To have a Higher FPS?

[wcwraymond]

My question is: What are the best ways to achieve as much graphics without a lower Frame per Second (or a drop in FPS not too significant)?

I have heard of these methods:
1. GameXp or some other boosting programmes.
2. Malloc
3. Clearing all rubbish files away (my Harddisk has struggled hrad that now only 19.3GB is occupied including the 7.7GB MTW2)

I am now using 1.. And Is 2.Malloc useful?

I have Norton's tool for Malloc and Window Xp itself's tool. Which Malloc tool is better?

My PC sepcifications is:
WinXP SP2
Intel Pentium 4 3000hz
1024Mb Ram
Nvidia GeForce 6600GT

It seems it can't really take on Medium Texture too much without overheating the display card. Is it Normal?

[Metellus]

My system is very similar to yours. Do not go with the default graphics options. Click "show advanced options" in the video settings. Remove bloom, shadows, antialiasing; choose Shader1. Defrag your hard drive and make sure that there is enough space on your drive to accomodate your swapfile.

Can't help you with the other stuff though.

[bip]

Click "show advanced options" in the video settings. Remove bloom, shadows, antialiasing; choose Shader1.

Can't help you with the other stuff though.

I have a similar system too and I don't suggest switching to shader 1. Switching to shader 1 just gives 3-4 FPS more, which isn't a relevant amount.
YOu should only choose shader 1 if you want to play with high textures, since
in shader 1 the bump mapping is removed, so a GeForce 6600GT can hanle the high textures. But shader 2 effects a worth sarcrificing high textures in my opinion...

[Tao]

I'd definitely remove anti-aliasing and shadows. Especially shadows. My system is not as good as yours, but I get a pretty good frame rate with bloom turned on and most of the rest put to medium-high. And during sieges the thing just lagged with shadows on, even on LOWEST. When I totally put off shadows it was all fine.

[Metellus]

But shader 2 effects a worth sarcrificing high textures in my opinion...

I was under the impression that the Shader effects were only applied to shadows, so if you turn shadows off completely, no Shader 2 necessary.

However if there are Shader 2 effects that are implemented without shadows, I'll give it a try (what would those effects be?) since I use Medium textures. High textures too slow (not much difference), and Low textures look terrible (blurry).

Since there's so many options, I'd be interested to see screencaps of the graphic options screen from people who are running with the GeForce 6600~. I'm not upgrading for a while and would like to find the best setup for my card. In fact I'll make a screencap of mine and post here.

But yeah, shadows and antialiasing both produce a bigtime performance hit, even on lowest.

EDIT: As an aside, what's the performance hit with changing unit size settings? I haven't toyed with this yet, and I'm on the default (probably medium/small?).

Oh and another thing: change Building Detail to low. Huge difference in sieges.

[bip]

Shader 2 effect add all this nice bump mapping, looks really cool. And bloom is a nice thing to have too. The difference betwean shader 1 and shader 2 (shadows off) is only 3-4 FPS, not much. I am also plying on huge unit settings and in the big battles (c.a.4000 men) i get decent FPS (between 16 and 20). The only serious lag I encountered thus far was in sieges in big cities, but considering the huge amount of people expiriencing the same, I think it's just lack of optimization, a bug which CA should take care of.

I don't know how to make screenshots, so i can't post any...

[Price]

I was under the impression that the Shader effects were only applied to shadows, so if you turn shadows off completely, no Shader 2 necessary.

However if there are Shader 2 effects that are implemented without shadows, I'll give it a try (what would those effects be?) since I use Medium textures. High textures too slow (not much difference), and Low textures look terrible (blurry).

Since there's so many options, I'd be interested to see screencaps of the graphic options screen from people who are running with the GeForce 6600~. I'm not upgrading for a while and would like to find the best setup for my card. In fact I'll make a screencap of mine and post here.

But yeah, shadows and antialiasing both produce a bigtime performance hit, even on lowest.

EDIT: As an aside, what's the performance hit with changing unit size settings? I haven't toyed with this yet, and I'm on the default (probably medium/small?).

Oh and another thing: change Building Detail to low. Huge difference in sieges.

I can confirm: If you have shader 2 ON but Shadows OFF (Completely), the player bump-maps and shadowing WILL show. I.e. A soldier with his front to the light source will have his back shaded etc. However he will not cast a plain shadow across the ground. (It's the setting I use currently, but I'm thinking about turning shadows back on... Having no shadows on the ground loses a lot of definition, and it gives me the feeling that the soldiers are moving in a 3D playground not a battlefield. Well, that's just me)

Hope that clears it up.

[Metellus]

Thanks, did some testing over the weekend. TBH, Shader2 doesn't really add much for me, particularly since playing with shadows is an absolute no-no for me. I didn't notice the bump-mapping... whats the visual effect of that? Antialiasing is nice, which my card can handle until it comes to big siege battles, when bigtime lag kicks in. Since I am looking for settings that are a good compromise in all types of battles, I just leave antialiasing off (I tried putting antialiasing on in my card settings - instead of ingame - but not sure yet if there is any performance benefit).

I certainly hope the lag during sieges can be improved on with the patch. Huge unit sizes don't seem to make much performance difference, although again, siege battles see an FPS drop, which is a shame since I don't understand the performance liability of a couple of static buildings. Bloom I dislike, very bright pseudo-sunlight, ugh!

[Sammyboi]

Two ideas which I don't believe I've seen anyone else suggest yet:

1) Create a new 'gaming' profile on your XP install. To do this just create a new profile then log into it. When you're in turn off system restore, automatic updates and remote assistance. If you don't know how to do these things a quick google should explain it. Then you want to switch to 'classic' desktop view. Then you should turn off all the fancy looking features of XP by going 'my computer'->'properties'->'advanced'->'performance'->'settings' and choosing best performance. Then you should exit all tray applications that you aren't using. This should all free up the maximum amount of memory possible. I normally dont bother playing games in my usual XP account and just use my gaming one.

2) If you use a laptop like me, make sure the power settings are set to deliver as much power as the system needs. My own setup has dozens of power preset options, and I get the best performance if I chose the setting labelled 'Game' because it stops all battery charging and instead sends 100% of the power to the system when needed. So watch that you aren't set on some energy saving setting because it will slow you down.

[vikrant]

try stickied threads

[Metellus]

1) Create a new 'gaming' profile on your XP install. To do this just create a new profile then log into it. When you're in turn off system restore, automatic updates and remote assistance. If you don't know how to do these things a quick google should explain it. Then you want to switch to 'classic' desktop view. Then you should turn off all the fancy looking features of XP by going 'my computer'->'properties'->'advanced'->'performance'->'settings' and choosing best performance. Then you should exit all tray applications that you aren't using. This should all free up the maximum amount of memory possible. I normally dont bother playing games in my usual XP account and just use my gaming one.

Thanks I'll give this a go.