1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gaming The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by The_Pope, 31 Mar 2006.

  1. DougEdey

    DougEdey I pwn all your storage

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    13,933
    Likes Received:
    33
    Superb game this, received it 1 hour after I read the review! On 4 hours at the mo. Doubt I;ll be sleeping tonite.

    Runs fine on my X800XT, only get some slowdown when I come out of dungeons/forts/etc... the pop up draw distance is annoying though.

    Very jealous of my mate who went 3800+ X2 and X1900XT just to play this game :'(
     
  2. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    Right meaning "if I get them set correctly, it's playable at that resolution". The higher the better, naturally, but I'm the type that would often sacrifice detail for resolution. I suppose I could set it to run on DISPLAY2 at 1680x1050 which would be much more doable. So, if I were to get a 7900GT to my 24", are there any settings I could use which would make it playable at 1920? Given the option, would I be better off upping detail to downgrade to 1680 given that I could either scale it fairly well (and in fact, the slight loss of crispness almosts acts as AA, but, well, no) or use it on a panel with that res or black-bar it.

    The good news is that as an RPG, framerates aren't anywhere near as critical as in an FPS, which is my typical genre. Above 30 constantly is what I'd aim for, of course, but it dropping low for a few seconds doesn't tend to mean the difference between delivering or receiving a headshot.

    I'm going to give it a spin set to 1680 with my 6800gt just to see how it scales and what framerates are looking like. The 24" 1920 has 30% more pixels to draw, but the display handles non-native resolutions pretty well, and I definately want something widescreen.
     
  3. dire_wolf

    dire_wolf Last Of The Dovakhiin

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2002
    Posts:
    2,432
    Likes Received:
    21
    That's why I had it on pre-order at play.com for about 6 months :D
     
  4. r3Q

    r3Q Minimodder

    Joined:
    31 Jul 2002
    Posts:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    i just did alot of the INI tweaks on the page(s) i posted, and i gained about 10fps outside, and damn near 30 indoors - and before i was NOT running HDR.

    i did the thinning grass, coolbits tweak (for geforce6xxx), and a few minor ones. wow - its SO much eaiser to play this game. i just spent the last hour with godemode on killing everyone in the imperal city :)
     
  5. EvilRusk

    EvilRusk What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    This game is awesome. I did some tweaks with the bloom and I'm finding it better than HDR since I can have AA on.

    Well I got a A64 3200, 2Gb ram a 7800GT and an audigy2 and my pc is about to catch fire. The thing that really disappoints me is that the game doesn't really take advantage of the amount of ram I have at all. If I turn around in a big outdoors space I get skipping whilst textures are swapped since the game seems to limit itself to the 256mb texture memory on the card, completely ignoring the spare system ram I have (according to Vidmemwatch). Framerate is criminal but I just can't bring myself to turn down those details lol!
     
  6. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,113
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    after a bit of tweaking I managed to get it to run at 1280x1024, HDR, max view distance, half grass distance and max everything-else distance, no grass shadows or self shadows, max water details and large textures at a very playable fps on an overclocked 7800GT (including the ini tweaks to increase the distant texture quality and to get the water to reflect everything) so its definitely worth having a fiddle around to get the best out of it.

    Saved me £350 anyway :D

    one thing that I've not noticed, is the loading times I've heard people complain about. I never get a pause when the loading box pops on screen outside (ie when going between 'cells') and the loading screen when going from inside to outside, or to a different area inside, is never there for more than a second, and usually just pops up and disappears right away.

    I don't know whether thats because 2GB of ram, an high-end storage array, more tolerance for loading screens or a combination of the 3 :eyebrow:
     
  7. Kaze22

    Kaze22 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    419
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're joking right? Even on my ATI X1800 I could barely play at 1680 res, and you wanna do it on a 6800.
    Honestly I have yet to see a rig do bareable framerates at 1680 and you're talking about 1980 res. :wallbash:
    Well if you don't mind playing the a game as a slide show LOL

    Yes it's the RAM, anything above 1.5 gigs of RAM will virtually eliminate all world expanding load times, you'll still get loading in between rooms and what not but all real world loading is pretty much buffered into RAM.
    I noticed that even at 1 gig of RAM you'll noticed a second delay on some places, but as soon as you hit 1.5 gigs loading becomes seemless.
    I've heard that this massive ram buffering is one of biggest benefits of the PC version on Xbox sometimes the load can become quite annoying.
     
