I honestly don't see these lags. I've maxed the game out at 1920x1526 and get no lag except in massive explosions. I "only" have an i5 4670k@4.2Ghz and GTX 770. :|
For a game like PlanetSide 2 to receive a substantial performance improvement, there would have to be a huge overhaul of the very foundation on which it is built. This is what happened during the last big update and even after that update, we still get situations where FPS is below 1 on the highest-end systems with 4960X CPU overclocked on the best watercooling to insane levels. I think telling people that in a few months there will be enough improvements to make your current hardware run better is misleading. What's going to happen is that people will eventually upgrade and come back to PlanetSide 2, but if we were to plot general framerate improvement over the years of patching, would we really substantial month to month improvements? Or would we see an occasional large-scale update that re-writes big portions of the game's code and improves general performance by 20-25% or so? Yet, it doesn't look like any of those large updates even touched the massive FPS drop in insanest of battles when you have a ton of people piling up against another ton of people. Those are the situations that are most fun and PlanetSide 2 can't provide people with high-end hardware even 10fps during those events. I don't own the best, but my 3770K @ 4.6Ghz with 16GB 2200Mhz RAM, GTX 780 Ti, and a 256GB SSD aren't low-end either. Many of those situations don't require rendering of massive armies, but but maybe 20 people in one area. The game was designed a long time ago and it didn't take all of this into consideration. It makes your CPU process huge chunks of data about other players that aren't even on your screen!!! Management can only sustain what it already has, but its not likely to improve to a degree that matters. What needs to happen is a re-write of the whole game from scratch on a foundation or an engine that is made to sustain such heavy events. Hell, I think that they should make the servers do 99% of all calculations and just make client PCs process the video rendering part. This game isn't graphically demanding at all and non-graphics-data shouldn't be all that vast and complex even when 100s of players are in one area. The game runs at a very high framerate on my PC when nobody is around, but when a ton of people piles up and gets me excited, I end up in stutter-town and its not anything on my PC as everything is updated and optimized... I say - make the game P2P and not F2P and use the funds to fix all that. Let the few dedicated players enjoy the game. I think PlanetSide 2 is dead in regards to heavy performance updates. I think it is time to start working on PlanetSide 3 P2P that will contain new graphics, amazing foundation, and all the good things from PlanetSide 2, but without the horrible performance!
if 3770k overclocked is not high end, I don't know what is. It is weird to hear you complain, I run the game on an i3 (because I am a cheap bastard) and I get at worst case scenario 15 fps, and I can smell burned rubber from my cpu(don't need a task manager to tell me what is happening) most other times it is steady at 40. What fps do you get in heated battles? Did you try turning hyperthreading off?(I saw a lot of improvements when I did that) Now on topic, I do not know what calculations they run on client side or why. My best guess that it has to do with client side predictions to make the game look really fast (so instead of telling you player x died, they tell you player y fired a head shot on player x and let your computer assume player x died) The game being slow is not necessarily their fault, or anyone's fault. It is a very large scale game, it is the only online game I ever played that downloads around 40 KB/s which is a lot of data per second(if you think about it, this 40 KB is mostly text data that needs to be parsed and played, like player x fired at angle xyz etc...) so 40 KB of text is a huuuuge amount of text. I think every time a player fires a single bullet, every other player gets a data about that bullet and it is replayed, and the bullet has to be drawn travelling and be tracked etc. There is a good reason why there are not many of its kind out there. Making it scale across cores might also cause the problem of one core deciding a player has to die, and after the player dies the other core decides oh wait he killed someone. Pay to play will solve the lag problem because probably 60 to 80% of the people present now will leave... no other reason. And the more people that leave the more boring the game gets and the more people leave even more...
Except I do not see how that data you are talking about brings down framerate THAT much. Graphically the game is not that great, not demanding, so why on Earth does it run like poo in heavy battles? I know it relies on CPU more than GPU, but does it have such crap framerate due to CPU doing the rendering and not GPU? If so, then why not optimize it for GPU properly? I do get bad framerate when there are like 100 people in a near-by area shooting each other hardcore and running inside buildings and stuff. Those are the most exciting times when good framerate makes a big difference, but during those times my framerate is CRAP. Outside of such events, my framerate is excellent... Thing is, BF4 is far more intensive graphics-wise, also very CPU-dependent, and also has 64players playing, but it NEVER enters stutter-town for me...
