PDA

View Full Version : Next Gen Option...



superman37876
13th Apr 2006, 11:46
Just wondering what everyone is experiencing... I enabled the Next-Gen option, but the gameplay is choppy and stutters.

Here are some of my specs:

P4 3.0GHz
XFX 7800GS AGP (256MB)
2GB Ram


Anyone successfully used the Next-Gen?? I thought I should be able to, but maybe a patch will fix this.

Jurjen
13th Apr 2006, 11:48
Make sure to get the very latest Nvidia drivers mentioned in the sticky subject above. Also make sure to get the 1.1 patch. This should alleviate most of your problems.

superman37876
13th Apr 2006, 11:50
Wow...that was quick! Thanks for the quick response. Where can I find the 1.1 Patch? Is there a US version out?

Are the latest Nvidia drivers stable?

jimexbox
13th Apr 2006, 12:11
1.1 patch does not fix the 'nextgen' option. I would love to see a PC that can run TRL with it on.

I tried and failed. I'm running it on a PC with a Opty @ 2.8Ghz, 2Gb ram and two overclocked 7800gtx's. Even with this and 1.1 patch installed, 'nextgen' is totally unplayable.

Maybe patch 1.2 will be more successful.

superman37876
13th Apr 2006, 12:17
Hmmm....well if your specs can't run it.... then I know mine won't if you have dual cards. :cool:

What is supposed to be so great about the Next-Gen anyway? I know it had better graphics, but if the game stutters....then it's not worth it. Well until they get a new patch out.

galerie
13th Apr 2006, 12:20
i have the same problem with net gen...it stutters every few seconds...

Jurjen
13th Apr 2006, 14:01
Did you try the new Nvidia driver? It adds an SLI profile for Tombraider, and severely reduces the stuttering.

superman37876
13th Apr 2006, 14:14
Would the new driver help me since I have a Nvidia XFX 7800GS card?

Jurjen
13th Apr 2006, 14:16
The new driver should help everyone with Nvidia hardware.

superman37876
13th Apr 2006, 14:18
I guess when I get home, I'll download the new driver and take it for a spin.

King_dbm
13th Apr 2006, 18:05
I run next gen just fine, 4000+ OC to 2.9 ghz, 7900GTX I play about 40 fps in some areas outside, but on the indoor levels, and in caves and temples about 60-80 fps. I think the problem is 256 MB cards have a hard time playing TRL. I'd pick up a 512 card or go SLI if you really wanna play nextgen, wouldn't wait for a patch.

Zeeblade
13th Apr 2006, 21:54
Sorry but pick up a a new card to play a 10h game? Its been said here many times it has nothing to do with 256 or 512. Other games out now that look way better than this have no problem playing on a 256 card. Its the game. I wouldnt worry about it they will come out with a patch that fixes it. So DONT buy a new card if you have a 7800 now thats just stupid. Wait till the lol next gen graphic cards come out.

King_dbm
14th Apr 2006, 00:39
Do I think it's a wise choice to go out and spend 500 dollars on a video card right now? No. However i did say if they wanted to play the game THAT bad, with nextgen on, then yeah, go for it, if you have the money to spend. Do i think a patch will come out and make next generation smoother? Probably, but not by much, if at all. Most of the new games coming out are like this now. And a card for a 10h game? Oblivion just came out, thats a 200+ hour game, as well as many other future games. thats not a very good arguement. This is just the way a lot of future games are going to be.

We probably wont see any new video cards for another 6 months, and this games "next generation" is probably ment for those, as i only get 40 fps in a lot of areas running next generation.

Verios
14th Apr 2006, 00:41
Do I think it's a wise choice to go out and spend 500 dollars on a video card right now? No. However i did say if they wanted to play the game THAT bad, with nextgen on, then yeah, go for it, if you have the money to spend. Do i think a patch will come out and make next generation smoother? Probably, but not by much, if at all. Most of the new games coming out are like this now. And a card for a 10h game? Oblivion just came out, thats a 200+ hour game, as well as many other future games. thats not a very good arguement. This is just the way a lot of future games are going to be.

We probably wont see any new video cards for another 6 months, and this games "next generation" is probably ment for those, as i only get 40 fps in a lot of areas running next generation.

Atleast you get 40fps heh..I have a system very similar to yours but with a X1900XT and I cant hardly get over 30fps ususally around 15-24 heh (running 1680x1050..but I run games much more impressive than TR:L and get 60+ pretty much constantly :( )

puppeteer
14th Apr 2006, 00:50
Really I just can't hear it any more how the next gen option just is to much for current pc configurations!!!
For real I have played games that look better and on top of that 10x the action going on screen with an enviroment that is 100x the size of this games environment.
Bottom line is this game really sucks!!!
The game is good but the graphics in my mind are 2 generations old well atleast the way we are forced to play it.
They seriously need to patch this mess and stop giving pc gamers 2nd hand console ports!!!!!!!
DON'T BOTHER TO EVEN MAKE US PC GAMERS GAMES IF THEY ARE NOT OPTIMIZED FOR PC HARDWARE!!!!
KEEP THE CONSOLE CODE WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hotrippr
14th Apr 2006, 00:58
It is like a different world! Lara looks way better, and there is foliage everywhere and sky is better, some of the screenshots I have seen around just dont do it justice. I have the US version which was released 1.1.
Most of the time I see 60FPS but it will drop to around 40 once in a while but not for very long. I must say that this game has some of the besyt looking graphics around in next gen.

