you should probably add mat_phong 0
game looks better with it off
Felik's config // Chris' config replacement
posted in
Customization
you should probably add mat_phong 0
game looks better with it off
game looks better with it off
ALL tests had nvidia spec LOD bias -15, res 1920x917:
-autoconfig
Show Content
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 31.737 seconds 83.15 fps (12.03 ms/f) 4.841 fps variability
2639 frames 32.084 seconds 82.25 fps (12.16 ms/f) 4.743 fps variability
2639 frames 31.674 seconds 83.32 fps (12.00 ms/f) 4.621 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 34.027 seconds 77.56 fps (12.89 ms/f) 4.448 fps variability
2639 frames 34.059 seconds 77.48 fps (12.91 ms/f) 4.473 fps variability
2639 frames 34.837 seconds 75.75 fps (13.20 ms/f) 4.494 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 34.326 seconds 76.88 fps (13.01 ms/f) 4.944 fps variability
2639 frames 34.171 seconds 77.23 fps (12.95 ms/f) 4.252 fps variability
2639 frames 33.880 seconds 77.89 fps (12.84 ms/f) 4.278 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 34.246 seconds 77.06 fps (12.98 ms/f) 4.401 fps variability
2639 frames 34.509 seconds 76.47 fps (13.08 ms/f) 4.390 fps variability
2639 frames 34.296 seconds 76.95 fps (13.00 ms/f) 4.187 fps variability
2639 frames 31.737 seconds 83.15 fps (12.03 ms/f) 4.841 fps variability
2639 frames 32.084 seconds 82.25 fps (12.16 ms/f) 4.743 fps variability
2639 frames 31.674 seconds 83.32 fps (12.00 ms/f) 4.621 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 34.027 seconds 77.56 fps (12.89 ms/f) 4.448 fps variability
2639 frames 34.059 seconds 77.48 fps (12.91 ms/f) 4.473 fps variability
2639 frames 34.837 seconds 75.75 fps (13.20 ms/f) 4.494 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 34.326 seconds 76.88 fps (13.01 ms/f) 4.944 fps variability
2639 frames 34.171 seconds 77.23 fps (12.95 ms/f) 4.252 fps variability
2639 frames 33.880 seconds 77.89 fps (12.84 ms/f) 4.278 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 34.246 seconds 77.06 fps (12.98 ms/f) 4.401 fps variability
2639 frames 34.509 seconds 76.47 fps (13.08 ms/f) 4.390 fps variability
2639 frames 34.296 seconds 76.95 fps (13.00 ms/f) 4.187 fps variability
Comanglia's Config (shadows disabled)
Show Content
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 19.153 seconds 137.79 fps ( 7.26 ms/f) 9.363 fps variability
2639 frames 18.940 seconds 139.33 fps ( 7.18 ms/f) 9.374 fps variability
2639 frames 18.929 seconds 139.42 fps ( 7.17 ms/f) 8.991 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 21.391 seconds 123.37 fps ( 8.11 ms/f) 8.010 fps variability
2639 frames 21.710 seconds 121.56 fps ( 8.23 ms/f) 8.183 fps variability
2639 frames 21.328 seconds 123.73 fps ( 8.08 ms/f) 7.726 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 21.584 seconds 122.27 fps ( 8.18 ms/f) 8.123 fps variability
2639 frames 21.469 seconds 122.92 fps ( 8.14 ms/f) 7.834 fps variability
2639 frames 21.862 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 7.855 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 21.863 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 8.437 fps variability
2639 frames 21.627 seconds 122.02 fps ( 8.20 ms/f) 7.884 fps variability
2639 frames 22.002 seconds 119.94 fps ( 8.34 ms/f) 8.258 fps variability
2639 frames 19.153 seconds 137.79 fps ( 7.26 ms/f) 9.363 fps variability
2639 frames 18.940 seconds 139.33 fps ( 7.18 ms/f) 9.374 fps variability
2639 frames 18.929 seconds 139.42 fps ( 7.17 ms/f) 8.991 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 21.391 seconds 123.37 fps ( 8.11 ms/f) 8.010 fps variability
2639 frames 21.710 seconds 121.56 fps ( 8.23 ms/f) 8.183 fps variability
2639 frames 21.328 seconds 123.73 fps ( 8.08 ms/f) 7.726 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 21.584 seconds 122.27 fps ( 8.18 ms/f) 8.123 fps variability
2639 frames 21.469 seconds 122.92 fps ( 8.14 ms/f) 7.834 fps variability
2639 frames 21.862 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 7.855 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 21.863 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 8.437 fps variability
2639 frames 21.627 seconds 122.02 fps ( 8.20 ms/f) 7.884 fps variability
2639 frames 22.002 seconds 119.94 fps ( 8.34 ms/f) 8.258 fps variability
felik's Config //before running I set the entire options/advanced to the lowest possible as it increased FPS
Show Content
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 21.027 seconds 125.51 fps ( 7.97 ms/f) 8.094 fps variability
2639 frames 21.097 seconds 125.09 fps ( 7.99 ms/f) 7.853 fps variability
2639 frames 21.017 seconds 125.57 fps ( 7.96 ms/f) 8.086 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
// options default (setting them all to lowest resulted in even weaker performance for whatever reason)
