Full HD test #3 - Unreal

Channel:

GreatEmerald

Subscribers:

1,780

Published on January 23, 2012 10:49:00 AM ● Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pokx9kWdPzE

Game:

Unreal (1998)

Duration: 4:13

175 views

1

Another Full HD test of Unreal. This time the specifics are:

- Windows 7
- Fraps
- Unreal with High end S3TC textures and FMOD audio
- DmAriza with 4 bots, spectating a bot from first person view
- UT2004 Pickup Sounds mutator, by me.

I found out that Fraps for some reason didn't like OpenAL sound too much, while it recorded FMOD output just fine. So I'll stick with that. There is still crackling that I hear in-game, but it's not recorded on video, so I guess that is good enough.

Thankfully, Fraps now is actually pretty decent as a recorder - it no longer locks the framerate, so the only issue with it (or rather with my HDD) is that it lags a little when Fraps switches to a new file due to the (non-existent) 4GiB filesize limit.

I also did a check in standard HD to see if there are any bottlenecks in my hardware. I found none: the CPU was running at 50% (as opposed to 20% when not recording), the HDD was writing information at 20 MB/s (out of possible 50 MB/s), the GPU was taking a walk with 15% usage and the RAM usage was fairly standard (it didn't have to use the page file while recording). Too bad that I can't make the same checks when in full HD, since I wouldn't be able to see it! Regardless, there should be sufficient room for full HD recordings, and as you can see, there is little lag to be had here, which leads me to assume that the HDD can cope with full HD content (it's about twice as large as standard HD, so writing should be around 40 MB/s, still within its capabilities; and the writing speed is fairly static, it does not depend on the intensity of the game, as the game is on another drive). That makes me wonder why I can't record things like Unreal II in full HD, as obviously the disk is not the bottleneck!

Here are some statistics about the recording:
- Exactly 1:32 seconds of raw footage in full HD fit into 4GiB.
- It took around 20 minutes to process the footage for this particular video to WebM that YouTube likes.
- The resulting file was around 28 times smaller than the raw footage (~375 MiB as opposed to 10.2 GiB).
- Uploading this file took around 50 minutes.

- From this, a regular, raw 30 minute recording will take up around 80 GiB of size.
- Processing will take around 2.5 hours.
- The resulting WebM file will be around 3 GiB in size.
- It will take 6 hours to upload the file to YouTube. Thank goodness that they removed the 2GiB/2 hour upload limit!

It would appear that the processor is the (slight) limiting factor here so far - with more processing power, it would take less time to process the video. The upload speed is the biggest limiting factor here - I'm capped at 145 KiB/s!

Note to self: Decrease LODBias so that the S3TC texture details wouldn't be reduced a few metres in front of the camera!

Other Statistics