11.6 ati drivers are out and...

(neg) #101

[QUOTE=kilL_888;351187]the anisotropic filter in brink works a bit different though. most textures are virtual textures, or mega textures. the image_anisotropy cvar has no effect on those. there is an extra cvar vor virtual texture anisotropic filter, vt_anisotropic, but this is read only.

the antialiasing seems to work also different. its applied via the postprocessing effects. if you run a map with devmap, you can turn of the postprocessing. there is no antialiasing if you do so.

also, i wasnt able to use antialiasing in brink when i force it via driver. might be a driver issue though, i only tried it out once. for my taste i could use some more antialiasing. some areas look to chunky for my taste.[/QUOTE]

you can use vt_lodbias, but it has no affect on performance

(kilL_888) #102

vt_lodbias has nothing to do with anisotropic filter though.

vt_lodbias is the new r_picmic. -values draw sharper textures (incresed resolution) while +values blur (lower resolution) the texture.

i guess it has impact on memory first and foremost, but also the gpu benefits a bit. lower resolution textures require less gpu computing.

(Smoochy) #103

this is why i prefer the UT engine. much more flexible to us

why cant SD just give us the options. how do they decide on the quality? let us tweak shadows/AA/AF etc. i know there are 3rd party tools but as you say some of the stuff they do is read-only anyway! :frowning:

(h0UNd..) #104

11.7 pre-release (2 weeks early for debuggers) are out and floating around. I have them and have yet to experience any probs yet (touch wood, or nearest synthetic analogue).

[I]EDIT: As you would expect from ‘alpha’s’, these drivers are not 100% stable (at least on my system), however they are a step in the right direction. In 2-3 weeks ATI users may - standard caveats apply - have a stable set of drivers that perform optimally.

They are not recommended (and I do not advocate their use) for general fps issues, but may provide slightly less BSoD’s for those experiencing them, however they still CTD regularly though.[/I]

(neg) #105

[QUOTE=Smoochy;351230]this is why i prefer the UT engine. much more flexible to us

why cant SD just give us the options. how do they decide on the quality? let us tweak shadows/AA/AF etc. i know there are 3rd party tools but as you say some of the stuff they do is read-only anyway! :([/QUOTE]

there is nothing wrong with iDtech4, its entirely to do with the way that splashdamage has decided to do it themselves and not the engines problem

(Smoochy) #106

ive always found the unreal engine to feel smoother and play better. quake, quake wars etc

i just prefer the unreal engine

(neg) #107

[QUOTE=Smoochy;351746]ive always found the unreal engine to feel smoother and play better. quake, quake wars etc

i just prefer the unreal engine[/QUOTE]

you prefer it for no real reason?
good argument there

also why did you list quake and quake wars after what you said? not implying those are on unreal engine are you? lol?

(Smoochy) #108

[QUOTE=neg;352178]you prefer it for no real reason?
good argument there

also why did you list quake and quake wars after what you said? not implying those are on unreal engine are you? lol?[/QUOTE]

ive just had less issues over the years and it just feels better to me. plus the engine handles advanced editing much better. no silly config files to manually edit, you could directly access the back end to tweak how you see fit.

of course they arent on the unreal engine :slight_smile: i didnt write that bit very well did i…

(bluefoot) #109

Just a suggestion, but most of you aren’t posting what CPUs, OS, RAM or HDD you have. How can you expect to be helped or to find out if your FPS is normal if you only state “I have an ATI card” or “I have an ATI/AMD xxxx”. You do realise that if you have a slow CPU or a dual-core, your performance will be severely limited, regardless of GPU?

Everything on Highest settings aside from Ambient Occlusion, I’ve gotten excellent frame-rates on both a 6850 and 6950 1GB since launch, this with W7x64, 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM, AMD 1090t @ 4Ghz, WD Caviar Black 6Gbps drive.

I suspect a lot of you aren’t having issues so much as unrealistic expectations. I know a lot of people with good graphics cards who are still on dual cores. I’m sure if I went to even a fast dual core, my FPS would halve, at least.

If you’ve got a decent graphics card, you need a Quad Core at reasonable clocks and 4GB of RAM to make use of it in this game …

(esomonk) #110

Whats the lowest you get on sec tower and what is your CPU? I’m just surprised that your lower limit isn’t lower.

(neg) #111

[QUOTE=bluefoot;353247]Just a suggestion, but most of you aren’t posting what CPUs, OS, RAM or HDD you have. How can you expect to be helped or to find out if your FPS is normal if you only state “I have an ATI card” or “I have an ATI/AMD xxxx”. You do realise that if you have a slow CPU or a dual-core, your performance will be severely limited, regardless of GPU?

Everything on Highest settings aside from Ambient Occlusion, I’ve gotten excellent frame-rates on both a 6850 and 6950 1GB since launch, this with W7x64, 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM, AMD 1090t @ 4Ghz, WD Caviar Black 6Gbps drive.

I suspect a lot of you aren’t having issues so much as unrealistic expectations. I know a lot of people with good graphics cards who are still on dual cores. I’m sure if I went to even a fast dual core, my FPS would halve, at least.

If you’ve got a decent graphics card, you need a Quad Core at reasonable clocks and 4GB of RAM to make use of it in this game …[/QUOTE]

god damn its like you didnt read anything in this thread, or the 50 other threads about ATI related issues, i can see what 2 or 3 nvidia related threads? and those are for issues that have now been patched by SplashDamage and by Nvidia, it has nothing to do with system hardware… apart from the fact we have useless ATI cards with terrible driver support, and what also doesnt help is Bethesda’s QA dept apparently didnt test the game at all on PC and just tunnel visioned testing the console releases

(bluefoot) #112

People are claiming that it’s a general problem with AMD hardware / drivers that everyone suffers from. That’s patently not the case … the only problem for me on 2 different cards with a multitude of drivers was GIGANTIC reduction in FPS with Ambient Occlusion turned on at launch - they fixed this (though it’s still taxing).

(neg) #113

so pretty much your argument is because it doesnt happen to you it doesnt exist?
thats a really nice opinion to have about hardware/driver related issues, fact is i can run any other game on high/ultra settings and run it perfectly… and in brink i get 30-50fps with an fps config on my rig…

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #114

[QUOTE=Rave;340481]I’m a bit late into this thread but I was about to copy Ender’s config but noticed he’s played on 1280 res. Do you have a small monitor or you just set it to that for best performance?
[/QUOTE]
No. I’m not playing 1280. I’m playing on 1680x1050. r_mode 14. The custom settings are default and only take effect on the correct r_mode afaik. In game it says 1680x1050.

I am getting those frame rates with my HD5850 at 1680x1050 and I always have.

(Je T´aime) #115

bluefoot your kinda right, I´ve played brink with a dual core 3 ghz and ati 5770 around 20 fps, tryed some overcloack to 3.7 dual core same graphic card it boosted my fps to 30-40 so yes the processor does matter, but the thing is that if i put a nvdia card like the 8800 gt i will have 60 fps, so in the end yes processor matters but ati graphic card really cuts the perfomance if you have an average pc.
And i get decent fps in every other game out there, cept on brink with ati graphic card.
But the thing is that if i use my old nvdia 8800 It will perfom worst in every other game.