Comments on: Optimizing Warhammer Online's Game Performance

By: Da Blog » Blog Archive » Forum Trollkodás meg ilyesmik

Da Blog » Blog Archive » Forum Trollkodás meg ilyesmik — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:43:33 +0000

[...] jut eszembe, valakinek ígértem egy kis warhammer performance boostot. Nyomom is a linket a how-to ról, nekem ezek a settingek vannak beállítva és elég fasza. – Win7, 6GB Ram, nvidia 8800 [...]

By: Kaznof

Kaznof — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:45:39 +0000

Very cool, thanks!

By: Evan Sims

Evan Sims — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:50:26 +0000

You are correct that there are pros and cons to Vertical Sync. All vertical sync does is limit your frames to the refresh rate of your monitor. This was useful back in the days of CRTs, but for LCDs this is less so. Most LCDs have a refresh rate of 60. So, by enabling this you are limiting yourself to a theoretical 60 frames per second. The catch here is that (1) few machines can run WAR at a stable 60 FPS, so it doesn’t really matter, and (2) by enabling vertical sync you can unlock pre-rendering. This allows the game engine and your graphics card to pre-render scenes a frame or two ahead before they’re really needed. This makes for a smoother looking experience in situations where your frames are already low, such as keep/fortress/city sieges, and can sometimes be beneficial in other circumstances as well.

So, you are correct, for most games vertical sync would be a no-no; but in WAR this is a little different. If your PC is one of the few that can run above 60 FPS, don’t enable it. Otherwise it’s good to have.

Thanks!

By: Kaznof

Kaznof — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:59:17 +0000

Looks pretty good! Only question I have about this is the Vertical Sync setting… my limited understand of such things is that Vertical Sync being On hurts performance but is necessary for CRT monitors to make things smooth… ie it should OFF if you have an LCD monitor, and that should improve performance ever so slightly without making things look worse.

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:20:44 +0000

Great stuff, thanks for posting this

By: Evan Sims

Evan Sims — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:19:56 +0000

It couldn’t hurt to try, but you probably won’t be able to get much more out of that 256MB. I would start with a very low value, something like 0.5, and work up/down from there based on the performance you’re seeing. If you get crashes, or a lot of hard drive activity (indicating textures being swapped in and out of memory from the swapfile) or corruption in the appearance of textures, I’d lower it in small intervals.

By: Heaven's Agent

Heaven's Agent — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:04:37 +0000

Would forcing a greater texture cache have any effect on a 256 MB card, in particular a GeForce 8600 GTS? If so, what setting would you recommend?

By: RJO

RJO — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:28:20 +0000

Copy and paste guys… one line of code