PDA

View Full Version : LOADING TIMES: if load times are long for you, read this (UPDATED!)


ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-27-2002, 09:58 PM
Our loading times are actually very good, and our reloads are extremely fast. Also loads within the same mission should be faster than the first load of a mission because we cache all the textures, models and sounds from one level to the next.

If you find this is not the case, I have bad news for you: your system does not have enough RAM. If you lower the texture detail settings from VERY HIGH to HIGH, you will see your loading times get much, much better.

You may say "but I have a 64MB card and 256MB system RAM!", that should be fine for a lot of the levels, but when you're using the HIGHEST level of texture detail, you're going to need more than that on some levels. If you have 512MB of system RAM, you should be fine with full-on cranked-up detail levels. (There is also the issue of your AGP aperature setting in your boot-up setup... if it's very high relative to your amount of system RAM, there is a possibility that it could affect performance).

However, regardless of your configuration, then, if you are having long load times (for whatever reason), lowering your texture detail is the best way to shorten the loads.

Ste Cork, who did the load/save stuff, did some loading and reloading timing tests using 2 vastly different system configurations. Here are his findings:

All tests were run from the CD burn we were given internally of the release copy, and dropping out of the executable and re-running for each graphic setting change (and waiting for all thrashing to cease before starting next test). The only settings I altered were choosing the 4 predefined video settings at the top of the video screen. Nothing else was touched at all.

All tests stopwatched from console command "map kejim_base" to seeing "datapad updated"; onscreen.

P3 / 1GHZ / 512MB / GeForce3 64MB

VideoSetting Load time Reload Time (same timing method)
==============================================
HighQuality 1:15 0:04
Normal 0:38 0:04
Fast 0:31 0:03
Fastest 0:29 0:03

P2 / 300MHZ / 128MB / TNT1 16MB ( crap machine, but for comparison )

HighQuality 6:00 0:55
Normal 2:55 0:42
Fast 1:52 0:20
Fastest 1:45 0:15



Moral of the story: use settings good enough for the hardware you've got.Re-load times are what counts unless you can play every level without dying....

Chico
03-27-2002, 10:09 PM
I guess 512 megs of ddr AND a 64mb gf3 isnt a good enough amount cause the load times are God awful

Obi
03-27-2002, 10:15 PM
Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to remember that when I finally get it tomorrow.

digl
03-27-2002, 10:19 PM
Thanks ChangKhan.

Welcome to the forums Chico. If you have that setup and the loading times are "god awful" you have a problem. Maybe your RAM is bad, or you have a slow HD or processor.

Shifty_Parrot
03-27-2002, 10:23 PM
Yeah, it's not just your system specs like RAM and CPU you have to worry about. You really want a HDD that's 7200 RPM (or higher:) and has some good cache lke 2mb. But anyway...the loading times are worth it right? RIGHT?? :D

Cookie319
03-27-2002, 10:25 PM
OR overly high expectations...
the textures are majorly huge...


I have only 256MB RAM. but hopefully it won't be a problem.... coz of the 128MB DDR on my gf4... atleast I know now that the extra video ram's good for something...

ZeroXcape
03-27-2002, 10:29 PM
I've run JKII on a system worse then Chico's, and the loads aren't bad at all (even on high.) He probably doesn't know how to configure his computer...

Bowen
03-27-2002, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Chico
I guess 512 megs of ddr AND a 64mb gf3 isnt a good enough amount cause the load times are God awful

Well it sounds like your not having any problems with getting ample fps in the game so maybe your proc is a little on the weak side. That can cause slower load times too but since you have enought Ram that's not the problem and I know your GF3 is not the problem. The important thing is that the game plays fluidly!!

Mike_B
03-27-2002, 11:30 PM
I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem.

gro
03-27-2002, 11:41 PM
I have an athlon 1.2@1.3, 768 MB RAM (Not DDR) and the initial loading time is always long.
Reload times aren't too bad, but definitely not extremely fast

Razarblade
03-28-2002, 12:03 AM
I have about 1.28 gig of sdram, my load times are faster than quake 3's in multiplayer. :)

Yautja
03-28-2002, 12:07 AM
Do you have DMA enabled, if you are running windows 98? im not sure about windows xp, but that should help load times greatly in win98.

Bowen
03-28-2002, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Mike_B
I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem.

I've got similar specs to what you have...same proc, ram and HD too! I don't know what sort vid card you have but I have a GF3 (original no Ti series) and I can play MOH (the most demanding game to date that I know of in FPS shooter anyway save maybe JKII). I can't wait until tomorrow and I can't wait until my GF4 Ti 4400 comes in and I can get my Athlon XP 1900+ at the 1st of April. I'll probably gain at least 50 fps between the two but assuming you have a GF3 card or a Radeon 8500 I know it's going to run like a dream on what I've got now!! :D

Juke
03-28-2002, 12:45 AM
Chang, I've neglected to say this a while, but your avatar freaks me out. Seriously. CHANGE IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

CorranHornjr
03-28-2002, 01:12 AM
I have an Athlon Xp 1500+, 256mb ddr, 20gb 7200rpms HD, geforce2 mx400 32mb....and i am hoping that I will be alright. I need to upgrade my video card, but I was hoping that the 256mb of ram, fast HD, and processor would out weight that fault....

Thanks Chang for the advice, but i think I will just wait..i have waited long enough for the game to come out, i can wait an extra minute to get full graphics, if my card will handle it...and your avator is kinda scary, but it has character, keep it.

until next time....

darky
03-28-2002, 01:18 AM
Let's put it this way, how does it compare with Return to Castle Wolfenstein?

That should be a pretty decent comparison. Especially since RCW's minimum requirements are slightly higher than JO's.

Now I realize that that may not should be the case, but going by the numbers... uh...

Gee, just answer the question.

Locke101
03-28-2002, 01:27 AM
Just wondering, i still havn't gotten my copy of JO. :ball: however, will i have long loading times with these specs:

P4 1.4 ghz
384 Rambus Ram
16X DVD-Rom
GeForce3 TI 200

Guardian Omega
03-28-2002, 02:04 AM
Hold on me too!
1 Ghz (Athlon)
256 ram
Geforce 2 MX 400
52x cd drive
40 gig hardrive
Using Windows ME.

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Mike_B
I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem.

If the load times are really that bad (did you time them?), that's not right as it was not the way the game was developed. Regardless of your configuration, then, if you are having long load times, lower your texture detail and it should get better.

Thrawn
03-28-2002, 02:28 AM
I have an AMD 1.4 processor and 264MB of DDR RAM, and a Geforce 2. Load times are fine for me. About 10 seconds to load after I die and 30-40 seconds for a new level.

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Locke101
Just wondering, i still havn't gotten my copy of JO. :ball: however, will i have long loading times with these specs:

P4 1.4 ghz
384 Rambus Ram
16X DVD-Rom
GeForce3 TI 200

Not if you use the right detail settings... that''s the point- you'll only get long load times (and in-game texture thrashing) if you try to push your system to do more than it can handle.

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Thrawn
I have an AMD 1.4 processor and 264MB of DDR RAM, and a Geforce 2. Load times are fine for me. About 10 seconds to load after I die and 30-40 seconds for a new level.

Hmm, that's actually a bit long. I have reloads of about 4-6 seconds and initial loads of maybe 20-30 seconds max (with the rare exception when starting a new mission).

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Mike_B
I've got a 1.33Ghz TBird with 512MB DDR RAM and a 7200 RPM IBM DeskStar ATA100. And the load times are worse than I've seen in any other game. The reloads are quick, but the initial level load takes longer in JK II than anything I've seen on this machine. Framerates are spectacular, and I've benchmarked the drive on several occasions so I'm pretty sure the drive isn't the problem.

BTW, you do not mention what kind of video card and how much video RAM you have nor what detail setting you're using. If you have a GeForce2 or something, you'd better drop the texture detail one level (this is the setting I play on and it looks fine).

Silent_Thunder
03-28-2002, 03:22 AM
This may be alittle off topic, but what exactly is your avatar, ChangKhan? :)

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Silent_Thunder
This may be alittle off topic, but what exactly is your avatar, ChangKhan? :)

Yeah, a little OT, but since you're the first to ask... Chang Khan is the name of a character in a sci-fi film I was writing (I went to college for film, not programming) and he was a kind of tiger-man like species (there were a few races divided into a caste-like system: the lion-like ones were the politicians and leaders, the tigers were the soldiers, the panthers were assassins and religious fanatics and the leopards and others were the oppressed lower classes).

So I made that picture to look like a tiger-man, after the Chang Khan character. Back in, oh, '95 (I think) I had this newfangled consumer-level 2-D morphing program (simply called "Morph") that could churn out a low-res image like that in under ten minutes... hehe... (so the picture is a morph of me an a very nice tiger image that came with the package).

Silent_Thunder
03-28-2002, 04:28 AM
That's pretty neat :). Did you ever end up completeing the film (or the story)? The Avatar looks cool, but is kind of freaky at the same time :p.

The Wibble
03-28-2002, 07:06 AM
Sounds to me like some of you people are not looking after your systems as best you can. Using 3rd party software and tools that come with windows (scandisk, defrag etc) and latest drivers I have always been able to push my system beyond what it can do.

PIII 700mhz
256 PC100 SDRAM
20GB Hard Drive (Old)
Geforce 2 MX 400 64MB

Yes, my system was top of the range and now its not even average. But by looking after it and rewarding it with drivers, and tweeks - www.guru3d.com - I have Quake 3 based games running lovely.

MOHAA - 50 - 60 Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL
RTCW - 70 + Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL

Franky i'm suprised you guys are having some troubles on your super systems when my old tin is chugging away.

DrFunk
03-28-2002, 07:31 AM
I have a PIII 800EB and 256MB Ram with a GeForce 2 Pro with 64megs SDR and I have been running with max texture detail at 32bit for the entire game. The only times I have had a slowdown is with the rain in swamps on Yavin 4 and entering the besieged temple.
My load times are maybe 8-10 seconds from a quicksave and 20-30 between missions, tops.
Maybe its just a fluke?

TUS_Tomcat
03-28-2002, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by ChangKhan[RAVEN]


Not if you use the right detail settings

Does JO have an auto-configurer for best options? or something?

Also, I'd like to know, (of course) your system specs, and detail settings :) Take a screenshot of the options menu or something...

I got a 1ghz TBird, 512 mb PC133 CAS 2 SDRAM, 32mb Gefgorce 2 GTS

fastfonzy
03-28-2002, 07:40 AM
Hmmm turning down texture level...maybe for the multiplayer, but in singleplayer I can endure a little bit longer load times as long as the game shines in full glory.

Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not?

loluzzz
03-28-2002, 07:45 AM
I've got 1.5 gigs of pc133 and i noticed that loading times actually doubled when i increased the texture quality from medium to very high.

loluzzz
03-28-2002, 07:49 AM
btw, lando has a pic of han solo in a speedo on his ship.

gro
03-28-2002, 07:59 AM
My system handles the game well enough, I never really have a big FPS hit with full detail (At 10248768, just no Antiostropic filtering), its just the initial load time is almost a minute, and yes my system is tweaked/ overclocked/ updated.
The reloads aren't to bad, and I can live with the long initial load if its rare

The Wibble
03-28-2002, 08:01 AM
Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not?

Yeah thats true, when Windows 98 was being developed 512MB RAM was a dream for the home user. I dont even think ME fully supports that much RAM.

loluzzzz
03-28-2002, 08:09 AM
If you're still using win98 i think its time to upgrade ;d

Scrobes
03-28-2002, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by ChangKhan[RAVEN]
(There is also the issue of your AGP aperature setting in your boot-up setup... if it's very high relative to your amount of system RAM, there is a possibility that it could affect performance).

I once heard that the AGP aperture should be about half of what your total RAM is. Is that right?

TUS_Tomcat
03-28-2002, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by fastfonzy


Btw I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM, while Win Xp does, true or not?

I always thought it was MORE than 512

it can handle 512 but over that it freaks... or well, doesnt use it efficiently anyway

arctic_series
03-28-2002, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by The Wibble
Sounds to me like some of you people are not looking after your systems as best you can. Using 3rd party software and tools that come with windows (scandisk, defrag etc) and latest drivers I have always been able to push my system beyond what it can do.

PIII 700mhz
256 PC100 SDRAM
20GB Hard Drive (Old)
Geforce 2 MX 400 64MB

Yes, my system was top of the range and now its not even average. But by looking after it and rewarding it with drivers, and tweeks - www.guru3d.com - I have Quake 3 based games running lovely.

MOHAA - 50 - 60 Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL
RTCW - 70 + Frames @ 1024x768x32 MAX DETAIL

Franky i'm suprised you guys are having some troubles on your super systems when my old tin is chugging away.

what the hell ? it's not like we don't know how to tweak out pcs man.

but with a geforce 2 mx 400 64mb card doesn't matter if you have a 30ghz cpu, you're not going to be getting 60fps+ with mohaa or rtcw running @ 1024x768x32 MAX detail > which i assume you have the slider bar highest for everything.

frankly im suprised that anyone would believe your figures. there's one thing about tweaking and gaining performance, but that doesn't turn a geforce 2 mx + 700mhz system into a capable gaming system for current games at MAX detail or so you say.

unless you're not moving and looking at a wall something. it's not possible for your system to get the kind of frames that you're talking about.

Capt
03-28-2002, 10:41 AM
ChangKhan, I'd say that there definately are game problems with the 3DFX V5500 cards.

The first load takes a long time (that's okay), and the game plays perfectly, but subsequent loads will just hang, and the load menu itself becomes all "stuttery" when you move the mouse.
Hit ESC and quit the game and restart, and everything is perfect again for the first load.

By dropping the colour depth and texture details you can get faster loads and the load menu will stop stuttering, but after doing a few loads, the game will hang on loading again. The really strange thing is that if I am in a "stuttery-wil-not-load" state, and then change the video settings (even if I change them upwards) a load will now work correctly for a while, and then hang later. Is this some kind of initialistaion or flushing bug? I's guessing that changing the screen settings flushes or initialises something that allows the card to reload a level correctly.

I've tried several different drivers and messed about with numerous settings, but it seems the game just doesn't handle a V5500 correctly. Other V5500 owners have reported this on other 3DFX forums.

I'm very disappointed as the game looks so fantastic and plays very fast with FSAA, but the loading/hanging makes the game incredibly frustrating. You have to exit and restart the game everytime you get killed.

I know you could say that 3DFX is gone and the V5500 is obselete, but no other game has this problem (RTCW and Bridge Commander were graphically perfect, and they didn't have loading problems).

Is there any way you can look into this? Maybe it is a simple matter of texture management as you say?

Please bear in mind, I am not complaining about the loading speed, I'm complaining that the V5500 seems to hang on every second and later load of a saved game, even quicksaves.

BTW, I should say my system is a P3-850 with V5500 and 512 megs RAM running WinME

nykel007
03-28-2002, 11:37 AM
You'll putting my P3 800mhz 128RAM ...... to shame. I don't have the game yet so I don't know how it would handle, so pray for me.:D

Aik
03-28-2002, 12:31 PM
Is 10 - 15 seconds slow?

Jedimaster74
03-28-2002, 12:35 PM
I can't understand why people are complaining about the load times. I find the load times to be sufficient, its just people don't have enough patience :) I have a 1.4GHZ system with 512 Megs of RAM and a Geforce3 ti200 and I can run the game full details on 1128*xxx with hardly any slowdown.

Home_Sliced
03-28-2002, 01:20 PM
Oh boy, I only have a 400 Mhz processor. I might want to have a good book handy...

Jedimaster74
03-28-2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Home_Sliced
Oh boy, I only have a 400 Mhz processor. I might want to have a good book handy...


Hehe you may want to upgrade your machine :)

GarbageCanDroid
03-28-2002, 01:39 PM
read this:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=417460#post417460

will fix all your problems :) Thankyou Wicked GL :)

Chico
03-28-2002, 02:10 PM
ok, let me restate what I said at first. MP load times are fine. Its the single player load times that kill me. Athlon xp 1900, 512 megs ddr, GF3 (original). Loading up the single player, I LITERALLY had time to go fix myself a snack in the kitchen and pour a drink before it was finished loading.

JAM_effect
03-28-2002, 02:22 PM
I really don't know where I stand on my specs.

1.0 GHtz Penitum Celeron
254 MB RAM
8 (????) MB on Intel Video Card

With the games I try they run decent, but I suffer from slowdown with anything above 1024 resolu. I usually have it at 800 resolu at either medium and high settings depending on the game. Games I've tested are Max Payne Demo, American McGree's Alice, Red Faction, SW Starfighter (none of the ships had any color though), and Deus Ex barely ran at all (too much slowdown).

Jyt-Pon Dai'el
03-28-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Chico
ok, let me restate what I said at first. MP load times are fine. Its the single player load times that kill me. Athlon xp 1900, 512 megs ddr, GF3 (original). Loading up the single player, I LITERALLY had time to go fix myself a snack in the kitchen and pour a drink before it was finished loading.

I have basically the same config as you (exept an 1800, not 1900), and I know what you mean. Loads at the beginning of levels are pretty long, and quickloads are longer than average, but not awful. I'm guessing that, like me, your cranking up every possible setting to the max. IMO, it's well worth the wait. Once the levels are loaded, it looks and runs like a dream!