But did you know that frostbite is using much more sophisticated optimization techniques, and one of the targets of Frostbite 2 was to improve the rendering pipeline so it would be easier to develop with and it wouldn't take as much resources. I have told SOE numerous time to update their renderer in stead of just staying in dx9. And so far it's been effortless Anyways, here's some stuff about Frostbite's lighting optimization, it's bit old about 3-5 years, but it's still good: http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/directx-11-rendering-in-battlefield-3 (Lighting pg 11-18) http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/lighting-you-up-in-battlefield-3 (More lights) http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/shiny-pc-graphics-in-battlefield-3 (Objects pg 10-16) http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/stable-ssao-in-battlefield-3-with-selective-temporal-filtering (SSAO aka Screen Space Ambient Occlusion, Planetside 2 uses it, but it could be optimized better.)
Why do you both assume it is a graphics problems? It does not necessarily have to do with drawing stuff on the screen. In fact the drawing part is likely the easy part. It's constantly knowing where everything is at any given point in time is what I think kills a cpu. I do not think it is a graphics problem for 2 reasons: 1- changing the graphics quality does not directly influence the fps sometimes(when the cpu is the bottleneck) 2-When I open the map while playing or minimize the game entirely, the cpu usage does not get much lower, perhaps 10 to 20%... I am a developer(though not a game developer) I worked with heuristics(solving difficult problems) for a time. Even the greatest clocked computer would choke for north of an hour trying to solve one 36 by 36 sudoku puzzle without even a tiny bit of graphics in the process(seriously, not even the puzzle is drawn, it's made to just print 'ok' on the screen when it is done). Moving and changing raw data is very difficult. Once it is known where things are the GPU draws them, I do not believe the drawing part is complicated... (then again GPU and graphics rendering are my dark corner of the world. I do not develop games) Now if even 10% cpu power can be saved in the drawing part and allocated to figuring out where **** is part, things can run faster(perhaps you will lag but at a higher fps). I do not know battlefield 3 or 4. So I cannot judge. also everything I stated above are just my speculations and guesses. I played planet side for only a week so far. I am far from having an accurate educated guess and I have not read the technical forums yet. However if you want to fairly compare battlefield to planet side, and you say battlefield is limited to 64 players. See what planet side performance is like when there are 64 players around. Player numbers are like the straw that breaks the camel's back, sometimes the game is fine and then 10 more people show up and... And seriosuly, people running core i7, try turning hyperthreading off, you might actually get twice the speed
Here's where the game currently stands for me. Note that I have my fps locked at 60. 60FPS in quiet areas, 40FPS in big fights (GPU bound), 20FPS (CPU bound) in massive cluster****s using this hardware (Nothing is overclocked, using fans for cooling): CPU: AMD FX-8350 Eight Core processor, ~4.0GHz (Runs at about 30-35 degrees celsius while playing) GPU: Nvidia Geforce TX 590 3GB VRAM RAM: 8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24) OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit Motherboard: MSI 990FXA-GD80 (MS-7640) Whats the difference between this build and the 'high end' PCs that struggle with the game?
First: Before some complaint about bad english remember: People from whole world fight here. Thanks. lets go: Something strange began to heppens in my game. Even after un/reinstalled some territories dont load the territoy icons, like flags to capture, terminals. Im furious about this, because when the ''big battle'' startsin some regions, i dont have any idea about where attack or defend in some territories, because it simply dont show the flags (A,B,C) in my map or minimap. What can i do??!! Im desperate! I already re-download all the entire game and reinstalled, and the same is happening.
