UT2K3 is OK

By erwin1978
Oct 8, 2002
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I've been playing the retail UT2K3 and it's really slow on my XP1600+, TI4200. Currently, I've got everything set to the lowest settings to get 60+ fps. What's the point, right? After all, the reason I got the game was for its graphics. The game does look good. Maybe I should've gotten Chessmaster 9000.:eek:

    Also, the game occupies 2.5 GB of diskspace. You heard me.:eek: I also have 256 MB of memory and the game loads supa slow if all the settings are at max. Fortunately, I got some 512 MB of memory coming within a couple of days. That should fix the extra disk accessing.
  2. Mogiin

    Mogiin Newcomer, in training

    Do u use the latest Detonator drivers? v30.82

    There is also a beta driver , v40.72

    www.nvidia.com

    I got a AMD Thunderbird 1200 Mhz , 256 MB DDR-Ram and a Geforce 2 Pro 64 MB DDR (Detonator v30.82)

    I can play the game in "Normal" settings , 1024*768 resolution and 32 bit colors.

    It runs very good (30 á 45 FPS) , but sometimes it's slow (10 á 15 FPS)

    Your system must run the game much faster :)

    Try this tweak guide: http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/ut2003/index.shtml
  3. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    well I consider anything below 60 fps slow. I'll have to experiment and balance the settings with the performance I want I guess. It won't be another 2-4 years before this game can run 60+ fps with all settings maxed.
  4. poertner_1274

    poertner_1274 secroF laicepS topShceT Posts: 4,745

    I didn't notice too many problems running it. But then again I never looked to see how many fps I was getting. I have an ATI All in Wonder 32meg, with 312 MB ram and 1.2 Tbird and it works decently. I have never been able to play games GREAT but good anyway.

    If you tell me how to get fps I'll let you know what I'm getting.
  5. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    type in "stat fps"
  6. iv_

    iv_ Newcomer, in training


    Actually, not meaning to brag, but on my brand new Hercules 9700 I get 150+ inside bases, and 60+ when outside. This is with everything maxed out on 1024.

    Some things:
    - The stat fps is not always consistent ( so I have read )
    - When online playing on a bad configged / underequiped server, framerates can get messy


    Are you using vsynch ( check in your Advanced Monitor settings ) ?
    That will lock the fps to your current Refresh Rate, also.
  7. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    I see much talk about your poor numbers but what about the look and feel. Does it look and feel slow or are you just getting solid 60fps. In my opinion consistent lower numbers is much better than jumping from 100fps to 5 fps, which is what many people experience with most games.

    Unless you are superhuman or an android, which I doubt, then you won't see any difference above 30 or so fps because that is as fast as the human eye can detect the frame rate. The only thing high frame rates are good for is bragging.

    If you get the game to look and feel like you want it to, then you should not worry about any numbers.
  8. Top_gun

    Top_gun Newcomer, in training Posts: 81

    on the demo, with everything maxed @ 1024*768*32, get an average of 30Fps (Athlon 1.2Ghz T-bird, Geforce2 Ti). Sure Im begging my parents for a new computer but...damn I want a car ;)
  9. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    Human eyesight isn't limited to detect only 30 fps. I, for one, can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Imagine how good films would look if they did ran at 60 fps.
  10. StormBringer

    StormBringer Newcomer, in training Posts: 2,871

    TV signals are somewhere around 65fps. Human eyesight is actually maxed somewhere around 60 but most people can't tell a difference after 30-40fps. 30 is the point where most video becomes smooth and stops being jerky.
  11. Arris

    Arris TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,534   +92

    I hope people are confusing each other when the Demo and the retail full game of UT2003 use different sizes of textures. Apparently (although I have yet to play the full game) the full game uses much larger textures so someone playing the demo on a lower spec machine will appear to get better frame rates than someone with a higher spec machine playing the full game. Please keep this in mind when comparing performance levels with this game. I mean, my laptop which is currently running a 32mb Geforce2Go (Dell messed up the order and are meant to be sending a Geforce4Go) runs the UT2003 Demo nicely at 1024x768 with max DEMO game settings. I don't think I will be trying to run the full game on this laptop....
     
  12. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    Well, I have the retail game, and a TI4200(128 MB). From what I can see, there was little to no difference in fps when I set the textures to normal to highest. I still need to play around with the settings.

    I lose a lot of fps when I set the audio to hardware. I guess it's time for soundcard manufacturers to go back to the drawing boards.
  13. Elcarion

    Elcarion TechSpot Paladin Posts: 188

    Have you tried running it in 16-bit color? I haven't found a game yet that looks much/any different running 16/32-bit. The difference in performance can be drastic. I'm running at the default graphics level with satisfactory fps@800x600x16 on a 1.2G Athlon/384MB RAM/GF2 MX 400 64MB. I don't plan to upgrade anything until Doom 3 comes out at this point; UT2003 does look extremely good with everything maxed out though!

    My average fps seems to bottom out around 35fps with a min around 25 and a max around 65.
  14. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training Posts: 6,504

    Heheheh I've been playing it under Linux. :)

    I had to install proper nVidia drivers that had 3Dacceleration, but after that it was fine....

    It will even live on a FAT32 partition with my other windows games fine.... performance is fine, but I think a few fps less than in Windows XP but proper tweaking of XF86Config-4 should sort that....
  15. deskjet390

    deskjet390 Newcomer, in training

    seems as though you are having some problems........your framerate should be far beyond what you are saying with that 4200
    i have a 4200 and are boasting 80fps in 1024x768 high everything
    like that dude said...upgrade drivers, most logical answer.
  16. --Ne0-CyPh3r--

    --Ne0-CyPh3r-- Newcomer, in training

    No.

    It's like this:

    A Ti-4200 squeaks, a Radeon 9700 Pro boasts. :grinthumb

    It just sucks that the drivers are total crap and there are a lot of problems with this chipset.

    I thought that any refresh rate lower than 60Hz can be irritable or detectable by the human eye, anything higher is invisible. Everything below 70Hz is simply too visible for me, and it gets very irritating, especially since all the schools seem to run their friggin' monitors at a 60Hz refresh rate.
  17. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    Keep in mind that I have a 128 MB version so it has slower rams. I don't want to overclock just yet. I'm too afraid, considering I paid nearly $200 for this baby.
  18. Elcarion

    Elcarion TechSpot Paladin Posts: 188

    What are your AGP-related settings in your mobo BIOS? 4x-AGP, AGP Aperture, AGP Timing, VGA Pallet Snoop, etc...
  19. erwin1978

    erwin1978 TechSpot Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 327

    They're all set appropriately.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.