2639 frames 24.847 seconds 106.21 fps ( 9.42 ms/f) 8.483 fps variability
2639 frames 24.218 seconds 108.97 fps ( 9.18 ms/f) 6.895 fps variability
2639 frames 24.271 seconds 108.73 fps ( 9.20 ms/f) 6.709 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 23.073 seconds 114.38 fps ( 8.74 ms/f) 7.338 fps variability
2639 frames 22.810 seconds 115.70 fps ( 8.64 ms/f) 7.210 fps variability
2639 frames 22.982 seconds 114.83 fps ( 8.71 ms/f) 7.026 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 24.079 seconds 109.60 fps ( 9.12 ms/f) 7.435 fps variability
2639 frames 24.015 seconds 109.89 fps ( 9.10 ms/f) 7.165 fps variability
2639 frames 23.974 seconds 110.08 fps ( 9.08 ms/f) 6.820 fps variability
2639 frames 21.027 seconds 125.51 fps ( 7.97 ms/f) 8.094 fps variability
2639 frames 21.097 seconds 125.09 fps ( 7.99 ms/f) 7.853 fps variability
2639 frames 21.017 seconds 125.57 fps ( 7.96 ms/f) 8.086 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
// options default (setting them all to lowest resulted in even weaker performance for whatever reason)
2639 frames 24.847 seconds 106.21 fps ( 9.42 ms/f) 8.483 fps variability
2639 frames 24.218 seconds 108.97 fps ( 9.18 ms/f) 6.895 fps variability
2639 frames 24.271 seconds 108.73 fps ( 9.20 ms/f) 6.709 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 23.073 seconds 114.38 fps ( 8.74 ms/f) 7.338 fps variability
2639 frames 22.810 seconds 115.70 fps ( 8.64 ms/f) 7.210 fps variability
2639 frames 22.982 seconds 114.83 fps ( 8.71 ms/f) 7.026 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 24.079 seconds 109.60 fps ( 9.12 ms/f) 7.435 fps variability
2639 frames 24.015 seconds 109.89 fps ( 9.10 ms/f) 7.165 fps variability
2639 frames 23.974 seconds 110.08 fps ( 9.08 ms/f) 6.820 fps variability
Using this setup: i5 760, GTX 470, here's my conclusion:
Comanglia's certainly give better performance, however I've noticed particularly on DX8.1 that there's discernible 'stutter' (the FPS is fine but it essentially feels less smooth); setting it to DX9.x always gets rid of this. The 'stutter' is most noticeable when launching local servers, or having a stream running in the background.
Using feliks or valve's default, there always seems to be smoothness regardless of DX level. Keep in mind that the lack of smoothness I've experienced on Comanglia's AND chris's have not bothered me and I've actually not thought about it at all until switching to DX9. Still, the lack of FPS using default settings have always kept me from using anything but the two mentioned configs.
I'll be switching to feliks using DX8.1, despite the 10~% FPS loss over Comanglia's because it feels like it's running smoother.
[h]ALL tests had nvidia spec LOD bias -15, res 1920x917:[/h]
[h]-autoconfig[/h]
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 31.737 seconds 83.15 fps (12.03 ms/f) 4.841 fps variability
2639 frames 32.084 seconds 82.25 fps (12.16 ms/f) 4.743 fps variability
2639 frames 31.674 seconds 83.32 fps (12.00 ms/f) 4.621 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 34.027 seconds 77.56 fps (12.89 ms/f) 4.448 fps variability
2639 frames 34.059 seconds 77.48 fps (12.91 ms/f) 4.473 fps variability
2639 frames 34.837 seconds 75.75 fps (13.20 ms/f) 4.494 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 34.326 seconds 76.88 fps (13.01 ms/f) 4.944 fps variability
2639 frames 34.171 seconds 77.23 fps (12.95 ms/f) 4.252 fps variability
2639 frames 33.880 seconds 77.89 fps (12.84 ms/f) 4.278 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 34.246 seconds 77.06 fps (12.98 ms/f) 4.401 fps variability
2639 frames 34.509 seconds 76.47 fps (13.08 ms/f) 4.390 fps variability
2639 frames 34.296 seconds 76.95 fps (13.00 ms/f) 4.187 fps variability
[/spoiler]
[h]Comanglia's Config (shadows disabled)[/h]
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 19.153 seconds 137.79 fps ( 7.26 ms/f) 9.363 fps variability
2639 frames 18.940 seconds 139.33 fps ( 7.18 ms/f) 9.374 fps variability
2639 frames 18.929 seconds 139.42 fps ( 7.17 ms/f) 8.991 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 21.391 seconds 123.37 fps ( 8.11 ms/f) 8.010 fps variability
2639 frames 21.710 seconds 121.56 fps ( 8.23 ms/f) 8.183 fps variability
2639 frames 21.328 seconds 123.73 fps ( 8.08 ms/f) 7.726 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 21.584 seconds 122.27 fps ( 8.18 ms/f) 8.123 fps variability
2639 frames 21.469 seconds 122.92 fps ( 8.14 ms/f) 7.834 fps variability
2639 frames 21.862 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 7.855 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 21.863 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 8.437 fps variability
2639 frames 21.627 seconds 122.02 fps ( 8.20 ms/f) 7.884 fps variability
2639 frames 22.002 seconds 119.94 fps ( 8.34 ms/f) 8.258 fps variability