Specs
ASUS_P5WDG2-WS@260mhz_Pentium630_3.0@3.9GHZ
Sapphire X1900XT max OD
2X512CrucialBallistix800
HDA Xplosion DTS Audio

King_dbm
14th Apr 2006, 01:01
Atleast you get 40fps heh..I have a system very similar to yours but with a X1900XT and I cant hardly get over 30fps ususally around 15-24 heh (running 1680x1050..but I run games much more impressive than TR:L and get 60+ pretty much constantly :( )

It's ok, your card kicks my cards ass in oblivion, i think TRL was just optimized with Nvidia. Personally i'd rather have it the other way around anyway, as i spend mor time playing oblivion.

hotrippr
14th Apr 2006, 05:00
Also I think everyone should keep in mind that HT and Dual core patches are coming out for games like crazy lately, some of very recent are: COD2 and Quake4 which give significant perf increses. These games have something in common...next gen features. Maybe TRL will soon also.

Legendary Lara Croft
14th Apr 2006, 15:27
i got 6800 gt and next gen is still stuttering, even with new drivers. i am not sure what the problem is, my pc is pretty fast

BunnyLover
14th Apr 2006, 21:47
1.1 patch does not fix the 'nextgen' option. I would love to see a PC that can run TRL with it on.

I tried and failed. I'm running it on a PC with a Opty @ 2.8Ghz, 2Gb ram and two overclocked 7800gtx's. Even with this and 1.1 patch installed, 'nextgen' is totally unplayable.

Maybe patch 1.2 will be more successful.

It runs fine on mine (stats in sig) providing after loading a level, you give it 10 seconds or so extra time and spin the view around. Once it seems to have loaded it all in from first looking around, it runs very smoothly.

However, it does tend to warm the cards up a bit.
I'd be interested to know what sort of temps your gtx's run at.
Mine idle in the late 60's early 70's and after a lengthy session of TRL go to about 90. If I use SLI and heat up both cards, they get to the late 90's which I don't like. 16xAntiAliasing and 16xAnisotropic on FarCry only get the cards to the mid 80's.

Besides, I find NextGen mode way too dark and dreary to play and prefer the clearer look of OldGen. Some of the shine effects on Lara is way too much in NextGen as well.

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 11:42
So, I'm trying to figure out why this mode was even enabled on release... The performance is god awful and the visuals although nice don't justify the performance hit... Also the fact the huge performance drops are exactly the same regardless of resolution, or other settings AA/AF etc... Lead you believe whoever designed this mode are completely incompetent.

So what do you need for this to be playable? SLI/Crossfire? Just pisses me off PC users even though the hardware is more then capable get shafted again and again..

Specs like it matters..

XP SP2
X2 4400+@2800MHz
X1900XTX
2GB GSkill 500
X-FI SB Music..
Etc.. .

Prometeus
15th Apr 2006, 12:07
Maybe in the next patches, they will improve the performance of the next generation graphics, now we must wait.

PS The next gen crashes the computer on the level Kazajstan (i just have had serious problems with it on that level)

I think the main problem of the next gen is a bad programing of the High Dinamic Range (HDR). If you want a good example of a very good programing of the HDR, take a look of Oblivion (as i said, i can play Oblivion with everithing enabled and it runs perfectly, but i can't play so good in the TR Legend if i active the Next Gen graphics which uses a similar technology [they should refine the code a bit more])

[hitman]
15th Apr 2006, 12:26
Maybe CD should name what Next Gen actually Does....
as in describing what is does properley rather than just "Next Gen"
give full descriptions and PC stress warnings

Also have a Direct X version option in graphics like on COD2 would be brill.

Also advanced options for AA/AS/Af as well rather than on/off- have how many times you want it ;)

Of course it'll work on a Spec like that BunnyLover -One of the latest CPU's available-but majority of TRL players i know [around 20] are on slower CPU's compared to yours and how many of us have over 2GB of Memory ;) ....
so whether Issues weren't tested properly during Game /Torture Testing for the Minimum spec required is a big question....

CD should have stress test enough PC specs and have a auto detect option that only allows the Next Gen Option to fast Cpu's and gfx cards that can handle them ;) like BunnyLover's

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 13:05
']Maybe CD should name what Next Gen actually Does....
as in describing what is does properley rather than just "Next Gen"
give full descriptions and PC stress warnings

Also have a Direct X version option in graphics like on COD2 would be brill.

Also advanced options for AA/AS/Af as well rather than on/off- have how many times you want it ;)

Of course it'll work on a Spec like that BunnyLover -One of the latest CPU's available-but majority of TRL players i know [around 20] are on slower CPU's compared to yours and how many of us have over 2GB of Memory ;) ....
so whether Issues weren't tested properly during Game /Torture Testing for the Minimum spec required is a big question....

CD should have stress test enough PC specs and have a auto detect option that only allows the Next Gen Option to fast Cpu's and gfx cards that can handle them ;) like BunnyLover's

It’s got nothing to do with the CPU, its doesn’t even use dual core... Its purely bad coding.. They should rename it SLI only option as its unplayable on any single card...