[edit: Welcome to the forums!!]

Lt. Durden
03-28-2002, 05:15 PM
Hey Jam, your system would run it decently if you got a new graphics card. That 8mb Intel card is holding you back bigtime. I assume it is your built in graphics right? Do you have an AGP slot available? If you do, upgrading is pretty damn cheap these days. A geforce 3 base processor is as low as $114 right now. Worth the upgrade IMO.

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 06:12 PM
Ste Cork, who did the load/save stuff, did some loading and reloading timing tests using 2 vastly different system configurations. Here are his findings:

All tests were run from the CD burn we were given internally of the release copy, and dropping out of the executable and re-running for each graphic setting change (and waiting for all thrashing to cease before starting next test). The only settings I altered were choosing the 4 predefined video settings at the top of the video screen. Nothing else was touched at all.

All tests stopwatched from console command "map kejim_base" to seeing "datapad updated"; onscreen.

P3 / 1GHZ / 512MB / GeForce3 64MB

VideoSetting Load time Reload Time (same timing method)
==============================================
HighQuality 1:15 0:04
Normal 0:38 0:04
Fast 0:31 0:03
Fastest 0:29 0:03

P2 / 300MHZ / 128MB / TNT1 16MB ( crap machine, but for comparison )

HighQuality 6:00 0:55
Normal 2:55 0:42
Fast 1:52 0:20
Fastest 1:45 0:15



Moral of the story: use settings good enough for the hardware you've got

Re-load times are what counts unless you can play every level without dying....

Home_Sliced
03-28-2002, 07:00 PM
Hehe you may want to upgrade your machine

It's upgraded as far as I'm going to: 384mb of ram and a GeForce2. Beyond that, it's time for a new computer (which I hope to get within a year).

How are the load times compared with Elite Force on normal settings? Twice as long? Thrice as long?

ChangKhan[RAVEN]
03-28-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Home_Sliced
How are the load times compared with Elite Force on normal settings? Twice as long? Thrice as long?

Actually quite a bit faster, if you read my thread-starting post.

YummyPork
03-28-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by nykel007
You'll putting my P3 800mhz 128RAM ...... to shame. I don't have the game yet so I don't know how it would handle, so pray for me.:D

We have the same situation nykel. I plan on using any long load times for biology breaks and topping off any refreshing beverage I may be enjoying while playing. :)

PatientPork

SpliffCartel
03-28-2002, 07:29 PM
Damn, I thought 256 MB of RAM would last me a while! Its not the loading times that bother me so much, its the juddery-ness for a few seconds after loading. Once it stops the whole game runs nice tho! I'll have to try turning down the detail and see if its worth the tradeoff!

TBird 1333MHz
256 MB DDR RAM
Gainward Geforce 3 Ti 200 clocked at 210core/480mem

kwyjibo
03-28-2002, 07:36 PM
long loading times at the beginning of a level are fine by me

but the quick load isn't very quick

especially when compared to the quick load of medal of honour: allied assault, which uses the same engine

Capt
03-28-2002, 07:37 PM
But what about doing a load/reload/reload, etc.?

Dropping out of the executable give as nice fresh test, but I's still seeing crashes on reloads.

Even if I drop the textures and colour depth, if I go from one level to the next, I can guarentee the next quick load will crash - I have to quit the game and restart to make quickloads work without hanging.

Capt
03-28-2002, 08:28 PM
Okay, time for a bit of backpedalling here.

After seeing the post on timings and how long some of them were, I thought maybe I am just being stupid and so left the game alone to load.

It turns out the game is not hanging, just taking a VERY long time to do a reload. I loaded the game at 1024x768, default colour depth/texture depth (running desktop at 32 bit, so I presume that's what default is).

I started the game and:

1. Load a save game (takes 40 seconds)
2. Hit Quicksave (1-2 seconds)
3. Hit Quickload (9 minutes and 40 seconds).

Yes that's right, a "Quickload" is nearly FIFTEEN times slower than loading from fresh!

Why on earth is this happening? How can loading the whole level from scratch be so much faster than a quickload from a machine with 512 megs ram? Jeez, throw out the code for quickload and use the code for an ordinary load!

The game looks and plays fine, even loads fine at these colour depths and textures sizes, but quickload is a dog!

Help!

polygon_monkey
03-28-2002, 08:54 PM
On my laptop (PIIIm-1.2, Radeon 7500M 64mb, 512mb ram and Windows XP) it takes about a minuite for the initial level load (best quality textures) and after that load times are only a few seconds. Thats pretty reasonable to me.

Ain't tried it on my slightly more powerful desktop but I assume it would be better due to 7200rpm desktop HD versus 4200rpm Laptop HD.

So Win Win or something. Not really anything to complain about really.

Damn this game kicks ass.

Chiles4
03-28-2002, 09:43 PM
I have heard that Win 98 does not correctly support 512 MB RAM
The problem occurs when you have more than 512MB, at which time you can get that much RAM to work by tweaking your VCache setttings. Your're right, TUS_Tomcat

If you're still using win98 i think its time to upgrade
I couldn't tell if that was a wink afterwards or not. But I'm hoping you weren't serious. True to form, it seems that XP is giving more trouble with this game than Windows 98.

the AGP aperture should be about half of what your total RAM is.
I would keep this at the lowest value that works good for your system - either 64MB or 128MB. I don't think you should ever raise it higher than 128MB. It's not a case of more = better.

but I suffer from slowdown with anything above 1024 resolution.
Your problem, Jam_effect, as Lt. Durden said is your 8 (????) MB onboard Intel Video Card. Your lucky you can run much of anything with that. I thought that the onboard Intel video "cards" weren't supported by JK2?

IMHO, anything over 40 seconds to load a level is pretty brutal - this game must be using massive textures on high detail.

CaptainPOE
03-30-2002, 02:07 PM
I haven't really noticed the reloads to be a real problem yet. At first when it initially loads the level it can take a CLOSE to a min. But after I die and it reloads its done within 10-15 seconds. The reload times in AvP2 were god awful compared to this, AvP2 took forever to reload. I'm also kinda tempted to upgrade my hardware just so I can turn on volumetic shadows cause its just too damn cool :) But with them on my fps ranges from 20-60 :( But once again great job on the game Raven guys :)

RedArmy
03-31-2002, 05:29 AM
One piece of advice. If you Nocliped through a puzzle, go back and do it properly. I did, and my load times for the "Fid teh doomgiver" mission went from * min with FULL detail and 7:30 with MIN detail to 30 seconds max.

Ah Boon
03-31-2002, 05:35 AM
mine is 20 sec on Pentium4 1.8ghz, 64mb geforce2 mx and 256mb ram :) 20 SECONDS@!!!

Chubtoad
04-01-2002, 03:09 AM
I run a pIII 600, with 256mb pc133. Geforce 2 MX (Hercules) @ 1024, all settings on High (not Very High) on WinXP and load times are around a minute or two and reloads bout 5 seconds. At first I thought it was going to be crappy having to reload the levels all the time, but the levels are HUGE! I've played EF and HL and Q3 and all, but to me these levels are so HUGE and detailed I'm surprised the loads don't take 2 hours! If anyone isn't satisfied with under 2 min load times, you need to get some patience, did you notice the SIZE of the levels!??!

I just beat the game on easy, fantastic game, just amazing, I loved it soo much! ::No Spoilers:: I love how they... and how you can.... and with those... also. my god:atat: , I loved this game. Even if I had to wait 10 minutes for a level load, it would be worth it!

I've been a loyal SW fan since I was 10, This game definetly lives up to the saga!:D I wish there was ewoka though, heh, just messin.:ewok:

Kx_Dra_Sycdan
04-01-2002, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by ChangKhan[RAVEN]
Our loading times are actually very good


FALSE


I have over 512mb or ram and your level loads are horrible.
Period, I can run games like Q3, RtcW, UT, HL, and Max Payne all at various levels of resolution above 800*600 with no long load times at max Details ...In fact i never have to wait more than a minute load the levels(most games only take no more than 30 seconds to load on my system) Yet with JO i have to wait a miserable 2 minutes or in some cases even longer (Yavin swamp level) And there is no exceptable excuse for that. really it's like you guys expect everyone to have a friggin $2000 gaming rig, and on top of all that alot of the time having your specs maxed out will make minimal deference in anything noticeable, for example the grass sections of the Jedi Academy map you can plainly see mis-aligned textures and mis-aligned level architecture (you can see these horrid lines were they misaligned the grass) i'll post a pic for you after i finish this post so you can see for yourself.


I love this game but there are some Blatantly obvious fixes that must be made.

Duckman
04-01-2002, 08:01 AM
I have an Athlon 1.2 ghz, 512 mb of PC133, and a Radeon 8500 64 mb. The reloads are pretty quick -- just a few seconds -- but loading missions does take a really long time (for the single player). I can't remember waiting a full minute to load a game since my Commodore 64. The levels are enormous, and the textures look great (mostly), so I guess it's worth the wait.

Darth Draugmahl
04-01-2002, 01:18 PM
Well, to be perfectly honest I am seeing load times comparable (often somwhat faster in MP) to what I normally get playing RTCW, which I have been playing online religiously since it came out. I am running Jedi with the settings much higher in Jedi as well since running wolfenstein over 800x with a voodoo produces a hated framerate.

My system is
1.4 Ghz Athlon
1024 MB SDRAM
Voodoo 5 5500 PCI

My load times at the start of a level are usually about 30 seconds maybe 50 in single player and I'm not noticing and difference between a quick load and loading a savegame.

TCPVIP
04-01-2002, 03:43 PM
I have an AXP 1900+, 512 DDR, two 60GXPs in an ATA100 RAID stripeset, and a GF3 and it still takes two minutes to load. I can fix a snack and eat it, too. Awesome game once you make it there. There need to be dynamic light from the sabers and laser shots on the walls. The quick load isn't so quick either. It's wierd because the multiplayer (botmatch or online) does not take that long at all to load. Something needs to be done.I don't know which loads slower, the game or these forums...

Chiles4
04-01-2002, 03:47 PM
My system:
1.2Ghz Tbird
512MB DDR
IBM 60GXP 7200rpm HDD

Single Player Load Times:
1st Load: ~40 seconds
Reload(after death): ~10 seconds

To me these times are acceptable though the 40 seconds can be a bit trying. I presume anyone who's complaining about load times isn't bone-headed enough to run with "Very High" detail settings. If you are, get yourself a SCSI drive - but even that might not be the final cure depending on the size of the textures being loaded.

Robbiesan
04-01-2002, 08:03 PM
I guess the load times we hear about are average.. I am getting just under 1 minute for a fresh loadup at highest setting.. reloading from save is about 5 secs..

AMD 1.2G
512MB PC133
Quantum 40GB 7200RPM
ATI Radeon 8500

Tasuki
04-02-2002, 12:51 AM
I don't think its the ram that matters more like the vid card and ghz. My computer before it was updated yesterday had 128 ram and the load times were like 5 secs or less after the first load. The first load was tlike 12 seconds.

Bullseye69
04-02-2002, 03:49 AM
I have 3 systems
p-3 800mhz with 512pc133 ram
Elsa Geforce 2 Ultra 64meg Video card
7200 rpm Western Digital HD
Aureal Vortex 2 Sound Card

AMD Classic 800mhz with 512 Pc133 Ram
Radeon 32meg Video Card
40 Gig Maxtor 7200rpm HD
Diamond Vortex 2 Sound ccard

AMD XP 1700+ with 256mb PC 133( can push 512mb)
Gainward Geforce3 Ti 200 Golden Sample 64meg Video card
40 Gig Western Digital HD
On board sound
The 1700+ runs stable at 100/100 makes it 1.1ghz Needs better ram or DDR

Would any of the systmes run this game ok.


