Game menu extremely choppy

Get community help for technical problems

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco

Ahtykk
level3
level3
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:49 am
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby Ahtykk » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:18 am

zanzer7 wrote:EVE Online has an option, Render station environment. Unticking this can really help, as that is a very heavy part of rendering (whatwith all the lights, I suppose)


EVE Online also has another option. It's called Use LOD.
This has absolutely no relevance to the current issue.

I am very bored.

>.>
<.<

Also, the menu lags for about five minutes on startup. Other than that it's fine.
It clears up after all the menu buttons are highlighted with the white bars.

-Tyr
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2413
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Postby RabidZombie » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:40 am

I expect that's because during that five seconds it detects a low FPS and gets rid off the menu effects.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:23 am

bert_the_turtle wrote:The menu background rendering is unusually costy, it uses several alpha blended layers and uses more fillrate than the game graphics in normal situations. A "low detail menu" switch would definitely be of help here.

Like RabidZombie sort-of said, there should be an in-game detection of low framerates in the menu which will disable the fancy effects. I'm pretty sure we saw stuff like that in the beta, so I figure it's still in there.

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
frenchfrog
level5
level5
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Quebec

Postby frenchfrog » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:10 pm

From postrodent http://pixels.furiousbees.com/debug-dxdiag.txt :

Code: Select all

OpenGL vendor 'Microsoft Corporation', renderer 'GDI Generic', version '1.1.0', extensions 'GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture'


This is wrong, uninstall your driver completely, reboot, cancel all new hardware Winodws dialog, install latest ATI/AMD drivers.

Tell us if it fixed it?
The Ultimate Uplink Guide (for any question on Uplink)
Latest Uplink Patch
User avatar
Shwart!!
level5
level5
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:36 am

Postby Shwart!! » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:27 pm

jelco the galactaboy wrote:
bert_the_turtle wrote:The menu background rendering is unusually costy, it uses several alpha blended layers and uses more fillrate than the game graphics in normal situations. A "low detail menu" switch would definitely be of help here.

Like RabidZombie sort-of said, there should be an in-game detection of low framerates in the menu which will disable the fancy effects. I'm pretty sure we saw stuff like that in the beta, so I figure it's still in there.

Jelco


We did, but I no longer see it taking effect. I guess it got disabled in the release build, or maybe it just isn't working for some people.

Shwart!!
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:43 am

The menu effect turns itself off for me on my system, dunno about you.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
User avatar
Shwart!!
level5
level5
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:36 am

Postby Shwart!! » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:47 am

That is really unusual.
Maybe the change needs to be manually set, as well as automatic.

Even a preferences.txt option would help tremendously.

Shwart!!
User avatar
Swagman
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:42 pm
Location: UK

NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 - Fix?

Postby Swagman » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:31 pm

System spec:
Pentium 4 3.06 GHz CPU
1.5GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 graphics card
Win XP SP3

Just bought the retail game and am having the 'choppy framerate' problem discussed here and in other threads.

Any fix/suggestions or is it a lost cause because of my NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200?
Janzu
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:18 pm

Postby Janzu » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:35 pm

I'm affected too with my Nvidia Geforce FX 5900XT

As you can see it's one more Geforce series 5 card affected so it seems like Introversion used something that isn't completely supported by those cards. I hope this is fixable tho... During gameplay there occurs no lag
TomCat39
level3
level3
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:52 pm

Postby TomCat39 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:42 pm

postrodent wrote:I have a Radeon 9600 with the latest drivers, and 512mb of ram on an Athlon 64 3500+ cpu. Here's the debug and dxdiag files. Anyone from Introversion want to chime in here? I can't wait to actually play this. ;)


512 meg of RAM can be a serious issue. WinXP should have at least 1 gig to run well. 512 is bare minimum for WinXP so don't expect any real performance with that bottleneck. Maybe upping your RAM will stop some HD swapping witch in turn will free up some bus bandwidth etc etc.....
"Now, stop being a douche to the newbie, and run along."

xander
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2413
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Postby RabidZombie » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:49 pm

TomCat39 wrote:
postrodent wrote:I have a Radeon 9600 with the latest drivers, and 512mb of ram on an Athlon 64 3500+ cpu. Here's the debug and dxdiag files. Anyone from Introversion want to chime in here? I can't wait to actually play this. ;)


512 meg of RAM can be a serious issue. WinXP should have at least 1 gig to run well. 512 is bare minimum for WinXP so don't expect any real performance with that bottleneck. Maybe upping your RAM will stop some HD swapping witch in turn will free up some bus bandwidth etc etc.....


The problem is the graphics card, not the RAM. Hence why the common factor here has been the GeForce 5 series GPU, not the amount of RAM.

And you're very wrong. XP runs on 64MBs or RAM. I severely doubt RAM is the bottleneck here.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:03 pm

RabidZombie wrote:And you're very wrong. XP runs on 64MBs or RAM. I severely doubt RAM is the bottleneck here.

Yeah, we're not talking about Vista you know. ;)

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."

- Douglas Adams
TomCat39
level3
level3
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:52 pm

Postby TomCat39 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:09 pm

RabidZombie wrote:
TomCat39 wrote:
postrodent wrote:I have a Radeon 9600 with the latest drivers, and 512mb of ram on an Athlon 64 3500+ cpu. Here's the debug and dxdiag files. Anyone from Introversion want to chime in here? I can't wait to actually play this. ;)


512 meg of RAM can be a serious issue. WinXP should have at least 1 gig to run well. 512 is bare minimum for WinXP so don't expect any real performance with that bottleneck. Maybe upping your RAM will stop some HD swapping witch in turn will free up some bus bandwidth etc etc.....