SLI is just making developers lazy, We really could so without it,, its just making it worse for the majority of us with single cards..

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 13:06
You may notice that by default the option isn't enabled for anyone... They could stop people from trying to turn it on.. But how well would that go over? Look at all the PS2.0 people that would like to at least be able to turn it on, regardless of performance..

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 13:08
You may notice that by default the option isn't enabled for anyone... They could stop people from trying to turn it on.. But how well would that go over? Look at all the PS2.0 people that would like to at least be able to turn it on, regardless of performance..

Thats really not the point, one of the selling points for the game is the next gen mode and its unplayable.. Its bascially screenshot mode for reviews.. :mad:

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 13:17
Thats really not the point, one of the selling points for the game is the next gen mode and its unplayable.. Its bascially screenshot mode for reviews.. :mad:

the problem is: "next gen" activates ALOT of different things which makes the game run slow. if they would give us some seperate sliders we can customize it an only activate features we want...some prefer shadows...some effects like hdr...an others just want their lara looking the best possible way :D

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 13:22
the problem is: "next gen" activates ALOT of different things which makes the game run slow. if they would give us some seperate sliders we can customize it an only activate features we want...some prefer shadows...some effects like hdr...an others just want their lara looking the best possible way :D

Sorry, the graphics are not that good, there current generation and should run fine.. the reason they don’t is there only real focus is how it runs on consoles, they don’t give a ratz azz about optimizing for the latest PC hardware so the only hardware its playable on is SLI/Crossfire combinations as a result were forced to play with sub standard playstation quality visuals...

Don't get confused with the false marketing name, its not next gen..

Prometeus
15th Apr 2006, 14:15
I still think that is purelly an optimization problem, because there are games which offer much better graphics and they run perfectly on my computer (it's a good PC but not the perfect one, Athlon 64 3500, XFX 6800 GS OC (PCI-E), 1 Gb Ram...). I hope that the next patches will solve part of the problems

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 14:26
Sorry, the graphics are not that good, there current generation and should run fine.. the reason they don’t is there only real focus is how it runs on consoles, they don’t give a ratz azz about optimizing for the latest PC hardware so the only hardware its playable on is SLI/Crossfire combinations as a result were forced to play with sub standard playstation quality visuals...

Don't get confused with the false marketing name, its not next gen..

i think the main problem are shadows in next gen mode...they just suck cpu time. maybe they just deactivated "next gen" for shader 2.0 cards because "those with older graphics card will have a slower cpu, too"

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 14:32
i think the main problem are shadows in next gen mode...they just suck cpu time. maybe they just deactivated "next gen" for shader 2.0 cards because "those with older graphics card will have a slower cpu, too"

Naa, Shadows have no impact on performance here.... And again the problem is NOT the CPU.. I have a 4400+@2800MHz and is it playable for me? Feck no !

I'll have to go the crossfire route to make it playable.. A single X1900XTX just isnt enough, or least that thats what they might want you to think...

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 14:35
Naa, Shadows have no impact on performance here.... And again the problem is NOT the CPU.. I have a 4400+@2800MHz and is it playable for me? Feck no !

I'll have to go the crossfire route to make it playable.. A single X1900XTX just isnt enough, or least that thats what they might want you to think...

can you compare fps with next gen on between 800x600 and 1600x1200 resolution at the same screen ? (savepoint best location for that)

BunnyLover
15th Apr 2006, 14:45
It’s got nothing to do with the CPU, its doesn’t even use dual core... Its purely bad coding.. They should rename it SLI only option as its unplayable on any single card...

SLI is just making developers lazy, We really could so without it,, its just making it worse for the majority of us with single cards..

Actually, SLI isn't available at all unless you get a beta driver from nVidia. That supposedly adds support for SLI to nVidia cards.
From testing it with and without SLI on, it makes very little difference to the way it runs on my system. ie. If I give a new area 10 seconds or so of chuggy panning around when it first loads, the level is then smooth.




']Maybe CD should name what Next Gen actually Does....
as in describing what is does properley rather than just "Next Gen"
give full descriptions and PC stress warnings

Also have a Direct X version option in graphics like on COD2 would be brill.

Also advanced options for AA/AS/Af as well rather than on/off- have how many times you want it ;)

Of course it'll work on a Spec like that BunnyLover -One of the latest CPU's available-but majority of TRL players i know [around 20] are on slower CPU's compared to yours and how many of us have over 2GB of Memory ;) ....
so whether Issues weren't tested properly during Game /Torture Testing for the Minimum spec required is a big question....

CD should have stress test enough PC specs and have a auto detect option that only allows the Next Gen Option to fast Cpu's and gfx cards that can handle them ;) like BunnyLover's


Just an opinion here, but maybe NextGen actually does stand for that. Meaning, that when newer systems, cpus, gpus etc become available in a year or so, then it will run fine.

Remember back to when the original Quake was released? No one could run that on max settings when it came out. A year later though, it ran on the newest systems in max resolutions etc. Maybe that was the plan with TRL. Make it so a year down the road, it will still look undated.

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 14:48
I'm somewhat limited what resolutions I can test on my LCD but I have tried and the locations, levels where the framerate drops below 20FPS is consistent from 800/600 to 1280/1024 with or without AA enabled which does suggest its been coded by a moron..


