Grimrock

Spathi wrote:logr 1 (not sure about 2) is not written like most 3d games.. basically.. Get a video card with a good pixel fill rate (good 2d speed).

I think it moves large bitmaps rather than draw lots of triangles. It looks good because there are no stupid polygons.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But in LoG2 we're using far more polygons than in LoG1 (that's why Petri has to do so much optimizing tricks). I think we've reached pretty nice balance with model complexity and performance. We've also kept the 1024px/3m texel resolution. Monsters have usually around 5k-10k triangles.

juho wrote:Monsters have usually around 5k-10k triangles.

How many do the spiders have?

Spathi wrote:p.s human eye can only see 48fps so 120fps is pointless.. i think your eyes and brain process at 12fps.. 24fps looks smooth of every second frame is black.. 48 looks smooth

That's an amazing display of ignorance from a guy throwing around computer graphics specific details.
Lucky us TB made a video about this: The Great Framerate Non-Debate

If you play 120fps and 60fps on the same 120fps monitor you won't see any difference unless you trick yourself into thinking there is.
120fps is sometimes brighter because of the way LCDs display pixels which confuses some reviewers that try to compare. 60 is better than 30, but u don't really need 120 especially for something like log.

EDIT: I see that 300fps tv's are being invented for high video rate tv (to watch sporting events), so I am wrong... I still can't see a difference for games though.

juho wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean

What i mean is the walls look solid one piece things in log 1 so I assumed they were the problem.

I should have just said log 1 was not optimized for new ATI cards... many of the people complaining at the time had ATI maddx5 cards (or slow nvidea cards).

I had no problems I just noticed the video card monitor when moving. log2 with more triangles will probably run just as good.

Spathi wrote:If you play 120fps and 60fps on the same 120fps monitor you won't see any difference unless you trick yourself into thinking there is.
120fps is sometimes brighter because of the way LCDs display pixels which confuses some reviewers that try to compare. 60 is better than 30, but u don't really need 120 especially for something like log.

EDIT: I see that 300fps tv's are being invented for high video rate tv (to watch sporting events), so I am wrong... I still can't see a difference for games though.

juho wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean

What i mean is the walls look solid one piece things in log 1 so I assumed they were the problem.

I should have just said log 1 was not optimized for new ATI cards... many of the people complaining at the time had ATI maddx5 cards (or slow nvidea cards).

I had no problems I just noticed the video card monitor when moving. log2 with more triangles will probably run just as good.

This debate about different framerates.. Well, I'm totally satisfied with 60 fps, in most games I don't even mind 30 fps and I actually played LOG 1 on an old laptop that got between 20 and 30 fps on most levels, 10-15 fps on the last so I'm not picky. But the thing is that a higher refreshrate than 60 IS beneficial. Hardcore gamers might not really need the extra frames for seeing their enemies earlier but mostly to get a faster visual response to their actions. But that's in FPS, not RPG as you pointed out. I totally agree that more than 60 fps in Grimrock wouldn't be needed but it would actually add to the experience. One example where you would notice the difference i LOG 1 is when throwing a rock. The first 3 frames clearly shows the rock in different places on the screen that do not totally connect to each other, if we insert another frame inbetween those frames the motion would seem more fluid since there would be no gap in the flightpath. We would not be able to discern each frame but it would create a more realistic motion blur.

OK, enough about that! I'm really looking forward to LOG 2 and since I know have a good GPU I'm going to aim for my monitors maximun framerate which is 60 Hz but I would have played it even att sub 30 if needed

Something else to consider: When Monolith released "Blood" in the late 90's, the contemporaries for Blood (using the same engine) were running at 320x200 px, yet Blood had the built in option to run at 800x600 ~insane [slideshow] at the time... but as machine speed improved over the years, it became useful boon to those playing Blood.

If a modern 3D engine [Blood was 2d] is optimized for 120 fps (or higher) at normal resolution (whatever normal is for the day), then presumably it would still be acceptably fast at its higher resolutions.

An advantage of super high framerates is less lag [slow response]. Grimrock has free-look like the shooters, and has the same challenge to contend with; slower framerates would be less smooth when turning left/right in the maze, or when using free-look... and also (with reference to the above), it's nice to have a little overkill for when three or four high-poly monsters happen to intrude into the scene.

Spathi wrote:If you play 120fps and 60fps on the same 120fps monitor you won't see any difference unless you trick yourself into thinking there is.
120fps is sometimes brighter because of the way LCDs display pixels which confuses some reviewers that try to compare. 60 is better than 30, but u don't really need 120 especially for something like log.

EDIT: I see that 300fps tv's are being invented for high video rate tv (to watch sporting events), so I am wrong... I still can't see a difference for games though.

juho wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean

What i mean is the walls look solid one piece things in log 1 so I assumed they were the problem.

I should have just said log 1 was not optimized for new ATI cards... many of the people complaining at the time had ATI maddx5 cards (or slow nvidea cards).

I had no problems I just noticed the video card monitor when moving. log2 with more triangles will probably run just as good.

he said 120 because 60fps 3d is practically 120fps
nobody here actually needs to play in 120fps

Hey everyone,

I was able to play LOG1 on with everything turned to low setting, and I could play most of the mods, with the exception of one or two.

I have a intel HD3200 on board graphics. The specs call for a intel HD5200 card. I tried to google the difference but it just confused me.

Is there that big a difference between the two cards that I would not be able to run LOG2?

The rest of the system is a Gateway I5 2320 with 8 GB ram.

Is it a laptop or a normal PC?. I guess it's the latter. Get a cheapo graphic card that be able to run LoG2.

Ryeath_Greystalk wrote:I have a intel HD3200 on board graphics. The specs call for a intel HD5200 card. I tried to google the difference but it just confused me.

Is there that big a difference between the two cards that I would not be able to run LOG2?

Never heard of an Intel HD 3200. Looking at your CPU i'm sure it's an integrated HD 3000.

The HD 3000 features Shader Model 4.1, supports DirectX 10.1 and OpenGL 3.1 to 3.3, depending on OS/driver-support.
The HD 5200 features Shader Model 5.0, supports DirectX 11.1 and OpenGL 3.3 to 4.3, depending on OS/driver-support.
Performance-wise the HD 5200 is about 2.5 times faster than the HD 3000.

Based on the GPU requirements for LoG 2 (Shader Model 3.0 and Direct 9.0c) any Intel HD GPU should be able to run the game. Yet the matter at hand is how fast it would run and at the moment we simply can't tell.