Halo Comment

[daniel1113]

Halo runs perfectly on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb at 1280x1024 with everything on high quality.

Now, for those of you complaining that it works fine on an Xbox, so it should work on a computer 3x faster. Let's do some math:

An Xbox outputs a video signal with a resolution of 640x480. That is a total of 307,200 "pixels."

A computer running at 1280x1024 has a total of 1,310,720 pixels.

A computer running at 1024x768 has a total of 786,432 pixels.

That means, that your computer has to process 2.56 - 4.27 times the number of pixels than an Xbox.

Now, add DirectX 9 on top of that, or a frame rate high than 30 FPS...

In other words, your computer has to do A LOT more work that an Xbox.

Not only that, but your computer is not dedicated to gaming... it has a full OS to run, along with all of the background processes that you may have going on.

Lastly, when a game is released for a console, there is only one hardware configuration that the developer has to worry about. With a computer, there is an infinite number of configurations.

So, don't like the chopiness? You have a few options: turn down the quality (resolution, effects, shaders, etc.), upgrade your computer, return the game. Whatever you choose, QUIT WHINING!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Halo runs perfectly on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb at 1280x1024 with everything on high quality.

Now, for those of you complaining that it works fine on an Xbox, so it should work on a computer 3x faster. Let's do some math:

An Xbox outputs a video signal with a resolution of 640x480. That is a total of 307,200 "pixels."

A computer running at 1280x1024 has a total of 1,310,720 pixels.

A computer running at 1024x768 has a total of 786,432 pixels.

That means, that your computer has to process 2.56 - 4.27 times the number of pixels than an Xbox.

Now, add DirectX 9 on top of that, or a frame rate high than 30 FPS...

In other words, your computer has to do A LOT more work that an Xbox.

Not only that, but your computer is not dedicated to gaming... it has a full OS to run, along with all of the background processes that you may have going on.

Lastly, when a game is released for a console, there is only one hardware configuration that the developer has to worry about. With a computer, there is an infinite number of configurations.

So, don't like the chopiness? You have a few options: turn down the quality (resolution, effects, shaders, etc.), upgrade your computer, return the game. Whatever you choose, QUIT WHINING!

bingo

 

[EpsiIon]

Geez, none of you are reading each other's posts. Some people are getting great FPS at high resolutions and some people are getting crappy FPS at low resolutions. In the meantime, you're all calling each other idiots because you aren't getting the same results.

QUIT WHINING ABOUT WHINING PEOPLE WHEN YOU CLEARLY HAVEN'T READ WHAT THEY WROTE.

Regardless of what anybody says, running this poorly on this many machines is evidence of bad programming. Now, if a patch fixes these problems for everybody, good for Gearbox. But if it doesn't, you'll just have to accept that the PC port of Halo isn't what it SHOULD be. A game that's almost two years old SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM running on current hardware.

And that's my $.02

Epsilon

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Halo runs perfectly on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb at 1280x1024 with everything on high quality.

Now, for those of you complaining that it works fine on an Xbox, so it should work on a computer 3x faster. Let's do some math:

An Xbox outputs a video signal with a resolution of 640x480. That is a total of 307,200 "pixels."

A computer running at 1280x1024 has a total of 1,310,720 pixels.

A computer running at 1024x768 has a total of 786,432 pixels.

That means, that your computer has to process 2.56 - 4.27 times the number of pixels than an Xbox.

Now, add DirectX 9 on top of that, or a frame rate high than 30 FPS...

In other words, your computer has to do A LOT more work that an Xbox.

Not only that, but your computer is not dedicated to gaming... it has a full OS to run, along with all of the background processes that you may have going on.

Lastly, when a game is released for a console, there is only one hardware configuration that the developer has to worry about. With a computer, there is an infinite number of configurations.

So, don't like the chopiness? You have a few options: turn down the quality (resolution, effects, shaders, etc.), upgrade your computer, return the game. Whatever you choose, QUIT WHINING!

Yeah ok dude. Talking about poor frame rates is not whining. I guess being a forum we should only talk about stuff that works well.

Did you ever think that maybe there's a problem here that needs to be solved?
Like why some people are getting acceptable frame rates while others are not, with the same equipment.
Maybe its a Windows setting, a hardware driver, bad code, etc.
Maybe you could offer a better solution besides the obvious.
Just because your frame rates are ok, explain everyone elses.

 

[Extrarius]

BenSkywalker: While it is true that Halo has some pixel shaders, you CAN NOT say that is the reason for its poor performance. You can turn pixel shaders off, and on the machines where it runs slow it still runs slow with them entirely disabled.

daniel1113: You can't say it is because of the higher resolution, because for many people it runs poorly even at 640x480.

