|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 9, 2006 10:04:30 GMT -5
What do you have in mind anyways?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Feb 9, 2006 21:02:41 GMT -5
Reduce the resolution. That way the card loads less particles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Feb 9, 2006 23:20:51 GMT -5
and less of everything else. If your going to repeat what I say, say it right. But yeah, reducing the Res will have a large impact of performance, along with quality as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 10, 2006 15:17:31 GMT -5
Will it make the quality crappier or better?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Feb 11, 2006 0:22:27 GMT -5
CRAPPIER! Heres how it works. A 1024x768 has 1024 pixels of detail one way, and 768 the other. Reduce it to 800x600, and the quality goes to only 800 pixels of deatil one way, and 600 the other. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 11, 2006 6:05:40 GMT -5
Ah! I see now. That sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Feb 12, 2006 19:51:35 GMT -5
yeah, It does. Big time quality loss. Imagine 320x280. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Feb 12, 2006 23:04:17 GMT -5
Its terrible! You would think it would better with less resolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 13, 2006 12:00:14 GMT -5
So it doesn't work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Feb 13, 2006 17:47:33 GMT -5
Battlefront works just fine, but my theory doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Feb 14, 2006 0:05:05 GMT -5
Do you think battlefornt 2 will work?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 14, 2006 11:20:54 GMT -5
I don't think that BF2 would respond to your reducing the resolution than BF did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Feb 14, 2006 20:56:53 GMT -5
Yeah, battlefornt 2 has much more particles, and special effects, along with more polygons, so, if battlefront 1 is sometimes choppy, battlefront 2 wll be much worse
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Feb 14, 2006 21:50:01 GMT -5
Then I can think of only one way left to go: reduce the texture quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Feb 15, 2006 9:38:26 GMT -5
Tell me how it goes.
|
|
