if it's cpu who limit : they need to work to support multi cpu like quad core at minimum and 8 in the best ! id they do that = no limit other than graphics card but that will be so awesome !
Read this: http://www.futurechips.org/tips-for-power-coders/parallel-programming.html Then understand that developing multi-threaded applications is hard, really hard. It's not snapping your fingers together and woosh, you're suddenly supporting 32 cores that all benefit the graphical splendour and fluidity of the game.
I've never fanboyed before (disregarding a bit of a preference for Corsair products...), but you're close to being My Hero. That is to say, if FPS does keep increasing over the next months.
I prefer to consider Planetside 2 as "The Crysis of 2012." Have you guys taken a look at the Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 15h Processors? While glancing over it I noticed that it shares a few optimization concepts with it's predecessor guide Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 10h and 12h Processors so theoretically speaking Phenom II's should benefit somewhat in addition to Bulldozer and Piledriver cores. In addition are you considering adding in GPGPU support in the future?
can you follow simple instructions ? there is a fix for that , i went from exactly what you have to near stable 35 FPS , and i probably have the same CPU you have (q9550).. and from what i read it works for 4 out of 5 people ! "i used that core unlock program, went to the Nvidia control panel and set physx forced GPU, and disables all AA in nvidia control panel, it still often say CPU, but way more often GPU and the frame rate is only slightly different from CPU to GPU" the biggest difference is to unlock your cores, even trough it say that it USUALLY dont work for q9550 , in my case i had 3 locked cores... and dont forget to reboot, it only works after reboot here is the link .. IT WORKS ! http://www.coderbag.com/Programming-C/Disable-CPU-Core-Parking-Utility
But it's really funny, I have 2 sandy bridge xeons (16 cores total) with 128 gigs of RAM, and the mighty game code outputs maybe 30 fps in fights, citing cpu bottleneck when alt-f'ed. Good job folks. In fact, I demand the current source code, will show to my CS students
i'm pretty sure its temporary , in beta i had 65 frames with no tweaking at all... how ever it was crashing once in a while and its stable now ... so im sure they temporary messed with the engine till its fixed
i7 2600 2x 2GB GTX 460 (sli) = "1x gtx 580" 8gb Crossair 1600 120 ssd go 2x 1to raid 0 750 watts Crossair I play with 120 fps in spawn 100 games and 40 to 80 depending on where fighting the cpu uses 40 to 50% the dual gpu sli uses 65% j still hope to win battles fps here because you can do a good job 1) well settle its nvidia drivers 2) 800 renderdistance 3) all setting on low 4) play mode window is 1280 * 1024 on 27 " 5) Never use HD to play!! valid for all games!
Apparently, the majority of current cpu code is serial, however the problems which it solves (related to interaction of different players and objects in proximity) are naturally good candidates for parallelization. So, I guess we will have to wait for threaded code.
Sorry havnt had time to read all the threads but in case it hasn't been mentioned before a discoverd something odd that icreased my FPS no end. Was running ps2 with xfire turned on and was getting low FSP in fire fights and only about 30 at TR gate. With xfire off i hit 60 to 70 at gate and 50's in fire fights. May be someone else could confirm this. Its odd that one small program that use's next to no resources has this effect. Maybe the developers might like to look into this as to see what xfire is doing to effect performance so bad. Could be other background software has the same effect and the cause of some peoples problems. And if you think this sounds odd i can confirm frames half every time I start Xfire????? Hope this helps someone. AMD fx 8120 @ 3.8 GTX 460 x 2 SLI 8 GB ram Windows 7 64 PS... for me the latest Nvidia Beta driver runs bad for SLI. Uses only about 20% of first card and 90% of second so still using 306.97. Had no problem with these.
The problem isn't the graphics its the engine. Their goal isn't to reduce graphics and say its optimized, reducing graphics won't help because that is NOT the issue. Again, you simply don't understand the problem. If they wanted to optimize by reducing graphics they'd be done in a matter of hours probably. I can turn my graphics to minimum and get the same fps in fights as high settings, so obviously graphics aren't the problem.
Awesome to hear! This has been the only game I've seen have such a leap in performance through the continued patching and optimizations. Previously the game was near unplayable for me in quasi built up fire fights running an aging q6600 2.4, gtx 560ti oc and 4 gigs of ddr2; I was worried my hard drive r/w speeds or cpu would bottleneck everything but it's been great seeing the steady improvements! Keep up the good work guys out of curiosity was their a resource intensive debugger during the tech and beta tests?
You aren't looking into it deep enough. It's not hard to make multithreaded applications, but it's hard to make specific functions that prefer to run in serial run in parallel, and make sure that threads don't jump into memory they shouldn't be touching. I can write a quick application with infinite threads fairly easily. No one is asking for them to multithread the serial functions or something like each player/item on screen gets its own dedicated thread, only take functions out of the main thread that don't need to run serial along with the main games code. A lot of programmers call this multicore rendering, for example, where all animations go to one thread, shadow calculations go to another thread, physics calculations to another thread, reflection/lighting calculations on another, processing of sound engine on another thread, etc. Once you've synced them all to coexist peacefully, you have a game that runs awesomely well, like BF3, and you then become GPU limited. I find it hard to believe that a team who has the funding and support to make a game like this, wouldn't have the skill to do the above. If an indie of one developer can program a game to do the above, an entire team should be able to do it faster. Rendering tasks are completely agnostic to what kind of game they are running in, it has nothing to do with actual game code, so programming multicore rendering into this game is no different than programming it in another.
Uhm the combat mechanics of a mmo such as WoW is pretty much different then in a MMO FPS like planetside 2. The only big MMO game thats similar to planetside but in a different era is WW2 online battlegrounds(playing it for years now and still playing it).It has massive firefights with armor,infantry,boats,planes(realistic gameplay from ww2).And they came a long way to where they are now.its actually playable on lower end rigs but they had a hell lot of work to get it done(took them years).
why spend months of our game time optimising a dx9 engine when we could all be sat here talking about how goood this engine is and how the fps is stable on our systems. not many people who play this game will be playing on older low end systems,why? because as most gamers you will speak to on here or in general we all have capable systems or close to capable for most games. why choose a realy poor game engine build and hope to optimise it over what could take months/years? is this to open the game up to older pc users? if so why when most people who actually want to play games will have a gaming machine? sony made no sense with this and tbh as much as i loved ps1 and do enjoy a game of ps2 it just isnt worth my time and frustration when im playing with a gaming system and cannot get stable fps. there are hundreds upon hundreds of people on here moaning about how poor the game is and i trully believe while people are still playing and paying for the boosts that sony will not rush to fix the game. however i do beleive that sony do want the game to run smoothly but in the meantime why should we endure poor game scores because of jerky/slow/sluggish gameplay when we could just leave sony to do there thing. my advice? dont endure months and months of low fps and sluggish performance,just boycot the game and keep coming back to check on patch notes untill the game is playable. maybe sony will realise then that they need players and players need stable fps. despite all the beta testing and now a full release this is still a beta and needs too much work to be called a final product.
Letting us turn off any form of anti-aliasing would help performance quite a bit. Also the game wouldn't look like a blurry mess.
AMD 955 X4 3,2 GHz, Radeon 6870 1GB OC and 4GB RAM here. I'm getting 30-60 FPS when there aren't many players around, but in big battles it can drop under 20 FPS which is not quite playable enough. I tried lowering the resolution and render quality, but that did absolutely nothing at all. So this has to be because of the CPU. CPU use is around 30-40% on all cores while playing. I'm sure some optimization could help, so I'm now just waiting for updates.
