Low FPS (Solved: Voxel engine)

[Liquidus Talon]

Does anyone have a blunt answer, as to why I'm getting 50 fps only on a GTX 980? (working with an i5 3570k - Additional note: I've adjusted the Max Voxel Threads to 4)

I'm quite curious as to what's stopping this 1999 game from hitting 120 fps+ (144 being my aim, in this case), and as to why I don't see anyone bringing this up as a question, on recent threads.

Edit: Low FPS is due to the Voxel engine, the game was originally programmed to use, which mainly utilises the CPU to render graphics (via software level code), rather than your graphics card.

[Cube]

this game ran a cpu based engine in 1999

your gpu is almost useless

it runs fine on my i73970x it does not even use all the cores.

[Equation™]

Your graphics card has nothing to do with it, the game runs off your cpu, I have a i7 3,4Ghz, it runs at 1920 x 1080 at 60 fps on mine but doesn't really go over that.

[Calton1]

This is a CPU intensive game and runs great on my i7-920 (3.15 MHz)

Perhaps you're being overly obsessive about FPS because of your GPU?

As Cube says, the GPU isn't part of the equation in Outcast 1.1, although it might be interesting to know what FPS you're getting on games like GTA V - and it won't even be remotely close to 144.

[Liquidus Talon]

Originally posted by alexcrolla_1:

This is a CPU intensive game and runs great on my i7-920 (3.15 MHz)

Perhaps you're being overly obsessive about FPS because of your GPU?

As Cube says, the GPU isn't part of the equation in Outcast 1.1, although it might be interesting to know what FPS you're getting on games like GTA V - and it won't even be remotely close to 144.

Actually, my reason is simply from using a 144hz monitor (144 FPS is the smoothest/most ideal experience for that). I actually forgot that Outcast wasn't a graphics card game (if it ever was).

GTA V is an open world game, and thus (although much better optimised that GTA 4 was) as it is, has quite abit of frame rate drop, but I do get 120-144 FPS in closed areas.

[Calton1]

It also lacks something that Outcast 1.1 has in abundance - soul. You not only get to know and like the characters but you actually have identifiable (and possible as well as satisfying) missions and quests, as well as being able to tackle them in whichever order you like - although you'd be wise to be prepared!

I seem to spend my time on GTA V just driving around hoping to find something to do (although early on I did manage to organise a heist, but that got 'lost' somewhere in between crashes), not really caring for our latest 'hero' or anyone else.

Anyway, now that we've sorted that out, hopefully you'll enjoy Outcast 1.1 as much as we 'fan boys' ;)

[DelaRoca]

Guys, "Voxel" is a CPU Graphic Technology (CPU, man), not for gpu... Outcast don't run more with graphic card, of course it like more strong cpu, more quality for Outcast "graphic". (sorry for my bad english, brazillian).
about more Voxel? read there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

[Little Strawberry]

Originally posted by alexcrolla_1:

This is a CPU intensive game and runs great on my i7-920 (3.15 MHz)

I have a i7-960 and it runs with like 25-30 fps in the tutorial area of the game, that's not very great for me.

[Liquidus Talon]

Originally posted by Little Strawberry:

Originally posted by alexcrolla_1:

This is a CPU intensive game and runs great on my i7-920 (3.15 MHz)

I have a i7-960 and it runs with like 25-30 fps in the tutorial area of the game, that's not very great for me.

What resolution are you running at?

[Little Strawberry]

Originally posted by Liquidus:

Originally posted by Little Strawberry:

I have a i7-960 and it runs with like 25-30 fps in the tutorial area of the game, that's not very great for me.

What resolution are you running at?

1920*1080, because it ran at like 7 fps on a 4k resolution.

edit: running it in native fullscreen gives me about 20 fps more.

[Jomme]

I personally play with a 144hz monitor too, so I completely understand wanting to feel the soft delicious creamy smoothness of having144fps. Im not sure how many fps I had in this game, but I do remember when i turned off some filter, the game became MUCH smoother. It was a filter that made the voxels look like they were ironed out a little, and that was actually the reason why I turned it off anyways (love the old rough voxel look), the fps increase was just a side-effect.

Forgot the name, but im sure its easy to find out in the setting menu.

[Runtus]

Originally posted by Liquidus:

Originally posted by alexcrolla_1:

This is a CPU intensive game and runs great on my i7-920 (3.15 MHz)

Perhaps you're being overly obsessive about FPS because of your GPU?

As Cube says, the GPU isn't part of the equation in Outcast 1.1, although it might be interesting to know what FPS you're getting on games like GTA V - and it won't even be remotely close to 144.

Actually, my reason is simply from using a 144hz monitor (144 FPS is the smoothest/most ideal experience for that). I actually forgot that Outcast wasn't a graphics card game (if it ever was).

GTA V is an open world game, and thus (although much better optimised that GTA 4 was) as it is, has quite abit of frame rate drop, but I do get 120-144 FPS in closed areas.

Of course GTA V and Outcast are comprable. Only a moron would think two games released 16 years apart wouldnt work exactly the same.

P.S. Using words like thus and although don't fool anbody you aren't smart.

[Selek]

Well, back in 1999 you had to have a beast of a computer to run this in its maximum official resolution of 512x384 :D

It's a voxel engine, something you don't really have in the huge majority of other games. The remake devs smoothed out the performance, but achieving rock stable 144 FPS might not be possible with a decently modern CPU for you. I am using a 120 Hz monitor as well and aim for a high framerate in many games, but Outcast is a slow game and I found 40-60 FPS to be perfectly playable.

[Liquidus Talon]

Originally posted by Selek:

Well, back in 1999 you had to have a beast of a computer to run this in its maximum official resolution of 512x384 :D

It's a voxel engine, something you don't really have in the huge majority of other games. The remake devs smoothed out the performance, but achieving rock stable 144 FPS might not be possible with a decently modern CPU for you. I am using a 120 Hz monitor as well and aim for a high framerate in many games, but Outcast is a slow game and I found 40-60 FPS to be perfectly playable.

At 1080p, I agree. My only fault is not looking up how the Voxel engine specifically works.

An i5 3570k at 3.8ghz will yield the results I posted above, at 1920x1080.

[nuffe]

set threads to auto. If you have Hyperthreading enabled, it should improve performance greatly.

[oxmox]

Originally posted by Liquidus:

Does anyone have a blunt answer, as to why I'm getting 50 fps only on a GTX 980? (working with an i5 3570k - Additional note: I've adjusted the Max Voxel Threads to 4)

I'm quite curious as to what's stopping this 1999 game from hitting 120 fps+ (144 being my aim, in this case), and as to why I don't see anyone bringing this up as a question, on recent threads.

50FPS is more than you need in games.