S.C.A.R.S slow as crap or is it just me?
- Thread starter jvolel
- Start date
rickianblaster
New member
Scars not slow...
Hey! Scars runs fine on my system, check if you're using poor plug-ins... I have a pretty crappy system, and it runs fine for me...
Hey! Scars runs fine on my system, check if you're using poor plug-ins... I have a pretty crappy system, and it runs fine for me...
rickianblaster
New member
It runs good on 1.4, that's all I tested it on.
I never even tried it on 1.3, it's fine on 1.4, you really should check your configuration...
I never even tried it on 1.3, it's fine on 1.4, you really should check your configuration...
rickianblaster
New member
My Settings
Jabo's Direct3D
Direct Sound
NRage's Direct input 8.0
These SHOULD work fine.
It might help if you tell me your os.
Also, something that may help performance:
Check how much ram(not VRam) and set windows to use 2.5 times that number for Virtual Memory, use a minimum of 256 and a maximum of 512, unless WindowsXP suggests more.
For example: If you have 128Mb of ram, set the min. and max. to 320Mb Virtual Memory. Make sure you've defragged that drive recently, also use your fastest hard drive.
I doubt this will help much, but being PJ1.4 is structured slightly differently, the extra simulated ram may help signifigantly.:colgate:
Jabo's Direct3D
Direct Sound
NRage's Direct input 8.0
These SHOULD work fine.
It might help if you tell me your os.
Also, something that may help performance:
Check how much ram(not VRam) and set windows to use 2.5 times that number for Virtual Memory, use a minimum of 256 and a maximum of 512, unless WindowsXP suggests more.
For example: If you have 128Mb of ram, set the min. and max. to 320Mb Virtual Memory. Make sure you've defragged that drive recently, also use your fastest hard drive.
I doubt this will help much, but being PJ1.4 is structured slightly differently, the extra simulated ram may help signifigantly.:colgate:
Trotterwatch
New member
btw, just thought I would add to this. Setting swapfile to 2.5 times your system ram is complete and utter bullcrap.
Why?
~~~~
It stands to reason that the more RAM you have, the less swapfile you need. Using this logic states that someone with 512mb ram will need a 1.256 gig swap file?
Whereas someone with 64mb ram would need a 196 swapfile (or as in your interpretation the minimum swapfile)?
-
Think about it, the person with the least ram will need a bigger swapfile. Also if you are using XP then don't even bother limiting your swapfile - the memory management in XP is much better than it was in a non NT OS such as Win9x.
-
Why?
~~~~
It stands to reason that the more RAM you have, the less swapfile you need. Using this logic states that someone with 512mb ram will need a 1.256 gig swap file?
Whereas someone with 64mb ram would need a 196 swapfile (or as in your interpretation the minimum swapfile)?
-
Think about it, the person with the least ram will need a bigger swapfile. Also if you are using XP then don't even bother limiting your swapfile - the memory management in XP is much better than it was in a non NT OS such as Win9x.
-
Last edited:
rickianblaster
New member
Vmem
Your pc swaps the file between ram, but can't access it readily from wherever on the hard drive, this keeps it open for windows to switch quicker. The more ram you use, the more swapping, the bigger swap file.
Your pc swaps the file between ram, but can't access it readily from wherever on the hard drive, this keeps it open for windows to switch quicker. The more ram you use, the more swapping, the bigger swap file.
Trotterwatch
New member
The more RAM you have, the lesser swapfile you need. If you had 2 gigs worth of ram for example then the swapfile can be eliminated.
This is what happens with your computer:
Your computer will look for the instruction it needs first in the level 1 cache, then in the level 2, then it goes to ram - if it's not in any of those places it has to retrieve it from the HD where it will be.
The more ram (and cache to some effect) you have, the more instructions etc are stored within it, and thus less swapfile is needed.
If you so wish, I can get you proof that 2.5x your Ram for swapfile is just not true.
As a rule however setting a minimum amount for swapfile is good practice, setting a maximum however can leave you with an unstable system.
This is what happens with your computer:
Your computer will look for the instruction it needs first in the level 1 cache, then in the level 2, then it goes to ram - if it's not in any of those places it has to retrieve it from the HD where it will be.
The more ram (and cache to some effect) you have, the more instructions etc are stored within it, and thus less swapfile is needed.
If you so wish, I can get you proof that 2.5x your Ram for swapfile is just not true.
As a rule however setting a minimum amount for swapfile is good practice, setting a maximum however can leave you with an unstable system.
