PDA

View Full Version : Low resolution textures


Sanafabich
01-20-2006, 06:31 AM
Why am I getting low resolution textures, if I have everything maxed out in the set-up screen? Take a look:
http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/1750/lt8ql.th.jpg (http://img466.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lt8ql.jpg)
My specs: Radeon 9800pro (128 video memory), Windows XP sp2, directX 9.0c, 256 MB RAM, athlonXP 1800 mhz

DarthMaulUK
01-20-2006, 08:14 AM
Having just had a look myself, my graphics are fine but I do have a much more powerful PC. Although your card is a good one, you cant expect to have full specs on and have top draw graphics as its not a 256MB card, also when you can, I strongly suggest that you get more RAM as this will help you get more out of your PC as well.

DMUK

Sanafabich
01-20-2006, 11:44 AM
but that shouldn't make any difference when it comes to image quality. Even more, a fx5200 shows the correct high resolution textures. so, WTF?!?!?!

PygmyShrew
01-20-2006, 12:40 PM
I think its known as bump mapping (i think), The games not letting your PC use high res textures because your performance would drop to much, I imagine although am not certain if I filled my game with 1000s of storm troopers it would lower my unit/terrain quality to compensate, a good example is SWG if youve ever near a lot of players, or in a room with 6/8 suits of ST armour against the wall, the detail will automatically get worse, and looking at your pc's specs im sorry to say it but your computer would probably struggle with high res textures which is why youve got this regardless of your settings.

edit: no its not called bump mapping thats something totally different, if someone would be able to educate me to its correct name? :) hmm multi pass rendering?

Jeff
01-20-2006, 01:15 PM
I also noticed textures weren't up to par with the screenshots, but I figure its because I have an older video card (Geforce 5600 or something around there).

Sanafabich
01-20-2006, 04:28 PM
and looking at your pc's specs im sorry to say it but your computer would probably struggle with high res textures which is why youve got this regardless of your settings.
unfortunately I think that might be the reason, something like what happens when playing fifa games. But It's an arbitrary call, since my computer runs with no problem games like half life 2, doom 3, farcry. wow, etc. Maybe if I edit a config file, but I can't find any

Kurgan
01-20-2006, 05:04 PM
ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 (not pro, 128 mb DDR), 2 Ghz Athlon 2400XP+, 256 mb pc133 sdram, and I have graphics similar to the pic above. Good performance (though a long initial loadup time for the game, I initially thought the game had crashed, it was just working), but yeah, bad grahpics when I zoom in. Of course I didn't bother tweaking my settings, I am just running on the defaults, because I wanted it to run. ;)

I meet all the minimum required specs, although they recommend 512 mb ram, and I "only" have 256 mb. I also run 2kpro instead of XP so that's gotta count for something!

In a game like this I wouldn't expect super detailed grahpics, since they need to have lots of units onscreen at a time and you're mostly going to be seeing them zoomed out, not in, but yeah, the screenshots do look somewhat better than that. Simpler models (I'm thinking like Warcraft III), but nice textures.

Sanafabich
01-20-2006, 06:57 PM
but the thing is, that the game supports higher definition textures, I've seen other people's screenshots, and they look just fine

clone_troopa
01-23-2006, 08:43 AM
got the latest drivers? simple common fixer might help

Sanafabich
01-23-2006, 11:23 AM
i wish it would- But I thinkk it might be a inner restriction within the game's engine, because of my low RAM

clone_troopa
01-23-2006, 01:04 PM
i wish it would- But I thinkk it might be a inner restriction within the game's engine, because of my low RAM


probably, low ram will freeze the crap out of ya with high res textures so i guess thats gotta be it

(256 is very very low.... the min is ussualy 512 these days and 1 gig to be ok)

edit: (i've shopped here for 4 years) newegg.com/ 512 sticks are cheap($40) if ya wanna upgrade a bit

lukeiamyourdad
01-23-2006, 01:23 PM
As a matter of facts, 256 mb of RAM is the requirement for Windows XP to run properly. It uses a lot of RAM, so 256 mb is barely enough to run any kind of games.

But It's an arbitrary call, since my computer runs with no problem games like half life 2, doom 3, farcry. wow, etc.

A common mistake. Just because you can run an FPS or RPG fine does not mean that you'll be able to run an RTS on high settings.
RTS are real ressource whores due to often the high number of actions happening at once on the screen.

Kurgan
01-23-2006, 03:01 PM
Well, when I auto detect, it gives me low res textures and 800x600. But I can run it in 1024x768 and up the text detail. It doesn't look nearly as good as the screenshots of some folks on uber pc's (with 256 mb video cards and more than 2 ghz and 512 or higher ram), but much better than before.

On low settings it takes 1:20 seconds to go from double clicking the exe to the title screen (can't skip past the logos), and another 0:40 to actually start the galactic conquest demo campaign. I will try timing it next time to see how much higher they are with the settings turned up...

Sanafabich
01-24-2006, 10:36 AM
probably, low ram will freeze the crap out of ya with high res textures so i guess thats gotta be it

(256 is very very low.... the min is ussualy 512 these days and 1 gig to be ok)

edit: (i've shopped here for 4 years) newegg.com/ 512 sticks are cheap($40) if ya wanna upgrade a bit
yep, you're right :( I'm buying a new stick this week. I mean, 256! I'm embarrased :ears1: