Thread Rating:
  • 11 Vote(s) - 4.27 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shadow of the Colossus !!!
#11
Ok, I just experimented and managed to make my SotC definitely more playable than it was earlier.

My system is С2D 2.8, HD3870, WinXP SP3, PCSX2 0.9.6.

Before, I used the most slow combination from those I just tried - PAL mode, GSdx 0.1.14, 1024x1024 internal resolution.
Now I use NTSC mode, GSdx 0.1.4 (older one), 768x768 internal res.

The second combo is MUCH faster for me than the first.

Here are tests, results presented in % of full speed (i.e. 50fps for PAL and 60fps for NTSC).
Menu screen, a certain in-game scene:

PAL, 0.1.14, 1024x1024 - 28%, 46-50%
NTSC, 0.1.14, 1024x1024 - 48%, 56-60%
NTSC, 0.1.4, 1024x1024 - 51%, 62-68%
NTSC, 0.1.4, 768x768 - 56%, 71-74%


As you can see the difference between latest and first setup is about 25 Excl and more percents of full speed. A huge boost.

So if you experience low FPS in the game, switch to NTSC mode, use older GSdx, and lower internal resolution to about 768x768.

Sponsored links

#12
(03-14-2009, 12:39 PM)greyest Wrote: One thing I would like to know.

Is Shadow of the Colossus faster when playing on DirectX10 if compared with DirectX9?

I just heard that GSdx DX10 can be considerably faster than DX9 version. If it will bring like 5-10 FPS more in the game I may consider to install Vista.....

In this game, DX10 didn't make a big difference for me. But in most games, I get better framerates and FAR less graphical bugs with DX10 than I do with DX9.
Intel Q6600 @ 2.8Ghz (Can't get it any higher)
nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX
4Gb DDR2 Dual-Channel RAM
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit
#13
changing the ingame menu to make it progressive scan will give you a nice little boost as well
AMD Athlon X2 4800+ (2.9 Ghz OC)
2 Gigs DDR2 800 PC2100
ATI Radeon X1600
Asus AM2 M2A-VM
Western Digital 250gb IDE
#14
(03-15-2009, 01:31 AM)Weener Wrote: changing the ingame menu to make it progressive scan will give you a nice little boost as well


Thanks, I didn't know that, indeed it seems it became faster, I'll do additional tests tomorrow with this option on.
#15
Figures for Progressive Scan.

C2D (E4600) 2.8, WinXPSP3, Gsdx 0.1.4, 768x768 internal resolution, all speedhacks on. Main menu/certain in-game scene (FPS):

PAL: 15-16 / 42
NTSC: 33 / 42
PAL/NTSC PROGRESSIVE SCAN: 37-38 / 44-45

So, yeah, progressive scan definitely makes the game more playable.

My final suggestions to speed this game up (at least for WinXP users with slower processors), each of the points helps, and together they'll give quite a boost:

1) Enable progressive scan
2) Use older version of GSdx - f.e. 0.1.4, it's faster (see figures in my post above)
3) Lower internal Direct3D resolution as much as possible without screen becoming too bright (I use 768x768).


PS: The only thing I don't quite understand is why progressive scan faster than NTSC. I mean native resolution in this game in NTSC mode is 512 x 448, and native resolution when progressive scan is enabled is 640 x 448, I honestly don't know how progressive scan is working but judging by native internal resolution NTSC in this game should be faster than PScan (on emulator at least).
#16
The problem to me is that the framerate is unstable. I can get what *should* be a constant 70 fps, which would be great. However, instead of staying at 70, it goes:
68-70-72-70-68
And then the pattern continues to repeat. Does anyone else experience similar framerate problems? Turning progressive scan on doesn't matter for me since without it I still get 70 fps and with it the framerate is still unstable.
///Intel Q6600 @ 3.4GHz OC'd ~Xigmatek HDT-S1283 HS/F~Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB~Corsair 2x1GB 1066 DDR2RAM~Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit\\\
#17
(03-15-2009, 07:28 PM)With Teeth Wrote: The problem to me is that the framerate is unstable. I can get what *should* be a constant 70 fps, which would be great. However, instead of staying at 70, it goes:
68-70-72-70-68
And then the pattern continues to repeat. Does anyone else experience similar framerate problems? Turning progressive scan on doesn't matter for me since without it I still get 70 fps and with it the framerate is still unstable.

Why don't you just limit it at 60fps? That is full speed anyway.
Intel Q6600 @ 2.8Ghz (Can't get it any higher)
nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX
4Gb DDR2 Dual-Channel RAM
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit
#18
(03-15-2009, 08:02 PM)Zephyr618 Wrote:
(03-15-2009, 07:28 PM)With Teeth Wrote: The problem to me is that the framerate is unstable. I can get what *should* be a constant 70 fps, which would be great. However, instead of staying at 70, it goes:
68-70-72-70-68
And then the pattern continues to repeat. Does anyone else experience similar framerate problems? Turning progressive scan on doesn't matter for me since without it I still get 70 fps and with it the framerate is still unstable.

Why don't you just limit it at 60fps? That is full speed anyway.

Should've mentioned this, the limit doesn't matter. When I limit to 60:
58-60-62-60-58
Same pattern, same annoyance. Do you guys get a solid framerate?
///Intel Q6600 @ 3.4GHz OC'd ~Xigmatek HDT-S1283 HS/F~Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB~Corsair 2x1GB 1066 DDR2RAM~Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit\\\
#19
I barely pull off about 40 - 45 fps on SotC, and I havent really heard of anyone getting perfect framerate on this game. It might have something to with the fact that Shadow of the Colossus has a built in frameskipper
AMD Athlon X2 4800+ (2.9 Ghz OC)
2 Gigs DDR2 800 PC2100
ATI Radeon X1600
Asus AM2 M2A-VM
Western Digital 250gb IDE
#20
That's definitely the reason, and also the reason the X3 hack works so "well." I just hate the skipping, to me it makes the game unplayable.
///Intel Q6600 @ 3.4GHz OC'd ~Xigmatek HDT-S1283 HS/F~Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB~Corsair 2x1GB 1066 DDR2RAM~Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit\\\




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)