graphics settings, I need your opinion!

[Noggin on Wheels]

I am currently running fortress (and other steam games) on the lowest resolution and lowest settings my current specs are these (its a laptop BTW):
intel pentium dual core 1.46Ghz
512mb of RAM
intel GM965 (with X3100 GPU) with 64mb V-RAM (max of 382mb V-RAM)
intel B/G 54mbps wireless reiciever + D link DIR 615 300mps wireless router
Windows vista home basic
Avast 4.8 AV
comodo firewall

I intend on getting a RAM upgrade which will give me a total of 2GB of RAM, this will boost by V-RAM to 382mb (is intergrated and leechs of main system memory).

do you think i could run fortress forever in 1080x800 resolution with high/medium settings? if not what settings would you suggest?

[[AE] 82694]

This is something that is best adjusted to your own liking. The lower settings will give you better performance most of the time the trade of is it doesn't look as nice. When I had my old system I just stayed with the steam recommended settings and had very few issues but this wasn't a laptop either. So I recommend just adjusting your settings to your likings. Some people like higher visuals and trade it for less performance. It's all about what you like so it's hard to tell you what to set your system at.

[reaper18]

low settings still look ok on source, but like 82694 said, its all on preference.
At my moms house, the comp is shit, so everything is on low, but the game still plays decent.

[Phatman]

Given you're running with an intel based video chipset, the ram upgrade won't do squat for you in the video end of things. That card is a cheap one and won't do any better even with 2 gb of ram. You might be able to up some settings, but most likely the chip will still hold you back because it can't handle it.

[Telzon]

I think I would beg to differ Phatman, even though, yes, it's onboard, he will have more VRAM to play with, which should actually give him a slight boost, probably won't be anything great, but it should. Don't sell the X3100 short, it's capable of producing DX10 textures, but because leeching off the RAM and clock speeds, that's what holds it back. But, also Noggin, because of Vista, you should be running at the least 2 GB of RAM.

But, Noggin On Wheels, what is your average FPS right now? That would help things out a little bit. I gave up PC gaming about a year back for a PS3, big mistake, but am coming back. Started with CS 1.4, TFC, blah blah blah.

I am currently on a Toshiba laptop, 1.5GHZ Intel Core2 Duo, 2 GB, and x3100 with Vista Home Premium installed. Because of Vista, you are losing about 30% of your performance. I wasn't even able to run 1.6 or CZ above 20-25 FPS, and forget about Source, was getting an average of about 12 FPS, and I run VSYNC always, tearing bothers the crap out of me, and on 1024x786.

In the past couple of days I finally was able to get XP up and running, was a pain to get all the right drivers. But now I am able to run 1.6 and CZ at an average of about 40FPS, give or take 10FPS, depending whats on screen. And Source, an average of about 30 FPS, more on super low settings. But, I would say that a 2 GB RAM upgrade would makes things "playable" for you, as you have just about the same hardware as I do, but only if you can get XP up and running on your laptop. Though, I am wondering because you are using Basic, you may get a performance boost, since you don't have Areo or anything else extra that Vista packs. But as for 1080x800, that is probably going to be a stretch, but every laptop is different, even with the same hardware.

Hope this helps you out man, I am currently downloading FF right now, and will post on my performance when I get a chance. Can't wait till I have the money saved up to build another rig, I especially miss playing Battlefield.

[cynical]

reflection

[greenday5494]

spell reflection correct first, sir.

[Skanky Butterpuss]

i went ahead and fixed that for ya

[StrYdeR]

If ya want your FF to look like hl1 for performance til the ram upgrade maybe add...

-heapsize 512000 -exec autoexec.cfg +mat_picmip 2 +mat_reducefillrate 1 +mat_colorcorrection 0 +mat_trilinear 0 +mat_hdr_level 0 +r_shadowrendertotexture 1


In autoexec.cfg or some other add...

cl_forcepreload "1"
cl_downloadfilter "all"
cl_ragdoll_collide "0"
mat_clipz "1"
mat_compressedtextures "1"
//mat_picmip "0"
mat_parallaxmap "0"
mat_fastspecular "0"
mat_fastnobump "0"
mat_bumpmap "0"
mat_forcehardwaresync "0"
mat_softwarelighting "1"
r_decals 300
//r_rootlod "-1"
r_fastzreject "1"
r_decals "300"
r_maxmodeldecal "300"
r_waterforceexpensive "0"
r_WaterDrawRefraction 0
r_WaterDrawReflection 0
dsp_off 0
dsp_slow_cpu 0
fog_enable "0"
lod_enable "1"
cl_gibcount 2
cl_disablemuzzleflashes 1
cl_grenadetargets 0
muzzleflash_light 0

Maybe help...fug i need a new rig

[greenday5494]

you forgot mat_dxlevel 70

[Phatman]

Originally Posted by Telzon

I think I would beg to differ Phatman, even though, yes, it's onboard, he will have more VRAM to play with, which should actually give him a slight boost, probably won't be anything great, but it should. Don't sell the X3100 short, it's capable of producing DX10 textures, but because leeching off the RAM and clock speeds, that's what holds it back. But, also Noggin, because of Vista, you should be running at the least 2 GB of RAM.

But, Noggin On Wheels, what is your average FPS right now? That would help things out a little bit. I gave up PC gaming about a year back for a PS3, big mistake, but am coming back. Started with CS 1.4, TFC, blah blah blah.

I am currently on a Toshiba laptop, 1.5GHZ Intel Core2 Duo, 2 GB, and x3100 with Vista Home Premium installed. Because of Vista, you are losing about 30% of your performance. I wasn't even able to run 1.6 or CZ above 20-25 FPS, and forget about Source, was getting an average of about 12 FPS, and I run VSYNC always, tearing bothers the crap out of me, and on 1024x786.

In the past couple of days I finally was able to get XP up and running, was a pain to get all the right drivers. But now I am able to run 1.6 and CZ at an average of about 40FPS, give or take 10FPS, depending whats on screen. And Source, an average of about 30 FPS, more on super low settings. But, I would say that a 2 GB RAM upgrade would makes things "playable" for you, as you have just about the same hardware as I do, but only if you can get XP up and running on your laptop. Though, I am wondering because you are using Basic, you may get a performance boost, since you don't have Areo or anything else extra that Vista packs. But as for 1080x800, that is probably going to be a stretch, but every laptop is different, even with the same hardware.

Hope this helps you out man, I am currently downloading FF right now, and will post on my performance when I get a chance. Can't wait till I have the money saved up to build another rig, I especially miss playing Battlefield.

Point taken. However, I had a laptop with a Radeon Mobility 9000 and no real decent aftermarket driver support. I bumped it to a 1 gig setup, running XP, and it didn't help much, though this was well before FF's time. I guess it's just a bad taste in my mouth with onboard stuff, even though there are chipsets that do handle the HL2 engine decently. *shrug*

[Shadow00Caster]

Buy better hardware .. shits so cheap these days.

[Phatman]

On PC hardware swapping is easy sir. Not on a laptop though. :P

[Iggy]

Which is the difference between having a trashy woman versus having a church-going one.

[Phatman]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Which is the difference between having a trashy woman versus having a church-going one.

Bwahahahaha