[/spoiler]
[h]felik's Config[/h] //before running I set the entire options/advanced to the lowest possible as it increased FPS
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 21.027 seconds 125.51 fps ( 7.97 ms/f) 8.094 fps variability
2639 frames 21.097 seconds 125.09 fps ( 7.99 ms/f) 7.853 fps variability
2639 frames 21.017 seconds 125.57 fps ( 7.96 ms/f) 8.086 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
// options default (setting them all to lowest resulted in even weaker performance for whatever reason)
2639 frames 24.847 seconds 106.21 fps ( 9.42 ms/f) 8.483 fps variability
2639 frames 24.218 seconds 108.97 fps ( 9.18 ms/f) 6.895 fps variability
2639 frames 24.271 seconds 108.73 fps ( 9.20 ms/f) 6.709 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 23.073 seconds 114.38 fps ( 8.74 ms/f) 7.338 fps variability
2639 frames 22.810 seconds 115.70 fps ( 8.64 ms/f) 7.210 fps variability
2639 frames 22.982 seconds 114.83 fps ( 8.71 ms/f) 7.026 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 24.079 seconds 109.60 fps ( 9.12 ms/f) 7.435 fps variability
2639 frames 24.015 seconds 109.89 fps ( 9.10 ms/f) 7.165 fps variability
2639 frames 23.974 seconds 110.08 fps ( 9.08 ms/f) 6.820 fps variability
[/spoiler]
Using this setup: i5 760, GTX 470, here's my conclusion:
Comanglia's certainly give better performance, however I've noticed particularly on DX8.1 that there's discernible 'stutter' (the FPS is fine but it essentially feels less smooth); setting it to DX9.x always gets rid of this. The 'stutter' is most noticeable when launching local servers, or having a stream running in the background.
Using feliks or valve's default, there always seems to be smoothness regardless of DX level. Keep in mind that the lack of smoothness I've experienced on Comanglia's AND chris's have not bothered me and I've actually not thought about it at all until switching to DX9. Still, the lack of FPS using default settings have always kept me from using anything but the two mentioned configs.
I'll be switching to feliks using DX8.1, despite the 10~% FPS loss over Comanglia's because it feels like it's running smoother.
[h]-autoconfig[/h]
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 31.737 seconds 83.15 fps (12.03 ms/f) 4.841 fps variability
2639 frames 32.084 seconds 82.25 fps (12.16 ms/f) 4.743 fps variability
2639 frames 31.674 seconds 83.32 fps (12.00 ms/f) 4.621 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 34.027 seconds 77.56 fps (12.89 ms/f) 4.448 fps variability
2639 frames 34.059 seconds 77.48 fps (12.91 ms/f) 4.473 fps variability
2639 frames 34.837 seconds 75.75 fps (13.20 ms/f) 4.494 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 34.326 seconds 76.88 fps (13.01 ms/f) 4.944 fps variability
2639 frames 34.171 seconds 77.23 fps (12.95 ms/f) 4.252 fps variability
2639 frames 33.880 seconds 77.89 fps (12.84 ms/f) 4.278 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 34.246 seconds 77.06 fps (12.98 ms/f) 4.401 fps variability
2639 frames 34.509 seconds 76.47 fps (13.08 ms/f) 4.390 fps variability
2639 frames 34.296 seconds 76.95 fps (13.00 ms/f) 4.187 fps variability
[/spoiler]
[h]Comanglia's Config (shadows disabled)[/h]
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 19.153 seconds 137.79 fps ( 7.26 ms/f) 9.363 fps variability
2639 frames 18.940 seconds 139.33 fps ( 7.18 ms/f) 9.374 fps variability
2639 frames 18.929 seconds 139.42 fps ( 7.17 ms/f) 8.991 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
2639 frames 21.391 seconds 123.37 fps ( 8.11 ms/f) 8.010 fps variability
2639 frames 21.710 seconds 121.56 fps ( 8.23 ms/f) 8.183 fps variability
2639 frames 21.328 seconds 123.73 fps ( 8.08 ms/f) 7.726 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 21.584 seconds 122.27 fps ( 8.18 ms/f) 8.123 fps variability
2639 frames 21.469 seconds 122.92 fps ( 8.14 ms/f) 7.834 fps variability
2639 frames 21.862 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 7.855 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 21.863 seconds 120.71 fps ( 8.28 ms/f) 8.437 fps variability
2639 frames 21.627 seconds 122.02 fps ( 8.20 ms/f) 7.884 fps variability
2639 frames 22.002 seconds 119.94 fps ( 8.34 ms/f) 8.258 fps variability
[/spoiler]
[h]felik's Config[/h] //before running I set the entire options/advanced to the lowest possible as it increased FPS
[spoiler]
// -dxlevel 81
2639 frames 21.027 seconds 125.51 fps ( 7.97 ms/f) 8.094 fps variability
2639 frames 21.097 seconds 125.09 fps ( 7.99 ms/f) 7.853 fps variability
2639 frames 21.017 seconds 125.57 fps ( 7.96 ms/f) 8.086 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 90
// options default (setting them all to lowest resulted in even weaker performance for whatever reason)
2639 frames 24.847 seconds 106.21 fps ( 9.42 ms/f) 8.483 fps variability
2639 frames 24.218 seconds 108.97 fps ( 9.18 ms/f) 6.895 fps variability
2639 frames 24.271 seconds 108.73 fps ( 9.20 ms/f) 6.709 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 91
2639 frames 23.073 seconds 114.38 fps ( 8.74 ms/f) 7.338 fps variability
2639 frames 22.810 seconds 115.70 fps ( 8.64 ms/f) 7.210 fps variability
2639 frames 22.982 seconds 114.83 fps ( 8.71 ms/f) 7.026 fps variability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// -dxlevel 95
2639 frames 24.079 seconds 109.60 fps ( 9.12 ms/f) 7.435 fps variability
2639 frames 24.015 seconds 109.89 fps ( 9.10 ms/f) 7.165 fps variability
2639 frames 23.974 seconds 110.08 fps ( 9.08 ms/f) 6.820 fps variability
[/spoiler]
Using this setup: i5 760, GTX 470, here's my conclusion:
Comanglia's certainly give better performance, however I've noticed particularly on DX8.1 that there's discernible 'stutter' (the FPS is fine but it essentially feels less smooth); setting it to DX9.x always gets rid of this. The 'stutter' is most noticeable when launching local servers, or having a stream running in the background.
Using feliks or valve's default, there always seems to be smoothness regardless of DX level. Keep in mind that the lack of smoothness I've experienced on Comanglia's AND chris's have not bothered me and I've actually not thought about it at all until switching to DX9. Still, the lack of FPS using default settings have always kept me from using anything but the two mentioned configs.
I'll be switching to feliks using DX8.1, despite the 10~% FPS loss over Comanglia's because it feels like it's running smoother.
treetoonI'll be switching to feliks using DX8.1, despite the 10~% FPS loss over Comanglia's because it feels like it's running smoother.
maybe it is because of cl_smooth 1?
[quote=treetoon]I'll be switching to feliks using DX8.1, despite the 10~% FPS loss over Comanglia's because it feels like it's running smoother.[/quote]
maybe it is because of cl_smooth 1?
maybe it is because of cl_smooth 1?
Just from my experience after playing with them for a while, the net settings are pretty shit.
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.
I also have a question about your config other than the net settings:
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
Just from my experience after playing with them for a while, the net settings are pretty shit.
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.
I also have a question about your config other than the net settings:
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.
I also have a question about your config other than the net settings:
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
fxRentQNJust from my experience after playing with them for a while, the net settings are pretty shit.It's either placebo, or you have a very weak connection.
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.
Hmm I'm pretty sure my connection is solid. I get good pings and no packet loss or anything like that.
Don't really think it's placebo either. I first used your settings for 2 days and then switched back and forth between yours and my original ones for a bit.
It might just be me being used to my settings so much and basically being used to aiming in a certain way that might not necessarely always be exactly on target, but more like where I learned the shot will register.
I mostly missed the kinda shots where the enemy is very close to you and almost behind you and you spin around really fast and shoot at some point while your crosshair is flying over the guy but doesn't really lock on to him so it's kinda hard to tell if it was on him or not when you fired the shot.
Not really sure what it is.
RentQNI also have a question about your config other than the net settings:mat_bumpmap 0 should get rid of some shine without side effects.
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
And it's not based at all on having everything set to the highest, or the lowest, it's meant to allow the game to handle more things, which is better for stability reasons.
Thanks I'll try that (both mat_bumpmap 0 and setting everything to low) and see how it goes.
My FPS where just slightly lower than with my usual config (170 vs 173) with almost maxed out settings, so I might get even higher FPS when I set everything to low, which would be pretty incredible, seeing as the game looks a lot better (probably even with lowest settings) and the game kinda feels smoother and my FPS are more stable.
So definitely gonna give your config another try :)
Thanks for uploading it.
[quote=fx][quote=RentQN]Just from my experience after playing with them for a while, the net settings are pretty shit.
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.[/quote]
It's either placebo, or you have a very weak connection.
