Larian Studios Forums Beyond Divinity (English) General What is the average fps needed to play

My FPS is approx 125 on the demo , (eng demo exe download ) and in the demo I cannot kill Fergus ,only one of us can seem to hit him ,as the hero just stands there and gets whacked <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />DK hits him but I cannot seem to target Fergus and only get about 2 slashes at him before dk or myself die <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />Hope one of you guys can help me out here <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Does your hero have a weapon equipped (it may have broke)? Are both characters selected when you click on Fergus to attack? If you pause the game, does that help with targeting?

Did you explore the other cells, and get to level 2 before reaching Fergus? If so, where did you put your stat points? For level 2 I raised the Strength of both to 6, left Intelligence at 1 and raised everything else to 3. Survival and Speed help.

I was having problems like this - I think the targetting doesn't always work quite right. Try the following:

* Press pause (spacebar)
* Select your hero.
* Hold down the Ctrl key and click near Fergus. Your hero should rotate to face him. You can let go the Ctrl key now.
* Unpause (spacebar again). Don't click or press any keys, just see what happens.

That worked for me. I was originally having a lot of troubles targetting, but I seem to have learnt how to do it now. (I'm sure theres some funnies in the user interface, but you learn to avoid them...)

Thanks guys for your quick response,will try out your suggestions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> BTW do you have any thoughts on the FPS issue what is average for game play ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

When I tested at 1024x768, I got 102fps. 800x600 = 120fps, 1280x960 = 89fps
125 should be more than enough.

My system;
Windows 98SE, Duron 1300, 512MB PC133, 256MB Radeon 9600XT

what's your system's like cause quite frankly it doesn't run all too well on my system. 800*600 or 1024*768 little difference around 40 fps and some weird slowdowns. Considering it doesn't have all too much 3d stuff it doesn't seem to run all too well <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

my system:
1800 xp
ati radeon 8500
348mb sdram
hercules fortissimo 2 soundcard
windows xp.

The fps are as high as your HZ monitor settings. For example on my two system: the first one has 100hz and the other has 85hz. On the 100hz system I got about 100fps and on the other system about 85fps.

Excellent Raze thanks for the info <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />now i can relax ,I was beginning to think my comp was slow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I got 61 FPS. er, is that bad or good? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I think above 60fps there is no visible difference in video. The main reason wanting this as high as possible is so that when there are a lot of enemies, etc on screen, the fps does not drop enough that video becomes slow or jerky. In other words, you want the average fps to be good enough that the low end is still acceptable. In twitch games (shooters, etc) a high fps helps with targeting, etc.
As long as the demo/game does not slow down significantly, whatever value you get for the fps is good enough.

A human being can capt up to 24 frames per second. Most movies are 24fps but some are 30.

That's simply not true, although alot of people believe that because movies are 24fps. But then again, movies use a special techinique (forgot what it's called) to make it seem as if the video is real smooth, by blending images together or something. (If you stop a video where the camera is moving very fast, you will notice the picture being blurred, because the lens was open for too long a time, but ofcourse, you don't notice this if the movie is actually playing.)

There was once a screening of a 60 FPS movie somewhere at a futuristic themepark in France, and according to eye-witnesses, it was most remarkable. Really realistic.

Besides, even in games you can notice a clear difference between 24 FPS and 60 FPS. Although, like Raze said, anything above 60 doesn't make a difference anymore.

Nemesis Dragon, what you said only holds true if you set v-sync to true. What v-sync basically does is to try and "match" your fps to the herz from your monitor. That can either be the same fps as herz or half (in case of triple buffering it can be 1/3 2/3 3/3). The reason why you want to turn on vsync is to get rid of "tearing" (looks like two textures not lining up correctly and you get a white "line") which might happen if your monitor can't keep up with the high fps. If you have v-sync turned off fps can get higher then the herz from your monitor, which may give "tearing" as described above.

In any case I have vsync turned off and besides I play with 100hrz <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

The people with 60+ fps, what kind of systems do you have cause I got the feeling something is not entirely okay with my pc & beyond divinity fps <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Looks like I am retarded, then. I can only see 24.

i have a duron 800 mhz
256 ram
obaord sound on motherboard
geforce 2

arrrrrrrgh I am confused again are you saying the higher the FPS the better ? :silly

I can run at 164 FPS on 800x600 16 bits high colour setting

DEATHATTHEDOOR;
I wasn't sure if the effective frame rate that looks continuous was 30 or 60fps, but it would depend on the medium as well as the individual. This isn't quite the same thing, but I can see monitor refresh rates below about 78Hz. A long time ago I used my brother's computer set at 60Hz for a couple minutes (which started giving me a headache), and asked him if he wanted me to fix the flicker. He had it set like that because that was the default, and didn't notice any flicker.


Mirach;
In general, a higher fps is better, but once you get to a point where the game is running smoothly even with a lot of things on screen, additional fps are not going to visibly help much.
As long as the game isn't slowing down too much or too frequently, I would base my resolution choice on the map/interface size rather than the fps. At higher resolutions you can see more of the map around you, but the interface and writing in books, etc become smaller.

Indeed: I don't notice flickers at 60Hz but I get headache. My father can always see if the monitor is at 85 or 60.

There's no need to have more than about 70 FPS. But what is your FPS when there are 50 monsters active on the screen? The more monsters the slower it is. So what we are doing is trying to get a very high FPS in the demo so that when we do come across large groups of monsters in the full game, it is still playable.

164 FPS is good! With luck, that means the full game will always run smoothly in large scale combats.

Thanks very much guys <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I am real impressed with the help and advice ,from these boards <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />