9 months after this initial thread and STILL this game runs like absolute crap. I'd love to actually throw some money at the station cash but theres no way in hell im gonna do that on a game that I cant play due to performance. I love the idea of this game but the implementation has been a complete failure this far. If this game wasnt f2p and i bought it id be royally pissed that i spent money on a hardly playable game. In any regard, i7 920, 6GB, GTX570. It shouldnt run as bad as it does. Though having it severely cpu limited to only two cores has probably been the the problem.
Id say im suprised, but its a simple repeat of ps1 ... really only have myself to blame for having faith.
I'm guessing after 7+ months Codeforge hasn't got the guts to come in here and post why his initial thread is so way off the mark it's unreal....
Weeks worth of tinkering later, still no improvement. Pathetically enough, the FPS issue remains constant even when the game's graphic settings are gimped so bad that the game looks like it was made in the 90's. For fun, I just turned everything down to the absolute minimum. Not only did the game still perform like total crap, it looked the part. 50-60FPS at the warpgates and as soon as you get into any kind of battle, it bombs. It's a lost cause for now, so off the computer it goes. Maybe next year or the year after, PS2 will actually be worth playing. For now, I can only say I am exceedingly happy I didn't take the advice of a few friends that play this and spend any real money on PS2.
just quit playing this game like 4 months ago wondering if they could optimize and give us a playable game,i builded a new rig and decided to DL PS2 and see how this new highend machine would run it,game STILL RUN LIKE SH** even with a machine beyond the recomended sys specs,game looks cool and all but that doesnt matter wen you cant get decent FPS in a highend machine,uninstalling permanently.
ok, if you have to upgrade you PC to play Planetside 2, then your gonna have to fork out over $500. So the better option is to Save up $400, then buy a Playstation 4 and wait for the PS4 version of Planetside 2 that SoE announced. Quite frankly I've forgotten about the PC version of this game and am now just waiting for the PS4 version, which will be superior. And the PS4 version will be better since Planetside 2 is Made by SONY Online Entertainment, and who makes Playstation? SONY Computer Entertainment does.
mm what im gonna to do spent $1500 for a pc can handle Planetside 2, and hope thre will be no more problems or wait for ps4 $400
these are the required system specs intel i8 5ghz super liquid Nitrogen cooler 64 gb ram super nvidia nasa james cameron avatar video card gtx my @ss thats gonna run fine this game
i5 2.67 4 ddr3 @ 666mhz amd radeon 6900 series 1024mb recently i was unhappy with the lag in amp stations there did seem to be a drop in performance a couple of weeks ago.. i've overclocked the cpu up to 3.9 that seems to have given me a bit more game play enjoyment, but i fear there is an underlying problem there.
I have PM:ed the OP about this thread some time ago but no response at all. In case SOE somehow has a no reply policy on performance questions and thinks this helps keeping people playing .. well it doesnt have that effect, just wanted to point that out
I have system with a Geforce GTX 460, AMD Phenom 2 x4 970 3.5 GHz processor, and 8 gigs of ram ,and i average 20-30fps all the time. The game plays great for me, and i have it on the Ultra settings. This system is at least 4 years old. They optimized the game for ME HAHAHAHAH
Thats is problem for more 6 months-20-30 fps we have all , no matter what system play game. Аnd then more than 6 months, they have the impudence to say that to 1.6 GHz 8 core processor and the 7850(PS4) , game was played at maximum settings ,B@LLSH@T.
I was playing on ultra settings with a GTX 550 Ti and AMD FX-6300 at 40(ish) fps, but after the latest update i struggle to get 20 fps on low settings. I really hope this can be fixed because I LOVE the game! EDIT: Sorry guys, seems maybe my comp was having a bad day, everything is normal again!
i would agree with this but the point is that i used to be able to play on Ultra. now i have to play on the worst settings possible because of your ******* team. they haven't made things better. they made it worse. i get about 5fps just walking around on ultra now compared to running smoothly at 60.
I have to throw my feedback in here as well. I use to be able to play 20-30FPS, even in large battles on my 3 year old gaming system, on medium settings. The game is now set to very low settings and is unplayable. I tried again just yesterday and was getting about 5FPS on very low settings in a medium fire fight =( I love the game, but it's not accessible performance wise for the average person. I've also not spent any SC or money on it since it became like this... several months ago. I have "kept the faith" and it hasn't changed... in months. Very disappointed.
The killer frame rate issue resides the most in regards to CPU usage, and in that case, you gotta ask yourself: What kills the CPU the most? The game has to be rendered, and rendering many players and entities causes the CPU to be used up. Is there alternatives to divert the stress from the client, to balance it off to the server sided processing? Maybe some cloud based processing? Although I do notice weird latency flux between shooting a enemy and having the server 'react' on it. Shooting a tank shell at a enemy tank causes damage to occur half a second after impact. Shooting a enemy soldier and the damage indicator may take a while to even kick in, heck, if you 'died' whilst the server is in the middle of calculating your bullets, you could fail to kill someone as the moment your killing blow is processed, someone sniped you in the head in that delay, and pretty much takes priority on the server as it's 'instant' kill of the sorts?.
I just went to a site called systemrequirementslab (never used it before, not sure if accurate) and tested if my system meets the minimum requirements for this game, I failed the test meaning I do not meet the minimum requirement. That being said I run about 50-80 fps when I am the only person in a base, if there are about 10 other people I typically average 30-40 fps, if there are multiple vehicles and about 20-30 other people in a base I'm lucky to get 10-15 fps any more people than that and I have 1-5 fps... this is still playable for me - though not ideal - so all I do is avoid fights that are 48+ versus 48+ population and I can play the game... I don't understand why people think 10-20 fps is bad it is very playable for me, then again maybe I am just used to it so it seems acceptable. I have to also admit though I used to play on much higher settings in much larger battles with very good fps and no lag, so it seems something has changed in the last 2-3 months that made me take a hit to performance though nothing really changed on my laptop so I don't know.
