Do people have problems with this?
SM2 stands for Shader Model 2.0 which is used by older videocards, whereas most modern videocards support SM3 or even SM4. So it does remove some sort of legacy support.
I don't really mind though, spares like 1/3 of the shader recompiling time... :P
EDIT:
You can check if you're videocard support SM3 by looking for the specification "Pixel Shader" and see if it is at least 3.0
I do have a prob. Mah 7900gs won't be able to manage. SM3 is too heavy :/
And no, I can't get a better one, I'm saving monies.
Ah yes, I forgot to tell videocards don't actually call it Shader Model in the specifications, you have to look for "Pixel Shader". The 7900GS support Pixel Shader 3.0, thus SM3 :)
Quote
Geforce 7900GS Chipset Features
Full MicrosoftÃ,® DirectXÃ,® 9.0 Shader Model 3.0 Support
The standard for today's PCs and next generation consoles enables stunning and complex effects for cinematic realism.
Also, I never said PS actually runs fine on SM 2.0 :P Technical answer being: SM2 only support 64 instructions per material (a collection of textures), whereas SM3 128 and SM4 even more. We will have to provide special SM2 shaders for a lot of props, also the spy material (which is 100 instructions). Hence I rather see it go than come. It also limits Epic implementing new high rendering techniques because rendering SM2 material is slightly different.
Do more people have problems with SM2 getting removed? Note that I haven't found a way yet to force using a specific Shader Model. If your videocard supports SM3, it will use SM3, you can't force it to use SM2. SM4 is automatically used when DX10 mode is enabled, only by disabling that you can use SM3 (again never SM2, not because you don't support it, but because the game automatically picks the highest usable SM).
Materials rendered in DX10 mode (thus SM4) look fucking awesome btw :P
Oh. So I'm stuck with SM3 anyway. Too bad.
Quote from: Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet on May 29, 2010, 04:15:49 PM
Oh. So I'm stuck with SM3 anyway. Too bad.
I will ask Epic about this. Note that textures are only a small portion of the resource usage. Even when having textures render in 1x1 mode (so one big pixel, basically), you only gain like 2 FPS.
I guess it's fine...but i hope i will run PS with ~150+ fps on highest details :P
I guess you don't forgot about system req and optimalization :D ( not only graphic but netcode too )
I don't get 150 fps on PS and my PC is fairly up to date.
Quote from: frvge on May 29, 2010, 05:19:15 PM
I don't get 150 fps on PS and my PC is fairly up to date.
I get averagely 60 on my old GeForce 8800 GTS 512.
About the SM... My video card supports both SM3 and SM4.
Quote from: unskilled on May 29, 2010, 04:56:39 PM
I guess it's fine...but i hope i will run PS with ~150+ fps on highest details :P
I guess you don't forgot about system req and optimalization :D ( not only graphic but netcode too )
Graphic-wise there is not much to optimalize, we have to life with whatever Epic provides us (and can nag them when it's not how it should be). Thinks we can consider to speed things up is not using big while/for loops that run every frame, but there are cases that it is needed.
Other than that, we plan on adding a mix of time nudging and interpolation as netcode, replacing Epic's default movement netcode.
EDIT:
Here's an example of the technique for Q3: http://www.ra.is/unlagged/
Quote from: MulleDK19 on May 29, 2010, 05:29:06 PM
Quote from: frvge on May 29, 2010, 05:19:15 PM
I don't get 150 fps on PS and my PC is fairly up to date.
I get averagely 60 on my old GeForce 8800 GTS 512.
About the SM... My video card supports both SM3 and SM4.
Good to hear, that 150fps is hmm affectation but i hope i will be able to get highest fps as possible :D
Btw. PS will use 4cores?
@Lennard1989
Thanks for informations. I don't know how such things works so i ask :P
Well, I'd be happy with graphics comparable to kkrieger,
and performance along the lines of Quake 3 on a modern machine.
Yes.
Quote from: unskilled on May 29, 2010, 07:11:50 PM
Btw. PS will use 4cores?
The engine supports at least 2 cores.
I don't know about 4.
SM3 is actually 512 instructions, lennard.
