• Crazy
  • Cool
  • Awesome
  • Angry
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Sad
  • Shy
  • Tired
  • User Tag List

    Likes Likes:  0
    Dislikes Dislikes:  0
    Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 10 of 99

    Thread: X3:TC Performance

    1. #1
      Super Moderator kevso101's Avatar
      Credits
      2,478.17
      Points
      11,902
      is is happy TXU is back online
       
      I am:
      Happy
       
      Total Contributions For

      kevso101 - {SM}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      27-04-2007
      Location
      Just outside of madness : )
      Posts
      3,288
      Blog Entries
      1

      Default X3:TC Performance

      Hi Guys,
      having got TC yesterday i couldn't resist being me and stressing it to see what sort of PC's will run it. Having a few PC's lying about the place and access to a "few" more all of varying spec's i thought'd i'd try running TC on all of them and seeing what makes a difference in performance.

      First the basic's....

      All the PC's are running XP pro SP3, totally upto date with microsoft patches/updates. The latest video and sound drivers for the respective cards. All have the latest WMP on fully updated. All pC's have the latest direct X9 installed.

      So on to the interesting stuff.....

      ES specify the minimum spec as XP SP2 or Vista SP1, 2GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 256Mb GFX (not onboard) 10Gb HDD space.

      Having got access to a couple of PC's of this spec i tried this first

      Well having played about with settings, graphics mostly and making sure that there was nothing running it the background, having disconnected from internet (so i could remove all virus checkers/spyware checkers and malware checkers) and made sure the virtual disk was as large as possible... TC did indeed play, a few hiccups on SETA (don't goto 10x SETA unless you want a slide show) but you'll need to keep the GFX res low. Not seen any big battles yet but so far, quite playable.

      Having played about with the bottom end of spec i thought i'd go for a mid range job.

      Lower Recommended spec (as min spec but with 256mb GFX and 2Gb RAM)

      Ok, same stress test, not bad some judder during SETA but definately better than the min spec.

      Recommended Spec (XP SP2 or Vista SP1, 2GHz processor, 3GB RAM, 256Mb GFX (not onboard) 10Gb HDD space.

      Pretty damn good, the extra 1Gb of RAM makes at lot of difference, although with the 256mb card you'll still need to keep the res to around 1280x1024.

      Havin played with the Min and recommended specs i thought i'd see what the diff was with 512mb GFX cards......

      XP SP2 or Vista SP1, 2GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 512Mb GFX (not onboard) 10Gb HDD space.

      To be honest the extra GFX RAM made very little difference

      XP SP2 or Vista SP1, 2GHz processor, 2GB RAM, 512Mb GFX (not onboard) 10Gb HDD space.

      Ok, so this configuration is better, it seems again the additional RAM helps a lot.

      XP SP2 or Vista SP1, 2GHz processor, 3GB RAM, 256Mb GFX (not onboard) 10Gb HDD space.

      Now we are talking, 3Gb of RAM, seems to be the answer, smooth frame rates and very little SETA judder (which i suspect is a problem with the graphics engine and not the PC).

      I will try to get some frame rates at some point however, i'd quite like to find some time to play TC so that won't be for a few days or so.

      So my conclusions are....

      1. The more RAM the better, 4GB for 32 bit systems (will only use around 3.5Gb due to OS limitations) and as much as you like in 64bit systems.

      2. The GFX memory seems to be largely unimportant, but i suspect it'll become more important i big battles and at better screen resolutions.

      3. ES states the minimun CPU speed is 2GHz, i did one very breif test on a CPU running at less than this and it was still playable in the early stages of the game, however i would very suprised if it stayed that way.

      4. Faster is deffinately better as is the more RAM, i have run TC on my high end rig (see my profile for details) and TC flies, smooth frame rates at insane resolutions. However as a further test for the RAM values i removed 2GB of RAM and the differnce was instantly noticable.

      Ok guys, well i'm going to get back to playing TC now (i've put my extra 2GB back in now). Hope you find this useful.

      Kevso

      ..

      .


      "The way of the Modder: try something, hit your head on the keyboard once, try something else - rinse and repeat" Sartorie 2009
      "wisdom lies in th ghost of the Beverage" Sartorie 2010
      Stay safe in the X-Universe - Kevso101
      My Profile/PC Stats

    2. #2
      TXU Ultra Hero Draxis's Avatar
      Credits
      2,657.07
      Points
      5,115
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      Crazy
       
      Total Contributions For

      Draxis      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      16-03-2007
      Location
      Von Draxis Industries LTD HQ
      Posts
      1,845

      Default

      useful for when i get it next week, thanks!