If drawing is not complicated and its so CPU intensive, then why oh why does the game run like crap @ 4K but runs way better @ 1080p? My videocard has plenty of VRAM to run PS2 @ 4K, but my FPS sucks @ 4K! If CPU was the bottleneck, then resolution would play little to no role, but it does play a huge role. I can play Tomb Raider with Ultra settings @ 4K and get HIGHER FPS than I get in PlanetSide 2! The game is CPU intensive - yes, but its also GPU intensive for no damn reason and is just BADLY optimized. Its not like 4K or any resolution demands more info to be sent across the game. The graphics are ANCIENT and the game has a terrible foundation to it that will not get ANY better at ANY point - don't kid yourselves. Unless, of course, developers scrap this game, get a new engine, and re-build PlanetSide 3 with massive battles-in-mind for P2P crowd willing to pay to get great support!!!! Not going to happen... Instead, they will start poking holes in our stories about how no other game is like that and 4K is too much for my system, while I can run games with FAR more intensive graphics @ 4K and get steady 60fps.
P2P? If u mean subscription based, this is dead model for good. One time payment still works, but in long term it is not sufficient continual support. See EA "solution" to GameSpy shutdown.
Please riddle me this: I have a crappy pc.. I can NOT ever go anywhere near big battles.. the more players show up, the sooner I crash. can barely play for 15 minutes in a tank, but, when i sit in a turret, I can play for an hour.. even though there are a ton of guys driving and flying in and out of the warpgate, enemy planes everywhere.. total mayhem.. but i can play for a long time. if I pull a lightning to just drive past that turret.. I'll crash.. 'cause there is too much going on .. how is there such a difference between turret play and tank play?
I'd like to give the optimization team a heads up on the FPS issues caused by areas that have traversable water. Whenever there is water that can be traversed(particularly Amerish and Hossin), my fps drops from 60 down to 30, back then before the Hossin update, this was not an issue.
Just to share my current problems with the game's optimization... Specs: Phenom 2 x4 @ 3.5ghz 750ti 2gb 6gb 1600mhz Ram Windows 7 64bit Settings: All settings High/Medium Shadows/Flora off 1600x900 resolution 75% render quality 1000m render distance Performance in Planetside 2: ~30 FPS when no one is around. ~ 15-20 FPS when in small-medium fights. ~10 FPS during large fights. ~90-110 ping latency Occasional freezing ALWAYS CPU BOUND CPU CORE USAGE (all cores unparked): ~30% ~10-15% ~1-2% ~40% (This is the core windows services use, game does not change its usage.) This is not a problem with my hardware. It is a problem with the game's usage of my CPU. If this game is so CPU intensive, then why is it not using more of my CPU? Saying that dx9 is the issue is no excuse, running Crysis on dx9, CPU usage averages ~80-90%, and i get stable 80 FPS high settings. An ancient game such as the Original Call Of Duty uses ~75% of my CPU. This is just ridiculous that Planetside 2, a game that needs CPU power, is only using 30% of my CPU. Battlefield 3, a less CPU intensive game, uses 90% of my CPU! And on Bf3 i average 80 FPS on medium/high settings no problem. Sure, this game has thousands of players within 1 battle, and is very CPU intensive because of that. But why the heck is it using only 30% of my CPU! I would be happy to spend money on the game, if it used more of My CPU (Every Other game uses more), and if it did use more of my CPU it would lead to huge FPS gains.
Lol, it sucks hard. I mostly just play support (Medic,Engineer) at that point. Most days i can Manage to get a positive k/d (1-2 k/d at most), and im proud of myself for being able to do that with such low frames xD! Have plenty of days where k/d just goes to trash, but still find a way to have fun. Can't fly too good though, other than suicide drop space whales. And when i get that occasional freezing, it becomes a very slow and painful slide show, so I logout.
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 - OS MSI 760GM-P34 (FX) - Mainboard AMD FX-6300 Vishera 6-Core @ 3.5GHz - CPU ADATA 16gb @ 1600 - RAM EVGA GTX 650 Ti 2gb @ 1071 MHz - GPU I run it at a 30 fps cap on ultra... in fights it gets as low as 17 fps with the [CPU] as the constant bottleneck; so lower graphics settings don't see much improvement.
Strage, I run I5-2500 3.3GHz quad-core & never drop below 30FPS in large fights. Duno, never had AMD. Fact is that multithreading in this game is .... WoT level
Mmmmhm, PlanetSide 2 seems to prefer Intel for tha faster single-thread or whatever, and I read somewhere tat lower graphics settings foist more work unto tha processer, so I think my performance would actually decrease further if my GFX weren't on ultra.
