Some tips on performance

Smauler · Post by **Smauler** » Thu, 26. Feb 04, 06:03

DJ Aitch wrote:1535Mb swap file

Erm... the size of your swap file will not help at all. The read and write times of any swap file used intensively will swamp performance. 128mb of RAM is 15 quid or so($20 I guess)... just drop that in. No technical knowledge, open case, see where RAM is, put new RAM next to it.

DJ Aitch wrote: Turned off everything that isn't necessary in Windows first

Very true... Services eat memory like it's their right. Have a look at this : http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/downloads.html. I killed quite a few processes with it.

laddiec · Post by **laddiec** » Thu, 26. Feb 04, 21:40

I am having exactly the same problem that you are having. As soon as I take off for the first time, the animated guy pops up in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, starts talking and my game hangs and the speech keeps on repeating till I reboot my PC. All other games that I play work fine so I do not want to reload my OS.

I have an

ASUS motherboard
Soundblaster Audigy
GEForce TI4200
Directx 9.0b
Detonator driver 53.03
latest SoundBlaster drivers.

Did you find a fix for this?
I am sorely tempted to take it back to the shop for a refund.

aredmanx2 · Post by **aredmanx2** » Sat, 28. Feb 04, 00:34

I'm getting 44fps overall at 1024 X 768 16bit (with bumpmaps ON & shadows & AA OFF). I found that:
- Reducing to 16 bit colour from 32 gave a 10% improvement (recommended)
- Killing minor background tasks and the LAN card gave another 5%
- Reducing to 800 X 600 gave another 10% (but I don't use this)
- Turning on shadows slowed it by 20% so left off

No problems

System:
- Athlon XP 1900+ (OC'd from 1800+)
- Abit Kr7a mobo (4X AGP)
- 512 Mb PC2100 RAM CAS2.5
- Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis 128Mb

Althulas · Post by **Althulas** » Sat, 28. Feb 04, 00:59

I'm using on my xp pro sys

Msi kti6 pro 2ru
Althlon xp1800
512 ram
msi fx5600

On the benchmark I get just under average 30fps with bm,shadows and aa on but with the prementioned off I average 66fps. I prefer to run with everything on at my current newbie state as everything is a ok but can tweak as its gets busier if need be, just does not look the same without bm and aa, shadows I could just bare without if needs be.

Mark.

Goatboy · Post by **Goatboy** » Sat, 28. Feb 04, 10:45

Overall average framerate: -1.#IO fps

*sob*

Smauler · Post by **Smauler** » Sun, 29. Feb 04, 06:46

Ok... I've just run the benchmark 4 times. Once with everything on, 1280*1024*32. Then once with 1280*1024*16, everything off. Then once with 640*480*16, everything off. Then once again with 1280*1024*16, everything off, and the network off too. I got hugely different results. Here are the four in order :

Video Settings during test:
Screen Resolution: 1280*1024*32
Bumpmapping: On
Realtime Shadows: On
Overall average framerate: 20.610 fps

Video Settings during test:
Screen Resolution: 1280*1024*16
Bumpmapping: Off
Realtime Shadows: Off
Overall average framerate: 72.499 fps

Video Settings during test:
Screen Resolution: 640*480*16
Bumpmapping: Off
Realtime Shadows: Off
Overall average framerate: 106.532 fps

Video Settings during test:
Screen Resolution: 1280*1024*16
Bumpmapping: Off
Realtime Shadows: Off
Overall average framerate: 60.347 fps

The only thing I did different with the fourth as opposed to the second was disabling my network (It's been mentioned it could make a difference). Nothing extra was running. The 4th test should theoretically be slightly better than the second, but it's 12 fps short. Have I missed something stupid here, or is this wrong?

The full stats can be seen at www.isbd.biz/x2.

lunacom · Post by **lunacom** » Sun, 29. Feb 04, 11:42

I have just realised that when I upgraded my graphics card to run X2 from an ATI Rage 128 pro to a 256 meg FX 5600 I forgot to up the aperture size, I'd been playing X2 for a couple of weeks and assuming I needed an even higher spec card to make it run smoothly.

After slapping myself and changing the aperture setting to 256 things are running as smoothly as I could have wanted, I was astounded by the performance increase, it made a huge difference. I would recommend all users having problems to check this value first. I don't think it needs to be the same size as your video memory but it is certainly worth playing with it to see what difference it makes.