The problem is the graphics card, not the RAM. Hence why the common factor here has been the GeForce 5 series GPU, not the amount of RAM.

And you're very wrong. XP runs on 64MBs or RAM. I severely doubt RAM is the bottleneck here.


But another user has the same card and doesn't have the issue so it's more than just the video card.

Just because XP will run on 64 meg (slow as molasses) doesn't mean it's running at top performance.

The video card can't do it's job if the machine is constantly swapping to the hard drive. Take your XP machine down to 64 meg and try any 3d game and tell me how well it operates.

Yeah, not a factor at all, and not recommended to up your memory. Especially for games.

It may or may not be directly related to this issue but it is good advice to up the memory in ANY case.

And I wasn't wrong, you misread. I said 1 gig to run well. But you conveniently ignored that tid bit.
"Now, stop being a douche to the newbie, and run along."



xander
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2413
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Postby RabidZombie » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:07 pm

TomCat39 wrote:
RabidZombie wrote:
TomCat39 wrote:
postrodent wrote:I have a Radeon 9600 with the latest drivers, and 512mb of ram on an Athlon 64 3500+ cpu. Here's the debug and dxdiag files. Anyone from Introversion want to chime in here? I can't wait to actually play this. ;)


512 meg of RAM can be a serious issue. WinXP should have at least 1 gig to run well. 512 is bare minimum for WinXP so don't expect any real performance with that bottleneck. Maybe upping your RAM will stop some HD swapping witch in turn will free up some bus bandwidth etc etc.....


The problem is the graphics card, not the RAM. Hence why the common factor here has been the GeForce 5 series GPU, not the amount of RAM.

And you're very wrong. XP runs on 64MBs or RAM. I severely doubt RAM is the bottleneck here.


But another user has the same card and doesn't have the issue so it's more than just the video card.

Just because XP will run on 64 meg (slow as molasses) doesn't mean it's running at top performance.

The video card can't do it's job if the machine is constantly swapping to the hard drive. Take your XP machine down to 64 meg and try any 3d game and tell me how well it operates.

Yeah, not a factor at all, and not recommended to up your memory. Especially for games.

It may or may not be directly related to this issue but it is good advice to up the memory in ANY case.

And I wasn't wrong, you misread. I said 1 gig to run well. But you conveniently ignored that tid bit.


XP runs very well at 512 MB with plenty of RAM to spare for Multiwinia. Trust me. I didn't ignore any of your post. You're just misinformed.

Also, I'd be very careful blindly advising RAM upgrades. It's a stupid thing to do, especially since available RAM isn't always problem, and if it is there are sometimes other options.

Also, who has a 5 series and doesn't have this problem? I don't see anyone. Would you also be interested in knowing that Shwart!!! swapped out his GeForce 5 series card for a different one and the symptoms disappeared?
TomCat39
level3
level3
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:52 pm

Postby TomCat39 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:40 pm

RabidZombie wrote:
TomCat39 wrote:
RabidZombie wrote:
TomCat39 wrote:
postrodent wrote:I have a Radeon 9600 with the latest drivers, and 512mb of ram on an Athlon 64 3500+ cpu. Here's the debug and dxdiag files. Anyone from Introversion want to chime in here? I can't wait to actually play this. ;)


512 meg of RAM can be a serious issue. WinXP should have at least 1 gig to run well. 512 is bare minimum for WinXP so don't expect any real performance with that bottleneck. Maybe upping your RAM will stop some HD swapping witch in turn will free up some bus bandwidth etc etc.....


The problem is the graphics card, not the RAM. Hence why the common factor here has been the GeForce 5 series GPU, not the amount of RAM.

And you're very wrong. XP runs on 64MBs or RAM. I severely doubt RAM is the bottleneck here.


But another user has the same card and doesn't have the issue so it's more than just the video card.

Just because XP will run on 64 meg (slow as molasses) doesn't mean it's running at top performance.

The video card can't do it's job if the machine is constantly swapping to the hard drive. Take your XP machine down to 64 meg and try any 3d game and tell me how well it operates.

Yeah, not a factor at all, and not recommended to up your memory. Especially for games.

It may or may not be directly related to this issue but it is good advice to up the memory in ANY case.

And I wasn't wrong, you misread. I said 1 gig to run well. But you conveniently ignored that tid bit.


XP runs very well at 512 MB with plenty of RAM to spare for Multiwinia. Trust me. I didn't ignore any of your post. You're just misinformed.

Also, I'd be very careful blindly advising RAM upgrades. It's a stupid thing to do, especially since available RAM isn't always problem, and if it is there are sometimes other options.

Also, who has a 5 series and doesn't have this problem? I don't see anyone. Would you also be interested in knowing that Shwart!!! swapped out his GeForce 5 series card for a different one and the symptoms disappeared?


The poster in question has a Radeon 9600 not a geforce card. I assume you know the difference between ATI and NVidia cards. I was talking about another poster in the thread said they have the same card (ATI 9600) and got it to work without choppiness.

And XP runs okay with 512, not very well. I'm not misinformed, I've experienced both. Once I upped my ram from 512 on XP to 1 gig, I noticed a major performance boost in everything I did. So I will always recommend upping RAM regardless of issue. There is nothing wrong with adding more ram to a low ram machine. There is however an upper limit and I won't say to go above 2 gig for an XP machine. Assuming a NON tweaked default install XP machine with resource wasting services running such as Indexing etc.

If you do an XP lite you can get XP running very well on 512 but that's not for the average user.

Just because you wish to discredit me, doesn't mean I gave bad advice as you'd have everyone believe. I'm not sure why you are trolling my posts. I wish you'd desist.
"Now, stop being a douche to the newbie, and run along."



xander

Return to “Windows Troubleshooting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests