joes-3029

3rd July 2001 20:28 UTC

Maybe I'm expecting too much here, but with a celeron 667 and 256 megs of ram, I would have at least expected the AVS plugin to run a little better than it does. Running fullscreen at the lowest res and with all the eyecandy turned down gets me a measly 20 frames per second - and no, with a 32mb geforce2, it's unlikely that the source of my troubles is video memory. Can anyone help me here? Have I missed something obvious? Geiss and milkdrop and pretty much any other visual plugin work fine.

Thanks,

joes-3029 (alias he[a.D.s] up)

flatmatt

3rd July 2001 23:34 UTC

Video cards have nothing to do with AVS - and I don't know why you'd need it much faster than 20 fps. Try Pixel Doubling.

Scarface2k1

4th July 2001 05:16 UTC

pixel doubling looks like shit. :)
but al you need for faster frame rates is a faster cpu and faster monitor refreash rates :)

flatmatt

4th July 2001 05:22 UTC

Well, pixel doubling would probably suck at low res, true, but it works fine for me at 800.

shyam

15th July 2001 12:16 UTC

In 640*480 i get a measly 12-17 fps on my P3-550 Mhz. In 320*240 i get 50 fps. Why this big a difference? But Geiss, Punkie etc. work very well at 800*600. I think the avs engine needs a LOT of more tweaking. I guess its damn buggy or something.

flatmatt

15th July 2001 18:22 UTC

Because doubling width and height quadruples the number of pixels displayed.

Lucid DM

15th July 2001 18:22 UTC

640*480=307200 pixels to render
320*240=76800 pixels to render

307200 / 76800 = 4
50 / 12 = 4

Tadaa! That's why there's a "big" difference.http://www.mear.fsnet.co.uk/grinblue.gif