Is WCIII Locked in terms of Fps

[inveterate]

is it? my card only shows 64fps max and won't go anyhigher

 

[Malak]

Any higher wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Crusty]

You probably have vsync on, I don't know if you can change it in WCIII or not, i haven't played it in a long time.

 

[PrayForDeath]

You can force V-sync off in the drivers. But why do you care anyway?

 

[StrangerGuy]

WC3 isn't CS or UT2004 where a 60+ frame rate really matters. End of story.

 

[stnicralisk]

AFAIK WC3 is not graphics card limited. The game is CPU & RAM intensive I believe. You dont really need high FPS to run the game as actions arent usually twitch reflex.

 

[inveterate]

The Reason for my concern is that I've seen Benchmarks that would get 100+ Frames in this game, while i'm only getting 64 tops. I don't understand why this is so...

 

[Firus]

It's Vsync. I'm guessing you are running an LCD with a refresh rate of around ~60ms and does Vsync not try to keep sync with the monitor refresh rate? So, try turning off vsync as suggested above and you will most likely see higher fps...but why you need to, I don't know.

 

[inveterate]

THats the problem,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I'm not running VSYNC, but it's still giving me 64 tops

 

[Insomniak]

Honestly, being that it's an RTS, I really don't see this as an issue.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Honestly, being that it's an RTS, I really don't see this as an issue.

I guess its a case of 'he gets this, im getting this... why is his running differently?'

Unless other games are running crap, I dont see 64 fps in an RTS being that much of an issue.

 

[inveterate]

YOU GUYS ARN"T HELPING!!!!!!!!!! Grrr.. lol

 

[Colonel C]

I'm sure there's a console command to break this apparent limit, like in other games such as Doom 3.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Colonel C
I'm sure there's a console command to break this apparent limit, like in other games such as Doom 3.

Yes, because blizzard arbitrarily limits your framerate to 64 frames per second...

I don't know why it's performing as it is, but I'm pretty sure it's not limited by an engine variable.

 

[inveterate]

I turn on 8x AA + 16x AF, and get better image quality, BUT WITH SAME EXACT FPS performance. I don't really care bout the AAxAF, but that proves that I should be getting more without them.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: inveterate
I turn on 8x AA + 16x AF, and get better image quality, BUT WITH SAME EXACT FPS performance. I don't really care bout the AAxAF, but that proves that I should be getting more without them.

Not really it proves that you are CPU limited I would think - of course, I have already stated that:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=10

1024x768 high quality 3000+ is going 57 fps. You can see that a faster processor (4000+) helps to increase this speed by 9%.

So I will again say that the game is not GPU intensive it is CPU and RAM intensive.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning theyre using this graphics card - ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express

Also here is a second benchmark (below the IL-2 bench) that shows your graphics card's expected performance for the game.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/514/page8.html

Theyre getting high 40's at 1600 x 1200 or 12x10 w 4x/8x.

I think this case is closed.