Call of Juarez - Singleplayer-Demo

[johndoe-freename-99125]

Bei mir läuft es einwandfrei alles auf hoch.
P4,3 Ghz
1GB
6800GT

ußer die Ladezeiten ich dachte das wär nur bei mir so, aber anscheinend haben das alle.

Ich komm da nicht weiter, in der Billy MIssion ich leg die um, aber dann seh ich keinen mehr, muss die Frau befreien aber wie komm ich zu der hin?

[danke15jahre4p]

dumusst hoch zu ihr! geh hinter das haus dann ganz nach links, da is s nen stapel, da geht ne treppe zum haus hoch!

greetingz

[ChrisMK72]

Das Demo sieht bei mir mit Shadermodell 2.0 besser aus, als mit 3.0 .
Ausserdem kann ich dann auch in 1024+768 2Fach AA einschalten, was die Grafik nochmal verbessert. So läufts flüssig und sieht gut aus.

Ich hab einen AMD 3400+ mit 1GB Ram und ne Geforce 6800 GT .

Sollte bei anderen mit ähnlichem oder besserem System auch gut aussehen und flüssig laufen.

Die Ladezeit ist nur am Anfang einmalig SEHR lang.
Danach im Spiel sind die Lade/Speicherzeiten ganz normal ( inkl. quicksave/load ) .

Mit Shadermodell 3.0 sieht das Game bei mir merkwürdig aus. Ziemlicher Grünstich drin.

Geht das anderen auch so ? Naja ... 2.0 einschalten und schon siehts besser aus.

Ich überlege echt, ob ich´s mir hole. Der Multiplayer hört sich interessant an.

[johndoe-freename-97545]

Also der erste abschnitt läuft bei mir einwandfrei,sehr flüssig.Aber der zweite abschnitt im Waldgebiet ist bei mir eher eine 1A Dia-show.
Oblivion kann ich alles auf maximum stellen läuft flüssig,und dieses poplige spiel hat extreme slowdowns,aber nur im zweiten lvl.Aber es könnte was werden.Amosphäre gefällt mir auch sehr gut,muss aber alles
noch Obtimiert werden.

[MaVUUU]

Ich dachte immer das Shader model 3 soviel leistung zieht.
Dabei sind bei mir die Frames mit SM 2 + 2 AA @ 1024@ x1900xt schlechter
als mit SM 3 @ 1280 x 960 .

das find ich doch sehr merkwürdig .......

einmal war ich im wasser und hatte ab da dann nur nochj 5 FPS ^^

[Teufelsgreis]

Mit ner Geforce 6800 mit High Details läuft das Spiel also flüssig???
Würd das gerne mal testen....

aber jetzt spiel ich erstmal GRAW auf meinem 468 DX2.

[Teufelsgreis]

Zahlendreher.... natürlich 486

[ChrisMK72]

@ Teufelsgreis :

"Flüssig" ist natürlich ein relativer Begriff.
Was für den einen noch flüssig ist, ist für den anderen grottenschlecht ruckelnd.

Also ich hab ne 6800GT (256MB-Ram), hab aber auch nie behauptet, dass ich mit vollen Details und alles auf "hoch" spiele. Mit meinem System ( AMD64 3400+ , 1GB RAM ) muss ich halt schon etwas runterschrauben.

Ich hab folgende Einstellungen :

1024X768 Auflösung , 2Fach AA ( Anti-Aliasing ) an , Shadermodell 2.0 , Texturenfilterung Trilinear , Schatten : AUS , Tiefenschärfe : AUS , Texturenqualität : Hoch , Qualität der Laubdarstellung : Niedrig .
Weiss nicht ob die Soundeinstellungen auch was bewirken.

Jedenfalls hab ich meistens so um die 20-30 FPS , was ich noch relativ spielbar ( "flüssig" ) finde. Bei komplexen Szenen gehts auch bei mir schonmal auf 15-17 FPS runter. Das ist aber meist nur kurz der Fall.

Wie gesagt : Flüssig ist relativ.

Ich finde das Game sieht gut aus und ich kanns mit diesen Einstellungen gut zocken. Auch im Wald usw. Hab extra nochmal geguckt. Im Wald hab ich auch meist um die 20-30 FPS .

Man kann natürlich nicht erwarten einfach alles voll aufzudrehen, bis zum Anschlag und dann noch flüssig zu spielen. Vor allem wenn man ältere Systeme hat, wie ich z.B.
Hoffe jetzt den Begriff "Flüssig" etwas genauer definiert zu haben

MFG,
Chris.

