Secret "unoptimization" in F.E.A.R. for ATI users?

[Pheonix_789]

:shadedshu can you hep me get better fps:

medium quality set by default
medium detail
800X600 no antilizing or anything else everything set at default

 

[wtf8269]

I already did the trick nothing has happened.... if you had read i said that i had did the trick

it didnt really help.... iam still getting slow fps here are my cards specs.....

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core
250mhz (500mhz) mem

My setup:
AMD Sempron 3000 @ 1.8ghz
ASUS K8N4-E
1GB DDR mem Single Channel
200 GB IDE 133
HIS X700 i cooler 256Mb DDR

Are you sure that it's not that your FPS were so low that even with the improvement they're still low? Not trying to dis you or anything, but like are you using a FPS counter or anything in order to tell the difference or are you just kind of eyeballing it to tell the difference?

 

[Pheonix_789]

No offense takin!

but I will tell the maxuim fps That I am getting at default settings (everything set to default):

wait 2 mins

 

[Solaris17]

i hadnt relized im sorry i thought u had found the .exe and u didnt get a difference i did not know that u did the unhide extensions thing and still could not find it im sorry.

 

[Pheonix_789]

no I found the file and I changed it here are my new Fps:

Meduim Quality
computer Meduim Quality

FPS
Minuim 17 FPS
Average 27
Max 52

FPS distribution

42% below
55% between 25 and 40%
3% above 40Fps
Graphics still seem a bit choppy.... anyway of improving the graphics if I overclock the card it heats up to much.... the card has poor cooling( probably why its called i-cooler!)

remind you of card specs:

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core
250mhz (500mhz) mem

 

[Drash]

Phoenix_789 try changing your settings - I've got the settings on auto-detect, looks ok @ 800x600, no AA
On the test settings run i get:
min:27
ave:46
max:82
0% below 25FPS
39% between 25 and 40 FPS
61% above 40 FPS

Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB stock
Sempron 3100+ @ 1.8GHz (skt 754), 2x512MB DDR400, Audigy 2ZS, ASUS K8VSEDX, 200GB PATA,

 

[Nyte]

Geez, this is like the time Ati cards had a lower performance when you renamed the quake.exe to quack.exe in the Radeon 8500 days, but at least that was a "driver optimization" Ati used for cheating, seems both Ati and nVidia use dirty tricks to gain performance, makes you wander how many of these cheats go undetected....

I wouldn't call this a cheat, more like a "crippler".

 

[row1]

I tried it and got at max an extra 20 fps
if you really interested i posted more details on
http://row1.info
perhaps a coincidence?
strange indeed
edit:
permanent link is : http://row1.info/content/view/76/2/

 

[Pheonix_789]

:shadedshu yeah I tried and it was working but the game totally freezed up when I made it to the android in the elevator... it started firing rockets at me and the game froze up!

I miss my Pentuim 4!!!!! I sure wish I could afford a better Cpu and video card!



(I could use cheats and hacks to beat the game but its just so awesome not too!)

 

[65tweet]

As always I’m a skeptic and need to see for myself. Here’s the test I ran:
All quality settings on and/or set to max.
Ran settings test movie five times with both name variations and recorded average.

Results,
Unchanged name:
Min FPS: 16
Average FPS: 27
Max FPS: 66

Changed name:
Min FPS: 16
Average FPS: 34
Max FPS: 75

FPS Distribution, original/changed name:
Below 25 53/35%
Btwn 25 & 40 44/45%
Above 40 3/20%

The test shows a 7-9 FPS increase in the higher frame rate portion but that is not as impressive as the overall result. The percent above 40 FPS went up 17% adding quite a boost. IMO this will be a good improvement when playing multiplayer and the action gets heavy. As to why this “trick” works I think it was already stated earlier…money. If one company’s card plays games better then they will sell more cards. You can always blame the software distributor but I believe it boils down to the cash. The software manufacturer is out to make money and adding a dirty little trick and getting paid extra to do it is easy enough to do. The game is no worse off and the hardware manufacturer gets a better reputation and sales go up. It’s a very crappy way to do business, but then what do you do in return? Not buy NVIDIA? I can only hope this backfires on them.

 

[Dwarden]

Sorry to burst bubble ... it simple tweak for FEAR demos affecting final version in negative way ...

It’s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it’s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

 

[OBR]

Really it working!
Config: X850XT PE + FX57
Computer: MAX, graphics: MAX, 1024x768

FEAR.exe
Min: 22fps
Ave: 41fps
Max: 106fps
7% below 25fps
49% between 25 and 40fps
44% up to 40fps.

