Actually I believe the source engine has some specific issues. Supposedly according to a Sinful friend of mine, the problem is part of the graphics code that should be in GPU is running on the CPU. And I'll say that I first upgraded from a 6800GT on a A-64 3200+ to a 7800GTX 512MB with same CPU and I got barely 5-6FPS, BUT when I upgraded to a 4000+, I gained almost 20FPS (this is at 1280x1024 4x/8x)
Personally I think the netcode issues and gameplay issues are the most important items. I've stopped 1,173 spam and fraud messages. You can too! Free trial of spam and fraud protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/sig/? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of infexXxiousservers Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. i have the 6800 GT OC 256mb ram DDR3 with 16 pipelines and i get the same issues. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: RE: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. > If you want to play the latest games with all the eye candy on, you > need to > upgrade to the latest hardware. That is how it has been in the past. > If we want new graphics engines, with cool new features, we need to > upgrade to hardware that can support those features. > > I am on a 6600GT that does a little better than the 9800 PRO, so I > feel your > pain, but I think it is a little unrealistic to ask developers to > create a new technology with tons of cool features, yet asl them to > make it run well > on a 3 year old video card. > > Right now I have to play at 800X600 to get respectable framerates on > my P4 system. :( > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason O. > Washburn > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. > > Very well said I agree. I run a 9800 Pro card and with all the candy > on I can get a max of 42 frames but it fluctuates way below that to > the point of unplayable. I usually play it with all the eye candy off > and that way I can get about 100 FPS. I concede that my card is not > the best card out there or the newest but it is still a good card. My > question is the eye candy was what was supposed to make source great > so if I have to play it with it all off why play source? > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Stegall > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. > > Factors limiting source adoption: > 1. Performance getting 60min fps requires almost top of the line > hardware. > (this is mostly due to certain parts of graphics of the source engine > being written in software and not running on the GPU) 2. I am betting > most of the player base doesn't care about voice quality (remember > there are 30 times as many CS1.6 players as there are DoD1.6 + > TFC) > 3. The biggest item holding back source adoption is the gameplay > issues of CS:S vs CS1.6. The source networking code is broken causing > all kinds of random weirdness, plus there are some serious weapon > balance issues. > (AWP > being the biggest issue. I personally believe when they made CSS they > took the CS1.5 code and not the CS1.6 code.) 4. Ultimately it's also > the competitive issue. CPL was not doing CSS (and I promise a > significant part of the player base wants to be competitive even if > they aren't competitive. > > Ultimately the 4th one is about to change for CPL Summer 2k6 and that > may change the adoption rate a lot. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason O. > Washburn > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. > > I too am an Admin and Player. We are still enjoying 1.6. Source had > an initial surge of players but for the fun factor 1.6 is the winner. > We had very high hopes for DOD:Source. After playing it for a while > we have migrated back to 1.6. While the graphics aren't as good they > are definitely good enough for us. As you know the in game voice is > definitely better as far as quality goes. We had hoped that source > would end the scourge of never ending hacks and exploits but from what > we have seen not much has changed. It still comes down to an admin > spectating the player. As far as the voice in source we have used > ventrilio and it has great quality but seems to create lag spikes and > randomly causes our mice to act erratic. > Why > can't valve/steam fix the voice problem in source? > > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sorenson > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [hlds] RE: Please Supply SPEEX CODEC. > > At 11:30 PM 2/5/2006 -0600, you wrote: > > >Well in our opinion it really stinks compared to say DOD 1.6. > > Compared to DoD 1.6? The only thing that works well on DoD 1.6 is the > voice-comms. You can hear another player just fine, but he teleports > across the map and you can have a BAR and shoot him six rounds into > the chest and he one-shots you, but by golly you can hear him clear as > day with a 50 choke. > > Sorry, but voice-comms aren't the limiting factor in all steam games. > In fact, from my high-ping experience the voice is of better quality > than the gameplay is most of them. > > If you're having problems with comms chances are there's some other > problems in your game you'd prefer Valve look at first. > > Just an opinion from an admin and a player. I'd say the voice is > better than the play at the moment, at least so far as DoD is concerned. > > - Dan > > * Dan Sorenson DoD #1066 A.H.M.C. #35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > * Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. * > * The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need * > * those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. * > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
