace]

I want to get STALKER but before I do I want to hear from SLI (2x7950GTs)/Crossfire (2xX1900XTs) or similar users. Does having 2 GPUs make a big difference in that game with HDR on?

Thanks.🙂

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: BFG10K

you're an idiot.

No, you're blind.

QFT

The only kind of game that I consider very playable at 30 fps is RTS type...

FPS style needs 45+ fps for a half smooth experience IMO... Saying you dont notice anything above 30 fps is retarded

I never said that I can't notice anything over 30fps so don't put words in my mouth.

Whta I said was that STALKER runs fine at 30fps, any less and it is sh!t, but at 30 fps it is very playable and for me it runs smooth, would I like a higher frame rate, yes I would...who doesn't, but I'm not gunna cry like a baby like a few other posters in this thread have just because STALKER runs at 30fps...I'm happy running it at that frame rate, according to FRAPS I have an average frame rat of 37fps at the setting that I listed earlier...I am happy with that.

 

[postmortemIA]

Stalker has some issues with controls latency or controls response isn't tweaked well enough. There are FPS playable at 30 fps, I'll name one: Halo.

 

[VashHT]

It plays pretty well on my X1900XTX at 1920x1080, and looks really damn good too. I haven't been to any underground areas with heavy lighting yet though, I'm only a couple hours in so I'm not sur ehow that will go.