limmo9000 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 So basicaly every time I look down on fallout my framerate goes to absolute crap but when I look away from the terrain my fps is very smooth. Please tell me whats going on.I will try to list what I can remember of my system specs: Processor: AMD Sempron 140 (Not overclock)GPU: Intergrated ATI Radeon 2100RAM: 2GB Motherboard: ECS A740GM-MPower Supply: Generic 400 wattOS: Windows 7 Home premium Home edition Thats all I can remember thaks for helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werne Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 GPU: Intergrated ATI Radeon 2100That's most likely the problem, and I'm surprised you even got it running on an internal card. The rest of your comp is similar but more powerful than mine and I got it running at 30-35 fps so it's most likely the card. If you are thinking about playing on that card you'll need to lower the settings to the minimum and play with Fallout.ini a lot (it would still run like crap but less crappy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limmo9000 Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 GPU: Intergrated ATI Radeon 2100That's most likely the problem, and I'm surprised you even got it running on an internal card. The rest of your comp is similar but more powerful than mine and I got it running at 30-35 fps so it's most likely the card. If you are thinking about playing on that card you'll need to lower the settings to the minimum and play with Fallout.ini a lot (it would still run like crap but less crappy). Thank You for the reply but the graphics card runs gmaes like oblivion on high smoothly. And fallout it only drops when i look at the ground. Forgot to mention this in my specs but my graphics card has been enhanced from the original 128mb video memory to 512 mb. And when I used that site that tells you if you can run a game it sdaid my CPU was missing quite a few features so fps would be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRampage Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 What Werne said. Regardless of that, there are a few things one can do improve framerate a little bit. You could, for example, install Fallout Stutter Remover to smoothen your framerate a bit.Note: Fallout Stutter Remover is a FOSE plugin and therefore also requires it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M48A5 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It appears that you already have an answer to your original question. "And when I used that site that tells you if you can run a game it sdaid my CPU was missing quite a few features so fps would be bad."The more things you ask your computer to do, the longer it takes to do it. Looking at the sky, there are not a lot of things that have to be rendered. Looking at the ground, you have grass, rocks, etc. to be rendered. This is more files that have to be accessed and processed than passed to you GPU to be put on the screen. And as Werne said, your graphics chip is really not up to the task of Fallout3. I used to have a Sempron CPU at 2.2GHz and replaced it with an AMD Athlon Dual Core at 2.9GHz before I even tried to run Fallout3. I don't think you will ever get the game to run properly with the rig you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeyesandlonghair Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Are you using any high-quality texture replacers? People keep saying it's your graphics card, but that doesn't make sense. If that was the case, it would be the oppositte... when you look down at the ground, your frame rate should raise since there's less stuff to render on the screen ( or at least, that's been the case on every computer I've ever seen in every game I've ever seen run on any computer ever... ). Not sure why people keep insisting that that's the problem... guess some people are stuck in the before times of long long ago when seeing the word "integrated" warrented a "that's the problem" response. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maboru Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Actually with hi-res mods the ground requires much more rendering than the sky because you've upped the the texture bits from half a k to 1k, 2k, 4k or even 8k. Each increase requires twice the amount of gpu power than the previous one which of course hits fps. So, yes using the smallest possible texture sizes are necessary with underpowered gpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeyesandlonghair Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Actually with hi-res mods the ground requires much more rendering than the sky because you've upped the the texture bits from half a k to 1k, 2k, 4k or even 8k. Each increase requires twice the amount of gpu power than the previous one which of course hits fps. So, yes using the smallest possible texture sizes are necessary with underpowered gpus. Which is why I'm asking if he uses any hi-res texture replacers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limmo9000 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Actually with hi-res mods the ground requires much more rendering than the sky because you've upped the the texture bits from half a k to 1k, 2k, 4k or even 8k. Each increase requires twice the amount of gpu power than the previous one which of course hits fps. So, yes using the smallest possible texture sizes are necessary with underpowered gpus. Which is why I'm asking if he uses any hi-res texture replacers.I don't use any oh and thanks for the replys everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts