That's not a problem with fraps, but with video recording being quite a intensive computing operation.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:Most likely that it eats resources like a fat kid eats cake when you hit "record".
It doesn't eat resources for me >.> ..However hard drives limit the frame rate you can record at. ..and you can make one really long video, FRAPS just has a 4 gig limit, so it immediately starts recording a new file when you hit 4 gigs. I kinda like it like that.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:Most likely that it eats resources like a fat kid eats cake when you hit "record".Stiffkittin said:I like Fraps for basic rapid-fire screens and frame-rate monitoring. It seems light and no-fuss. What exactly don't you like about it, out of curiosity?
On Topic: Can't really help you there, since I only use FRAPS. Really wish there was a better alternative... or a setting that made one really long video... and have it turn audio way down when recording... damn, FRAPS has a lot of problems.
It's because FRAPS has like no limit on bitrate, it helps for editing, as the files are hardly compressed at all, so you can splice them together and compress them to whatever you need. It's actually good for you, not bad for youEphraim J. Witchwood said:3.9GB per file, at most, 6 minutes per file, and I do marathon sessions of about 40 minutes. Wouldn't work too well for me. Besides, the cheap SSDs have crap write speeds.Stiffkittin said:Perhaps you could try writing the video to a secondary drive. That is, one that is different to the disk with the running game's files. Or a small cheap, SS disk? Might be cheaper and simpler than a dedicated recording device.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:I really don't know. I think it has to do with the read/write speeds of your hard drive more than anything else.Stiffkittin said:Interesting. I've never needed to record gameplay before so wouldn't know either way. Could this be inherent to the process of direct video recording as ColeusRattus states, or should it really be less resource intensive?