27.02.2008, 08:21
Well, at least don't do that if you have nVidia GeForce 7950GT with 96.89 x64 driver on a 64bit WinXP system.
Do your own experiments and find out what's best for you but don't assume that a higher setting = better rendering.: sometimes it's the exact opposite.
I had always run with forest=3 because I assumed that =3 would be better than =2. Turns out that using forest=3 some trees are not rendered AT ALL (!). I learned about this when I lowered the setting to =2 during a series of experiments to aimed at finding the best quality/performance compromise for my system.
These screenies are from the campaign "Weisse Schwalbe & the Galland circus", mission #11.
Here's how it looks like at take off with forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
...and this, believe it or not, is how that very same mission looks like with forest=2
forest=2
forest=2
forest=2
forest=2
Do your own experiments and find out what's best for you but don't assume that a higher setting = better rendering.: sometimes it's the exact opposite.
I had always run with forest=3 because I assumed that =3 would be better than =2. Turns out that using forest=3 some trees are not rendered AT ALL (!). I learned about this when I lowered the setting to =2 during a series of experiments to aimed at finding the best quality/performance compromise for my system.
These screenies are from the campaign "Weisse Schwalbe & the Galland circus", mission #11.
Here's how it looks like at take off with forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
forest=3
...and this, believe it or not, is how that very same mission looks like with forest=2
forest=2
forest=2
forest=2
forest=2