FPS ne grejo več kot 60. Razen pri eni igri...

Jaz imam problem, saj mi fps ne gre več kot 60. Tudi če spremenim grafične nastavitve. Prosim pomagajte. Moj racu: Intel Pentium 4; 3.35 Ghz, 1 Gb ram DDRII, Club 3D X800RX. Edino Painkiller leti z okoli 170 FPS.

Več kot konstantnih 60 FPS sploh ne rabiš, nikoli.

Vklopljen imas vsync.

Glede na zmogljivosti tvojega računalnika, ti dela dobro. Če pa želiš kaj več , pa začni razmišljati o novem računalniku za vsaj ene 800€ ali še boljše za 1000€.

Računaj na to, da če hočeš kupiti nov CPU moraš menjati še plato zaradi drugačnega načina napajanja. Mislim, da bi ti boljša grafična več pomagala...

OK, potem lahko menjaš. Ene plate vem, da so bile take, da nisi mogel... CPU ti ne bo pripomogel k dosti večjemu številu FPS, tako da kupi raje novo grafično.

EDIT: Napiši katero plato imaš.

Plošča je biostar i945p-a7. Vendar , procesor je vseeno srce. Na PcFormatu so delali igro navijanja in so navili pentium D iz 2.8 na 4.2Ghz in so se fps pri quacke IV skoraj podvojili. Sicer je 4.2 Ghz prenora frekvenca za,,, erm,, daljše trajanje.

Kaj, Club 3D 7900 GS se vam ne dopade?
http://www.mimovrste.com/katalog/produc...

Mogoče je tvoja grafična že dosegla optimalo pri tistem procesorju.

seveda rabis vec kot 60 fpsja, jst ko sem imel na staremu 40-80 in sedaj na novemu 250fpsja, orgomna razlika, manj se zatika, use deluje bolj gladko in pa orozja strelajo hitreje, kar je pri mnogih igra

In kakšen monitor imaš?

Če je LCD s temi FPSji dokazuješ da si... boš že ugotovil.

LCD ni sposoben prikazati več kot 60 do 75 slik na sekundo, CRT pa samo redki čez 100, običajno je tudi nekje okoli 75. Tako, da so FPS preko teh vrednosti 24 karaten BS.

Hmm, kaj pa TV, ki jih nariše 25 ali pa kino, ki nariše samo 24 sličic na sekundo? Kako se vam mora šele tam zatikat.

Meni je začel Cod 2 malo štekat, prej mi to ni delalo. Zanima me, če je lahko razlog pregrevanje.

> Je pa seveda res, da več sličic na sekundo, kot je monitorjeva frekvenca osveževanja, nima nobenega smisla.

kar tice same vizualizacije imas prav, ampak dolocene igre (q-engine) se obnasajo precej "lepse" na zelo visokih fps-jih. bad coding :)

Jao, spet nekateri, ko jim je 60fps dovolj. Zaženi quake 3, napiši com_maxfps 60 in igraj. Nato pa daj com_maxfps 125 in igraj tako. S tem, da mej r_displayrefresh 120 (če imaš crt). Pa potem komentirajte. Jao govorite eni BS.

Sc0ut, malo višje si preberi.

fpsju vidš največ tok kt maš osveževanje monitorja

recimo 170 FPS (ot trdi avtor te teme)
ne verjamem da sploh kak monitor omogoča

Fukni vstran ta komp pa vse skup še sebe zravn

Kdor pa z 60 fps ni zadovolen, se pa lahko kar na glavo postavi

določeni osebki ne bojo štekali nikoli... da bi pa zadevo preverili v praksi pa ni šans lol

verjetno ne uporablas kompa za drugo kot word pa kaka singeplayeri igrica, mi online playerji opazimo razliko .. to ti lahko govoris popolnim noobom da je 60 fpsja idealno za igranje ^^ poizkusi pr call of duty 2

jap, ves ta pogovor o pixlih gor in dol me spominja na pametovanje nekoga, da strašno opazi razliko med dpi občutljivostjo miši - med 1800 in 2000 dpi.
Skratka, dump.

Če bi pozorno prebrali temo bi mogoče opazili, da nima veze koliko je monitor sposoben prikazovati, problem je v pogonih igre, ki se drugače obnašajo, če je več fps...

