Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one I suppose. As much as you're comments on single core prefomance are relevant - my specifications still exceed what this game states are it's recommended requirements. There is something off if a game can't run well on high settings on hardware top of the range two years in the future. Sometimes one might almost mistake this for the GSC Game World forums.
I used to be able to. But since a patch a few weeks ago my FPS in battles has pretty much halved. I'm using a 780gtx. Even in beta I got better FPS and back then the game used higher detail, plus physx and was less optimized :/
Sad thing is the that it is hard to optimize the game engine(and servers machines) to those 400 vs 400 battles, even harder on those 200 vs 200 vs 200 and those actually happen these days after the merge! The game runs just perfect even on full ultra on those smaller battles, those BF scale 64 players fights ain't nothing to the PS2 engine, so in the end .. is it the problem on the game engine or is the problem on these days hardware not being good enough(server side)!
I could happily accept this. Were it not for the fact that the game currently doesn't even bother to render enemies outside of a 50m radius of you. The amount of occlusion never used to be this severe - it's only gotten worse with more patches - yet the performance has gone down!? As for the game running perfect in small battles, you must not have read my eariler post. I said explicilty that I drop down to 25-40fps in any skirmish. Doesn't matter how small, if there's more than one enemy on my screen - my framerate tanks. o-o 200 vs 200 vs 200 battles? What server are you playing on? You're lucky to find 100 vs 100 over on Briggs. And that's my point. The times when I'm experiencing issues with prefomance - are far below what the game was previously capable of handling. So in the end...it is the fault of the game developers for trying to create scenarios on an engine or game that can't handle it. The hardware is not the problem by their own admission Noppa. All of my hardware is well above the stated standard. There is literally no other explanation than, the optimization is down the drain, or the servers are somehow affecting prefomance (highly unlikely).
Thats strange, even on full ultra with my machine i don't have any problems on those smaller scale fights, the fps starts to go down when there is 100+ players on same area, do i have that much more clocks on my CPU than you? Miller, maybe i was over exaggerating those fights a bit since it is hard to know the real numbers on fights, but never the less they are massive! Yesterday again there was some massive battles and the lowest fps i got was 58 in a Biolab with my settings! They have said that there is issues with the server performance / database and ofcourse the crappy server performance affects our gameplay cos the server tickrate goes down(game feels choppy and laggy with low tickrate and hitboxes are way off), if it is a hardware problem or optimization problem.. well we don't know that for sure But on a good side , the game worked yesterday pretty good so clearly they have done something...
It is entirley possible, the 4770k doesn't have the best single core prefomance. The 4790k is slightly better in that regard, and even i5's have on average better single core prefomance. PS2 has pretty limited multithreading, so most of it's load comes from only one or two cores. I'm going to make a point of copy pasting this every time this misconception gets bandied about: SOE could always be misconstruing the truth, or flat out lying - but for now, all we can do is take them at their word.
Yeah i know that, that's the thing i was referring to.. Miller continents are pretty much 90%+ always.. but yeah as an old CS players that Tickrate 60 is pretty much the lowest playable on FPS games! Was just playing with everything maxed out from the game settings btw, the top graphic settings was at TF so better than ultra.. was on 48+ / 48+ fight in Amerish and the lowest fps i got was 34 or something, but that is cos of few things.. first is my GPU, it cant handle full settings on those fights, second one is the particles.. fps is 50+ even on those fights BUT the Explosions / tank shooting(like the Prowler smoke thatcomes every time it fires a shots) makes my FPS drop! I even got a video from the gameplay, maybe i will upload it to youtube at somepoint!
As to the OP's original post... 50-60fps in large battles? I can't hit 50 fps at the warpgate on a deserted continent on lowest possible settings. I really need to upgrade my gaming platform, but money's tight right now (college and whanot), and if it wasn't, I'd drop money on this game, like, all the time.