[b]Hmm I'm pretty sure my connection is solid. I get good pings and no packet loss or anything like that.
Don't really think it's placebo either. I first used your settings for 2 days and then switched back and forth between yours and my original ones for a bit.
It might just be me being used to my settings so much and basically being used to aiming in a certain way that might not necessarely always be exactly on target, but more like where I learned the shot will register.
I mostly missed the kinda shots where the enemy is very close to you and almost behind you and you spin around really fast and shoot at some point while your crosshair is flying over the guy but doesn't really lock on to him so it's kinda hard to tell if it was on him or not when you fired the shot.
Not really sure what it is.[/b]
[quote=RentQN]I also have a question about your config other than the net settings:
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
[/quote]
mat_bumpmap 0 should get rid of some shine without side effects.
And it's not based at all on having everything set to the highest, or the lowest, it's meant to allow the game to handle more things, which is better for stability reasons.[/quote]
Thanks I'll try that (both mat_bumpmap 0 and setting everything to low) and see how it goes.
My FPS where just slightly lower than with my usual config (170 vs 173) with almost maxed out settings, so I might get even higher FPS when I set everything to low, which would be pretty incredible, seeing as the game looks a lot better (probably even with lowest settings) and the game kinda feels smoother and my FPS are more stable.
So definitely gonna give your config another try :)
Thanks for uploading it.
I've been missing shots that were 100% on target quite a bit.
And it wasn't some kinda fluke either, the difference was immediately noticeable after switching back to my normal settings.
I believe you when you say that you have some knowledge of those things, since you config is actually really good (if you want your game to look all shiny and stuff) and that your net settings make sense in theory, but they don't seem to work too well in practice. At least for me, maybe they work great on your and other peoples connections.[/quote]
It's either placebo, or you have a very weak connection.
[b]Hmm I'm pretty sure my connection is solid. I get good pings and no packet loss or anything like that.
Don't really think it's placebo either. I first used your settings for 2 days and then switched back and forth between yours and my original ones for a bit.
It might just be me being used to my settings so much and basically being used to aiming in a certain way that might not necessarely always be exactly on target, but more like where I learned the shot will register.
I mostly missed the kinda shots where the enemy is very close to you and almost behind you and you spin around really fast and shoot at some point while your crosshair is flying over the guy but doesn't really lock on to him so it's kinda hard to tell if it was on him or not when you fired the shot.
Not really sure what it is.[/b]
[quote=RentQN]I also have a question about your config other than the net settings:
Will this still work well when you turn down all the graphic settings that can be changed through the ingame menu to low?
I don't want my game to be super ugly (which is why i appreciate you config, plus it gives great FPS for how the game looks), but I don't want all the shiny glowing stuff and reflections and whatnot either.
So my plan would be to just use your config as is, but change all the ingame settings to low (and the corresponding commands in the autoexec so they stay that way).
Would I still get the same or better FPS if I do that?
Or is your config entirely build around having stuff set to high and will give worse FPS if you set it to low?
[/quote]
mat_bumpmap 0 should get rid of some shine without side effects.
And it's not based at all on having everything set to the highest, or the lowest, it's meant to allow the game to handle more things, which is better for stability reasons.[/quote]
Thanks I'll try that (both mat_bumpmap 0 and setting everything to low) and see how it goes.
My FPS where just slightly lower than with my usual config (170 vs 173) with almost maxed out settings, so I might get even higher FPS when I set everything to low, which would be pretty incredible, seeing as the game looks a lot better (probably even with lowest settings) and the game kinda feels smoother and my FPS are more stable.
So definitely gonna give your config another try :)
Thanks for uploading it.
Just wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems good
Just wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems good
Other than that, it seems good
flyingbuddyJust wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems good
Some laptops stutter alot (including mine) when they don't have a fps cap
[quote=flyingbuddy]Just wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems good[/quote]
Some laptops stutter alot (including mine) when they don't have a fps cap
Other than that, it seems good[/quote]
Some laptops stutter alot (including mine) when they don't have a fps cap
fxflyingbuddyJust wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems goodSetsulBut why 148?fps_max 148 // If you don't cap the framerate of the engine, there could be memory leak issues (which I have experienced myself).
Why are you even asking for it to be anything? As long as it's below 300, it's fine.
I use 148 because I like seeing a consistant 144 fps in my net_graph, it also feels more smooth than a 144 cap, it's like when on a 60hz and using a 64 cap.
TF2 is the only valve game I've found that had this issue, you can uncap the framerate in CS:GO and it won't occur, same with Dota 2.
IIRC the old Chris configs used to say that you should cap it at your refresh rate*2 +1 no idea why maybe someone else can elaborate
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change
edit:
also meant to say, it would be nice to have screenshots or some sort of way to know what this config will look like without having to install it and test it out ourselves
edit2:
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
[quote=fx][quote=flyingbuddy]Just wondering why you capped fps_max to 148?