    Last edited: 1 Apr 2006
  8. speedfreek

    speedfreek What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1
    You should really see how Im set up right now, computer in front of the sofa and the only problem is that I get a sore neck by 3 or 4am.

    I dont like rpgs but I do enjoy this game, Im running fine at 1600x1200 with med settings and havent had any framerate dips yet. I think its a decent game but havent gotten addicted yet.
     
  9. automagsrock

    automagsrock What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    15
    So when I play this my character moves at a snails pace compared to everything else. WTF??
     
  10. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,113
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    ok, for a giggle, try 'caps lock' :worried:
     
  11. DougEdey

    DougEdey I pwn all your storage

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    13,933
    Likes Received:
    33
    Also, take off crouch/sneak (ctrl) and sheath your weapon.
     
  12. EK-MDi

    EK-MDi What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you're able to play the game at high resolutions, 1280x1024 and above, you don't really need Anti-Aliasing so much. So deciding between either AA or HDR, is an easy choice. You can just choose HDR, which will have the most useful benefits.
     
  13. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    You can't really say that for all cases. I mean, with a 21" monitor if I run anything in 1024x768 it looks horrifically jaggy, and I have to remind myself I've not gone back to 1997 and 640x480. For those with big monitors, this game is going to hurt.
     
    Last edited: 1 Apr 2006
  14. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    I agree, the game looks fabulous at 1920x1200, but I don't have the hardware to run the game acceptably with maximum detail at that res. :(
     
  15. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
    What's funny is the weird looks I got from one of our other staff members when I said I bought a 7900gt...as I only have a nice Philips 15" LCD monitor (1024x768). So whilst y'all are talking about these huge screens and mammoth resolutions, I'm enjoying maximum settings ;) w00t old technology!

    I have the seamless loads, too. I think the biggest factor to that is your storage array, as I only have 1gb of ram and never have a problem...but the game is running on a dedicated sata2 400gb hard drive with a 16mb buffer and NCQ. I should really put those two drives in Raid...mmm, 800gb of stripey goodness.
     
  16. Firehed

    Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match.

    Joined:
    15 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    12,574
    Likes Received:
    16
    No, I'm not joking, but that's not what I said. I tried it at 1680 with my 6800gt, plays worse than it does now after turning down details and HDR off. I just wanted to get an idea of what I'd be looking at in terms of detail if I were able to get a card with twice the power of what I have now. It wouldn't be unreasonable at 1680 with a 7900gt I don't think if I tweak it a bit, or so my gut tells me (anyone with a 7900gt and a screen that can do 1680x1050, feel free to confirm or reject that)

    Yeah, 2 gigs of ram helps a lot though. I get no load pauses going between the different areas of land, and pretty minimal between full areas (entering cities or rooms). The first load definately takes the longtest, and that's not a big deal since it's still only a few seconds (less than any other game I've played recently). FWIW, it's installed to a Raptor, but the old 36GB ones aren't notably faster than a decent sized 7.2k drive, especially when they're both well-defragged (as mine are).

    Spent about 6hrs playing yesterday... oh dear. This of course being before I realized that my custom class selections were undeniably horrible and that I should really start over. But more playtime would be good.... it looks suhweet! I'm tempted to try dropping to 1024x768 just to see if max details is playable. I'll have to try smuggling a projector from my dad's office just to see :lol:
     
  17. CowBlazed

    CowBlazed What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Graphics card is the biggest concern with this game, you don't even need a high end CPU or more then 1 gig of memory, if you looked at their usage. It uses the graphics memory for all the textures, and the my CPU is hardly over 50% usage while playing. The game has optimizations for multi-threads but its hardly needed, its all about the graphics card.

    That being said, the game runs sweet on my X850 Pro @ X850 XT with 1gig memory and a A64 3500+ on 1280x1024 resolution. I thinned out the grass a bit and now I can set it to max draw distance and the frame rate is perfectly smooth, this and the outdoor shadow options were causing slow downs. Once I turned off the outdoor shadow options (grass shadow, canopy shadows etc) and thinned the grass, everything else is maxed and I only get slow downs with more then 5 or so enemies on screen at once, in an outdoor enviroment, which is fairly rare.

