Panzerdancer Jun 24, 2013 @ 5:08pm
Horrendous framerate and slowdown
Both Joe Danger and Joe Danger 2 are having intense framerate issues for me. (Joe Danger is apparently running at a locked 30 fps while JD2 seems to be running at a locked 20.) Is anyone else having this issue, and are there any known workarounds?
Showing 1-15 of 46 comments
< >
colonelrambo396 Jun 24, 2013 @ 7:15pm 
I'm having an issue where the game works fine on my intel HD integrated graphics processor but runs like a slide show using my Radeon HD 7450M.

Also, the levels in Joe Danger 2 are blurry. No problem in JD1, but when I run a level in JD2 the level looks out of focus until Joe crosses the finish line.
KagatoAsuka of House Blue Jun 24, 2013 @ 8:33pm 
I have the same issue with both games and I am running on Intel HD Integrated Graphics
orangedrink Jun 24, 2013 @ 8:52pm 
Same here. The core speed of my GPU keeps fluctuating and doesnt stay constant. I'm using a laptop with a Nvidia GT750m
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 24, 2013 @ 9:42pm 
The mobile versions aren't the same as the desktop version cards. So don't except VERY good performance.

Also, just consider yourself luckly if an Intel HD can run it fine for a moment, if it's not, then it's just the way it is as it's not designed for gaming.
KagatoAsuka of House Blue Jun 24, 2013 @ 10:04pm 
Originally posted by Evanescence:
The mobile versions aren't the same as the desktop version cards. So don't except VERY good performance.

Also, just consider yourself luckly if an Intel HD can run it fine for a moment, if it's not, then it's just the way it is as it's not designed for gaming.
And that is why I can run everything else at at least mid settings including Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim.. yeah I'm not buying it this one is on the devs for poorly optimizing their game heres hoping they fix it in the long run.
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 24, 2013 @ 10:05pm 
They are all differents engine, they ALL handle your computer in a different way.

I might say ok if it was able to run them at max with TressFX but mid...

What's your specs anyway?

Originally posted by KagatoA♥♥♥♥:
Originally posted by Evanescence:
The mobile versions aren't the same as the desktop version cards. So don't except VERY good performance.

Also, just consider yourself luckly if an Intel HD can run it fine for a moment, if it's not, then it's just the way it is as it's not designed for gaming.
And that is why I can run everything else at at least mid settings including Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim.. yeah I'm not buying it this one is on the devs for poorly optimizing their game heres hoping they fix it in the long run.
Sephrax Jun 24, 2013 @ 10:31pm 
Laptop users should change their power saving mode (in Windows) to high performance.
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 24, 2013 @ 10:33pm 
Originally posted by Sephrax:
Laptop users should change their power saving mode (in Windows) to high performance.


Laptop aren't meant for gaming anyway.
Even if it's a good "graphic chipset" it won't perform as good as any physical dedicated tower videocard. And devs tend to focus on desktop version of the cards rather than mobile so it's normal.
KagatoAsuka of House Blue Jun 24, 2013 @ 11:26pm 
Originally posted by Evanescence:
They are all differents engine, they ALL handle your computer in a different way.

I might say ok if it was able to run them at max with TressFX but mid...

What's your specs anyway?

Originally posted by KagatoA♥♥♥♥:
And that is why I can run everything else at at least mid settings including Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim.. yeah I'm not buying it this one is on the devs for poorly optimizing their game heres hoping they fix it in the long run.
Did you really compare a Indie game to a AAA title running at max settings? I'm sorry but I hardly ever have issues running games or streaming them even. However this one just runs unplayably slow unless I have it running at the lowest settings and the lowest res (like 800x600) and for a 3 year old game that was ported over that should not be the case and this isn't just me go check out my topic about how slow it is in the Joe Danger 1 forums lots and lots of people are having issues some were fixed by the soft patch that was done earlier today others however are still suffering with it just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't.
Last edited by KagatoAsuka of House Blue; Jun 24, 2013 @ 11:27pm
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 24, 2013 @ 11:57pm 
Indie game or AAA title, it won't decide about the engine of the game

You keep complain that the game run bad but still haven't listed your specs.

You might wanna list them if you want the devs to test on a similar machine and try to find why it's having difficulty to run.

Because without any of those infos, it's impossible.

Edit:

"I have the same issue with both games and I am running on Intel HD Integrated Graphics "
http://steamcommunity.com/app/242110/discussions/0/864971660907233577/#c86497166

So you are trying to run this on a Intel HD, that's why it's run bad. IT'S NOT MEANT FOR GAMING.