Actually, SLI isn't available at all unless you get a beta driver from nVidia. That supposedly adds support for SLI to nVidia cards.
From testing it with and without SLI on, it makes very little difference to the way it runs on my system. ie. If I give a new area 10 seconds or so of chuggy panning around when it first loads, the level is then smooth.

Just an opinion here, but maybe NextGen actually does stand for that. Meaning, that when newer systems, cpus, gpus etc become available in a year or so, then it will run fine.


Well you can get SLI working as you just stated plus most nvidia users use the beta drivers anyway... And again its not next gen!, there is nothing visually that impressive about the next gen mode... Its a marketing name only.. Its really current gen coded very poorly.

Wait until decent games are released like UE3 engine based games and you will see better graphics, much more detail and excellent performance and they will make TRL looks a pile and crap in compassion.


Try disabling the shadows. See if that helps.

Note that I've played on a single X1900 with all enabled and I thought it ran just fine... Do you have the 1.1 patch? That improved it a lot.

Shadows makes no noticable difference and patch doesnt help in the slightest..

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 14:54
Try disabling the shadows. See if that helps.

Note that I've played on a single X1900 with all enabled and I thought it ran just fine... Do you have the 1.1 patch? That improved it a lot.

Prometeus
15th Apr 2006, 15:13
The shadows aren't the problem, switching them off you don't solve the performance problems. The main problem is the next gen, it isn't optimiced

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 15:31
The shadows aren't the problem, switching them off you don't solve the performance problems. The main problem is the next gen, it isn't optimiced

does disable shadows with next gen enabled really deactivate every shadow or just actor shadows ?

King_dbm
15th Apr 2006, 23:32
Honestly, I don't know why everyone says they can't play with it on using a single GPU. As i've stated, time and time again, i get a could CONSTENT 40-70 fps playing next gen, on my 7900 GTX. The only thing i can think is, everyone saying they can't do it is either A) using a 1900xtx or B) Using a dual core. As Thats the only difference, and maybe this game isn't using dual core very well, and it's CPU dependent. I am running a little bit lower res though, 1280 x 1024. Nvidia might be better optimized for this game as well.

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 23:52
Honestly, I don't know why everyone says they can't play with it on using a single GPU. As i've stated, time and time again, i get a could CONSTENT 40-70 fps playing next gen, on my 7900 GTX. The only thing i can think is, everyone saying they can't do it is either A) using a 1900xtx or B) Using a dual core. As Thats the only difference, and maybe this game isn't using dual core very well, and it's CPU dependent. I am running a little bit lower res though, 1280 x 1024. Nvidia might be better optimized for this game as well.

Can't really comment on nvidia performance but for me its completely unplayable.. So i'll complain and put down the game every chance I get thanks..

puppeteer
16th Apr 2006, 00:20
I see people posting this game is made for SLI/Crossfire read my post earlier I have SLI and with the beta drivers it still runs like sh@T.
This game is a major disappointment I have a nice PC and am forced to run this game PS2 quality!
I have decided I will not buy any game again that is on a console I will only purchase PC games.

jimexbox
16th Apr 2006, 09:34
I'd be interested to know what sort of temps your gtx's run at.
Mine idle in the late 60's early 70's and after a lengthy session of TRL go to about 90.

I fitted both my cards with Arctic GPU coolers (rev.3) They make the cards double width, something I can live with. Temp wise idle..card one 49c, card two 41c. Load (not looked on TRL) BF2 after a few hours play mid 60's.

hotrippr
18th Apr 2006, 20:37
Honestly, I don't know why everyone says they can't play with it on using a single GPU. As i've stated, time and time again, i get a could CONSTENT 40-70 fps playing next gen, on my 7900 GTX. The only thing i can think is, everyone saying they can't do it is either A) using a 1900xtx or B) Using a dual core. As Thats the only difference, and maybe this game isn't using dual core very well, and it's CPU dependent. I am running a little bit lower res though, 1280 x 1024. Nvidia might be better optimized for this game as well.
I do not know as well why people arent able to play next gen, it is totally playable for me with a X1900XTX also get 40-70 fps (locked at 60 with lcd vsync).

Shocky
19th Apr 2006, 16:13
I do not know as well why people arent able to play next gen, it is totally playable for me with a X1900XTX also get 40-70 fps (locked at 60 with lcd vsync).

Then your not in Next gen mode... You might wanna try enabling it then report back..

hotrippr
19th Apr 2006, 16:56
Then your not in Next gen mode... You might wanna try enabling it then report back..
Uhhh, duhhh! yes I am. Have been in next gen since I got the game. It works phine. Why do you think I dont have Next gen enabled?
Anyways...
Here is my specs:
ASus p5wdg2-ws overclocked at 260
P4-630 3.0ghz running at 3.9ghz
Crucial Ballistix 2x512mb Dual channel mode DDR2 800 pc2 6400 4-3-2-4
X19000XT flashed to XTX at 690/800
Raid0 SATA2 Gen2 with NCQ
HDA Xplosion DTS Audio

If you have anything close to this you should be able to use next gen...hey shocky you make sure your card is PCI-e not pci then report back here.

BTW without nex gen enabled I get 90-130fps.

ViperXtreme
20th Apr 2006, 09:24
like some folks said before, hope they added some next gen options like to set the normal map resolution, shadow resolution, as well as to either to enable or disable HDR rendering.

Shocky
20th Apr 2006, 17:06
Uhhh, duhhh! yes I am. Have been in next gen since I got the game. It works phine. Why do you think I dont have Next gen enabled?
Anyways...
Here is my specs:
ASus p5wdg2-ws overclocked at 260
P4-630 3.0ghz running at 3.9ghz
Crucial Ballistix 2x512mb Dual channel mode DDR2 800 pc2 6400 4-3-2-4
X19000XT flashed to XTX at 690/800
Raid0 SATA2 Gen2 with NCQ
HDA Xplosion DTS Audio

If you have anything close to this you should be able to use next gen...hey shocky you make sure your card is PCI-e not pci then report back here.

BTW without nex gen enabled I get 90-130fps.

Must but that intel CPU, because we know how much they own when it comes to games... :rolleyes:

jimexbox
20th Apr 2006, 18:22
Lets all admit it, the game is great but 'nextgen' sucks big time. I might have to invest in a Cray:rolleyes:

hotrippr
21st Apr 2006, 02:27
Must but that intel CPU, because we know how much they own when it comes to games... :rolleyes:
Maybe its your old DDR...you could buy a new board for DDR2 expected to be out soon but that also means you will have to buy new mem, when conroe hits all I will have to buy is a new proc...:D :p :p :p
Maybe you should learn how to optimize your system and you would get much better results.

razr85
21st Apr 2006, 03:19
uh without nextgen enabled and settings @ 1280*1024 w/4xAA and 8xAF i get avg 115fps on my pc

enabling 'nxt-gen' - i avg 10fps, and no matter wad other special effects i enable or disable, its the same...so yea...pathetic coding..

King_dbm
21st Apr 2006, 08:11
Maybe its your old DDR...you could buy a new board for DDR2 expected to be out soon but that also means you will have to buy new mem, when conroe hits all I will have to buy is a new proc...:D :p :p :p
Maybe you should learn how to optimize your system and you would get much better results.

I don't buy your FPS either Shocky has a better setup then you, and hes getting much worse FPS. And hes posted screen shots, so i know hes not lying about it. maybe in some areas you get that fps? Shocky has better processor, better RAM, so that makes no sense to me. Not trying to flame, it's just not adding up

ViperXtreme
21st Apr 2006, 09:28
anyone know hex editing? recently fiddled with the trl.exe and manage to see some of the toggling of advanced graphical features like normal map, speculiar, parallax mapping as well as shadows there, would be great if anyone could make each option configurable when next gen is running.

noxdg
21st Apr 2006, 10:32
Shocky, what version of the game are you running? From your posts it sounds like you have an unpatched Euro version.

The 1.1 for Euro versions does add a performance increase. The US version is the 1.1 out of the box.

My system is very similar to yours (AMD64 3000+, 1900XT), and in next gen mode (with everything turned on) I'm getting very playable frame rates...it's not where the SHOULD be, but the game is playable. Here's a Fraps screenshot:
http://www.bucklescomic.com/other/trl_NG_FPS.jpg

The top right corner is my FPS. It goes up in some areas, down in others. But 30 is the average. I personally beleive the FPS should be no less than 60 at all times.

I have to agree with you on the console versions. Most cross platform games will run better on a console....You bet it's marketing reasons, but it's also the fact that they can tweak it to that specific hardware configuration and it will run on the millions of other identical consoles just the same.

Sumpfmolch
21st Apr 2006, 10:55
anyone know hex editing? recently fiddled with the trl.exe and manage to see some of the toggling of advanced graphical features like normal map, speculiar, parallax mapping as well as shadows there, would be great if anyone could make each option configurable when next gen is running.

this would be nice ^^

hotrippr
21st Apr 2006, 16:55
I don't buy your FPS either Shocky has a better setup then you, and hes getting much worse FPS. And hes posted screen shots, so i know hes not lying about it. maybe in some areas you get that fps? Shocky has better processor, better RAM, so that makes no sense to me. Not trying to flame, it's just not adding up
Then honestly maybe it is a dual core issue. You dont have to buy anything...it is what it is for me...playable. I am not trying to sell anything nor have anything to gain so I dont see your point. My point is, it is either a dual core issue or people have serious issues on how to optimize their systems. I believe it is the latter. If he gets 70-130fps like I do without nexgen, actually he has a better system he shold get 200fps with nexgen disabled then I really dont see how it is not playable with nexgen.
It would do me no use posting screens as you would say they are fake or only in that area etc...dont believe me I dont care, it is your problem if you guys are gonna be arrogant ie "my system is the best on earth" or "I know everything so it must not be my computer". Just because you go out and buy the "Gamers" choice in hw doesnt mean it is guaranteed to be the best in all apps.
I do agree that they easily could have improved the engine, but thier focus is not on pc, its on xbox.

hotrippr
21st Apr 2006, 17:17
Here is a shot anyway.
http://img.techpowerup.org/060421/trl 2006-04-21 10-05-18-43.jpg

And whoever said playing with the ingame settings doesnt improve things well...this pic shows a 10fps increase with AA disabled.
http://img.techpowerup.org/060421/trl 2006-04-21 10-05-37-29.jpg

Maybe you all can learn from NOXDG, he seems to be doing things right.

