• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Video Setting in UT2K4?

N

Nismo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2000
Messages
1,413
What res and anti aliasing do you guys use?

I don't know if I should do 1024x768 and 2x or 4x antialiasing or if I should go 1280x1024 and no antianiasing?
 
I use 1600x1200x32 with 8x AF and 4x FSAA. Looks awesome on my 20" LCD.
 
I have about the same speed machine you do. So, I might try running it with FSAA and see what happens.
 
Originally posted by pxc
I use 1600x1200x32 with 8x AF and 4x FSAA. Looks awesome on my 20" LCD.
Click to expand...
huh? what are your FPS? - like, 20?... even with that GeForceFX and P4 - that's a bit of a stretch.

playing at 2xAA 4xAF quality w/high-quality mipmaps++ at 1280x1024 (native resolution of my LCD). getting FPS >60.
 
Dangit! I can't believe I get the same problem I used to get w/ UT based games that I did w/ my GF4! Now I am running a 9800 Pro and I still get major contol lag if I run high heavy duty res/AA combinations. About the only setting that is lag free is 800x600 w/o AA!

It doesn't make any sense! Even at 1280x960 / 4xAA / 16xAF the framerates are smooth as silk, yet the is serious lag in the controls! Does anyone else experience this?
 
Even on my 9800 pro, UT2K4 drops to 35 fps constantly in big battles.. no other game even comes close to going as low as 35 for me, its just this game that does it. Running at 1024x768 with 4x AF :rolleyes:
 
I really haven't had a whole lot of chance to analyze how low my framerate gets, I'm too busy cursing because I can't control anything while the eye candy glides by.
 
Originally posted by pxc
I use 1600x1200x32 with 8x AF and 4x FSAA. Looks awesome on my 20" LCD.
Click to expand...

How did you get 1600x1200? My 9800 Pro won't let me pick that... others, even higher, but not that.
 
Originally posted by codeflux
huh? what are your FPS? - like, 20?... even with that GeForceFX and P4 - that's a bit of a stretch.

playing at 2xAA 4xAF quality w/high-quality mipmaps++ at 1280x1024 (native resolution of my LCD). getting FPS >60.
Click to expand...
With the botmatch-convoy benchmark, I got:
1600x1200x32 all graphics options maxed:
11.389802 / 38.260376 / 77.803299 fps -- Score = 38.311287 rand[28497]
1600x1200x32 4xFSAA/8xAF all graphics options maxed:
13.843957 / 29.596724 / 57.770153 fps -- Score = 29.634485 rand[28497]

convoy is a pretty tough benchmark, botmatch-colossus is more like a typical arena:
1600x1200x32 all graphics options maxed:
18.017542 / 68.309364 / 156.075867 fps -- Score = 68.411636 rand[30474]
1600x1200x32 4xFSAA/8xAF all graphics options maxed:
10.946591 / 54.039745 / 108.669319 fps -- Score = 54.113529 rand[30474]

When not in benchmark mode (which renders every frame completely, slowing down), the game runs smoother than 29.6fps suggests. It's actually very acceptable. I got very few areas where the graphics slowed down when I was playing.

What graphics card are you running?
 
Originally posted by pxc
When not in benchmark mode (which renders every frame completely, slowing down), the game runs smoother than 29.6fps suggests. It's actually very acceptable. I got very few areas where the graphics slowed down when I was playing.
Click to expand...
thanks for the numbers!... i personally do not consider anything below 50fps acceptable - even in a regular arena battle fast panning with fps below 50 produces jerkiness, especialy at the other end of the room... but that's just me - i'm picky. :)
What graphics card are you running?
Click to expand...
overvolted 9700pro - see sig.
 
if anyone else wants to benchmark UT2004Demo, I got the files from here: http://www.elitebastards.com/#news3480

The flyby benchmarks don't work and it's OK to overwrite the Stuff directory under UT2004Demo/Benchmark since it's empty (almost... a 0 byte file is there, but it's not needed).
 
Originally posted by chuckm1020
do u think this game is more demanding than Halo?
Click to expand...
No. Halo is much more demanding.

The Halo patch is supposed to improve performance soon.

This game simply rocks. I'm glad I did a preorder of the special edition with a headset for $39.99 (using ebgames vouchers). Plus there's a discount in the box to get a $10 rebate if you bought UT2003.
 