I'm not at home at the moment and so can't post fps values but I will check it when I get back and compare against values with 32 meg AGP aperture size.

Having a look around the Internet, the AGP aperture size does what I thought, it specifies how much of your system ram can be used by your graphics card in addition to it's on board memory. Since I now have a 256 meg card I assumed it wouldn't be using that amount memory so didn't think it was important.

The best explanation I could find is at:

http://www.ocfaq.com/article.php/overcl ... vidcard/43

Vaylon · Post by **Vaylon** » Sun, 29. Feb 04, 15:53

Okay by looking in to the posts around here it seems the GeForce 5200 chipset just does not cut it with X2

I've tried this game on a few systems and found no matter what hardware config you have it boils down to the 5200 and also the CPU as the main factors on performance issues.

Please note I tested this against;

Gainwood GeForce 5200 128
MSI GeForce 5600 128

P4 Cel 1.7
P4 2.1
P4 2.4

128 DDR 2700
256 DDR 3200
512 DDR 3200

All tested under M$ Windows XP Service Pack 1 installed

Would this be a fair conclusion?

This was using the built in benchmark tool in X2
Will try this again with 3d Mark03 when I've finished downloading it...

-NJ

Choddo · Post by **Choddo** » Sun, 29. Feb 04, 21:22

The 5200 is a dire card, so that would make total sense.

What still doesn't make sense is the terrible performance on high end ATi cards.

Smauler, interesting results. You didn't post what hardware you were using in those tests? I found that disabling my network card seemed to reduce the number of stutters for some reason but didn't improve the framerate noticeably.

Andergum · Post by **Andergum** » Mon, 1. Mar 04, 21:57

Choddo wrote:The 5200 is a dire card, so that would make total sense.

What still doesn't make sense is the terrible performance on high end ATi cards.

What terrible performance on ATI high end cards??

I've seen about 6 or so posts in this entire thread specifically about ATI performance. Of those a couple say they have great performance, a couple say they have so so performance depending on if they are in a fight or not and a couple say they have terrible performance.

Some users are posting benchmark results which in no way shape or form will give any results similar to in game results.

Nvidia posters are evenly spilt along the same lines and most are recommending turning off all AA and shadows, lowering AF to blend (performance mode for ATI users) turning off EAX etc even running in 16 bit mode YUK!.

I don't think the terrible performance is related to ATI or even the video card at all.

This game is a CPU crusher plain and simple. The game is tracking many, many many, ships, stations, asteroids, missiles, gun shots etc and calculating positions, AI, collision detection etc etc... and that's in one sector! The more ships or fighting in a sector, the worse your FPS will get.

Add many more sectors (even with reduced calculations for sectors you are not in) and you have a recipe for a low FPS game.

The game I'm running has at least one M6 ship in every sector, 50 plus stations, 500 plus ships and I'm still getting a solid 25 FPS even in very busy sectors, with all settings maxed.

If I start turning turning down the effects like shadows, AF, AA, EAX, Bumpmapping etc it has a very small effect on my FPS.

Shadows off had the biggest effect of all, about 3 FPS.

The rest showed almost no noticeable improvement at all.

Oddly enough the game even seems to run best at higher resolutions with 1280 x 1024 being the sweet spot for me.

I don't know what to say except to try different settings to see what gives the best balance for your particular system and to hope Egosoft can find a way to reduce the pressure on the CPU.

For me, I'm maxing settings and enjoying the visuals since nothing seems to boost the FPS much anyway.

Smauler · Post by **Smauler** » Tue, 2. Mar 04, 06:30

Choddo wrote: Smauler, interesting results. You didn't post what hardware you were using in those tests? I found that disabling my network card seemed to reduce the number of stutters for some reason but didn't improve the framerate noticeably.

Mine is a AMD 2100+,
512 2700 RAM,
Win2k,
Onboard sound,
All new drivers,
xfx ti4200 64mb gfx card.

It's not new by any means, but as has been said before the benchmark results have little relation to the actual fps in the game. I would be happy if the game did not drop below 10fps on mine. I get as low as 5 sometimes, and I've not started much storyline yet. Anyway, my original point was that difference between two benchmarks run on the same machine, being so different should not happen. If anyone has the patience, try that test...

mattius · Post by **mattius** » Tue, 2. Mar 04, 17:41

I have similar system excepy I disabled my oboard sound & got an Audigy 2. Made loadts of difference. All the kerkiness had gone & I get smooth FPS!

EventHorizon · Post by **EventHorizon** » Sat, 6. Mar 04, 02:59

Hey guys, just thought I would shre this with you. Might help some who are having performance problems:

My system specs:

Athlon XP 1900+

512 Mb RAM

Fortisimo III 7.1

Radeon 9600 (NON-Pro)

Ok, not a full list (do you really want system board, hard disk etc etc) but it's not exactly a super system. However, I get good performance at 1024*768*32Bbp.

I know that X2 does not support dual monitors on ATI cards, but I had my second monitor connected and activted. Who would have thought that this would half my frame rate!!!

So, any ATI users who have dual monitors...turn the second one off (from the ATI control panel). You might find X2 playable.

One other thing, I overclocked my 1900+ to be a 2000+ (FSB has moved from 133Mhz to 140Mhz, won't boot above that

) and my framerate went up again. So it seems that X2 wants a lot more than it says on the tin...

Xaffax · Post by **Xaffax** » Sat, 6. Mar 04, 08:53

I don't believe it! 1280*1024 actualy does the trick! With everything turned of I is reasonably playable.

This does wonders for my mood

funk3h · Post by **funk3h** » Sat, 6. Mar 04, 17:07

probably should have posted this here isntead of where i did in the first place tbh, but i recently improved my radeon fps by checking irq assigments. Here is the post:

http://www.egosoft.com/x2/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31776

clivew05 · Post by **clivew05** » Wed, 10. Mar 04, 08:17

well I experience jerking but thought that was the SETA ( maybe it still is ) anyway the graphics are very "blocky" as I have a 17" TFT and its recommended is 1280X1024 I thought I would try this. However going to the OPTIONS screen the highest resolution I am offered is 1280X960?? is there a reason I cant get the 1280X1024. I noticed that my Friend bought the game and it came in a BOX whereas I bought the game in a CD Case from Amazon? Are they different versions?

Hoping Someone can help

Larg!

shraer · Post by **shraer** » Thu, 11. Mar 04, 18:07

How do you monitor how many FPS you get during the game play?
I just installed 1.3 no performance increase in the benchmark, but I think game got a bit faster.

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 11. Mar 04, 18:19

No need to ask three times.

Answered here.

EventHorizon · Post by **EventHorizon** » Tue, 16. Mar 04, 13:56

Ok, a litle update on my system and how I am doing.

I am using Catalyst 4.3 drivers...bad idea! The asteroids get messed up when viewed at a distance. Only seems to affect the asteroids for me, though I am aware that Catalyst drivers can cause pain (3.11-4.1 killed Starfleet Command III on my 9600).

Updated to X2 1.3.

Now, I don't use FRAPS or anything to get the framerate I use my eyes.

I am running at 1024*768*32.
3D Particals enabled.
Bump Mapping enabled.
EAX dissabled - I don't have a creative sound card, and only 2 speakers at the moment...no point in having 3d sound with this set up!

In most sectors I get very smooth performance, if there is a nebular then it can get slightly choppy. SETA (5x) can be very jerky, but still useable. The only time it can be difficult to play is when I am taking on 2 Kha'ak clusters and they are all beating the hell out of my Baracuda.

Now a clean Windows XP install, DirectX 9.0b, SP1. NO anti-virus, no internet connection and no network devices (dissabled under BIOS).

I have increased the voltage to my CPU in order to make it stable (now running at V1.

- DO NOT TRY THIS if you have no idea what you are doing.

I have come to the conclusion that I need to up my CPU, evern after overclocking it is only running at 1.7 Ghz. As Egosoft recomend 1.8 Ghz I am a little behind

I'll kep tweaking the BIOS settings, and I will see if RageTweak helps in any way (there is an option to speed up Alpha blending which 'should' help with the nebulars a bit). If I find any other settings that seem to make a difference I'll post them here. Not promissing anything though

Mr_VL · Post by **Mr_VL** » Tue, 16. Mar 04, 21:51

I have a Nvida 5700 Ultra, 256Mb DDR, 2 GHtz Athlon.

I always run my games in 800 x 600, shadows off do make the biggest difference but the scene in the Goner Temple was unbearably slow.

I find it is best it turn monitors off, although there're good for keeping an eye on your other ships or even the enemy, but they slow down the game to a crawl if in the middle of a fight with the Khaak.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Some tips on performance

Anyone got any idea what is going on here?

Cant See 1280X1024 in the options!!!!