Other than that, it seems good[/quote]
[quote=Setsul]But why 148?[/quote]
fps_max 148 // If you don't cap the framerate of the engine, there could be [u][b]memory leak[/b][/u] issues (which I have experienced myself).
Why are you even asking for it to be anything? As long as it's below 300, it's fine.
I use 148 because I like seeing a consistant 144 fps in my net_graph, it also feels more smooth than a 144 cap, it's like when on a 60hz and using a 64 cap.
TF2 is the only valve game I've found that had this issue, you can uncap the framerate in CS:GO and it won't occur, same with Dota 2.[/quote]
IIRC the old Chris configs used to say that you should cap it at your refresh rate*2 +1 no idea why maybe someone else can elaborate
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change
edit:
also meant to say, it would be nice to have screenshots or some sort of way to know what this config will look like without having to install it and test it out ourselves
edit2:
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
Other than that, it seems good[/quote]
[quote=Setsul]But why 148?[/quote]
fps_max 148 // If you don't cap the framerate of the engine, there could be [u][b]memory leak[/b][/u] issues (which I have experienced myself).
Why are you even asking for it to be anything? As long as it's below 300, it's fine.
I use 148 because I like seeing a consistant 144 fps in my net_graph, it also feels more smooth than a 144 cap, it's like when on a 60hz and using a 64 cap.
TF2 is the only valve game I've found that had this issue, you can uncap the framerate in CS:GO and it won't occur, same with Dota 2.[/quote]
IIRC the old Chris configs used to say that you should cap it at your refresh rate*2 +1 no idea why maybe someone else can elaborate
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change
edit:
also meant to say, it would be nice to have screenshots or some sort of way to know what this config will look like without having to install it and test it out ourselves
edit2:
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
bearodactylsaying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.
[quote=bearodactyl]
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.
HotCoffeebearodactylsaying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.
there's been a few threads on this topic already but i think the general consensus is that for medic it's not bad cause it helps spam movement and be hard to hit but for scout it can sometimes fuck up people's aim and a lot of people rely on it and have shitty AD spammer movement
iirc nursey was claiming that all good scouts she new used it but then a bunch of invite scouts came in to say they don't use it/don't know anyone who uses it
tldr there are certainly upsides and they may outweigh the downsides but to say that its 100% better seems to not be correct at least at a high level
fxHotCoffeeHere's a real nice upside to null-movement scripts, if you were to press A and D without delay (which is just holding each key with a null-movement script), you can break scouts head hitbox in almost it's entirety, meaning both legitimate players and cheaters cannot headshot you most of the time. Same might apply to solider, but I haven't tested that class out.bearodactylsaying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.
definitely not possible soldier is slow as fuck
but this is case in point for that stupid scout spam thing i was talking about shits autistic as fuck lol
[quote=HotCoffee][quote=bearodactyl]
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.[/quote]
there's been a few threads on this topic already but i think the general consensus is that for medic it's not bad cause it helps spam movement and be hard to hit but for scout it can sometimes fuck up people's aim and a lot of people rely on it and have shitty AD spammer movement
iirc nursey was claiming that all good scouts she new used it but then a bunch of invite scouts came in to say they don't use it/don't know anyone who uses it
tldr there are certainly upsides and they may outweigh the downsides but to say that its 100% better seems to not be correct at least at a high level
[quote=fx][quote=HotCoffee][quote=bearodactyl]
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.[/quote]
Here's a real nice upside to null-movement scripts, if you were to press A and D without delay (which is just holding each key with a null-movement script), you can break scouts head hitbox in almost it's entirety, meaning both legitimate players and cheaters cannot headshot you most of the time. Same might apply to solider, but I haven't tested that class out.[/quote]
definitely not possible soldier is slow as fuck
but this is case in point for that stupid scout spam thing i was talking about shits autistic as fuck lol
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.[/quote]
there's been a few threads on this topic already but i think the general consensus is that for medic it's not bad cause it helps spam movement and be hard to hit but for scout it can sometimes fuck up people's aim and a lot of people rely on it and have shitty AD spammer movement
iirc nursey was claiming that all good scouts she new used it but then a bunch of invite scouts came in to say they don't use it/don't know anyone who uses it
tldr there are certainly upsides and they may outweigh the downsides but to say that its 100% better seems to not be correct at least at a high level
[quote=fx][quote=HotCoffee][quote=bearodactyl]
saying that null movement scripts are a must have is quite a claim (very subjective at the least, I'd say its totally untrue but maybe mongoloids who write cfgs are better at coding than pushing the correct buttons on their keyboards)[/quote]
I've never understood the argument against null movement canceling. Its a potential upside with no downside.[/quote]
Here's a real nice upside to null-movement scripts, if you were to press A and D without delay (which is just holding each key with a null-movement script), you can break scouts head hitbox in almost it's entirety, meaning both legitimate players and cheaters cannot headshot you most of the time. Same might apply to solider, but I haven't tested that class out.[/quote]
definitely not possible soldier is slow as fuck
but this is case in point for that stupid scout spam thing i was talking about shits autistic as fuck lol
you should do a changelog in the future as i see your cfg changed a lot from the initial post to what it is now, including some net settings and stuff deleted
you should do a changelog in the future as i see your cfg changed a lot from the initial post to what it is now, including some net settings and stuff deleted
unfyou should do a changelog in the future as i see your cfg changed a lot from the initial post to what it is now, including some net settings and stuff deleted
It's pretty great that he's using git, so at least we can see what the changes are.
