"Unreal Engine 3" 's world Frustration...

Hi there!

I have downloaded Airborne demo, and installed it. Since it is based on Unreal Engine 3 , i was a bit sceptycal whether it would work well on my brand new laptop (core 2 duo t7700, 2gb RAM, 8400gs OC).

I decided to run everything at lowest settings (1024x768, textures:low, postprocessing: none, models:low) and, to my surprise, i got 22 fps average.

Then, i tried with everything to max, getting 14fps average.

My question is:

¿Am i getting this crappy FPS because it is a demo?
¿Can i configure more in depth graphic settings with the full version?
¿You reckon Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway will run at same fps?

thank you!

 

You're getting crappy FPS because you have a crappy video card for gaming. Demos aren't limited in terms of the quantity of graphics options. Rarely, anyways. Brothers in Arms runs better because it's a dated game compared to those in the Unreal Engine 3.

 

Have to agree with RR. Unfortunately your laptop maybe new (and has a fairly decent CPU), but your graphics card option is considered low end (I presume you have a 15" screen- res??). Even with OCing and lower screen res your card is going to struggle with the latest games out. I'm surprised you got that many fps in the first place and you can pretty much forgetting about turning on dx10 features. The 8400gs rapid decline to gaming extinct started before it was even conceived.

 

i have windows XP (so no dx10)... the screen is 14.1", and the graphics card... is not so ****!!! o comeon, maybe not the best, but definately not the worst!

anyway, i was asking about next Brothers in arms (coming on Q1 2008) based on Unreal Engine 3. Do you think it will run better than Airborne?

why isnt there so much difference in terms of FPS when setting Airborne to max and to minimum graphics detail (only 10fps difference)!!!

thank you

 

I hate to burst your bubble but the 8400GS is the worst DX10 card in nvidia's current lineup. The unreal engine fortunately is well-coded so your card can get away with lowish settings and still get decent framerates. The only good about the 8400GS compared to other cards is that it's DX10 compatible.

 

the 8400gs isnt that bad i tihnk

 

for a 13 inch laptop the 8400gs is the best u can get

 

well, i get 1700points at 3dmark06 which is pretty close to laptop's x1600...

anyway, my two questions are the following:

- why isnt there such a performance hit (just 7-10 fps) from MAXIMUM graphics quality, to MINIMUM in Airborne??

- you reckon the upcoming Brothers In arms will perform better than Airborne? and that UT3? and that Bioshock?

thanks

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

It may not be very accurate, but if you go down the list to position 48 you'll find your card.

 

7-10 fps from 22 is not a very small performance hit.

Try a 1024x 640 or 800x600, with textures on medium, the game should look better than all low and maybe be playable. Maybe with a little overclock.

 

the performance at 800x600, lowest settings, is 22 average after one hour playing.

at 1024x768, everything set to max including post processing, i get 14 average.

is this normal?
isnt the difference minimal, compared to the loss in graphics detail?

 

That is normal. Your CPU is pretty much making up the difference.

 

you mean that a Core 2 Duo T7700 isnt enough??

i dont understand. I thought that the difference between max and minimum graphics detail would mean a higher FPS rate...

 

No, I mean that your CPU is making up the rest in your performance. At those low resolutions, your GPU isn't as dependent as your processor. Hence, why you're difference in FPS is miniscule from 800x600 to 1024x768.

 

but why with Unreal torunament 3 i get 35fps with everything to medium?

 

Because the creators of the Unreal Engine 3 made UT3 and they are known for doing a much better job at scaling. MOHAA just isn't the most optimized game, whether it's Unreal Engine 3 or not.

Just don't expect awesome performance out of the 8400, keep your resolutions low and settings low, and you'll at least usually get playable games for right now. Or as with UT3, completely playable.

 

And do you think that Brothers in Arms Hells Higway will be as optimized as UT3??

 

Who knows dude, possibly. You sure have a lot of questions, lol

 

mate, i hate having to buy the newest 400$ video card to play games decently every now and then.... hate this consumism that generates gaming... i wish there was a graphics card that would regenerate every year, or drivers that would improve 200% performance... maybe in the next life

 

Well then you should have got a better laptop! Desktop cards - for 150 euro right now, not sure what the dollar price is, you can get desktop cards for 150 that will run those games at high settings on a 19" monitor, 200 will get you a card that'll run those games at 1680x1050 flawlessly.

I've never spent anywhere close to 400 euro on a card and usually play all my games on high settings at 1680x1050! (except the very latest ones, my x1800xt is getting old now, but i'm just waiting for stock to come in of 8800gt)

As for the 8400GS mobile, it's crap for the latest games. I had a desktop 8400GS briefly, which is more powerful then the mobile counterpart, and I could only manage 1024x768 low-medium settings on Airborne.

 

i agree with you, but for a gamer that is only going to play this year (next year going to serious studies abroad... gotta be concentrated), and needs a small laptop with long battery... and just wants to play Brothers in Arms series, including the one coming in may....

dont you think the 8400gs is the best option?

i hope i can run Brothers in arms hells highway at least at 1024x768, med graphics quality.... ... is it an utopy?