    Last thing I want to add are load times. I am completly impressed with the load times in this game. The actual loads (save games, entering a city or cave etc) are very short, some of the shortest out of any game I have ever played, I hardly have time to read the quire important tool tip before it dissapears. The load times when running through the world are even more impressive! All I get is a split second drop in FPS and the word Loading on the screen and thats it, its really amazing how a game with this level of detail and this epic size can load so fluidly, and I'm on whats considered "mid range" PC, higher end PCs must load even faster (if possible).

    The game is completly awesome as most people know by now, so I won't go into any detail but you have to try it.

    Also, though the game looks extremely nice with the distant lands, maxed out trees and draw distance etc, the game is still highly enjoyable on lower settings.

    My friend plays on a 9600xt, 512mb RAM and a 2.6ghz P4 at 800x600 low/medium settings, and hes just as caught into this great game as I am.

    However if you have an FX card (someone mentioned their friend on an FX5200) your a bit out of luck. Its been known for a while that the FX series has bad DX9 and Shader Model 2.0 support, and it shows in this game. Performance is horrid, and lots of crashes. Best thing you can do is tweak the .ini to resort to 1.1 shaders and DX8.1, then you can proceed to turning everything to low, and then you can start playing. I've seen screenshots like this and the graphics look kinda like Morrowind actually, I'm sure theres still alot of enjoyment to be had out of it, but don't expect any visually stunning vistas like I get to enjoy on top of the game experience.
     
  18. Fr4nk

    Fr4nk Tyrannosaurus Alan !

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2005
    Posts:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    2
    :( Hope fully I'll be able to get this to 1280*1024 on my 21" CRT with decents details. but thean again, do I really want to start playing? I probably won't stop :/ (on a 21" CRT too btw)

    -Fr4nk
     
  19. MastershakeJB

    MastershakeJB Banned

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eh

    I dunno. These scores don't sound quite right to me. I have an AMD 3200 OC'd to 2.7, from 2.0 stock, 1 gig of slightly OC'd, lowered latency ram, and only *ONE* 7900 GT (overclocked and volt modded to past GTX speeds, 730 mghz core, 1800 memory) and mine runs this BEAUTIFULLY~! I have it maxed settings, 16 X 12 and the framerate NEVER drops below 60 FPS (with the exception of the occasional hiccup from my slow HDD caching).......so maybe the testers aren't testing well? I dunno, but bring this system to it's knees? please! If anything, this system brings the game to it's knees. I'd game even higher res, but my screen only supports 16 X 12 max anyway.

    P.S. to whoever said controller + couch vs keyboard mouse and desk....i run this from my couch, on my 42 inch plasma, with wireless keyboard and mouse. (and before someone tries to blast me for saying i game at 16 X 12 on a 42 plasma, YES, i realize that 42 inch plasma, can only natively display 12X10 max (as far PIXEL resolution is concerned, so don't ask me how i run it at 16 X 12, i can with a special scaling my screen uses for hd SCAN LINES) and sometimes i run it on my CRT monitor at that res as well.


    --PPS, this rig from the ground up, only set me back about 600 bucks :rock: :clap: :thumb: :naughty: , so whoever thinks you need to drop a fortune to have performance is wrong.
    1.) 100 dollar CPU overclocked to 1000 dollar cpu performance; (still running stock cooling hehe, could go even higher if i wanted to dish out for a nicer cooler)
    2.) 300 dollar video card overclocked PAST 600 dollar performance (DID have to buy better cooler, 30 bucks)
    3.) 70 bucks for decent OC'able ram
    4.) 70 dollars for great OC'ing mobo

    oh yeah, and i'm didn't do any of these "ini mods", didn't have to play with any settings, other than just turning them all the way to max
     
    Last edited: 2 Apr 2006
  20. MastershakeJB

    MastershakeJB Banned

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, I have a question. When i enable HDR from within the game, and AA from my control panel as opposed to in game, it actually works, or looks like it does. So why is it that I keep hearing that this is "impossible" when it's very much running on my comp? Albeit it acts......weird, when i have it enabled. It acts similar to skipping a frame, like it does when it's caching off my HDD, only moreso, but it's not all that noticable, as it happens only slightly more frequently than does the HDD caching skip, which is only every couple of minutes or so. So my question is, am i doing damage by leaving AA running with HDR? Is HDR actually running with AA, or am i just imagining that it is and it's actually bloom? I'm lost, i don't understand why it's "impossible" and yet i'm doing it.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page