I, personally, have a radeon 8500, and regaurdless of the settings I use it runs very slowly. I don't expect to get 100fps, but a constant 30 fps shouldn't be too much to ask when I'm playing with lower quality graphics than the xbox used. No pixel shaders of any level should speed it up tremendously, as should running at a lower resolution(than the default), but neither of those seems to effect performance by more than a few fps for me.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: fyleow

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
what is slow ?

Less then 100 FPS ? THIS ISN'T QUAKE 3 anymore

If the game is smooth at 30-60 FPS... then that should be fine

slow is 20 FPS, when I move my mouse it doesn't flow smoothly and I can't aim correctly.

Why should I settle for that when UT2003 with 10X better graphics runs 60+ FPS with max settings.

Even if UT2k3 had "10x better graphics" (which it doesn't), doesn't make it a better game... There's more to gameplay than graphics.

Halo rocks. It's not a coincidence that UT2k4 borrows a lot from Halo.

I was thinking of responding to that but you said exactly what I was going to...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Jgtdragon
The engine suck big time. I normally run all my games at 1280 x 1024, but I lower it to 1024 x 768 and it still lags. I got 4aa/8af on and the edge of line still not smooth. The graphic is a disappointment. Glad I am not alone on this.

I read somewhere that Halo does *not* support AA and/or AF. You will suffer a performance hit but not get any improved IQ.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd get the game to either prove or disprove it's supposed poor performance. But from what I'm reading, you have to be using a 9800/5900 and disable all graphics options to get acceptable performance. I don't think my 9100 would cut it. If I really want to play Halo I guess I should buy an Xbox.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'd get the game to either prove or disprove it's supposed poor performance. But from what I'm reading, you have to be using a 9800/5900 and disable all graphics options to get acceptable performance. I don't think my 9100 would cut it. If I really want to play Halo I guess I should buy an Xbox.

I own an XBox and I played all the way thru Halo in single player. I loved it at the time but now that the PC version is out I'm all ready to sell my XBox version. The graphics are nice for an XBox game but the "jaggies" as a result of 640x480 really detract from overall look. Also, despite what everyone is saying about Halo playing flawless on the XBox I can say it's not true. During heavy combat scenes the game slowed down on the XBox as well. Throw in having to play a FPS with a gamepad and Halo for the PC wins in every category (IMO anyway).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'd get the game to either prove or disprove it's supposed poor performance. But from what I'm reading, you have to be using a 9800/5900 and disable all graphics options to get acceptable performance. I don't think my 9100 would cut it. If I really want to play Halo I guess I should buy an Xbox.

I own an XBox and I played all the way thru Halo in single player. I loved it at the time but now that the PC version is out I'm all ready to sell my XBox version. The graphics are nice for an XBox game but the "jaggies" as a result of 640x480 really detract from overall look. Also, despite what everyone is saying about Halo playing flawless on the XBox I can say it's not true. During heavy combat scenes the game slowed down on the XBox as well. Throw in having to play a FPS with a gamepad and Halo for the PC wins in every category (IMO anyway).

But with a 9100 (which is admittedly getting long in the tooth) won't I have to run it at 640x480 with all graphics options off anyway? Wouldn't that mean the only advantage is mouse/keyboard over gamepad?

 

[madcow235]

The game is poorly coded and thats it. There are fanboys who say it pushes the graphical envelope WHICH IT DOESN'T, and they will say you cant expect good performance. Lets put it like this if i cant run 640x480 and get above 100FPS With 4times the hardware an Xbox has, 2.6ghz AMD and say a Radeon9800pro which i dont have, then theres something wrong, thats 4x the hardware power but only 2x the performance. The game is ported worse then GTA3 which everyone could deal with because it wasnt a FPS

 

[1ManArmY]

So what are the best tweaking solutions to get the most FPS out of your system

 

[Jgtdragon]

Originally posted by: 1ManArmY
So what are the best tweaking solutions to get the most FPS out of your system

For my system, I have to turn off shadow and lower my aa/af to 2aa/2aaf. Running much better on 1024x768.

 

[ZippyDan]

running retail version on Athlon 2600+ w/ Geforce 4 Ti4200 8xAGP 128MB

i can run everything smoothly at high graphic detail at 800 X 600. game looks as good or slightly better than halo on xbox (probably due to slightly higher res?).

it looks even better at 1024 X 768, but although it never drops to what i would call a slideshow, it slows the framerate down to something that is annoying. again though, this is at high detail. my AA stuff is turned off

~Zippy!

 

[1ManArmY]

So you turn off your AA in your graphics card (slide to left and check application) then in the game settings you turn off shadows, how about spectacular, particles and texture are they on high detail. Are you forcing PS 2.0?