      M. Von Draxis, Professional Privateer - Bringing Class to Piracy Since X2: The Threat

      My guides for mercenaries, pirates and privateers:
      The Professional Privateer: A Guide for the Discerning Pirate
      The Pirate's Hand Book

    3. #3
      Moderator SSwamp_Trooper's Avatar
      Credits
      3,049.34
      Points
      8,177
      is Very Busy
       
      I am:
      Hungry
       
      Total Contributions For

      SSwamp_Trooper - {M}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      04-03-2007
      Location
      Cornwall (England)
      Posts
      1,425
      Blog Entries
      5

      Default

      Mine runs okish (28 FPS in crowded sector),

      System Specs
      Please provide a detailed description of your computer system to allow other users to be better able to help you.

      Processor AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ 2.20GHZ
      Graphics Card Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT [Core Frequency 500MHz] [Memory Frequency 1400MHz] [Memory 128 GDDR3]
      Memory 2GB
      Motherboard ASUS A8N-SLI SE
      Soundcard Trust 5.1 Surround soundcard
      Hard Disk(s) 1 x 80GB and 1 x 500GB Hard Drives
      Opertating System Windows Vista Basic 64bit version + Linux

      Other Computer Details hmm? .... Red LED Case Fan, Blue LED Case Fan, and two Blue Cold Cathode lights
      But the only thing the made my game run as a slide show was when i was in a battle with one Terran M6 (i think it was) when it fired a particular weapon my computer would just go really rubbish like 1 FPS. I don't know what weapon it was as i was facing the wrong way, i probably couldn't tell you if i saw it .

      My detail settings:

      Resolution: 1280 x 1024 x 32
      Texture Quality: medium
      Shader Quality: Medium
      AQC: ON
      4x AA
      No AF

      Just some more info from me


    4. #4
      Super Moderator kevso101's Avatar
      Credits
      2,478.17
      Points
      11,902
      is is happy TXU is back online
       
      I am:
      Happy
       
      Total Contributions For

      kevso101 - {SM}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      27-04-2007
      Location
      Just outside of madness : )
      Posts
      3,288
      Blog Entries
      1

      Default

      Hi Guys,
      still not resisting the temptation to play around with the perfomance of TC, i thought i'd post this a well.

      I thought what i would do is play about with the graphics settings and other options on a PC with XP pro, 2GB RAM, 512mb ATI 2900 at stock speeds, P35 mobo and a E6600 2.4GHz processor at stock speed..... god it really hurts to to o'c this lot

      Ok then,
      so first TC appears to work better with AA enabled, also there seems to be a performance increase if you have AF set . AQC is a pain and does precious little as far as i can see and on the rig above seems to worsten performance rather than enhance it. Turning off the ship colour variatants seems to improve performance maginally as well. Screen resolutions as you'd expect make a huge difference, for me the best playable was 1280x1024x32, the game was much quicker below this but for me looked a bit naff.

      So after twiddling about a bit my final solution for settings for the above rig were.....

      4x AA, 2x AF, No Glow, NO AQC, No ship colours at a resloution of 1280x1024x32 (around 30fps in a busy sector, lots of nice new stations present)

      At 1024x768x32 frames climbed to nearly 50fps in the same sector.

      Kevso

      @SS_T - wow what the heck hit you to reduce the fps to ONE , that weapon must have some effect If you find out let us know.


      EDIT: Just another quick bit i've found unless you are playing on BIG screens and at insane resolutions bigger than 1600x1200, more than 6xAA and 6xAF make virtually no difference. I've found that 4xAA and 6xAF @ 1600x1200 is about as good as it gets on anything upto a 20" monitor.

      See ya

      Kevso

      Last edited by kevso101; 18-10-2008 at 02:17 PM.
      ..

      .


      "The way of the Modder: try something, hit your head on the keyboard once, try something else - rinse and repeat" Sartorie 2009
      "wisdom lies in th ghost of the Beverage" Sartorie 2010
      Stay safe in the X-Universe - Kevso101
      My Profile/PC Stats

    5. #5
      Moderator SSwamp_Trooper's Avatar
      Credits
      3,049.34
      Points
      8,177
      is Very Busy
       
      I am:
      Hungry
       
      Total Contributions For

      SSwamp_Trooper - {M}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      04-03-2007
      Location
      Cornwall (England)
      Posts
      1,425
      Blog Entries
      5

      Default

      @SS_T - wow what the heck hit you to reduce the fps to ONE , that weapon must have some effect If you find out let us know.
      I had fraps when i measured 28 FPS, but didn't have fraps on in that battle so that may have been a bit of an over-estimate . But it was like watching a 'very slow' slideshow .

      I thinking about spending 80 on upgrading my pc now, like a new PSU so i can stick more ram in, atm i have 2 x 1gb but i'm meant to be able to have 4 x 1gb. It just beeps at me when i have 4 in atm .