Bullseye69

Does the game play well and is it fun. Buying it for single player only have a 28.8 upload DSL not avaible in my area and the phone company to cheap to upgrade the card at the switching station to 56k they have 28.8 in them.

Any advice would be welcome.

Kx_Dra_Sycdan
04-02-2002, 06:13 AM
I have 3 systems
p-3 800mhz with 512pc133 ram
Elsa Geforce 2 Ultra 64meg Video card
7200 rpm Western Digital HD
Aureal Vortex 2 Sound Card

AMD Classic 800mhz with 512 Pc133 Ram
Radeon 32meg Video Card
40 Gig Maxtor 7200rpm HD
Diamond Vortex 2 Sound ccard

AMD XP 1700+ with 256mb PC 133( can push 512mb)
Gainward Geforce3 Ti 200 Golden Sample 64meg Video card
40 Gig Western Digital HD
On board sound
The 1700+ runs stable at 100/100 makes it 1.1ghz Needs better ram or DDR

Would any of the systmes run this game ok.


Yes. Definatly. Check out the Minimum Requirments on the main page to find out for yourself.


Does the game play well and is it fun

Yes Gameplay is very good and very fun. However, MP games are basicly immpossable on your connection.

Jahs
04-02-2002, 11:06 AM
I heard that you could change the amount of RAM the game uses by changing something in a file.
Does this affect loading times?

HI btw. :)

Creston
04-02-2002, 03:43 PM
I love JK2, I'm playing it to death, and while I have a few criticisms of the game (such as NOT being able to choose your own path through force powers!!!), I think it is by far the finest FPS in existence, and comes close to Deus Ex to being the best game ever (sorry, Deus Ex still comes first in my book).

But the load times just plain suck.

I don't have a super SOTA rig or anything, but it runs silky smooth for it's specs, I have no problems playing anything at all.
Athlon 700, Asus K7V Via Chipset,512MB SD, Geforce2 32MB DDR, ATA66 7200 RPM harddisk. I have every driver completely updated.
I've played the game under both Win2k SP2 and Win98SE, and it is just slow when loading. on 1024x768 High textures it takes over a minute to load a level (which I can live with), but the reloads take about 10 seconds, which is annoyingly long (especially in those heavy jumping sections..).

If I shift down to medium textures (and medium geometry) at 800x600, my initial loading time is a bit shorter (to about 40-45 seconds), but my reload time stays at around 10 seconds...

I'm not complaining or anything, but I DO feel that JK2 has an issue with load times, and I DO feel that simply saying "well, it runs fine here, run at crap detail settings and you'll do fine as well" isn't a very satisfying "solution" to the problem.

I'll jaunt over to a buddy of mine's place tomorrow, and see how the load times are on his rig, he's got a 2Gig state of the art baby.

Creston

Hellbinder
04-02-2002, 04:07 PM
what we dont need here is every tom dick and harry posting yet another *this here is my computer* bla bla bla. Nor do we need you yahoos who make ludacrist statements about how your game loads in 15 seconds.. Or that your atari runs the game with max settings at 1600x1200x32 at 100 FPS... Truth you are all full of BS.


The bottom line is this game loads WAY to damn slow. Period. The Dev's have already started what many devs do, make one assinine excuse and statemenet after the next about how *they* dont see the issue or *its due to your slow computer* or *your settings are to high*.

Sorry folks, all the above answers are bunk. The max detail textures are frankly.. Not that maxed. 90% of the people with these issues have pretty mamoth systems. The problem is OBVIOUSLY in the GAME CODE. I absolutly HATE it when Dev's do everything but FIX THEIR CODE. Blame the moon if you want to, but there are about 5 games out there that look better and load WAY WAY faster.

Chiles4
04-02-2002, 08:18 PM
I understand where you're coming from Hellbinder but my solution was pretty obvious - don't play on Very High detail. Maybe they should have just left that option out or made it available only if you have an XP 2000+ proc with a SCSI Raid 0 Array. I play at High Detail on a Kyro 2 and the game looks awesome. I've heard from others that Very High detail is not really playable and causes thrashing - as a result I don't use it. My "cold" and "warm" load times were 40 seconds and 10 seconds and I won't classify my box as a monster machine:

1.2Ghz Tbird
512MB DDR
IBM 60GXP 7200rpm HDD

So far some, the load times are a non-issue. But at some point even my box will be too out of date and probably require a upgrade to get acceptable performance.

TCPVIP
04-02-2002, 11:50 PM
I found this in another forum. My load times are atrocious as I know are a lot of yours. I can't try it out because I am at work at the moment ;) Post if it works or if it is crap. Hope this helps...


Gawen Crow sent the following about Q3-engine memory managment:
There is a file in the \GameData\base\ folder called jk2mpconfig.cfg. Open this file with notepad and search for a setting called hunkmegs. Default it says hunkmegs "64". This is the amount of RAM the game is set to utilize for graphics rendering. Performance can be drastically increased on machines with 256+ meg of RAM by increasing the hunkmegs value to 192 for 256k machines. As long as it does not exceed 2/3 of your total RAM your ok, so the value can be set even higher for machines with 512. After changing the value just click on save and play the game & wallah!

Qel
04-03-2002, 02:13 AM
I dunno whether this was mentioned before....but I noticed that
compress texture option was missing in the video options menu...

I find this odd for a game that is using Quake 3 engine...RTCW and MOH:AA has it!!!

It is also mentioned in the manual on page 31 that there is
compress texture option.....it increases game's loading speed...