Plus, you can buy a 9800GT for under 100 US dollars, which will perform better than my 8800GT from 2006 (which runs PS just fine, btw).
I don't even think you can buy a non SM3 gfx card anymore from most places.
QuotePlus, you can buy a 9800GT for under 100 US dollars, which will perform better than my 8800GT from 2006 (which runs PS just fine, btw).
Yay... Good news. And I can't believe my GT is that old already. 4 years old? I mean I got it about 2 years ago but the technology is old already. I can't keep up with this stuff. Call me casual I don't care lol
So basically SM2 support is just a waste of memory, if we want low graphics project stealth just include a SM1, 3, and 4? (well.. you might not need 4) Personally I don't care one way or another, size, shader model, graphics. Just happy to see this well under development to the point where you have to ask these questions. I have pixel shader 4.0 on my graphics card, so honestly this thread shouldn't concern me...
this system requirement and interface whining is getting annoying. mommy, i got no widescreen monitor. mommy, i got a 5 year old gfx card. mommy, i wanna play with a controller. CUT THE CRAP.
Quote from: Rambo on June 09, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
CUT THE CRAP.
No. These are actual issues that have to addressed if the game is to have a fan-base larger than just the people who have the "proper" hardware.
Nobody likes to play when somebody has an imba advantage.
Quote from: Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet on June 09, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Rambo on June 09, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
CUT THE CRAP.
No. These are actual issues that have to addressed if the game is to have a fan-base larger than just the people who have the "proper" hardware.
Nobody likes to play when somebody has an imba advantage.
Want no advantage? Go play Xbox ;)
Quote from: Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet on June 09, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Rambo on June 09, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
CUT THE CRAP.
No. These are actual issues that have to addressed if the game is to have a fan-base larger than just the people who have the "proper" hardware.
Nobody likes to play when somebody has an imba advantage.
Im sorry but interms of balance purposes , im afraid to say it, Jim he's right.
Quote from: Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet on June 09, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Rambo on June 09, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
CUT THE CRAP.
No. These are actual issues that have to addressed if the game is to have a fan-base larger than just the people who have the "proper" hardware.
Nobody likes to play when somebody has an imba advantage.
The UE3 doesn't require very powerful hardware. If you can't run it with 60+ FPS, your PC is shameful.
Quote from: MulleDK19 on June 09, 2010, 08:36:48 PM
Quote from: Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet on June 09, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Rambo on June 09, 2010, 01:16:28 PM
CUT THE CRAP.
No. These are actual issues that have to addressed if the game is to have a fan-base larger than just the people who have the "proper" hardware.
Nobody likes to play when somebody has an imba advantage.
The UE3 doesn't require very powerful hardware. If you can't run it with 60+ FPS, your PC is shameful.
Of course I can run it like that. With a tweaked config, with one model for all players, with 4x4 pixel textures over everything and without any post processing.
BUT! Will my configs work with PS? I doubt it.
I don't have a very good PC, neither is my laptop. I can assure you I'll do anything in my power to make it run properly on low-end machines, otherwise I can't play it properly myself.
If anything is going to be a drain on your FPS, it will be the dynamic lighting and shadowing. That is the largest determinant over any other effect and will have to be enabled for everyone due to gameplay reasons.
Luckily, FPS does increase well with lower resolutions. So if your computer does suck, you can drop to a lower resolution for a considerable FPS gain.
Nice. Well, I'm not planning to upgrade soon, at least not in the next 2 years.
Just fyi, my specs:
Pentium DualCore e2160 O/C to 2.35 GHz
1GB DDR2 RAM
GF 7900gs 256MB
And that's pretty much it, everything else is onboard, so it sucks.
But oh well, it does it's job.
Yeah, was wondering if I'm gonna have trouble running it on my laptop,
AMD Turion X2 RM-75 Dual-Core Mobile Processor
ATI Radeon HD 3200 Graphics
4 GB DDR2 RAM
When I ran the current PS build it ran great. Runs the UDK UT3 (deck, ect) maps with like 10-15 FPS. I can run Crysis on lowish settings with ~30 FPS. Haven't tried running UT3 yet. Think I'll be able to run it? I'm thinking yes?
you need at least 60fps all game through to play smoothly...
it amazes me that some of the devs here (like you and lenni) consider 30 fps as sufficient oO
Really you want to play at the FPS the Unreal 3 Engine best performs at; I'm not sure what it is, but I run CSS at 101fps constant because that's the best FPS for the source engine :P
30 frames is fine to me as long as it never drops below that.
I don't mean an average of 30 I mean a minimum.
Quote from: Rambo on June 10, 2010, 02:23:43 PM
you need at least 60fps all game through to play smoothly...
it amazes me that some of the devs here (like you and lenni) consider 30 fps as sufficient oO
Uhh...? I never said 30 was good.
Ever saw movies at 120FPS? It's simply a case of being spoiled with high framerates you can't stand any lower, whereas 24-30FPS is perfectly acceptable for most users who don't have a octocore PC with the latest Nvidia graphics card. Anything lower than that will appear sluggish.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on June 10, 2010, 07:15:02 PM
Ever saw movies at 120FPS? It's simply a case of being spoiled with high framerates you can't stand any lower, whereas 24-30FPS is perfectly acceptable for most users who don't have a octocore PC with the latest Nvidia graphics card. Anything lower than that will appear sluggish.
Movies don't have graphic engine. Games works different on another Frames Per Second rate ;) For example CoD4 125+FPS = longer and higher jump.
Quote from: unskilled on June 10, 2010, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: LennardF1989 on June 10, 2010, 07:15:02 PM
Ever saw movies at 120FPS? It's simply a case of being spoiled with high framerates you can't stand any lower, whereas 24-30FPS is perfectly acceptable for most users who don't have a octocore PC with the latest Nvidia graphics card. Anything lower than that will appear sluggish.
Movies don't have graphic engine. Games works different on another Frames Per Second rate ;) For example CoD4 125+FPS = longer and higher jump.
That's because the engine is fucked up.
That's called bad programming. My point is: Ever had the feeling movies were sluggish/lagging? NO! 24FPS is a perfectly normal framerate. It has nothing to do whether or not it's a graphics engine, or do you honestly believe Shrek 2 (which is a movie rendered by a graphics engine, duh) HAS to be played at 120FPS for best experience?
If it has double-vision for 3D effect, yes :P Agreed about bad programming. FPS shouldnt affect anything gameplay-wise as long as it is 24fps or better.
there's hell of a difference between 24fps and 60fps, especially in interactive use.
It's annoying watching movies... They're so fucking laggy.
Anything below 60 is just extremely laggy and annoying to me.
Argh, stupid TVs running 25-30 fps, fucking sucks, I can almost count all the frames... So fucking slow! >:(
Yea! Time to put a new graphics card in my TV!
Quote from: LennardF1989 on June 11, 2010, 07:30:25 AM
Yea! Time to put a new graphics card in my TV!
i lol'd.
Anyway, we got some badass programmers, so I'd think they'd do their best to figure out any way to get the minimum requirements as low as they can. Right guys?
Quote from: tigaer on June 11, 2010, 07:42:50 AM
Quote from: LennardF1989 on June 11, 2010, 07:30:25 AM
Yea! Time to put a new graphics card in my TV!
i lol'd.
Anyway, we got some badass programmers, so I'd think they'd do their best to figure out any way to get the minimum requirements as low as they can. Right guys?
As said, I want to be able to play at a absolute minimum of 24FPS with the best experience (light/shadow wise), without having to upgrade either my laptop or my PC.
i still can't decide where to go with my system.
atm all i got is a 17" macbook pro 2009 model and some hifi stuff.
it does 95% of what i need beautifully, but sometimes i'll want to play some windows-only games with some raw hardware gfx power on a fucking large screen, use maya with furryball etc.
any suggestions?
Dude, it's a Mac!
Quotebut sometimes i'll want to play some windows-only games with some raw hardware gfx power on a fucking large screen, use maya with furryball etc.
any suggestions?
Get a windows PC.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on June 12, 2010, 02:28:02 PM
Dude, it's a Mac!
I would kill for one right now, need to debug a payed website I made which seems to be borked big-time on a Mac/Safari combination.
You don't need to do anything with a mac. They magically upgrade. With magic.
magic up your ass ;D