Playthegame: verjetno ni tekoče niti na 45fps, samo to opaziš šele, ko igraš to isto igro na boljšem PC-ju, ki zmore več fps :D do takrat pa je itak super(v stilu sej ne šteka).

Meni je začel COD 2 iz neznanega razloga kar naenkrat lagat. Lag je opazen samo, ko disk kaj melje. FPSjev je medtem čisto zadosti in ne pade pod 45.

Kot je marvin42 rekel, Bill Gates to v povezavi s pomnilnikom nikoli ni izjavil. Baje je to rekel eden od IBM-ov ali pa od Intelovih inženirjev.

Sicer zdaj že dokaj stari članek, ampak vseeno zelo zanimiv: link

Did Gates Really Say 640K is Enough For Anyone?
Jon Katz | 01.16.97 | 8:57 AM

Earlier this week, in a column on Bill Gates, fellatio and media, and how all three relate to a profile of Gates in last week's Time magazine, this column daringly offered free software into the millennium to anyone who remembers one thing Bill Gates ever said. We were taking issue with the notion advanced in the magazine that Mr. Gates is shaping this or the next century as a visionary leader, as opposed to just selling lots of software.

Within minutes of the column's postings, the first challengers had emailed, all offering the same quote.

"I've got one for you," messaged a hacker from Cambridge. "Some years back, Gates said '640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.' Where do I pick up my software?"

Dan emailed: "I win! Gates said once that '640K software is all the memory anybody would ever need on a computer.' What do I get?" Susannah wrote from San Francisco: "Ha, Katz. You've finally stepped in it. Gates said that 640K of memory is all that anybody with a computer would ever need. Where's the stuff?"

Several dozen versions of the same quote appeared, all claiming victory and wanting the free software promised in the column.

We gulped. Were we caught in our own ruse? And could Bill Gates, the man journalism tells us almost daily is a profound visionary, have been so short-sighted?

We might be insufferable, pompous, Marxist, degenerate and all the other things people accuse us of, but that doesn't make us stupid. Do you honestly think we would offer anything free if we weren't 100 percent certain there was no chance we could lose? Claiming Gates has never uttered a memorable thought is as good and solid as gold. Take that to the bank, losers.

Check out this feature on the Huntsville Times (Tennessee) Web site, where you can read Bill Gates' impassioned denial that he ever said anything as potentially unprofitable as the quote attributed to him, and where you can also see just how safe our bet really is.

On the site, Gates takes questions from kids.

QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"

ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."

Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.

"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

Silly quotations do have a way of floating like rumors.

Well, the truth starts here.

He never said it. No free software.

Mr. Gates, on behalf of the Web community, we're setting the record straight. Although we never said it ourselves, we apologize for this outrageous slander, and regret even inhabiting a medium that would think for one second of a world bounded by memory too small to encompass Windows 95 or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

An aside - did you know you can ask him anything you want at: askbill@microsoft.com?

But, don't fret, software scroungers. As a consolation prize, Wired Ventures has decided to give free Power Macs to five million webheads. To qualify, you have to be 13, born at the precise moment Saturn crossed the Jupiter moons, and be willing to walk naked around the world without food or drink, and with a laptop hanging around your neck. Other details are being worked out. We'll be in touch.

Reading through Gates' Q&A with America's youth, we feel pretty good about our bet. A 14-year-old female asked him about probable career opportunities.

His answer: "There will be a wealth of opportunities relating to software."

Talk about vision. No wonder Time said this man is shaping our world.

***

Other favorite feedback from this column: A woman (a Wal-Mart shopper, no doubt) emailed in outrage that I had used the word "blow job" in a public forum. "You are disgusting," she messaged. "How dare you use a word like 'blow-job' in your column, you fucking moron?"

We also heard from the author of the Bill Gates piece in Time, the magazine's managing editor, Walter Isaacson. He suggested we read the piece again and rethink whether it was an act of fellatio or not. We did and we do.

But he gets points for being perhaps the only high-ranking editor in journalism who would respond personally and directly to criticism. For embracing interactivity, he gets the Media Rant 640K award.

no, to je pa že bolj skrajnost. Očitno rad gledaš diapozitive.

gre zato da sploh ne vidite teh 60 ali 120 fps
vidite zgol zatikanje pri 60hz - ja za delčke sekund pade fps na mnogo manj...
pri 120fps pade manjkrat

zato opazite 120 kot bolj tekoče ker je zgolj manj nihanj