DucusSumus
21st Apr 2006, 17:56
I run next-gen mode just fine with a 7900 GT (256 MB). I also have an AMD 64 3000+ processor and 1 GB of RAM... nothing special.

Next-gen mode looks very nice but I do have some gripes with it. There are numerous texture bugs (especially in the Kazakhstan level where certain snow drifts are transparent), the wetness and dirtiness effects were never added for next-gen, and the magnetic grapple is messed up (the actual grapple object is lower than the rope to which it's supposed to be attached, making it look very awkward). I hope that they will fix these issues in a patch somewhere down the road, but I don't expect to see anything soon.

Shocky
21st Apr 2006, 20:37
Shocky, what version of the game are you running? From your posts it sounds like you have an unpatched Euro version.

The 1.1 for Euro versions does add a performance increase. The US version is the 1.1 out of the box.

My system is very similar to yours (AMD64 3000+, 1900XT), and in next gen mode (with everything turned on) I'm getting very playable frame rates...it's not where the SHOULD be, but the game is playable. Here's a Fraps screenshot:
http://www.bucklescomic.com/other/trl_NG_FPS.jpg

The top right corner is my FPS. It goes up in some areas, down in others. But 30 is the average. I personally beleive the FPS should be no less than 60 at all times.

I have to agree with you on the console versions. Most cross platform games will run better on a console....You bet it's marketing reasons, but it's also the fact that they can tweak it to that specific hardware configuration and it will run on the millions of other identical consoles just the same.

I have the euro version plus patch.

hotrippr is just postingscreenshots where the framerate is at its highest, I get higher framerate in those locations then that but that doesnt represent the rest of the game, the odd thing about TRL is the framerate can be skyhigh and then with a slight mouse view change can be less then 15fps even though nothing more visually is being displayed..

noxdg
22nd Apr 2006, 01:35
I was going to mention Africa in my post as the all mighty resource hog. I love the visuals of that area, but in this case, it's practically unplayable.

The FPS are discouraging. Most of the time I'm trying to tweak my PC to see if I can raise the FPS instead of actually playing the game.

If we we're getting a solid 60fps throughout this game, I would have completed it by now.

I still believe a patch can solve A LOT of the problems in the Next Gen including low FPS. Heck, the 360 stays at a solid 60fps, and if that can be tweaked to run smooth, a PC that meets the requirements to play Next Gen should too.

Another thing I should have mentioned which Shockey mentioned is that developers don't care about PC gamers...well, they do care, but it's not a high priority because they can introduce patches where they can't for a console. Combine this with the consoles paying the big bucks to developers to make their gaming machine the "best" for their title, the developers will obviously put their time where their bread is buttered.

King_dbm
22nd Apr 2006, 09:05
No offense to shocky but this is why i didn't buy dual core. It isn't ready for games yet, I'm enjoying my 4000+ still, and i've yet to see many advantages to dual core yet. I will be buying a quad core when they come out, but for now, single core is still the way it goes it seems. Even with "dual core patches" single core is still ahead. It's sad really, but thats just the way it is it seems. Hopefully they will fix it, so i can go buy a quad core :-p

The bike level was prefectly playable for me. Thats strange that it was a slide show for you. I think I got a good 40 FPS playing it. Why such a huge difference? They need to seriously patch this game. Is this the future for PC gaming? Games made for consols and then being ported to PC's? It's going to Ruin PC gaming.

Driber
22nd Apr 2006, 09:12
no bickering, boys.
it's ok to compare hardware but lets keep the personal remarks out of it please

Shocky
22nd Apr 2006, 11:43
No offense to shocky but this is why i didn't buy dual core. It isn't ready for games yet, I'm enjoying my 4000+ still, and i've yet to see many advantages to dual core yet. I will be buying a quad core when they come out, but for now, single core is still the way it goes it seems. Even with "dual core patches" single core is still ahead. It's sad really, but thats just the way it is it seems. Hopefully they will fix it, so i can go buy a quad core :-p

The bike level was prefectly playable for me. Thats strange that it was a slide show for you. I think I got a good 40 FPS playing it. Why such a huge difference? They need to seriously patch this game. Is this the future for PC gaming? Games made for consols and then being ported to PC's? It's going to Ruin PC gaming.

Well the game doesnt uttilize dual core, but even if the game only uses one core, its still running at 2800MHz so performance still shouldnt be that bad.. But as you said it's starting to look more like this is what future console titles are going to run like oin the PC... I hope not but it isnt looking good so far..

The first bike level was ok, it was the second one and I havent tried it since patching since I can't actually remember which level it was on. :o

And heres a compare for noxdg.. Closest I could get it.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/storage/FPS5.JPG


no bickering, boys.
it's ok to compare hardware but lets keep the personal remarks out of it please

Thanks.. :thumbsup:

Rondar
22nd Apr 2006, 17:08
I just think it is really ugly coding for the next gen option; and possibly for the game as a whole.

I am using a Radeon x1600 and a AMD XP3200+. I get very smooth game play in Oblivion at 1024x768 with DDR and 2xAA. In TRL I get very choppy video and audio. Sometimes the video gets blurry. This game is not that so advanced that it should not run smoothly on a good mid level system and above.

Verios
22nd Apr 2006, 21:57
Here is a shot anyway.
http://img.techpowerup.org/060421/trl 2006-04-21 10-05-18-43.jpg

And whoever said playing with the ingame settings doesnt improve things well...this pic shows a 10fps increase with AA disabled.
http://img.techpowerup.org/060421/trl 2006-04-21 10-05-37-29.jpg

Maybe you all can learn from NOXDG, he seems to be doing things right.

That second screenshot is a little misleading..your basically looking out into the open with little to render aside from that background area (which isnt all that impressive)..nowater..no moving bushing...etc... no different than lookin up and the sky box and screaming how you get 100+ FPS. It would have been best to take 2 pictures of the same area (like your first one for example) with and without AA.

Shocky
22nd Apr 2006, 22:34
That second screenshot is a little misleading..your basically looking out into the open with little to render aside from that background area (which isnt all that impressive)..nowater..no moving bushing...etc... no different than lookin up and the sky box and screaming how you get 100+ FPS. It would have been best to take 2 pictures of the same area (like your first one for example) with and without AA.

Indeed, even the first shot doesnt match the shot noxdg posted.. he did actually post a better shot which gave him around 30FPS before it was deleted.. But it could have been better... maybe he will repost it.

damike
23rd Apr 2006, 04:33
I got tired of reading through threads looking for ways to make Next Gen work "properly" so I emailed EIDOS support about it. I got an e-mail from EIDOS yesterday and it simply said that for Next Gen to work properly (without stuttering), you'll need a 512MB Video Card. Hmmm... don't you guys think that's a bit to high a requirement? I mean, I have F.E.A.R. which I think is a very 3D intensive game and I get an average of 50FPS, same as with COD2.

Here's my PC specs:
P4 2.8C @ 3.4GHz
1024 MB DDR400 RAM
GeForce 6800GT 256MB

I really think they're using the 512MB RAM as an excuse for really bad coding.
:eek:

Verios
23rd Apr 2006, 05:07
I got tired of reading through threads looking for ways to make Next Gen work "properly" so I emailed EIDOS support about it. I got an e-mail from EIDOS yesterday and it simply said that for Next Gen to work properly (without stuttering), you'll need a 512MB Video Card. Hmmm... don't you guys think that's a bit to high a requirement? I mean, I have F.E.A.R. which I think is a very 3D intensive game and I get an average of 50FPS, same as with COD2.

Here's my PC specs:
P4 2.8C @ 3.4GHz
1024 MB DDR400 RAM
GeForce 6800GT 256MB

I really think they're using the 512MB RAM as an excuse for really bad coding.
:eek:

It is a rather lame excuse as I have a 512 mb card (X1900XT) and it runs horribly compaired to other games that are far more impressive from a technical standpoint..oblivion to name one. Not only that but next-gen for PC has a rather large list of issues that need to be sorted out (shadows..invisible textures..etc.. anyone? heh) Seems almost like it was a tad rushed to get it out...again...all in all though it still is rather impressive but it SHOULD run a whole heck of a lot better for what it is. Bunch of fairly impressive texture and effects slapped on to lower resolution background with one overly impressive character model vs the rest and not only that but most of the areas are very small...

hotrippr
23rd Apr 2006, 05:13
That second screenshot is a little misleading..your basically looking out into the open with little to render aside from that background area (which isnt all that impressive)..nowater..no moving bushing...etc... no different than lookin up and the sky box and screaming how you get 100+ FPS. It would have been best to take 2 pictures of the same area (like your first one for example) with and without AA.
I still had to look for bad spots, sure the game stutters once in a while but not enough to be unplayable, really have to hunt for bad spots.
Here is Africa in the worst possible spot where the FPS is at it's lowest, in this order:
1.Full settings
2.NoAA
3.NoAA NoShadow
http://img.techpowerup.org/060423/afull987.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/060423/aNoAA.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/060423/aNoaashadows.jpg

hotrippr
23rd Apr 2006, 05:17
And I only screamed about getting a 10FPS increase with out aa not 100FPS.

Verios
23rd Apr 2006, 05:41
And I only screamed about getting a 10FPS increase with out aa not 100FPS.

The 100fps thing was an example hotrippr. One thing Ive noticed is that TR:L AA uses 4x pretty sure...this is another case of giving us more options to set it to 2x..2xQ...4x..8x..etc..etc.. heh. Also not sure if anyone else has this issue but my performance in the majority of those "bad spots" seems to be bad regardless of AA, AF and resolution.

hotrippr
23rd Apr 2006, 06:03
The 100fps thing was an example hotrippr
Well then it was a bad example. Lets please leave all the sarcasm out, if we can.

US version1.1
Since some of us have ATI here are some settings that I have in CCC
AA set to let app decide
AF set to app decide but have HQ checked
Cat AI set to Advanced
Mipmap at HQ
Vert ref set to off unless app decides (you have to run TRL settings to enable vsync, it cannot be done through the game menu).
Overdrive at max.

With 1gb of mem you should have virtual mem set to 1.5x=1536 for min and max, in windows.

Defrag
Scan for viruses or resource hogs
Disable as many processes as possible
Get the April 2006 update for DirectX
Update drivers for Vid and sound
If euro get 1.1 patch
Run on 0 affinity, if dual core

If all else fails run the game without your sound card and see if it improves. If you cant take out your card because it is onboard then disable onboard audio in the bios and try that. I say this because some cards have been known to cause slow FPS in certain games.