Just consider yourself lucky if your intel HD run Skyrim (And anyway surely not at amx settings) but don't complain if you can't run X game because you have a graphic chipset that is mostly designed for desktop application but not games.



If skyrim run on a such cheap graphic chipset, it's also mean they spended a TONS and TONS of money just to run a game on a crappy graphic chipset. So be glad they did, but don't except it's happen withEVERY games.

Get yourself a real gaming computer and you won't have those issues with any games.
Originally posted by KagatoA♥♥♥♥:
Originally posted by Evanescence:
They are all differents engine, they ALL handle your computer in a different way.

I might say ok if it was able to run them at max with TressFX but mid...

What's your specs anyway?




Did you really compare a Indie game to a AAA title running at max settings? I'm sorry but I hardly ever have issues running games or streaming them even. However this one just runs unplayably slow unless I have it running at the lowest settings and the lowest res (like 800x600) and for a 3 year old game that was ported over that should not be the case and this isn't just me go check out my topic about how slow it is in the Joe Danger 1 forums lots and lots of people are having issues some were fixed by the soft patch that was done earlier today others however are still suffering with it just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't.
Last edited by ­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­; Jun 25, 2013 @ 12:05am
Sephrax Jun 25, 2013 @ 12:28am 
Originally posted by Evanescence:
Indie game or AAA title, it won't decide about the engine of the game

Many indie devs don't have the resources to create next CryEngine or Unreal Engine but companies like Crytek and Epic do have the resources.
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 25, 2013 @ 12:30am 
Originally posted by Sephrax:
Originally posted by Evanescence:
Indie game or AAA title, it won't decide about the engine of the game

Many indie devs don't have the resources to create next CryEngine or Unreal Engine but companies like Crytek and Epic do have the resources.

It was mostly to tell him it's not because a game is AAA mean it's gonna ask more.



Oh and FYI KagatoA♥♥♥♥, Joe Danger have bigger system requirement for the GPU than Skyrim and Tomb Raider....
Doctor Hades Jun 25, 2013 @ 2:23am 
I have a new i7-4770K, 16 GB, GTX 780 build with a clean install of Windows 8 Pro 64-bit and I'm getting some very erratic framerates in both games. Joe Danger runs mostly fine at 60 fps but seems to hitch at times for no reason with the 320.39 drivers I'm currently using. Both games are maxed out at 1920x1200 and 16xMSAA (it still happens with 4xMSAA so that is not the issue). The visuals are gorgeous and full of charm but should otherwise hardly be taxing my hardware even on those setttings.

Joe Danger 2 though has a bizarre issue where some levels actually run at half-speed at 30 fps, making them ridiculously easy to complete as you can imagine. Some levels start at 30 fps then jump to 60 fps and some run fine at 60 fps. It seems completely random. The game otherwise works fine with no crashes. It's a shame that these issues occur because both games are absolutely terrific fun to play and two of the best Indie games I've ever had the pleasure of playing, granted I'm familiar with them from my PS3 and Xbox 360.

I did try enabling Triple Buffering in the NVIDIA control panel's Joe Danger game profile since that setting is for OpenGL games (which Joe Danger/Joe Danger 2 use) but it makes no difference at all to this bizarre framerate behaviour. Hopefully this issue can be quickly fixed because I'm itching to play these sublime little games. :)

P.S. I'm using Adaptive Performance in my Global driver settings and have not yet tried forcing Prefer Maximum Performance for the Joe Danger profile to see if that resolves the framerate issue.
Last edited by Doctor Hades; Jun 25, 2013 @ 2:27am
TheGreatRyansby Jun 26, 2013 @ 6:58pm 
Originally posted by Evanescence:
The mobile versions aren't the same as the desktop version cards. So don't except VERY good performance.

Also, just consider yourself luckly if an Intel HD can run it fine for a moment, if it's not, then it's just the way it is as it's not designed for gaming.
Not strictly true. My 7970m is a downcloked 7870 desktop card.
­­Δ👽 Louna 👽Δ­­ Jun 26, 2013 @ 7:14pm 
Originally posted by TGR:
Originally posted by Evanescence:
The mobile versions aren't the same as the desktop version cards. So don't except VERY good performance.

Also, just consider yourself luckly if an Intel HD can run it fine for a moment, if it's not, then it's just the way it is as it's not designed for gaming.
Not strictly true. My 7970m is a downcloked 7870 desktop card.

It's not equivalent of a desktop version of 7970 either 7870.
Showing 1-15 of 46 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50