Originally posted by pxc
if anyone else wants to benchmark UT2004Demo, I got the files from here: http://www.elitebastards.com/#news3480
Click to expand...
1280x1024, 2xAA 4xAF high quality, botmatch-all:

25.524122 / 73.218513 / 147.704514 fps -- Score = 73.301323 rand[22194]
9.415130 / 45.306171 / 82.599251 fps -- Score = 45.372650 rand[7597]
10.034423 / 43.723621 / 102.447525 fps -- Score = 43.755856 rand[30986]
25.313366 / 98.424904 / 193.756622 fps -- Score = 98.544609 rand[26439]
18.973289 / 83.688248 / 227.182465 fps -- Score = 83.795135 rand[13069]

it dropped a few times pretty low - i need to turn down fog detail a bit... also, i'm running at lower overclock - my watercooling is acting up (running at 3.3ghz, 9700pro @ 380/310).
 
I'm getting 61 fps (average) at 1024x768 on my ti440 (see below) for the torlan botmatch benchmark. I find UT2004 runs even better than 2003 on my rig, seems very smooth, no noticeable slow down at all. Of course I'm not using aa/af, but world detail is on high everything else is highest it can go in the demo and I'm using EAX.

Isn't that right (I'm not sure how to read these results but I think that's what they are saying:)

11.791544 / 60.697105 / 109.329071 fps -- Score = 60.752682 rand[12416]

What's regarded as the 'toughest' demo?
 
ok, i've tweaked a few things: increases AGP aperture from 128mb to 256mb, enabled AGP read in Smart GART (omega drivers) - which resulted in PowerStrip reporting Transporter Mechanism of DMA instead of Disabled. also, bumped the AGP voltage from 1.5 to 1.6 and videocard speeds from 380/310 to 400/320. results:

1280x1024, 2xAA 4xAF high quality, botmatch-all:

27.146132 / 79.941940 / 160.617432 fps -- Score = 80.056549 rand[22194]
18.688370 / 48.520466 / 83.506706 fps -- Score = 48.588955 rand[7597]
10.348418 / 56.500126 / 106.041359 fps -- Score = 56.581127 rand[30986]
26.497944 / 105.567383 / 200.203308 fps -- Score = 105.700523 rand[26439]
28.070087 / 100.371002 / 222.637482 fps -- Score = 100.507774 rand[13069]

now i'm going to kill all the other shit in the background. results:

29.291851 / 80.662483 / 158.928238 fps -- Score = 80.784386 rand[22194]
19.015120 / 49.085876 / 85.077850 fps -- Score = 49.156837 rand[7597]
20.070423 / 56.676830 / 107.764252 fps -- Score = 56.756195 rand[30986]
14.625365 / 107.697876 / 205.177170 fps -- Score = 107.829254 rand[26439]
28.989662 / 101.223541 / 221.654114 fps -- Score = 101.361046 rand[13069]

ok so that didn't help too much. now turned down Fog Distance in half - everything else remained the same. results:

38.426540 / 80.274002 / 163.450043 fps -- Score = 80.391151 rand[22194]
13.098427 / 49.164524 / 84.895836 fps -- Score = 49.238605 rand[7597]
19.962725 / 56.713245 / 117.536789 fps -- Score = 56.794365 rand[30986]
26.348707 / 108.194603 / 205.865128 fps -- Score = 108.320969 rand[26439]
20.880720 / 101.666489 / 226.908264 fps -- Score = 101.815056 rand[13069]

ok so that wasn't it. now turned Fog Distance back to 100%, and tried setting World Detail to Normal instead of High - it looks like crap.

so, if i am to play this at high details, i'd better get R420 card when that comes out - 26fps is unacceptable.
 
I was just happy taht my gf 2 gts 32 meg could actually RUN Halo and ut2k4. I find that ut2k4 runs like freaking butter at default settings (looks liek everything is turned on to me.. haven't checked) and I run halo very well at 8by6 and semi-well at 1024by768 (see sig for specs) I was fucking exstatic that they ran pretty damned well in both these harsh new games. Though with fraps on the fps seems worst than without I get about 30-70 fps in Halo and it runs smoothly at an average of about 40-50. I notice little to no slow downs in ut2k4, unlike Halo where my pixel shaders are having a heart attack trying to produce teh blood and shiny effects I suppose.

I'm very pleased with this old ass gfx card I bought for 20 bucks a few months ago.