 

[Fern]

Well, reading all these posts here and elsewhere about crappy frame rates and all w/halo has me thinkin there should be plenty of copies of the game to had for cheap on Ebay etc down the road. Think I'll pass on paying top $ for it now, updrade my rig next year and p/u a used copy to see what the fuss about this game has been for so long.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Halo runs perfectly on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb at 1280x1024 with everything on high quality.

Now, for those of you complaining that it works fine on an Xbox, so it should work on a computer 3x faster. Let's do some math:

An Xbox outputs a video signal with a resolution of 640x480. That is a total of 307,200 "pixels."

A computer running at 1280x1024 has a total of 1,310,720 pixels.

A computer running at 1024x768 has a total of 786,432 pixels.

That means, that your computer has to process 2.56 - 4.27 times the number of pixels than an Xbox.

Now, add DirectX 9 on top of that, or a frame rate high than 30 FPS...

In other words, your computer has to do A LOT more work that an Xbox.

Not only that, but your computer is not dedicated to gaming... it has a full OS to run, along with all of the background processes that you may have going on.

Lastly, when a game is released for a console, there is only one hardware configuration that the developer has to worry about. With a computer, there is an infinite number of configurations.

So, don't like the chopiness? You have a few options: turn down the quality (resolution, effects, shaders, etc.), upgrade your computer, return the game. Whatever you choose, QUIT WHINING!

bingo

 

[BudAshes]

Im gonna have to say that all of you bashing halo are nuts. I've been playing botht the single player and multiplayer at 1024/768 with all the settings on high , shadows enabled and all that and it runs perfectly. The game is quite fun, and at no time in playing it have i noticed any "slideshows" in fact i havent had any noticeable slow downs in singleplayer at all.

 

[RollWave]

The game works flawlessly on my system and looks fabulously...As far as you idiots who think AA works right now, you are all incorrect. They have not allowed that option as of yet as they are working out fps issues for those of you with obsolete systems (if they arent already this november they will be [unless you JUST bought a high end one] so dont call me a snob, its the hard truth).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rnp614
The game works flawlessly on my system and looks fabulously...As far as you idiots who think AA works right now, you are all incorrect. They have not allowed that option as of yet as they are working out fps issues for those of you with obsolete systems (if they arent already this november they will be [unless you JUST bought a high end one] so dont call me a snob, its the hard truth).

Does obsolete include systems purchased today? The majority of computers purchased today, October 6 2003, do not have a top of the line video card. Did they really intend on only the absolute state of the art computer running this game?

 

[Dug]

Im gonna have to say that all of you bashing halo are nuts. I've been playing botht the single player and multiplayer at 1024/768 with all the settings on high , shadows enabled and all that and it runs perfectly

Hello, read the posts. No one has found a reason why some people have no problems with all settings on high and some people don't. And I'm talking about people with high end gear.
Nobody's bashing the game because of the content, just how well it runs in fps.

 

[1ManArmY]

Mine runs fine at 1024 X 768 forcing PS 2.0 and all of the eye candy. The FPS are nothing to write home about but their is no slowdown. Played Multiplayer last night with 15 peeps, what a hoot!

 

[BenSkywalker]

Robor-

AF works for me in Halo, slaughters framerate on my Ti though. AA does nothing, although I suppose it should work on a R200/NV1X(can't verify that currently though). The framerate hit from AF is over 50% at 8x, and it introduces aliasing in some of the shaders(particularly the water) although it does work quite nicely on the textures.

Bober-

It seems that the majority of people that are having the serious issues with framerate are not running a legit version of the game.

Extrarius-

BenSkywalker: While it is true that Halo has some pixel shaders, you CAN NOT say that is the reason for its poor performance. You can turn pixel shaders off, and on the machines where it runs slow it still runs slow with them entirely disabled.

How do you shut them off? Haven't looked much at the command line parameters, but the in game options don't disable all the shaders. I'm curious how many people have the retail version of the game that are having such serious issues with it. It seems pretty clear at this point that the FLT version of the game isn't the final build, and the performance is off considerably.

Sunner

I'd try to get some hands on time with the retail build of the game and see if you are still seeing the same issues.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
It seems that the majority of people that are having the serious issues with framerate are not running a legit version of the game.

Yep, you nailed it.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
It seems that the majority of people that are having the serious issues with framerate are not running a legit version of the game.

Yep, you nailed it.

Well if that's the common demoninator then there's no reason to bitch. If you have a legit copy and poor frame rates speak up. Otherwise don't post about crappy peformance.

I personally want to get this for multiplayer, but haven't because of framerate comments. I remember playing this on xbox when it first came out and running it through the computer to get multiplayer. What a blast.