GTA IV graphics optimisation that works

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:32:25 -0800 (PST), tie702003.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

>I will check this out. as it is, I have a quad core and quite frankly
>my game looks like a water painting moving in slow motion.
> also dont know if its just the way the mechanics of the graphic
>control panel work, but it doesnt even let me put detail texture on
>high.it all looks fuzzy and out of focus.
>
>even other games I've had even if they were outside my systems
>requirements at least let me select high detail.

More proof, if second hand, that the game is a bodged port. It doesn't run
brilliantly on my Dual Core X6800 and now it seems another 2 processors
doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Please could you post your specs.
and maybe the results of the in-game benchmark at your chosen resolution. I'd
be very interested to see the results.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:19:07 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch.DeleteThis@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>More proof, if second hand, that the game is a bodged port. It doesn't run
>brilliantly on my Dual Core X6800 and now it seems another 2 processors
>doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

It doesn't run too well on PS3 and X360 either. There are significant
frame-rate dips on both platforms. PC performance is better on
comparable IQ settings. By the way it performs lot better on quad-core
systems compared to dual-core ones.
--
Noman

well I have a
gateway vista 32 bit intel core 2 quad processor Q 6600
500 GB sata 2 hard drive
3G DDR2 dual-channel memory
NIVIDIA Geforce 8500 GT video card.

I dont know why but I keep getting this note when I try and change the
graphics something about system resources are a certain number over
the maximum. and it doesnt let me change settings or select high
texture.

so the game looks all washed out and fuzzy. but to be honest I have
been having so much fun with left4dead, I have been neglecting GTA4
anyways. but my video card is what came with my system, so maybe its
underpowered.

<tie702003.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d763099-6861-47f0-a376-87b03801f181@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>I will check this out. as it is, I have a quad core and quite frankly
> my game looks like a water painting moving in slow motion.
> also dont know if its just the way the mechanics of the graphic
> control panel work, but it doesnt even let me put detail texture on
> high.it all looks fuzzy and out of focus.
>
> even other games I've had even if they were outside my systems
> requirements at least let me select high detail.
>

hmm, I have a quad core and the game runs very smoothly at 1680x1050 all
features on high. The only issue I have with GTA4 is the lack of AA. As
world is a city with lots of bridges and buildings AA is a must. The jaggies
and broken lines spoil what might look like the difinitive city in a
computer game.

Rand

"Memnoch" <memnoch.TakeThisOut@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fp0kl49k78uj2qmj4nlo3ffl8j9hhnk1k7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:32:25 -0800 (PST), tie702003.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>I will check this out. as it is, I have a quad core and quite frankly
>>my game looks like a water painting moving in slow motion.
>> also dont know if its just the way the mechanics of the graphic
>>control panel work, but it doesnt even let me put detail texture on
>>high.it all looks fuzzy and out of focus.
>>
>>even other games I've had even if they were outside my systems
>>requirements at least let me select high detail.
>
> More proof, if second hand, that the game is a bodged port. It doesn't run
> brilliantly on my Dual Core X6800 and now it seems another 2 processors
> doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Please could you post your
> specs.
> and maybe the results of the in-game benchmark at your chosen resolution.
> I'd
> be very interested to see the results.

The problem is, as soon as you access the "Graphics" settings (after using
the workaround I posted) the game either resets your resolution and
maintains the details levels, or resets the details to the lowest and
maintains your resolution.

I am getting 45 FPS at 1680x1050 and CPU usage at 55%. That's on: Intel
Q6600 3.4, Nvidia 8800GT 512MB, 4 GB ram (only 3GB recognised), WinXP Pro
SP3, SB Audigy 4.