~Adam
 
It seems to look worse than normal UT2003 did, hopefully they'll up the texture detail levels in the full game.
 
botmatch-all benchmarks (I'll be sticking to 1600x1200 w/AF & FSAA enabled, it plays decently)

1280x1024x32, all graphics options maxed (as much as the demo version allows)
dm-rankin 22.672161 / 60.948395 / 153.411499 fps -- Score = 61.011890 rand[7570]
as-convoy 12.438293 / 43.078480 / 78.062241 fps -- Score = 43.136818 rand[26700]
ons-torlan 7.049571 / 67.669067 / 123.316025 fps -- Score = 67.766403 rand[16482]
br-colossus 22.431274 / 103.208313 / 188.403458 fps -- Score = 103.321594 rand[30319]
ctf-bridgeoffate 29.446835 / 96.932281 / 195.132568 fps -- Score = 97.087883 rand[9952]

1280x1024x32, 2xQ FSAA/4x AF, all graphics options maxed
dm-rankin 29.477354 / 59.033527 / 146.763870 fps -- Score = 59.101784 rand[7570]
as-convoy 11.688086 / 41.066231 / 73.063858 fps -- Score = 41.125587 rand[26700]
ons-torlan 10.926429 / 55.613544 / 115.450508 fps -- Score = 55.696705 rand[16482]
br-colossus 21.778233 / 99.043945 / 181.021271 fps -- Score = 99.146446 rand[30319]
ctf-bridgeoffate 28.049379 / 80.417114 / 182.559601 fps -- Score = 80.531937 rand[9952]



codeflux: don't stress the (low) benchmark numbers. I mentioned it on the last page. The benchmark mode runs differently from the real-time play mode. You will play the game more smoothly than the benchmark number suggests.
 
9800@480/390 P4 4 GHz
4xAA 8xAF high quality textures/mipmaps
ingame settings maxxed, HW 3D audio

*1024x768*
42.975586 / 90.174881 / 165.575912 fps -- Score = 90.297188 rand[12647]
20.261604 / 58.491615 / 103.826492 fps -- Score = 58.576332 rand[29531]
26.436546 / 61.862961 / 151.528549 fps -- Score = 61.926258 rand[6738]
32.248772 / 124.324646 / 241.309799 fps -- Score = 124.423370 rand[26684]
36.268574 / 128.277023 / 276.729370 fps -- Score = 128.465576 rand[26064]

*1280x1024*
36.965107 / 71.794312 / 158.577118 fps -- Score = 71.879295 rand[913]
22.277397 / 49.710510 / 110.797005 fps -- Score = 49.772892 rand[17105]
24.952810 / 49.749630 / 126.448303 fps -- Score = 49.811485 rand[30986]
34.759235 / 111.954865 / 229.343216 fps -- Score = 112.060097 rand[30319]
37.873196 / 89.745667 / 242.126907 fps -- Score = 89.862946 rand[12324]

It's not indicative of online play with all the bots running locally, but I guess it gives me something to start with.
 
Originally posted by pxc
codeflux: don't stress the (low) benchmark numbers. I mentioned it on the last page. The benchmark mode runs differently from the real-time play mode. You will play the game more smoothly than the benchmark number suggests.
Click to expand...
eh, no stressing m8! :) the hardware most of us are running today (ok, most high-ish-end hardware) is more than enough for today's games. we would need to see HL2 or Doom3 to really stress our systems. think of when Ti4x00 cards came out - with the games of the time you couldn't really stress it...

besides, i ever hardly play UT2k[34] anymore - i've been playing Need For Speed Underground for the past 3 months, and loving it - got a wheel and everything. :) affects my driving habbits poorly (120mph in traffic on the way to work? - bad...)... - but as it is i'm getting consistent >60fps there.

i've played UT2k4 for a few hours, and i see no slow-down in real-world gameplay - at this point it does not matter much if you're running 9700pro or high-end GeForceFX - it's all the same, more or less.
 
widescreen laptop gaming :p

1680x1050x32, no AF, No FSAA, GF4 4200 Go @ 230/475 (default = 196/390)
dm-rankin 13.679839 / 38.376892 / 89.970703 fps -- Score = 38.518391 rand[24761]
as-convoy 7.066090 / 17.295368 / 39.642597 fps -- Score = 17.347849 rand[24989]
ons-torlan 10.350895 / 22.641216 / 48.281445 fps -- Score = 22.603203 rand[20948]
br-colossus 12.994309 / 37.700645 / 85.920242 fps -- Score = 37.824627 rand[6708]
ctf-bridgeoffate 17.506769 / 40.486595 / 115.844734 fps -- Score = 40.633617 rand[31051]

I wouldn't play convoy at 1680x1050, but gameplay is pretty decent in most of the other maps.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top