I can run the game so far without major issues with full Nexgen settings. If you have tried everything and still bad performance...good luck.

Hopefully we all can post helpful posts, if you think there is anything else others may try please post it for them.

Verios
23rd Apr 2006, 06:37
So far the biggest FPS boost for me was installing DriverHeaven Zeropoint drivers 0.63.

hotrippr
23rd Apr 2006, 06:45
So far the biggest FPS boost for me was installing DriverHeaven Zeropoint drivers 0.63.
Yeah I have heard good things about those drivers, some people are having issues with Cat6.4 from ati, hopefully 6.5 will be better. But I think most people should stick with Cat6.3, or the 0.63 from driverheaven.

Verios
23rd Apr 2006, 06:55
Yeah I have heard good things about those drivers, some people are having issues with Cat6.4 from ati, hopefully 6.5 will be better. But I think most people should stick with Cat6.3, or the 0.63 from driverheaven.

Indeed, granted it's no 15 FPS boost or nothing along those lines but the image quality is by far better and FPS for the most case has improved by 2-3 FPS overall.

hotrippr
23rd Apr 2006, 07:02
Indeed, granted it's no 15 FPS boost or nothing along those lines but the image quality is by far better and FPS for the most case has improved by 2-3 FPS overall.
I will be giving that a shot, better quality with same or even slightly more fps sounds good.

Shocky
23rd Apr 2006, 11:10
The 100fps thing was an example hotrippr. One thing Ive noticed is that TR:L AA uses 4x pretty sure...this is another case of giving us more options to set it to 2x..2xQ...4x..8x..etc..etc.. heh. Also not sure if anyone else has this issue but my performance in the majority of those "bad spots" seems to be bad regardless of AA, AF and resolution.

Thats pretty much the experience I've had with the game, although depending on whats happening on screen the results from disabling AA and Shadows will differ allot.. Some locations will show 10FPS increases with shadows disabled and some with AA disabled and some not at all..

Its a shame they didnt include a timedemo to benchmark and compare performance.

I still think the game is unplayable, most of the gameplay is at around 30FPS with the framerate differing around 15fps either way depending on the scene. Not an enjoyable experience imo.

Montresor
26th Apr 2006, 11:05
NG On, right after cut scene... didn't touch mouse

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/MrBateman/trl-2006-04-26-03-57-39-37.jpg

NG Off, same, just hit escape and disabled NG...

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/MrBateman/trl-2006-04-26-03-58-02-22.jpg

NG Sucks as it has texture / lighting glitches and missing effects (notice the lack of the rainbow). The framerate still isn't what I'd consider playable as it easily dips down to 20 instantly from most anywhere here.

Add that I can't even load the Kasakhstan level w/ NG on, $40 on the pc, $60 on the 360... I thought I'd get what I paid for by buying a decent system... bleh.

Rondar
26th Apr 2006, 16:09
You guys with high end systems think you are P%$#sed, I have a mid level system and it is absolutely obvious how bad the coding is on TRL.

I think most will agree the level of complexity of The Elder Scrolls Oblivion is at least a magnitude or so above TRL. Yet, I can run Oblivion at 30 FPS with HDR and 2xAA with high settings. Oblivion runs smoothly and looks spectacularly beautiful, but TRL has jerky video and audio and looks incredibly muddy at times.

We deserve a patch and soon. For now TRL goes back in the box.

A7N8X-E
AMD XP3200+
Radeon X1600Pro
1 GB DDR

JANKERSON
27th Apr 2006, 11:46
Just to see what it would look like on my system I enabled NG.

My Specs:

Abit AS8
P4 530J
2 GB DDR 400
X800 Pro

I took Screenshots with it on and off.

Link here: Post #85 has the Screenshots.

http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/showthread.php?p=976556#post976556

Montresor
1st May 2006, 18:29
The new drivers at www.evga.com help a little.

I still get stuttering at 640x480 with the sound options nerfed to the max (full software emulation).

W
T
F

TJSimulation
4th May 2006, 20:04
For those of you who have 512 MB GPUs:
What kind of frame rates do you get? I want to upgrade my video card to a 512 MB ATI Radeon x1600 (of course, not JUST for TRL), and I was wondering what the game would run like. In case you need them, my CPU is 1.8 Ghz and I have 768 MB DDR RAM (DIMM type memory).

Montresor
4th May 2006, 20:10
Runs like crap w/ NG on. Good FPS, but stuttering makes my skin crawl.

Montresor
4th May 2006, 20:12
For those of you who have 512 MB GPUs:
What kind of frame rates do you get? I want to upgrade my video card to a 512 MB ATI Radeon x1600 (of course, not JUST for TRL), and I was wondering what the game would run like. In case you need them, my CPU is 1.8 Ghz and I have 768 MB DDR RAM (DIMM type memory).

Might not benefit much from a high end card, as you'll need a decent system backing them to reap the full benefits...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=4

TJSimulation
4th May 2006, 20:24
Ugh, that sucks. :( I was planning to by a new processor anyway, but I'm not getting that for a while...anyways, CD or Eidos should make next gen run better on the recommended specs (although my PC won't have all recommended specs, at least it would be able to run well). I could have just bought the PS2 version...the reason I bought it on the PC was to get next gen...awell, at least I can use a controller.