Perhaps more descriptive commit messages would be helpful though. For instance, reasoning on why things were changed, or at the very least link to the feedback that caused it.
[quote=unf]you should do a changelog in the future as i see your cfg changed a lot from the initial post to what it is now, including some net settings and stuff deleted[/quote]
It's pretty great that he's using [url=https://github.com/JgZge6sdn2nUtFzTELgPKbRqH/feliks-config]git[/url], so at least we can see what the changes are.
Perhaps more descriptive commit messages would be helpful though. For instance, reasoning on why things were changed, or at the very least link to the feedback that caused it.
It's pretty great that he's using [url=https://github.com/JgZge6sdn2nUtFzTELgPKbRqH/feliks-config]git[/url], so at least we can see what the changes are.
Perhaps more descriptive commit messages would be helpful though. For instance, reasoning on why things were changed, or at the very least link to the feedback that caused it.
oh his original post only has a direct link, didnt read its on git
oh his original post only has a direct link, didnt read its on git
bearodactylIIRC the old Chris configs used to say that you should cap it at your refresh rate*2 +1 no idea why maybe someone else can elaborate
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change
The only magic number for an fps cap is whichever one stops your computer from overheating (and when it overheats frames become much less consistent, on top of all the obvious issues of overheating). That and stops you from going into the 1000 fps range where things mess up for some reason iirc.
If you do have an fps cap, it's pretty much entirely unrelated to your monitor's refresh rate. The technical explanation basically boils down to fps (even capped) being much less consistent than refresh rates, and because of that it never aligns accurately, so there's never a cutoff point where more fps stops being smoother in terms of monitor hz. And as long as your fps is relatively consistent, higher fps will always mean more smooth mouse movement, though a consistent 100 would be better than an inconsistent 100-200 for most people for example.
Anyway, cutting it off at your hz exactly is usually pretty bad (60hz could have delays anywhere from ~0ms to ~16.67ms), cutting it off at twice (or *2+1 for the most part) reduces the max and average delay by half (on 60hz again, to ~0ms to ~8.33ms), three times would reduce it further (~0ms to ~5.56ms), and so on. For that reason you'd want to set it as high as you can, even if it's not a multiple of your monitor hz, because you'll get lower delays that way.
tl:dr if you want to set a cap, set it to the highest you can go in terms of fps while still being pretty consistent. Setting it to something based on monitor hz is based on a misunderstanding of how monitors work, and isn't what you should look at.
Though I can't really speak about fx's memory leak issue with not having an fps cap, I've never heard that before, and I've never used an fps cap either except for testing. Fps caps should be pretty individual though (there are so many different computers and different specs out there), so I'd recommend testing without a cap too.
[quote=bearodactyl]IIRC the old Chris configs used to say that you should cap it at your refresh rate*2 +1 no idea why maybe someone else can elaborate
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change[/quote]
The only magic number for an fps cap is whichever one stops your computer from overheating (and when it overheats frames become much less consistent, on top of all the obvious issues of overheating). That and stops you from going into the 1000 fps range where things mess up for some reason iirc.
If you do have an fps cap, it's pretty much entirely unrelated to your monitor's refresh rate. The technical explanation basically boils down to fps (even capped) being much less consistent than refresh rates, and because of that it never aligns accurately, so there's never a cutoff point where more fps stops being smoother in terms of monitor hz. And as long as your fps is relatively consistent, higher fps will always mean more smooth mouse movement, though a consistent 100 would be better than an inconsistent 100-200 for most people for example.
Anyway, cutting it off at your hz exactly is usually pretty bad (60hz could have delays anywhere from ~0ms to ~16.67ms), cutting it off at twice (or *2+1 for the most part) reduces the max and average delay by half (on 60hz again, to ~0ms to ~8.33ms), three times would reduce it further (~0ms to ~5.56ms), and so on. For that reason you'd want to set it as high as you can, even if it's not a multiple of your monitor hz, because you'll get lower delays that way.
tl:dr if you want to set a cap, set it to the highest you can go in terms of fps while still being pretty consistent. Setting it to something based on monitor hz is based on a misunderstanding of how monitors work, and isn't what you should look at.
Though I can't really speak about fx's memory leak issue with not having an fps cap, I've never heard that before, and I've never used an fps cap either except for testing. Fps caps should be pretty individual though (there are so many different computers and different specs out there), so I'd recommend testing without a cap too.
