Tips for better performance?

[Freeborn_Toad]

This is my cfg, and it is all I have ever needed.

I think the reason I have much less of a location based FPS change in my game is because I'm using  "e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096" and  "e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 1024".

drop this into a text file and save as autoexec.cfg and this will give you what I run, it's CCC 4+ with the "sys_physics_CPU = 2"  and "s_maxchannels = 128" modifications added.

I'm pretty sure CCC4+ would reduce my frame rate, not increase it.

Might give it a shot later though.

I've never noticed any sound problems which is why i havent added that. I probably should add it though just in case.

Number of sound channels at 128 should let you hear more, not necessarily fix any sound problems. Only max a noticeable difference if you have sound hardware that supports it. Most onboard sound is limited to 32 channels.

[sleepysheep]

This is my cfg, and it is all I have ever needed.

I think the reason I have much less of a location based FPS change in my game is because I'm using  "e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096" and  "e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 1024".

drop this into a text file and save as autoexec.cfg and this will give you what I run, it's CCC 4+ with the "sys_physics_CPU = 2"  and "s_maxchannels = 128" modifications added.

I'm pretty sure CCC4+ would reduce my frame rate, not increase it.

Might give it a shot later though.

I've never noticed any sound problems which is why i havent added that. I probably should add it though just in case.

Number of sound channels at 128 should let you hear more, not necessarily fix any sound problems. Only max a noticeable difference if you have sound hardware that supports it. Most onboard sound is limited to 32 channels.

Even with my rig in my sig, my fps is still able to drop to 30fps...Admittly only for a second, but just shows how fail something is in the game (Not nessory MWLL fualt here) which causes drop in FPS. While zooming in on single screen doesn't lower my FPS by much, on triplescreen it completly rapes it, so I might try your two settings and see if it makes any difference, and more importantly any noticable difference on screen.

And yes I know changing the channels to 128 won't effect most onboard sound, another reason why I've never bothered. But it's there now, and didn't seem to notice any difference.

[Hartsblade}12th VR{]

STUFF...

Tried out your config...seems to work pretty well 

[Mekabuser=12thVR=]

making sure your computer is cleaned of spyware etc every day. THere are two things that can greatly affect performance.
The server itself, all of them, occasionally need a reboot, and it, and it alone can make the game run significantly crappier.
THat, and spyware , etc. Degragging,  and running a suite of malware programs really is essential to have a good experience .

[Mjolnir]

I have noticed that the times when I get the largest FPS drop is when I am getting hit by RAC/UAC fire. It seems that all of the particles bottleneck my i5 2500K (which is now at 4.3 Ghz, but i'm not sure why I even keep going as it isn't helping at all). The GPU usage goes way down when all of these "shrapnel" particles are present. What particle settings are others with sandy bridge CPUs and/or gtx 560 Ti's using?

[Freeborn_Toad]

I recently got a Kingston V+100 96GB SSD while Newegg was having a sale ($89.99 after rebate) and I've noticed that object loading/pop up is much smoother compared to my HDDs. Level loading times aren't really that different.

RAM drive is still marginally better, but now I can use that 9GiB of memory for something besides holding Crysis.

I have noticed that the times when I get the largest FPS drop is when I am getting hit by RAC/UAC fire. It seems that all of the particles bottleneck my i5 2500K (which is now at 4.3 Ghz, but i'm not sure why I even keep going as it isn't helping at all). The GPU usage goes way down when all of these "shrapnel" particles are present. What particle settings are others with sandy bridge CPUs and/or gtx 560 Ti's using?

Honestly, I have not noticed one whit of difference in performance in MWLL between my 2600k @ 4.6GHz and my 970 at 4.2GHz. I've been almost completely GPU bound with either my unlocked 6950 or my GTX 480 on both setups.