Raven devs pls explain...Thanks;)

Qel

Emon
04-03-2002, 03:31 AM
I think many people are forgetting another HUGE factor in load time; your hard drive speed! If you have a 5,400 RPM UDMA 33 drive like I do, your load times will suck! If you have a 7,200 UDMA 100 drive your load times will be awesome.

Hard drive farts (your HDD loads like crazy and your framerate drops) is also due to a slow HDD. Since JK2 runs on OpenGL, and OpenGL is very CPU intensive, and since IDE drives use the CPU, if your hard drive is have a tough time loading stuff (like music) it will draw more CPU useage and your performance will suffer. For people like me this happens in JK2, but not in games like Max Payne or Ghost Recon. This is because those games run on Direct3D, which in my opinion, is now superior to OpenGL.

[/rant]

SkyLightWalker
04-03-2002, 03:06 PM
Are you guys weird or something? What are you trying to do? I've got a measely AMD600MHz, 256mb RAM and a PCI ATI Rage card. Now I run 640x480 on High Geometric detail and Medium texture detail, with 16-bit for both colour depth and texture colours or whatever its called. I also use low sound quality, but I do have dynamic lights, and decals on. Now my loading times are less than 30 seconds - as in the first time you load a level.

In my humble opinion, the game looks fantastic on my PC - Its fine. On a higher spec PC, I'd expect more, but considering my specs, I'm VERY happy with it. I don't experience any slow down that makes it unplayable (except that mining level near the start - outside that was a bit slow).

I don't know what kind of settings you guys are trying to run, but I think you maybe overestimating! Having said that, my does fine, and its VERY average.

People put their settings at absurd levels then complain when it doesn't work properly - I think people need to be a liittle more content with what they've got :D

Otherwise my big bad AT-AT is gonna kick yo ass! :atat:

SkyLightWalker
04-03-2002, 03:29 PM
Aik - Is 10 - 15 seconds slow?

Is this guy taking the piss?

SkyLightWalker
04-03-2002, 03:34 PM
None of you should be having ANY problems at all, you all keep quoting these ridiculously fast PCs, and mine runs it fine, and it is distinctly average!

Stop complaining, and just turn down the settings from "SUPER COMPUTER FROM THE FUTURE" and all problems will be solved.

:fett:

taldoren
04-04-2002, 12:34 AM
Reading a few of these posts, I am assuming that most here do keep there systems up to date regading drivers etc.. however I often find that most only update there Video/sound drivers as a matter of course.

If you are having issues with the loading times etc.. is to also make sure that all your MB specific drivers are also updated. One of the most important one of these of course is your HDD controler drivers. Make sure you are running the best (not allways the lates) ultra ATA storage drivers.

Also make sure that you run dxdiag and check that all the Ddraw options are listed as enabled.. again most of the time these are attributed to the MB/AGP/PCI compatability.

I know its a compramise between cost and performace. But if you want the latest games to run nice etc, then really you have to be willing to upgrade you machine almost every 6 - 12 months max.

Also Whatever OS you are running make sure that you keep the service packs up to date as well.

Just FYI I have very little load times, mesured in secs on the following specd machine

P4 2GHz
ASUS P4t-2 MB
512 RDRAm (400Mhz)
UDMA 7200 60GB IBM 2MB HDD
Herc Ti500 V3 64MB
SB Live (yeah i know gotta upgrade that)

AGP Apature size set to 128MB (tested several Benchmarks and games found this to be the best)
No OC as yet :)
Win98
Win2K Sp2

Game runs smooth at 1600*1200 Max everything, (Just a sight dissapointment at the visuals at this stage, just doing force training.. expecting the Light Sabre to improve the visualss somewhat)

Hope this is of some help anyhoo.

dalavita
04-04-2002, 10:29 AM
My load times are 25 seconds starting a new game.

I play at res 800 x 600 x 32 bit
medium geometric detail and medium texture detail.
The rest is maxed out.

quick loads are about 4 seconds for me.

I have a P3 1 Ghz
384 Mb pc 133 ram
Geforce 2 GTS @220/375
20 Gb hd @ 7200 rpm...

And ingame fps rox. I had 110 fps while fighing Desann.
So experiment with the detail levels and youll get good reload times and good fps. BTW update all your drivers to.

Swifty
04-04-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Chico
ok, let me restate what I said at first. MP load times are fine. Its the single player load times that kill me. Athlon xp 1900, 512 megs ddr, GF3 (original). Loading up the single player, I LITERALLY had time to go fix myself a snack in the kitchen and pour a drink before it was finished loading.

I am in a similar boat here:

AMD XP 1700+
512 DDR
ASUS A7VE
40gig ATA100 Deskstar
Radeon 8500
Audigy
WinXP Pro.

The load times are horrendous. True, I have my settings cranked a bit, but the game plays fine, it just loads s-l-o-w....The HD isn't even accessing, nor is the CD. I am fully patched up to date.

Someone asked about Wolfenstein, and it loaded MUCH faster than JO. LOVE this game, but after I die a couple times, access the load screen (why it didn't default to load your last quicksave is beyond me), and wait for my hair to grow, I've had enough, and I'll stop playing.

WHIPP
04-04-2002, 04:25 PM
OK, as I posted I have seen crashes in single player using a Redeon 64mb videocard. Now, I tried entering into a MP game once, and the game crashed. Anyone else having this trouble? My system also includes Athlon XP 1500+ and 512 mb RAM. I just thought of something, I have the FSB overclocked at 147, and I should return it to the defauly 133 and see if the problems still happen. I know that with return to castkle wolfenstein, when I had the fsb at 150 or higher I saw crashes. I bet JO taxes the system more than RTCW!

nep3d
04-04-2002, 04:54 PM
2.2 Ghz, 1024 Mb Rams *DDR*, and a 52" Monitor *Screenie*, 1TB and it runs like heaven on highest detail.
The cause to the gigantic sytem gb *TB* is because its a com from a company :)

Darth_Skavaen
04-04-2002, 06:53 PM
Not sure why you need a big CPU, tons of ram and a supreme video card. I have the game running on 3 machines,


1rst machine
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Intel Celeron 800 (Hewlet Packard xt919)
5400 RPM 40GB HDD
40X CDROM
512MB SDRAM
PCI GeForce2 MX400 64MB SDRAM

Load Time:20-30 seconds
Reload Time:10-15 seconds

2nd machine
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AMD Athlon 750
5400 RPM 20GB HDD
16X Pioneer DVD drive
640MB SDRAM
AGP GeForce2 MX200 32MB SDRAM

Load Time:20-30 seconds
Reload Time: 10-15 seconds

3rd machine
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AMD K6-2 350
5400 RPM 15GB HDD
32X Toshiba CDROM
256MB SDRAM
AGP GeForce256 32MB SDRAM

Load Time:25-40 seconds
Reload time: 10-20 seconds

Now, these times were taken after a fresh install of the game and no settings were altered.

Mentat88
04-05-2002, 03:12 AM
Chico, you're a loser.
That you were describing your GPU's
Load times mainly fall on the shoulders of the CPU.
DEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Wormstrangler
04-05-2002, 03:24 AM
to combat load times i put textures to medium and 16bit depth. Just then i turned on texture compression (thru my Kyro 2 control panel) and i turned textures to max and 32bit, and its loading approx. the same without tex. compression and on medium textures. So Tex. Compression helps

BTW my load times are around 30 seconds i think, which i find is still to slow....

1.4ghz T-Bird
256mb DDR
Kyro 2 64mb
Abit KG7

FRIGHT
04-05-2002, 05:23 AM
1.2 t-bird
512 mb sdram 133 not ddr =(

50 sec initial load in new game.

enough time to run to the kitchen and grab a soda
or
take a quick piss

way better than the game SiN (quake II modified engine)
remember that game?
the load times gave me enough time to smoke a cig
then the patch...

rambling...the point is do something in the load time to make it seem quick =P

Lucky
04-05-2002, 01:22 PM
I had incredibly poor load times with RTCW and i figured out why it was just in time for JK2, it was cause after my last format I fergot to install my damn hd drivers.

Thats one thing that i bet most folks overlook on format, installing hd drivers. The generic drivers from microsoft are terrible and it reduced my load times in rtcw by 2/3'ds.

I'm spoiled by JK's insta loads, so i keep my detail cranked all the way down so that it pops up in under 10 seconds. It actually loads just as fast as JK, which is impressive.

It takes me about a minute for a fresh load off the highest detail, but I don't have enough ram to deal with it and it starts to chug after 10 minutes of play. Monster machine with only 128 mb of ram, I need to buy some more but I'm lazy. =P

I suggest you guys try updating yer hd drivers if at all possible. Might help immensely or not at all.

Also the textures are *really* detailed at the highest lod's. So yes they eat ram, but they also run better than if you didn't eat ram. A lot of aspects of programming are like that. Its easier and faster to make it eat ram than to find an elegant solution to your problem. By faster I mean it actually *runs* faster. I imagine dumping all the textures into ram falls into the same paradigm.

Also if yer having a 9 minute quick load, yer prolly experiencing a very specific issue. The load times are acceptable for the majority of users. I think we should focus on figuring yer problem out or you should call tech support. It might be an individual bug or some random hardware setting thats conflicting with the game.

Post some more info and I'm sure the forum goers and Raven will take a look at yer problem and see if there are any obvious solutions, cause thats a very abnormal problem. It might actually be a legitimate code bug, in which case you can help the fellas at Raven out quite a bit by giving them a very detailed description of yer situation so they can add it to their q&a.


Lucky

PS: The game is obviously meant to have a long shelf life, thus the highest lod's are built for gaming rigs that haven't even been built yet. I think a lot of people are feeling afronted by the fact that the money they shelled out for the latest and greatest didn't buy them as much of a jump on the software end of their fun as they thought it would. Just relax and be happy that the game will actually start to look better as people get new computers.

grumpycrab
04-06-2002, 06:24 AM
I've lost track of this thread. Can somebody summarise it (briefly!) please.

Is it a level LOAD or RE-LOAD problem? LOAD takes ages but then I guess it would...

RE-LOAD is 10-15 seconds on my 850MHz system which is fine. So what's the real problem?

TCPVIP
04-06-2002, 02:48 PM
I was suffering from the long loading times myself on a somewhat beefy system (1900+, 512 DDR, ATA100 7200RPM RAID stripeset, GeFroce 3). Yesterday I switched up motherboards from a Giga-byte 7DXR to an EPoX 8KHA+. THe 7DXR is a AMD 760/ VIA 686B combo where the 8KHA+ is a VIA KT266A/ VIA 8233 combo. My 7DXR was running 512MB and the load times were up to two minutes plus. My 8KHA+ is running 256MB and my load times for a new game with the LOD cranked up is around 45 seconds, quickloads are well under ten seconds. All the hardware, minus the memory, is the same. Nothing stutters, nothing pages. The game runs and loads like a dream. It sounds to me like Raven needs to work out some incompatabilities and refine their code a tad...

<============)=
04-06-2002, 03:31 PM
I've got :

1.6 AMD Athalon
1 Gig of RAM
GeForce 3 64MB

and its slow compared to an other games load times unless I lower the graphics quality.

TCPVIP
04-06-2002, 07:24 PM
I just loaded JKII on my other system. This is a 1.1 Tbird, 256 SDRAM, Abit KT7 RAID, RADEON ViVo 64DDR (7200), 13gig 7200RPM ATA66. While it took a little longer to load a new game with the LOD all whe way up than my other system (see post above) it wasn't too bad. Maybe a minute for a new game and about 10 - 15 seconds for a 'quick' load. Definetly some compatability problems need to be worked out here...