I am crazy/stupid/have a job so I just invested about 1000 $ on my hardware, and on maxed out settings I drop to sub 20 fps in any sort of fight. AMD FX-8320 Black Edition Crucial DDR3 BallistiX Sport 16GB KIT MSI 970A-G43, Socket-AM3+ MSI GeForce GTX 770 Gaming 2GB PhysX I'm feeling I don't quite get the result I was expecting, but I guess tweaking the settings will improve the frames a bit. - Z
I always get 60+ FPS in any battle. Running an i5-47xxk 3.4 Ghz (non-OC). 1GB 560ti MSI Twin Frozr ii. 8GB RAM. High settings with flora off, shadows off and fog shadows on.
Next time, do some research before you go and blow money like that. I won't even bother suggesting tweaks when you say you spent $1000 but only getting 20 fps.
Well that was the affordable price range for me. I couldn't really have invested any more. You could argue that there is other equal hardware options that would perhaps be better suited for PS2 specifically, but well..this is what I ended up with. Adjusting settings like shadows and fogshadows and bloom and whatnot I do get better fps. But like I said; on maxed out settings it doesn't take well to any sort of action. And the 1000$ is a straight currency conversion. I'm not american and thus price levels might not be directly comparable. - Z
Actually I made an error, I overlooked the 'max settings'. On max settings I get about 30 FPS and probably a little lower. As a suitable benchmark, I suggest changing settings to high and turning off shadows. Then we can see how good your setup is. Max settings usually means max shadows anyway, and shadows unnecessarily strains the CPU.
Wow. This isn't something one often see someone admitting to. Thanks. I'll look into the method you suggest later. ATM I'm away from my comp. - Z
Well my i7 2600k 4.8Ghz and 280X Toxic all medium can push 60fps+ even in biggest fights. Didnt even tried higher settings cuz i dont like all that glow and graphics, its in the way of me killing stuff.
I agree with a few others here; the patch a couple of weeks ago about halved my overall FPS, especially in larger fights. So no, my machine has not able to run Planetside 2 40-60 FPS since, in fact on high settings it can only manage about 25-30. I had to reduce my settings from ultra to medium to achieve the same performance of 40+ FPS. I would say wait until another generation of hardware; DDR4, 800 series nvidia cards, and SATA express are all either just emerging from the market, or around the corner. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/3765155? Quick specs: Nvidia 780 SLi (x2) Intel 3930K @ 4.8GHz Crucal Ballistix 32GB 1866MHz ram @ CL8 Samsung 840 Pro (x2) Raid0 Asus P9X79 Pro Custom CPU/GPU liquid loop Coarsair 900D
New hardware won't make a difference if the software cannot effectively make use of it. Many of us by now are running PS2 on hardware that is 2+ years newer than the game, and in many cases 2-3x more powerful than anything the game was designed to run on. Evidence still points to successive patches only worsening the optimization.
Im actually able to run the game on ULTRA at 50-60fps in really large battles pretty consistently. I'm pretty proud to say that because I've been nailing down the culprit of not being able to get the same FPS I used to get. I'm still working on a few tweaks with the particles because my FPS drops to like 55fps when I last my mossie and repair it (because of all of the dust particles floating around). So particles will prob be the only thing thats not on ULTRA pretty soon. I finally figured it out and I'm ecstatic about it. My settings are as follows: My system is in my signature. I ended up having to OC my memory to gain those extra FPS back. It seemed like my memory was starting my CPU (my theory). If I cut the memory speed down to 1333mhz then my fps dropped to the 30-35 range in big battles. Going to 1600mhz boosted frames to the 40+ area and going to 2400mhz boosted me to the 50-60 minimum range. I also played around with the HPET setting in my bios and the win timer settiings in Windows 8.1 (the "bcdedit /set useplatformclock" tweak). Havent even tried to unpark my CPU cores yet. I still have a bit more tweaking to do to get things maximized but I think I'm in a good position already!
