PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Yes, our colorful Pulsar world eats a lot of performance. Alpha channels everywhere...

More CPU power or better graphics board???

Current config:
PIII 700
256 MB RAM
ATI Rage 32 MB

Thanks,
Eurocide-HQ.

Better graphics cards do help -- but if you have an AGP graphics card, start by turning your Video Acceleration up (Right click your background, properties, settings tab, Advanced button, Performance tab). Turning it down only helps on some PCI graphics cards, which you shouldn't be using if you have Pulsar, if you would like to get the most from it.

On 2001-10-10 09:13, subhuman wrote:
Turning it down only helps on some PCI graphics cards, which you shouldn't be using if you have Pulsar, if you would like to get the most from it.

Subhuman,

I am trying to get as much as I can out of my PII-450 w/ 384MB RAM before I begin building a new system.

I was interested in your mention about not using a graphics card that responds to acceleration. I have an AGP card that is a PCI Bus Master and responds to the Windows acceleration parameter (set to None on mine).

My system is not working so well in this setup as I get clicks and pops occasionally (less since I upped memory to max from 128MB). I guessing I'm maxing out the miniscule PCI bus on my system, but haven't given up yet. Your comment makes me want to try changing out the video card.

Do you think this could make enough of a difference or should I just throw in the towel? What video card would you suggest?

Is anyone successfully using a Pulsar II and ASIO on a puny machine like mine (PII-450-384MB)?

l.

Try setting video acceleration to full and disabling bus mastering for your AGP adapter.
/dave

Any nVidia video card is probably among the best; try a Geforce2MX card, relatively cheap and excellent display drivers. Make sure it is an *AGP* video card with 16-32megs of ram, as well, this will free up the PCI bus.

any agp card with 8-16 megs or more will probably do fine. I recently upgraded from a TNT1 card to a geforce3 and I didn't note any speed difference (when using pulsar that is)..

Changing cpu has way larger effect. I went from a celeron466 to athlon1.4 and the gui got significantly faster.

This has no meaning... Pulsar OS is good, but SLOW. This is a software error, not a hardware one. I have the FASTEST MAC available today and it is as slow as a 400Mhz PII.... I tried my cards on several computers with the same result... SLOW interface.

I RUN OS X NOW.... GODDAMN THE GUI!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Air_PoLLo on 2001-10-16 14:18 ]</font>

Sorry but on a 900mhz+ P3 or P4 with a nice video card, the GUI really isn't slow at all... sorry about the new mac being slower than a p2-400, that sucks!

being that is is vu and not peak metering,i find the v3 speed acceptable.(it's as fast as or faster than logic 4.7.2, meterwise.)
{[(<>)]} love them parentheses......

Tha main problem I have are not slow VU/Peak meters but very slow response to fader movements, etc.
in combination with a running cubase VST song.
So I think a CPU upgrade is necessary.

yes

my system

p111-1gig
ati 32meg agp
512 ram
98se(lite) fully optimized

pulsar mixer in the 3.0 propack takes
maybe 8-10 seconds to switch screensets

yes the gui is slow like a snail..

On 2001-10-09 23:56, Eurocide wrote:
Yes, our colorful Pulsar world eats a lot of performance. Alpha channels everywhere...

More CPU power or better graphics board???

Current config:
PIII 700
256 MB RAM
ATI Rage 32 MB

Thanks,
Eurocide-HQ.

On 2001-10-16 16:20, subhuman wrote:
Sorry but on a 900mhz+ P3 or P4 with a nice video card, the GUI really isn't slow at all... sorry about the new mac being slower than a p2-400, that sucks!

Pulsar 3 on Win 2000 works very fast untill Cubase 5.06 is open.
With ;arge CPU using (50% - 60%) the Pulsar graphics move very very slow.
Changig Cubase priority to Normal (Insted of High) in the task manager, improve the pulsar performance but it still slow comparing to ver 2.04 on Win 98.

My System: ASUS CUSL2,P-III 1000MHz, 512 MB
ATI 32MB Rage Fury
Scope SP
Luna 2496 + Luna I/O

Hope a solution will come soon from steinberg or Creamware.

wow, topaz,that is slow!!!

some general things!

if you´re working with a highspeed up-to-date system there should be always the best view with your graphiccard at 16-bit. do no longer try to turn down the graphicressource on middle or low-it will only support your swapfile then. but: if the graphiccard is taking that much time to generate changings it can be caused in the normal high traffic of your system. if the system is still working on transferring much audiofiles it can be happen that the graphics ´getting slow.

in that case: if you have that much ram (512) try to slow the swap file down. the case to put it to 1gb at a that big ram is no longer needed. try a swap of 512, again with 256 and anyway sometimes the way of no swap works fine on some machines with big ram (depends on the number of tracks you are using). the solution in that case is to get windows to use the external ram that´s big enough ... instead of always (re)building that big and slow swap on the hd....

try something-good luck!

t.

If the swap file is static (max and min size equal), windows doesn't have to write it all over and over again.

IMHO making the swap file smaller doesn't make a difference because if you have enough ram windows doesn't even need to use the swap file at all.

Toni L.
http://www.mp3.com/NativeAlien

Disabling Windows swap file may also disable DirectX Pulsar drivers. Better to set a min/max file size, and also add this line to system.ini under [386Enh]
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

/dave

yes, but:
- this topic was constructed now for this special problems with its graphic card. first of all he has to find out where the problem is coming from to solve it. one cause can be the business of the harddisk... that was that what i wanted to solve...

btw i don´t need direct x for my system. therefor i have tried that without swap.

t.