I might mess around a bit more this evening to see if I can get a benchmark
using several alternatives.

my game is still very slow,and still looks kinda like a water
painting,

but I have to tell you....I really marvel at the level of detail of
the citys.I am simplpy dumbfounded how far graphics are coming.
i was just driving around and walking admiring the sites. its soooo
scenic.the city feels alive.

its really awe inspiring. maybe some of you are used to stuff liek
this, but open ended citys are the way to go IMO.
after walking in this world,games on rails seem unacceptable.

if they were to morph a game like this into an apocalypse type game or
terminator robots walking and hunter/killer robots flying and
terminator tanks rollling around randomly and you had the whole game
world to move around in? with enterable houses and stores that could
be used as a home base ....MY GOD. this is where games should go.

I have it smooth & generally OK on Dual Core 3.2 Ghz ...8800 GTX ...3 Gig
DDR2 RAM ..latest drivers.

BUT because I use an 19" CRT rather than LCD,
I can get sharp & good (enough for me) graphics at 1200 x 1024 or less.
The games setup ridiculously set the screen res. at 800 x 600 with the
Largest
Textures and a very, very small draw distance (like 15%) . & everything at
highest.

The 8800 GTX has 768 MB onboard memory & that silly short draw distance
depends on how much (many?) of those Large Textures will fit.
Changing this to Medium size Textures let me set the Draw Distance to nearly
100%

Looks fine.
Most complaints re. graphics performance I've seen are from people wanting
resolutions like 1600 plus .
Can't you cut that back ??.
I will go for quality against higher resolution any time.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam DeleteThis @never.spam> wrote in message
news:495a8bff_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>I have it smooth & generally OK on Dual Core 3.2 Ghz ...8800 GTX ...3 Gig
>DDR2 RAM ..latest drivers.
>
> BUT because I use an 19" CRT rather than LCD,
> I can get sharp & good (enough for me) graphics at 1200 x 1024 or less.
> The games setup ridiculously set the screen res. at 800 x 600 with the
> Largest
> Textures and a very, very small draw distance (like 15%) . & everything at
> highest.
>
> The 8800 GTX has 768 MB onboard memory & that silly short draw distance
> depends on how much (many?) of those Large Textures will fit.
> Changing this to Medium size Textures let me set the Draw Distance to
> nearly 100%
>
> Looks fine.
> Most complaints re. graphics performance I've seen are from people
> wanting
> resolutions like 1600 plus .
> Can't you cut that back ??.
> I will go for quality against higher resolution any time.
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") mouse
>

Normally, you could decrease the resolution and just compensate with AA; the
jaggies *are* prominent in this title. As Rockstar can't code for the PC,
you can't enable AA either.

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam.DeleteThis@never.spam> wrote in message
news:495a8bff_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>I have it smooth & generally OK on Dual Core 3.2 Ghz ...8800 GTX ...3 Gig
>DDR2 RAM ..latest drivers.
>
> BUT because I use an 19" CRT rather than LCD,
> I can get sharp & good (enough for me) graphics at 1200 x 1024 or less.
> The games setup ridiculously set the screen res. at 800 x 600 with the
> Largest
> Textures and a very, very small draw distance (like 15%) . & everything at
> highest.
>
> The 8800 GTX has 768 MB onboard memory & that silly short draw distance
> depends on how much (many?) of those Large Textures will fit.
> Changing this to Medium size Textures let me set the Draw Distance to
> nearly 100%
>
> Looks fine.
> Most complaints re. graphics performance I've seen are from people
> wanting
> resolutions like 1600 plus .
> Can't you cut that back ??.
> I will go for quality against higher resolution any time.
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") mouse
>

Could cut back ofc but LCD displays are no where near as good as CRTs for
multiple resolutions. Native res on my SyncMaster 226BW is 1600x1050 and
anything less in games is not so good even if you could use AA. GTA4 does
ofc use all the graphic card ram which, having the Geforce 8800GTX with
768Mb ram helps

Rand

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:00:52 -0000, "Schrodinger" <no RemoveThis @way.com> wrote:

>
>"Memnoch" <memnoch RemoveThis @nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:fp0kl49k78uj2qmj4nlo3ffl8j9hhnk1k7@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:32:25 -0800 (PST), tie702003 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>I will check this out. as it is, I have a quad core and quite frankly
>>>my game looks like a water painting moving in slow motion.
>>> also dont know if its just the way the mechanics of the graphic
>>>control panel work, but it doesnt even let me put detail texture on
>>>high.it all looks fuzzy and out of focus.
>>>
>>>even other games I've had even if they were outside my systems
>>>requirements at least let me select high detail.
>>
>> More proof, if second hand, that the game is a bodged port. It doesn't run
>> brilliantly on my Dual Core X6800 and now it seems another 2 processors
>> doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Please could you post your
>> specs.
>> and maybe the results of the in-game benchmark at your chosen resolution.
>> I'd
>> be very interested to see the results.
>
>The problem is, as soon as you access the "Graphics" settings (after using
>the workaround I posted) the game either resets your resolution and
>maintains the details levels, or resets the details to the lowest and
>maintains your resolution.
>
>I am getting 45 FPS at 1680x1050 and CPU usage at 55%. That's on: Intel
>Q6600 3.4, Nvidia 8800GT 512MB, 4 GB ram (only 3GB recognised), WinXP Pro
>SP3, SB Audigy 4.
>
>I might mess around a bit more this evening to see if I can get a benchmark
>using several alternatives.

I get 95% usage with my dual core X6800 and around 35-40fps, depending on
resolution so that kind of fits in with a CPU bound game. I have a 9800 GX2 by
the way.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:44:06 -0800, noman <no_m_an.TakeThisOut@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:19:07 GMT, Memnoch
><memnoch.TakeThisOut@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>More proof, if second hand, that the game is a bodged port. It doesn't run
>>brilliantly on my Dual Core X6800 and now it seems another 2 processors
>>doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
>
>It doesn't run too well on PS3 and X360 either. There are significant
>frame-rate dips on both platforms. PC performance is better on
>comparable IQ settings. By the way it performs lot better on quad-core
>systems compared to dual-core ones.

That to me is the annoying part. That they write a game for a closed
architecture like the PS3 and 360 and even then don't manage to get it to run
well. Surely that can't be the case? I have seen youtube videos of the game
and it runs a lot smoother than on my PC and it console footage as far as I
know.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:35:22 GMT, Memnoch
<memnoch.RemoveThis@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:44:06 -0800, noman <no_m_an.RemoveThis@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't run too well on PS3 and X360 either. There are significant
>>frame-rate dips on both platforms. PC performance is better on
>>comparable IQ settings. By the way it performs lot better on quad-core
>>systems compared to dual-core ones.
>
>That to me is the annoying part. That they write a game for a closed
>architecture like the PS3 and 360 and even then don't manage to get it to run
>well. Surely that can't be the case? I have seen youtube videos of the game
>and it runs a lot smoother than on my PC and it console footage as far as I
>know.

It depends on the area and the type of action the videos were probably
depicting. If you set the same image quality through the in-game
options (texture quality and rendering distance being the two most
important factors) on a decent PC running a $120-150 graphic card like
HD4500 or 9800GT and a dual-core CPU, you should get better frame
rates than the console versions.
--
Noman

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:57:52 -0000, "Rand Al'Thor" <randalthor.TakeThisOut@wheeloftime.ie>
wrote:

>
><tie702003.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6d763099-6861-47f0-a376-87b03801f181@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>I will check this out. as it is, I have a quad core and quite frankly
>> my game looks like a water painting moving in slow motion.
>> also dont know if its just the way the mechanics of the graphic
>> control panel work, but it doesnt even let me put detail texture on
>> high.it all looks fuzzy and out of focus.
>>
>> even other games I've had even if they were outside my systems
>> requirements at least let me select high detail.
>>
>
>hmm, I have a quad core and the game runs very smoothly at 1680x1050 all
>features on high. The only issue I have with GTA4 is the lack of AA. As
>world is a city with lots of bridges and buildings AA is a must. The jaggies
>and broken lines spoil what might look like the difinitive city in a
>computer game.

You can probably force AA or FSAA in the drivers.