Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
http://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/faq/
(Normally Quadro cards are fine for gaming, if more expensive than GeForce cards, but SFM is a weird beta program that doesn't support a lot of hardware).
This, however, is mistaken. SFM is render-on-demand. When you're not rendering, almost all but the worst computers will hit the FPS limiter at 300 fps.
When actually rendering, single core CPU performance is almost entirely the arbitrator of SFM's frame-rates (to the point that I've seen massive GPU upgrades make almost no difference to SFM's rendering rate).
Also, FPS in SFM is very dependent on the scene and what's in it (particularly regarding shadowed lights). Some scenes will render at 100 fps on my machine (which has a still fairly powerful i7 4790 CPU), but some scenes are a tenth of that.
(Actually, there was feature I was trying to add to a model recently that I saw cripple SFM down to less than 2 fps... yeah, I stopped trying that).
You might see a decent frame rate on an empty map, but after you've got some assets and shadowed lights loaded in, you're not going to be seeing three-digit frame rates on any scenes with some meat to them.
We don't give too much care to any given person's FPS figures in SFM, because it's so dependent on the scene that unless you're comparing absolutely identical scenes it's meaningless to compare them.