[johndoe-freename-99381]

ich hab folgendes problem: wenn ich das spiel starte, warte ich bis die (sehr lange) Ladezeit vorüber ist, und dann bleibt bei mir der Bildschirm entweder schwarz oder der computer stürzt ab.
Ich hab einen Pentium D mit 3 Ghz und X1600XT und ein GB Ram, aber am system kanns nicht liegen weils mit niedrigen einstellungen genauso wenig geht wie mit hohen. Was könnte ich in diesem Fall machen?

[ChrisMK72]

Da weiß ich ehrlich auch keinen Rat, aber vielleicht schilderst Du Dein Problem mal hier ? :
http://forum.4pforen.4players.de/viewforum.php?f=66
Das ist glaub ich die richtige Adresse, für technische Probleme.
Ich bin da leider kein Profi, was die Problembehebung angeht ...

[Angroth]

für alle, die immer sagen die call of juarez grafikengine wär nicht optimiert, und das auch bei vielen anderen games gerne sagen wenn es nicht so läuft wie man es gern hätte (dazu zähle ich mich auch, bis ich das folgende gelesen habe):

"The Game Engine Isn't Optimized!



Many people are saying that the Call of Juarez game engine "isn't optimized". This gives me a great sense of deja vu. From Far Cry to FEAR to Battlefield 2 to Oblivion - and now to Call of Juarez: each time a strenuous game comes out a range of people proclaim that the engine is "badly coded" and it needs to be "optimized". Several people go so far as to suggest that a patch will (or must!) come out to fix this terrible coding. Well unfortunately all indications are that, just like the other games listed above, Call of Juarez is no less optimized and no more likely to improve significantly in performance over the course of its life. I'm not saying Call of Juarez is the most superbly coded game ever presented, nor that it will never improve, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a next-generation game, whether you believe it looks like it is or not. Let's quickly examine the reasons why I believe that.



For starters the game is based on the third iteration of the well-established Chrome Engine which came out in 2003. If you look at this article from back then you will see that even 3 years ago the engine was quite advanced and capable of spectacular expansive outdoor environments, cool effects and high polygon counts. The engine has had plenty of time to mature, so it is not a new or suboptimal engine. The version number on the demo screen for Call of Juarez shows version 0.9, indicating that this build of the game is not some early alpha or beta build. If we look at what Call of Juarez does, the reason why it is so strenuous starts to become apparent.



The game makes extensive use of shaders to create realistic lighting and surface effects. As we've seen in the Advanced Tweaking section there is a way that these shaders can be completely disabled, and when they are there is major FPS improvement (and a major change in the atmosphere and image quality). However in some areas there are still extremely large numbers of polygons being used to render characters and environments, combined with good quality textures even for more distant terrain, and let's not forget that each map has quite large continuous indoor and outdoor areas all loaded into memory and not suddenly popping into view every 3 feet. Nor can we forget the excellent artificial intelligence used in the game, the innovative use of fire (it actually spreads to various objects realistically), and a whole bunch of other little touches which make the game highly realistic, but also highly strenuous on both your CPU and GPU.



Which brings me to another major complaint - the loading times. We've discussed this in detail in the Troubleshooting Tips section, but to reiterate, this issue is directly the result of two factors: firstly the game has over 3,000 shader files it needs to create or modify each time you change a video setting. Once you've settled on a particular configuration, your loading times will improve as most of these files don't need to be re-created or rewritten. However they do still need to be read each time you load the game, so if you're using a slower hard drive and/or your drive isn't defragmented after the shaders are optimized, your load times will remain high because the drive has to seek out 3,000+ individual files at each load. It's not the size of the files, it's the sheer number of them which makes it a longer task. Secondly, and most importantly, the game loads up the bulk of its files at the start of the level. Typically the game can load up to 600MB or more into memory at the very start of a level. This is in contrast with Oblivion (and most games) which load up a bit at the start, and then load a lot of data continuously as you wander through a level. So in return for longer loading times, Call of Juarez has little if any stuttering while wandering around, whereas Oblivion has much more of it. I think most people would agree that less in-level stuttering is a good tradeoff for longer loading times at the start of a level?



In the end I see many indications that, contrary to popular belief, Call of Juarez is actually reasonably optimized and is pushing out some amazingly complex effects and gameplay-enhancing features in a very tight package. "The engine isn't optimized" is a common catchcry these days that seems to be spreading like wildfire, usually with little actual basis in fact or reason. Make sure you don't also jump on this bandwagon, at least not without considering the actual evidence at hand."

das ist aus dem coj tweakguide. beantwortet so ziemlich alles

[ChrisMK72]

Danke Dir. Ich hab mir tatsächlich alles durchgelesen und weiß jetzt auch warum die Ladezeiten beim Starten eines Levels so lang sind. Ist mir aber lieber so, als wenn er ständig im Spiel nachläd.

Und was die Shader angeht ... mit meinen Einstellungen läuft´s eh flüssig bei mir

[Arkune]

für alle, die immer sagen die call of juarez grafikengine wär nicht optimiert, und das auch bei vielen anderen games gerne sagen wenn es nicht so läuft wie man es gern hätte (dazu zähle ich mich auch, bis ich das folgende gelesen habe):

"The Game Engine Isn't Optimized!



Many people are saying that the Call of Juarez game engine "isn't optimized". This gives me a great sense of deja vu. From Far Cry to FEAR to Battlefield 2 to Oblivion - and now to Call of Juarez: each time a strenuous game comes out a range of people proclaim that the engine is "badly coded" and it needs to be "optimized". Several people go so far as to suggest that a patch will (or must!) come out to fix this terrible coding. Well unfortunately all indications are that, just like the other games listed above, Call of Juarez is no less optimized and no more likely to improve significantly in performance over the course of its life. I'm not saying Call of Juarez is the most superbly coded game ever presented, nor that it will never improve, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a next-generation game, whether you believe it looks like it is or not. Let's quickly examine the reasons why I believe that.



For starters the game is based on the third iteration of the well-established Chrome Engine which came out in 2003. If you look at this article from back then you will see that even 3 years ago the engine was quite advanced and capable of spectacular expansive outdoor environments, cool effects and high polygon counts. The engine has had plenty of time to mature, so it is not a new or suboptimal engine. The version number on the demo screen for Call of Juarez shows version 0.9, indicating that this build of the game is not some early alpha or beta build. If we look at what Call of Juarez does, the reason why it is so strenuous starts to become apparent.



The game makes extensive use of shaders to create realistic lighting and surface effects. As we've seen in the Advanced Tweaking section there is a way that these shaders can be completely disabled, and when they are there is major FPS improvement (and a major change in the atmosphere and image quality). However in some areas there are still extremely large numbers of polygons being used to render characters and environments, combined with good quality textures even for more distant terrain, and let's not forget that each map has quite large continuous indoor and outdoor areas all loaded into memory and not suddenly popping into view every 3 feet. Nor can we forget the excellent artificial intelligence used in the game, the innovative use of fire (it actually spreads to various objects realistically), and a whole bunch of other little touches which make the game highly realistic, but also highly strenuous on both your CPU and GPU.



Which brings me to another major complaint - the loading times. We've discussed this in detail in the Troubleshooting Tips section, but to reiterate, this issue is directly the result of two factors: firstly the game has over 3,000 shader files it needs to create or modify each time you change a video setting. Once you've settled on a particular configuration, your loading times will improve as most of these files don't need to be re-created or rewritten. However they do still need to be read each time you load the game, so if you're using a slower hard drive and/or your drive isn't defragmented after the shaders are optimized, your load times will remain high because the drive has to seek out 3,000+ individual files at each load. It's not the size of the files, it's the sheer number of them which makes it a longer task. Secondly, and most importantly, the game loads up the bulk of its files at the start of the level. Typically the game can load up to 600MB or more into memory at the very start of a level. This is in contrast with Oblivion (and most games) which load up a bit at the start, and then load a lot of data continuously as you wander through a level. So in return for longer loading times, Call of Juarez has little if any stuttering while wandering around, whereas Oblivion has much more of it. I think most people would agree that less in-level stuttering is a good tradeoff for longer loading times at the start of a level?



In the end I see many indications that, contrary to popular belief, Call of Juarez is actually reasonably optimized and is pushing out some amazingly complex effects and gameplay-enhancing features in a very tight package. "The engine isn't optimized" is a common catchcry these days that seems to be spreading like wildfire, usually with little actual basis in fact or reason. Make sure you don't also jump on this bandwagon, at least not without considering the actual evidence at hand."

das ist aus dem coj tweakguide. beantwortet so ziemlich alles

Wayne?

[Angroth]

leute wie schorly, basti oder slamraptor die sich in diesem thread diesbezüglich geäußert haben