Hello, After update 2 weeks ago I have very low FPS inside buildins and great lags when I respawn and looks on lighting of teleport cabin Outside buildings I have 35-90 FPS My system WinXP 64 intel i3 4 GB Ram Nvidia GTX 560TI 1 GB Before update all was great
Sometimes it helps to get outside the problem and do something totally differnt.... but when you see it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_sight_distance Good Luck. Toi
Hit and miss, not same as it once was and not future optimizations coming. Still poor optimization though.
To all the AMD people complaining about FPS.. you need to learn to overclock. Worst case scenario I never drop below 40fps even in the largest bio lab zerg fights during alerts. This is running an fx8350 and a 7850. Usually 50-60fps in large battles.
You're not alone experiencing the EXACT same issue Any moderate fight and I get such sub-par FPS I just can't play. It's ridiculous
Can we be crystal clear on why there is such a dramatic change in peoples fps after every little patch applied?
My fps tanked after the last patch. Was getting 60+ in most places with dips into the 40s in real *********** situations before the patch. Now I get 50+ when I first load the game, and it tanks down into the single digits(and stays there) the first time I die or zone, I can bring the fps back up by going into options and changing my texture quality to low then back to high, but the problem comes back as soon as I die or zone again. i5 2500k @5.2ghz Gtx 680 @1300/7100 16gb ram @2133 Really shouldn't be having these issues.
Are there any breakthroughs in the forseeable future? Something made my FPS stutter worse in GU4 and it didn't get better since.
I hope the SOE DEVs and management fix this asap. To tackle this performance issue I think they should make SIGNIFICANT CHANGES like dropping Windows XP (DIRECTX 9) support and go for Directx 11 support. I have a couple of reasons for this: 1) I say this by looking at the latest hardware survey of Steam. 80% of the users are using directx 10 or higher. 2) Going for Directx 11 and dropping XP/Directx9 would allow Devs more room to be able to code and use the PC hardware more efficiently. It could result in AMD video card owners also being able to enjoy those nice Particle effects. Those effects could then be created in Directcompute. 3) Looking at the System requirements thread I noticed that the videocards suggested as minimum requirements are full Directx 10 compliant. I know what am I asking is not simple to do and perhaps not well thought of, but I think that this will be the only way for PS2 to get an increase of 40% in FPS.
And why you think so? So SOE lose 20% of all danate. Why DX? Why not OpenGL? It free and crossplatform. And if add more DX10 features you'll get - 15fps You completely wrong. Saying DirectX you mean renderer. But renderer works fine. 90% users limited by CPU. No matter what DX you'll use if the code itself slow.
Oh man. I have horrible FPS. I have 10-15 FPS on standart. 3-8 FPS in battle. Oh god. I cant hit people with sniper.I cant hit people with rocket launcher.Carabins, Auto Rifles, SMGS, Light Machineguns, anything! I just cant play! My computer is really good, but my internet is actually bad.But I dont think it must lag so much. On ALT + F it says [CPU].I made all things in the guide, use Razer Game Booster, placed High Priority, all graphics on minimal. Result : I think..Somewhere near + 0.5 FPS. Someone, help?
Why does the processor type has any relevancy to the game itself? If we where talking on different generations sure but choosing amd for w/e reasons (mine was budget at the time) over intel and to see SOE say "well sucks for you for not grabbing a intel " is simply ********. Well of course SOE didn't say this and will most likely have a work around for the "2nd best" but they way you put it is like a kick in the balls. Another curve ball is my spec as simple example. I have a amd a6 3670k, 8g of ram and a ATI 7850 1024/256 gddr5. Is there any particular reason i should have 25 fps and under with med-low settings in decent sized battles (not comparing to mega sized zerg-mishes atm since i believe a better performance optimization will come sooner than the game will evolve into giant zerg battles itself)? Aside from the cpu not being exactly there but a "close enough" one, I technically reach the recommended specs, yet i seem to not reach with low and off settings the ,what is considered today, minimum playable fps for shooters (35-40) at a decent consistency. Yes i do agree with you that AMD did not manage to pull off a good contender to the sandybridge, 100% and no exceptions, but that doesn't mean that the bulldozer series is so flunked that they are unable to play games that requires more impulse from the cpu then the usual. On a side note I can see the best way to "optimize", until a better solution, for now is to take example from the streaming programs with their recent tweaks. Tax the gpu more and give some breathing room for the cpu. At the moment the game is heavily dependent on cpu, while being a VIDEOgame. One other thing i would have expected is the game engine auto selecting the more powerful part (gpu or cpu) and giving that prio, then again i am no game engine programer, or any programer for that matter, so this might not even be possible let alone the amount of work required.
1) Pretty much all games are CPU based. 2) A game like planetside 2 is all about having a very good CPU. A good graphic card wont do much if you have a terrible or mediocre CPU, you will get bottlenecked. 3) Planetside 2 utilize the CPU terrible, even more so after the recent patches... Which makes the FPS problems many occur quite logical if you look back at 1) and 2). Also, if you run low FPS, just lower your settings... Not that hard really, don't try to force playing the game on high/medium if you get FPS drops. If you already have everything on the lowest, there are some stuff you can change in your .ini file to make it run even better, like turning off shadow effects, this should give you 5-15+ FPS. To bored to explain how to, just google it.
Not sure if u read my actual post or didn't make sense of what i said. I am very aware of the terrible utilization the game has of cpu's, by some reason it's power lies into single core strong cpu's rather then multi-core. Yes i know every game is cpu based, but looking at other games closer to PS2's release date they will tax gpu more rather then cpu (the opposite of PS2) or at least have an equivalent power usage of both. That thing where u say "google ini settings" is a pretty bad assumption that i haven't done my research on how to squeeze some more performance. My post wasn't about "why does ps2 have bad optimization on a pc considered decent in the present day?", it was related to "why would we be forced to buy a different rig to play a game in which was suppose to run on it in the first place?". Unless i missed it or don't see it the game is considered as "released" rather then "beta", so the better question would be " why is the game marked as released when it has this rather big problem?". Edit: If the optimization problems started in a early GU where the test server wasn't up what stopped SOE from rollbacking the GU after the (i assume) numerous complaints of performance drops? On top of it what function did the GU bring that made the game go haywire?
Okay people need to stop coming on here and crying about their computers not being able to run the game. There is a few things you need to understand. 1. They haven't even address the issue of optimization in a long time. They haven't let us know that they're still working on a fix for this game, not since the released. So that's normally a good sign that they aren't investing money into optimization. 2. As long as they are turning a profit for this game they will not care. A LOT of pc gamers uses intel cpu's so they can still turn a profit. 3. If you don't get playable frames per second don't invest any cash at all into this game. Not until Sony start putting out patches that fixes the game. 4. They still have their misleading system requirements up. They haven't even adjusted the specs even though this game is unplayable for really any un-overclock AMD cpu. Which isn't a big deal since its free and all but still annoying to see. 5. They've used an old directx 9 engine that doesn't work to well with multiple threads. Thats why intel is able to handle this game since it has better single threaded performance. It's beyond me why they wouldn't use a directx 11 engine. If your a pc gamer and you still use xp then something is wrong. That's just show how they aren't putting more money then they need to into this game. It's to costly for them to make a new game engine for this game that they could also use for future games. Unless your buying a ps4 don't buy any game Sony creates. They normally have bad support. When problems comes up they just ignore it.
They will never play in the big leagues in gaming unless they start spending seriously on their titles, and on competent staff