May want to at least make note of it so people don't start thinking 148 is some magical number that they shouldn't change[/quote]
The only magic number for an fps cap is whichever one stops your computer from overheating (and when it overheats frames become much less consistent, on top of all the obvious issues of overheating). That and stops you from going into the 1000 fps range where things mess up for some reason iirc.
If you do have an fps cap, it's pretty much entirely unrelated to your monitor's refresh rate. The technical explanation basically boils down to fps (even capped) being much less consistent than refresh rates, and because of that it never aligns accurately, so there's never a cutoff point where more fps stops being smoother in terms of monitor hz. And as long as your fps is relatively consistent, higher fps will always mean more smooth mouse movement, though a consistent 100 would be better than an inconsistent 100-200 for most people for example.
Anyway, cutting it off at your hz exactly is usually pretty bad (60hz could have delays anywhere from ~0ms to ~16.67ms), cutting it off at twice (or *2+1 for the most part) reduces the max and average delay by half (on 60hz again, to ~0ms to ~8.33ms), three times would reduce it further (~0ms to ~5.56ms), and so on. For that reason you'd want to set it as high as you can, even if it's not a multiple of your monitor hz, because you'll get lower delays that way.
tl:dr if you want to set a cap, set it to the highest you can go in terms of fps while still being pretty consistent. Setting it to something based on monitor hz is based on a misunderstanding of how monitors work, and isn't what you should look at.
Though I can't really speak about fx's memory leak issue with not having an fps cap, I've never heard that before, and I've never used an fps cap either except for testing. Fps caps should be pretty individual though (there are so many different computers and different specs out there), so I'd recommend testing without a cap too.
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639640/D3B7B42ED68704F55EF7F3396018C1BD4356D027/[/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639455/79FF3F03C912F33DD2803B662BD811F300DD115C/ [/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639189/346DC969E8610C2C4BAE78B3DBB311CC4559844A/[/img]
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639455/79FF3F03C912F33DD2803B662BD811F300DD115C/ [/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639189/346DC969E8610C2C4BAE78B3DBB311CC4559844A/[/img]
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)
treetoonhttp://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639640/D3B7B42ED68704F55EF7F3396018C1BD4356D027/
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639455/79FF3F03C912F33DD2803B662BD811F300DD115C/
http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639189/346DC969E8610C2C4BAE78B3DBB311CC4559844A/
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)
it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.
[quote=treetoon][img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639640/D3B7B42ED68704F55EF7F3396018C1BD4356D027/[/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639455/79FF3F03C912F33DD2803B662BD811F300DD115C/ [/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639189/346DC969E8610C2C4BAE78B3DBB311CC4559844A/[/img]
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)[/quote]
it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639455/79FF3F03C912F33DD2803B662BD811F300DD115C/ [/img]
[img]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/480023352499639189/346DC969E8610C2C4BAE78B3DBB311CC4559844A/[/img]
getting some pretty white textures when light is on it, any tips on reducing it? Really only affects reckoner and process. (DX8.1 and -15 LOD nvidia inspec)[/quote]
it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.
fps_max 208 // A odd memory leak issue may occur if framerates are not capped, 208 is Felik's personal preference.
Don't worry guys he fixed the random value of 148 for his fps cap.
[quote]fps_max 208 // A odd memory leak issue may occur if framerates are not capped, 208 is Felik's personal preference.[/quote]
Don't worry guys he fixed the random value of 148 for his fps cap.
Don't worry guys he fixed the random value of 148 for his fps cap.
Phoenix21it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.
hm, yeah; that seems right. I can't seem to revert the LOD in inspec anymore tho. oh well, guess ill have to live with it.
[quote=Phoenix21]
it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.[/quote]
hm, yeah; that seems right. I can't seem to revert the LOD in inspec anymore tho. oh well, guess ill have to live with it.
it's not unique to this config right?
if it happens with every config that's because of the nvidia inspector lod tool, don't know if there is a fix to that except for reverting to the normal lod.[/quote]
hm, yeah; that seems right. I can't seem to revert the LOD in inspec anymore tho. oh well, guess ill have to live with it.
Occasionally, my fps gets capped at ~15 for some reason when using this config.
Normally, I'm running at ~120-150.
Anyone experiencing something similar?
Occasionally, my fps gets capped at ~15 for some reason when using this config.
Normally, I'm running at ~120-150.
Anyone experiencing something similar?
Normally, I'm running at ~120-150.
Anyone experiencing something similar?
So I get an error now trying to access this config.
So I get an error now trying to access this config.
emoSo I get an error now trying to access this config.
Same, and I wanted to try it out for the net settings I'm reading about in this thread.
I know it might be rude to ask someone to post somebody else work but can someone just do it.
[quote=emo]So I get an error now trying to access this config.[/quote]
Same, and I wanted to try it out for the net settings I'm reading about in this thread.
I know it might be rude to ask someone to post somebody else work but can someone just do it.
Same, and I wanted to try it out for the net settings I'm reading about in this thread.
I know it might be rude to ask someone to post somebody else work but can someone just do it.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.