      I always seem to upgrade as soon as i by a new EGOSOFT game


    6. #6
      TXU Ultra Hero Draxis's Avatar
      Credits
      2,657.07
      Points
      5,115
      This user has no status.
       
      I am:
      Crazy
       
      Total Contributions For

      Draxis      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      16-03-2007
      Location
      Von Draxis Industries LTD HQ
      Posts
      1,845

      Default

      this is my system now, Alienware Area 51 M15x

      Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz, 2501 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)
      Installed Physical Memory (RAM): 4.00 GB
      Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX

      How should this do?



      M. Von Draxis, Professional Privateer - Bringing Class to Piracy Since X2: The Threat

      My guides for mercenaries, pirates and privateers:
      The Professional Privateer: A Guide for the Discerning Pirate
      The Pirate's Hand Book

    7. #7
      Moderator SSwamp_Trooper's Avatar
      Credits
      3,049.34
      Points
      8,177
      is Very Busy
       
      I am:
      Hungry
       
      Total Contributions For

      SSwamp_Trooper - {M}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      04-03-2007
      Location
      Cornwall (England)
      Posts
      1,425
      Blog Entries
      5

      Default

      Yeah your computer has good enough CPU and RAM to run 'smoothly enough' imo .

      SSwamp_Trooper the idiot (with no job atm) has ....
      just spent 80 on a 500W PSU and 8500GT grahpics card.


    8. #8
      Moderator DannyD's Avatar
      Credits
      3,591.56
      Points
      2,964
      is Hungry
       
      I am:
      Sad
       
      Total Contributions For

      DannyD - {M}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      19-09-2007
      Location
      Genova ( Italy )
      Posts
      682

      Default

      X3TC don't use multicore but a powerful processor is better

      I think for the "high" resolution ( 1600x1200 or better ) required one high end units ( PC ) same of X3 in the last years ( you remind the "real" requirements of X3? )

      Obviously, with a Geforce 5900 ..... is hard to play a good game ( maybe with a resolution of 1024x768 ) .

      I think that the next patch ( 1.3? ) will can improve the frame rate for the high end machine and " non high end " .


      Mh... with my E8500 and Gtx260 in 1440x900...mh... I'll get a good frame rate? booooooh! [ maybe yes ( I hope ) ]

      NH Team / TXU Translator / Transcend Translator
      [ComplexCleaner Guide]
      [Guida ai Complessi2.0]
      [Come avere pi installazioni di X]
      [Install Mission Director]
      [Forum Italiano su TXU]
      [Transcend Forum]
      [New Horizon Forum]
      [X-FLEET Forum]
      TXU info: Please use "reputation points system": so people can see who helps the most.

    9. #9
      Super Moderator kevso101's Avatar
      Credits
      2,478.17
      Points
      11,902
      is is happy TXU is back online
       
      I am:
      Happy
       
      Total Contributions For

      kevso101 - {SM}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      27-04-2007
      Location
      Just outside of madness : )
      Posts
      3,288
      Blog Entries
      1

      Default

      @ SS_T - Hiya mate,
      with Vista 64, you should be able to acces way more than 4GB, sounds like a faulty module or a setting in your mobo BIOS, oh could be the modules are mis-matched as well are they all the same type, make and model number?

      @ DannyD - yep you should get good smooth rates eevn at 1600x1200, i've got good rates with a similar system.

      @ Draxis - not sure, laptops tend fair less well due to the "mobile" components, but i'll be interested to hear what you get.

      Kevso

      ..

      .


      "The way of the Modder: try something, hit your head on the keyboard once, try something else - rinse and repeat" Sartorie 2009
      "wisdom lies in th ghost of the Beverage" Sartorie 2010
      Stay safe in the X-Universe - Kevso101
      My Profile/PC Stats

    10. #10
      Moderator SSwamp_Trooper's Avatar
      Credits
      3,049.34
      Points
      8,177
      is Very Busy
       
      I am:
      Hungry
       
      Total Contributions For

      SSwamp_Trooper - {M}      £ 0.00
      Main InfoStatus and ThingsPoints and CreditsOther
      Join Date
      04-03-2007
      Location
      Cornwall (England)
      Posts
      1,425
      Blog Entries
      5

      Default

      Quote Originally Posted by kevso101 View Post
      @ SS_T - Hiya mate,
      with Vista 64, you should be able to acces way more than 4GB, sounds like a faulty module or a setting in your mobo BIOS, oh could be the modules are mis-matched as well are they all the same type, make and model number?
      Thought about that a while ago (Probably had the motherboard for nearly 2 years now), but i've just looked up the motherboard specs again and in some of the reviews people said that you need a 500W PSU, well i only have a 400W. So i'm going to try it.

      Unforunatly ASUS doesn't support my motherboard anymore (i think it was since 2006) so i got it at the end of it's life really


    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •