Remove

[Barton]

You should try the newer maps that have higher r_speed counts like bloodrun or koldduel1.

[Barton]

You should try the newer maps that have higher r_speed counts like bloodrun or koldduel1.

Check out my attachment. Even though my GPU is a 1GB with GDDR5 (ATI Radeon 6850 HD), I'm getting ridiculous FPS drops for a 15 year old game. I don't really understand why a new GPU is doing worst performance-wise compared to my old Nvidia 8800GT. With that old video card, I could run vid_ref r1gl with no severe frame drops. Now I know that my current video card was not a powerhouse back then, but it's silly how badly it is performing for me compared at the moment, compared to the older video cards I had used to play this game in the past.

Edit: I noticed I made an error and deleted the fps value I got for firing a rocket. It was about 623fps.

[haunted]

I get 6-8,000 fps in timerefresh... $379 laptop I bought 13 months ago:

AMD A8 2.7ghz, onboard radeon 79xx(I forget the last two digits), 8gb of ram(I added 4), windows 7 64 bit

[|iR|Focalor]

600 frames per second. 6,000 frames per second. It's bullshit. If you're getting more than 100 ACTUAL frames per second outta your monitor, then you're using one of those gigantic CRT dinosaurs. So who gives a shit about timerefresh, that ain't an accurate representation of the speed of the video you're seeing.

[haunted]

CRT's are the best to use, they lack the 2-4ms of display lag that even the better monitors for gaming possess. Your average lcd computer monitor refreshes at 60 hz default, mine is an OK Dell one and I have it set at 75hz. The translation of 75hz visually to 120fps in-game seems to be the best for me, assuming I don't have a monitor that refreshes at 120 or 240hz.. which I don't. Although my HD tv refreshes at 120.

[haunted]

Alpha, more than anything it was just inferior processor/graphics on that Acer I'd assume. How old was it?... dust can be a bitch on a graphics card, I've seen it be the difference of jittery 10 fps and 1000 fps.

[Whirlingdervish]

that's super common with laptops as well.. they tend to draw air and dust in, but really they don't vent well or filter it out as well as they should and the dust stays in.

[quadz]

CRT's are the best to use, they lack the 2-4ms of display lag that even the better monitors for gaming possess. Your average lcd computer monitor refreshes at 60 hz default, mine is an OK Dell one and I have it set at 75hz.

BTW, these ASUS 1ms 144Hz monitors are as close to a CRT as I've ever experienced with a flat screen:

http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/VG248QE/

[Muerte]

BTW, these ASUS 1ms 144Hz monitors are as close to a CRT as I've ever experienced with a flat screen:

Isn't for years "story" was: LCD refresh diff then CRT and you don't need 120hz refresh on LCD

im staying on my CRT @150hz until LCD @240hz become available

[VaeVictis]

CRT's are the best to use, they lack the 2-4ms of display lag that even the better monitors for gaming possess. Your average lcd computer monitor refreshes at 60 hz default, mine is an OK Dell one and I have it set at 75hz.

BTW, these ASUS 1ms 144Hz monitors are as close to a CRT as I've ever experienced with a flat screen:

http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/VG248QE/

omfg... thats only 280$... Well, I know what my next monitor will be

[haunted]

That monitor would be great for q2... but unplayable for smash bros melee(that and q2 are the only two games I've ever REALLY gotten into)

[quadz]

That monitor would be great for q2... but unplayable for smash bros melee

Why would that be the case?  (Just curious...)

BTW, don't forget CRT monitors already have a 16.7 ms "lag" when running at 60 Hz.

[haunted]

isn't 16.7ms about 1 frame @ 60hz on a CRT? So that would be *close* to all you'd need in a 60hz game in which the frame data is based off 60 fps...

Exchanges/priority are dictated by 1-5 frames all the time in this game and the competitive level is right there with quake... But, what are you saying here... that this monitor you linked is even BETTER than a crt? There's just no way, based off experience from using high performance lcd's that guarantee less than '16.7ms', these being far more lagged than a CRT, and it being obvious given the nature of the game. Did you put lag in quotes because the real issue isn't the display lag, but the pixel response time or something?



LCD's are banned from competitive play in melee... but, that really isn't even a point, i'm just talking from my own experience.

[haunted]

If I had to guess, the monitor you linked(1ms) isn't factoring in the response time and that's only a rating on the 'display lag' in general... and the 16.7ms IS factoring in the pixel response time with a crt. I would be truly amazed if we possessed the technology for a liquid display to have a response time 16x faster than a CRT, when it's slow in general.

[quadz]

I would be truly amazed if we possessed the technology for a liquid display to have a response time 16x faster than a CRT, when it's slow in general.

What I mean is, with a 60 Hz CRT, the best you can get is one frame every 16.7 msec.

I'm assuming the 1 ms "response time" of this LCD monitor would be added to base frame time (as an additional lag factor.)

So a 60 Hz LCD with 1 ms "response time" might be expected to also show a frame every 16.7 msec, but be 1 ms lagged behind the 60 Hz CRT.

However, with the LCD running at 144 Hz, it should show the frame in (6.94 + 1) = 7.94 msec, which would be ahead of both a 60Hz CRT and even a 120Hz CRT (which shows frames every 8.33 msec.)

Meaning that with a 120Hz CRT we should be seeing a new frame every 8.33 msec; with the 144 Hz LCD we should be seeing a new frame every 6.94 msec with a 1 ms lag added to that.  (But still beating 8.33)

Now... I have no idea if it really works out that way in practice.

But I will say this particular 144Hz ASUS looks wayyy more like a CRT than any LCD I've had previously.