Anyway, I run a particles quality of 2 (good performance, or medium). With it set to 3 or 4, things like smoke, explosions, and rapid fire projectiles cause my frame rates to dip unacceptably. In heavy firefights I was getting about 20fps with it set to 3 (high quality), dropping it down to 2 almost doubled my fps in these situations.

[Mjolnir]

I set particles to 1 and it MAY have helped and I can't really notice a difference in terms of image quality.

[=KoS= 37]

Freeborn_Toad, what kind of FPS do you get running all low settings?  I'm curious since I'd be most happy running low settings with 60-80 fps versus high settings with 40-60 fps, and I'm thinking of upgrading soon (to a similar setup).  I don't want to upgrade and be disappointed (unable to get around 50-60 fps constantly).

[Freeborn_Toad]

Freeborn_Toad, what kind of FPS do you get running all low settings?  I'm curious since I'd be most happy running low settings with 60-80 fps versus high settings with 40-60 fps, and I'm thinking of upgrading soon (to a similar setup).  I don't want to upgrade and be disappointed (unable to get around 50-60 fps constantly).

What resolution do you want me to test low at?

[=KoS= 37]

Freeborn_Toad, what kind of FPS do you get running all low settings?  I'm curious since I'd be most happy running low settings with 60-80 fps versus high settings with 40-60 fps, and I'm thinking of upgrading soon (to a similar setup).  I don't want to upgrade and be disappointed (unable to get around 50-60 fps constantly).

What resolution do you want me to test low at?

1024x768, or anything close to that, like 1280x1024 or something.  Something very far away from being gpu limited basically, I'd like to the max FPS possible with a similar setup.  Thanks a bunch!!  I don't have a lot of money to spend, and this upgrade would be primarily for MWLL.

[Freeborn_Toad]

Freeborn_Toad, what kind of FPS do you get running all low settings?  I'm curious since I'd be most happy running low settings with 60-80 fps versus high settings with 40-60 fps, and I'm thinking of upgrading soon (to a similar setup).  I don't want to upgrade and be disappointed (unable to get around 50-60 fps constantly).

What resolution do you want me to test low at?

1024x768, or anything close to that, like 1280x1024 or something.  Something very far away from being gpu limited basically, I'd like to the max FPS possible with a similar setup.  Thanks a bunch!!  I don't have a lot of money to spend, and this upgrade would be primarily for MWLL.

Sorry for the delay.

Tested it on the i7 970 as I'm reworking a few things with my 2600k setup atm.

Tried everything on low, 1024x768, no aa/af in Palisades. I was getting about 400 fps in the hangar, 150-250 crusing around outside, and dipped to about 90-100 in heavy fighting. The 2600k would probably be about 20% faster, but I'll test it when I can to confirm.

[=KoS= 37]

Freeborn_Toad, what kind of FPS do you get running all low settings?  I'm curious since I'd be most happy running low settings with 60-80 fps versus high settings with 40-60 fps, and I'm thinking of upgrading soon (to a similar setup).  I don't want to upgrade and be disappointed (unable to get around 50-60 fps constantly).

What resolution do you want me to test low at?

1024x768, or anything close to that, like 1280x1024 or something.  Something very far away from being gpu limited basically, I'd like to the max FPS possible with a similar setup.  Thanks a bunch!!  I don't have a lot of money to spend, and this upgrade would be primarily for MWLL.

Sorry for the delay.

Tested it on the i7 970 as I'm reworking a few things with my 2600k setup atm.

Tried everything on low, 1024x768, no aa/af in Palisades. I was getting about 400 fps in the hangar, 150-250 crusing around outside, and dipped to about 90-100 in heavy fighting. The 2600k would probably be about 20% faster, but I'll test it when I can to confirm.

That's all I needed, thanks!!   Awesome, looking forward to my upgrade.  Again, thanks a lot, and don't worry about testing the 2600k.  It's bound to be more than sufficient, and there's definitely room there to increase settings to respectable levels (heh, they might still be pretty low since I love high frames so much).