Page 1 of 1

Trine 2 dismal graphics performance (Intel Graphics HD 2000)

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:04 am
by alemartini
So far, these are the only settings that allow me to play the game in a more or less "normal" way:

- 800x600
- Details: Medium / High
- FPS capped at 16

(needless to say, at that resolution and with those settings it looks pretty bad).

Anything higher than that (1024x768, 30 FPS, etc) renders the game unusable (it's so slow that it ends up being unbearable).

So my question is: considering the specs posted below, is there anything I can do in order to get better performance?

Core i3-2120T
Memory: 4 GB
Video: Intel HD Graphics 2000
OS: Debian 7.0

I admit that the specs aren't exactly "state of the art", but on the other hand it's hard to believe that the game can't be played properly on hardware that was made on the same year that the game was released (2011).


Thanks,
Alex

Re: Trine 2 dismal graphics performance (Intel Graphics HD 2

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:03 am
by fb_jlarja
alemartini wrote:So far, these are the only settings that allow me to play the game in a more or less "normal" way:

- 800x600
- Details: Medium / High
- FPS capped at 16

(needless to say, at that resolution and with those settings it looks pretty bad).

Anything higher than that (1024x768, 30 FPS, etc) renders the game unusable (it's so slow that it ends up being unbearable).

So my question is: considering the specs posted below, is there anything I can do in order to get better performance?

Core i3-2120T
Memory: 4 GB
Video: Intel HD Graphics 2000
OS: Debian 7.0

I admit that the specs aren't exactly "state of the art", but on the other hand it's hard to believe that the game can't be played properly on hardware that was made on the same year that the game was released (2011).


Thanks,
Alex


Hi Alex

Personally, I would say HD 2000 is too little for Trine 2. To put things in perspective, we were targeting 30 fps on Xbox 360 and PS3 and I think that HD 2000 has less raw power than those. In addition, we haven't especially optimized for Intel's GPUs, while we have optimized for the consoles. So even if HD 2000 had similar raw performance, it shouldn't be expected to run at similar frame rate and quality level (as a side note, I find it rather embarrassing that Intel is still selling GPUs that can't beat console released in 2005 even in raw performance).

I have a laptop with HD 3000 myself and although it can run much of the game around 30 fps even with pretty high resolution and detail level, there are places where it just isn't enough. I'm not sure how much slower HD 2000 is, and I think it should do better than what you describe (though not much better). Problem may be partly caused by lower performance of Linux drivers compared Windows ones (I haven't tested HD 3000 in Linux).

Have you tested, by the way, whether lowering detail level all the way down helps? If it doesn't, then there may be some weirder problem (not just general lack of performance of HD 2000).

If you wish to try to find optimal settings, you can take a look at options.txt after changing graphics detail level and modify individual settings in finer detail than launcher lets you do (options.txt is in ~/.frozenbyte/Trine2 if I remember correctly). That way you may be able to get better performance without dropping down to half-resolution modes.

-JLarja