I do this, you do pick up some extra frames, have even gained 5+ on occasion :yep:


RDP

Ok, if I drop to my desk top while in the main menu and bring up task manager, what tab to do I find this priority screen?

Processes .

You select SH4, then you'll see an option to Set Priority there. By the way I set mine to high, have not tried above normal. So I am not sure how much less the FPS would be with it.


RDP

Thanks! I think he ment set to high as he stated "above normal". :rock:

There is an actual " above normal " setting when you do this. I am wondering if high has any adverse affects, not on the game, the extra frames are good :D, rather the computer\processor itself ? To this point I have not experienced any.


RDP

As long as your computer is not overheating, there are no adverse effects. If you have any strange problems with SH3, though, you may want to reduce the process priority.

Thanks dogshu :up:


RDP

*cough* maerean_m, need... multi... core... *cough*

:smug: :smug:

But I know, I know... :ping:

End it all" Small sweet program works for me.;) Sorry no links.

Too many game developers use the "modern hardware excuse" for bad game programming.

If a game doesn't run well on a 3.2GHz single core, 2Gb of ram and a nVidia 7800, then it's not worth my time and money (a very good example is Crysis (and another one is DiRT which will only work with SSE2, not with SSE1)).
The same thing applies to Windows Vista. Why the heck does it need 2Gb of ram to display a taskbar? I recently installed Vista on a dual-core laptop and it's rubbish. It's waaaaay slower than my old desktop with Windows XP.

I remember playing on the old 486 DX2 (66 MHz, 4Mb of ram)... those were the days (and the games).

That's why i love the Orange Box and Bioshock. These are games, not technology demos.

I recently noticed the big fuss about FarCry2. All they do is shoot at trees so branches fall off. Ok, where is the game in that?

In the end, although I could get a quad core for the money I spent some years ago for this computer, I won't do that.

But I know you know http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/...oticons7/1.gif

Definitley another Gig of RAM improves performance.:yep:

:)

This could be written by me.:lol:

Of course, graphics are a part of realism and immersion, so hardware demands will go up, but games like Crysis are much like supermodels (I imagine), spectacular to look at, but pretty boring after a couple of hours.

Well said. And as for Crysis, it's not the "über cool" graphics that make it run slow, it's the [insert the size of the island here] frigging island! A mission takes place usually in maybe a 1/4 area of it, the rest of the area is there for nothing, eating up your resources. This worked in FarCry as you could wander around the place, but Crysis doesnt allow it, so what's the point. :roll: Anyways, enough OT from me. ;)

That was relatively powerful compared to the great old C-64. Its amazing to think legendary games such as Pirates! Gunship & Red Storm Rising even ran on a 64K machine.

Commodore 64/128 & Amiga FTW!!

[edit] I only want quad core cpu's for better responsiveness and performance when using multiple applications simultaneously. I like to be able to do other stuff while I wait for lengthy operations, without the system bogging down - which happens quite often on single core systems.

But if a game utilizes multiple cores, and does so effectively (obviously, not to hide bad programming), you want hear me complain.

The stuttering thing its fixed by turning on vertical sync, or sinchronized. makes every frame show in the correct time.

It's true :yep: , but how can i launch SH4 and then, automatically switch between normal and above normal priority (without changing it manually each time i launch SH4)?