FEA.exe
Min: 30fps
Ave: 58fps
Max: 143
0% below 25fps
32% between 25 a 40fps
68% up to 40fps

Its crazy!

 

[gonrain]

Wow.. nice find.. really does work..

Min 35 Min 35
Avg 60 Avg 68
Max 149 Max 173

nice increase.. x850pro@16 pipes and 550/610

 

[Pheonix_789]

kool.exe!

 

[65tweet]

Did anybody notice that the movie isn't exactly the same every time like a benchmark? The soldiers don’t seem to shoot the same areas each time. If you look at the walls and watch for bullet holes sometimes they are quite large. Other times they are small or missing completely! I saw a soldier shoot huge holes in the floor next to his feet once. Usually he just puts holes in the ceiling. Maybe the test is more like watching bots fight than a movie? Or perhaps the game behaves like that to try and keep things seeming random.

 

[zAAm]

Yeah, I've seen it too. One time the bot shot the ceiling and hit the tube lights, which went spinning around like crazy and casting nice dynamic shadows on everything. Not quite the same as the previous runs... And I think they're probably just bots standing there shooting randomly in an utterly uncomfortable position?

 

[afropuff]

Odd.

I'll test this out w/my modded C3D X800GTO when I get home and post the results.

-fro

 

[afropuff]

Results

Odd.

I'll test this out w/my modded C3D X800GTO when I get home and post the results.

-fro

Test Conditions:
Here are my results. Tests ran at stock high/high with only change to 4 x AA for testing, otherwise all defaults for high/high. Tests ran 3 times for high confidence. All tests ran at 1024x864 resolution.

Results:

1024x864 high/high Fear.exe

Min = 37
Avg = 63
Max = 127

1024x864 high/high crazymofo.exe

Min = 33
Avg = 69 (+6)
Max = 157

1024x864 high/custom 4xAA Fear.exe

Min = 19
Avg = 38
Max = 97

1024x864 high/custom 4xAA crazymofo.exe

Min = 22
Avg = 50 (+12)
Max = 128

Conclusion: Changing the filename increases FPS around 6-12, depending on what settings you use.

 

[Pinorkel]

Radeon 9550 - Fear

Hi All,
I have read through this forum until my eyes hurt, so now need a little assistance on how to make FEAR playable.

My PC
Intel P4 3.6GHz
1Gb RAM
400Gb ATA HDD
Radeon 9550 256Mb

frame rate is running at 18fps ... I run every other game I have at max.

I changed the naming convention of the .exe file and got fps to 22, but the game runs choppy !!!

I ran the test with default settings, of high/high with highest resolution.

 

[row1]

Hi All,
I have read through this forum until my eyes hurt, so now need a little assistance on how to make FEAR playable.

My PC
Intel P4 3.6GHz
1Gb RAM
400Gb ATA HDD
Radeon 9550 256Mb

frame rate is running at 18fps ... I run every other game I have at max.

I changed the naming convention of the .exe file and got fps to 22, but the game runs choppy !!!

I ran the test with default settings, of high/high with highest resolution.

No offense but your GFX card is probably too old.
From what I understand the Radeon 9550 is only a midrange card and is 2 generations old. Looking at this benchmark http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/tul9550/6.html
19 fps seems pretty good for f.e.a.r
My 2 cents.

 

[65tweet]

If you want to play with all settings set to max then you need a new video card and more memory. A four pipe card just won't cut it. I don't know what games you play normally but this game gives my card a hard time. My X850xt running at pe speeds gets in the 70's so you are doing good for what you have.

 

[Pinorkel]

Thanks guys, I better go shopping, will look at the benchamrks to see what is the best card.

 

[bodingtonsboy]

fears running slow

Fear looks like i great game and i would love to be able to play the dame thing, without it lagging all the time.
These are my specs

AMD athlon 64
radeon x800 pro
1 gb ram

i have tried running fear with a few different types of settings and the best i could get was

17 fps
32 fps
108 fps

theses were set with my computer spec on low and my graphics on the auto detect settin ,is this normal ? please could someone help

ps i have renamed the game exe

 

[HellSpawn]

ok i own the game fear

ok i heard everyone talk about fear and the frame rate..ok can someone tell me how u do this frame rate test...so that it will show me the fps??

 

[Thermopylae_480]

I think there is a run benchmark test or something similar in Video Options.