PDA

View Full Version : Thief Gold timer is off.



Mr. Perfect
19th Sep 2003, 00:13
Just installed Thief Gold today, and everything moves much to quickly. Footsteps sound to fast, I run and bob faster then normal, and the holy water timer conts down in about ten seconds instead of 30. :(

The last time I played I had a 1.33GHz with a Voodoo 3 and everything was fine, since then I've swapped parts out for a 2600+ and a Radeon 9800. I'd assume that Thief wasn't made with faster machines in mind. Has this happened to anyone else?

LeatherMan
19th Sep 2003, 02:56
It seems as if the frame rate has a direct effect on the Thief 1 game speed. Turning VSync ON seems to fix this.

Mr. Perfect
19th Sep 2003, 04:04
Vysnc? Heh. I force that off for all the other games. :o Seems to me there are programs that make diffrent settings for diffrent games. I'll try to find one of those. :)

Peter_Smith
19th Sep 2003, 04:32
I have not observed a frame rate effect in any Thief version. I have ranged from a 400 MHz Celeron with original TNT to a 1.2 GHZ Athlon with Geforce Ti 4200, probably a factor of 20-30 in 3DMark score. Perhaps this is because I play with vsync on.

People who distrubute benchmarks like 3DMark usually ask you to turn Vsync off (or do it for you) so you will get the maximum possible frame rate that the graphics card can put out at any instant, regardless of whether the monitor is displaying each frame. There can be quality advantages (graphics tearing issues) to making sure that the card is not sending data faster than the monitor can display it. I think that turing on Vsync cannot hurt you, as I understand it.

DJC
25th Sep 2003, 12:38
Well I'm a few days late but I thought I'd reply anyway.
Windows 2000 and XP are much more efficient at doing what they do than Windows 98, they can perform calculations so much faster than 98 it just isn't funny. Anway, the "Garrett Racing Around" 'feature' is due to this. XP and 2K can process the game much faster than 98 in conjunction with a CPU that is much more efficient than Ye Olde Processors, and so throw many many more FPS to the screen than 98.
It is <i>not</i> to do with the Graphics card, but rather the CPU as the Dark Engine is not a T&L one and relies on the CPU to do the majority of the work. This explains why Peter Smith has not seen this 'feature' as his cpu is 'only' 1.2GHz and (I'm guessing) is an AMD Thunderbird.

Rather than turning Vsync on I think a nicer way of doing things is to slap some good old Anti-Aliasing on to remove some jaggies. It slows the game down to a much more playable rate, and looks nicer than just slamming v-sync on!
:)

Peter_Smith
25th Sep 2003, 20:34
Well, DJC, you are right about one thing. It is an Ahthlon Thunderbird. I am curious. Why should that matter? Why does going from 400 MHz no cache to 1200 MHz w/ signifiant cache have no effect on my speed but some more modern CPUs do cause a speedup? What is actually causing the increase wtih modern CPUs?

I changed from 98 to2000 and noticed no speed-up.

I thought that any game made in recent times would have a time scaling feature in its code. Or, it waits a certain number of milliseconds between each internal game clock cycle. Otherwise, everybody would complain, which they do not. Evidently there is a bug in that code that does not take into account some feature of modern CPUs.

DJC
26th Sep 2003, 06:54
The 'old' cpus (and I use that term to mean anything that isn't a P4 or AMD Athlon XP) are far less efficient that the new ones. If you lined up a AMD Thunderbird 1.33GHz against an AMD Athlon XP 1700 (1.47GHz) it would so much faster due to the improvement in technologies.
There is a function in Windows 2000 and XP that is a timer for all intents and purposes, this timer also exists in Windows 95/98/ME. There is an oddity about it that programs complied in Windows 9x run faster in XP, and stupidly fast with a hardcore-processor like an Athlon XP > 2000+.
I'll also point out that it really isn't suprising that the Dark Engine doesn't have a cap to fix this, after all it does have its roots in early 1996! :o