Devs admit they won't ever "fix" rendering issues...

I support something like this. We didn't even have the dynamic rendering system until a week before release - so we don't even know what % of the playerbase have the low-spec machines that required the dynamic rendering system to be added in the first place.

Less people may be affected by this than we assume - we just don't know. But it didn't seem to be a big problem during beta...

Computers exceeding the reccomended specs are dropping to 35 fps during big battles, so the argument "you are too cheap to play it" is really moot in this case and smells of elitism.

Theyre testing different rendering distances on Miller and Connery right now, so im not sure how devs not ever fixing rendering issues was arrived at from the FNO broadcast.

Just got off of Miller about 10 minutes ago and "thought" I was seeing more folks at further distances. All this without knowing about the testing being done.

Dunno..

Unless they managed to make the calculations on where everyone is on one core, and the rest on another :>

A strawman? REALLY?

I hate to tell you this but hardware already wins.

From the mouse I can sneeze at to do a 180 to the framerate not being choppy.

Is it fair for one person to render more than somebody else just because they spent money on their machine.

Answer yourself that.

They can't do much about machine-to-machine performance, that's why they have the various graphic settings. However with the various settings it's only supposed to lower quality detail your PC can meet the level of rendering needed by the game.

They cannot just have a slider for how many people render. That wouldn't be fair. That's what the guy was talking about. If they are going to increase the amount of players that get rendered, they need to make it work on all client machines and their servers equally.

I just wish we could trade away friendlies for enemies. Was in a huge battle at TI yesterday, and coming out of the spawn room. I couldn't even see enemies in the next building till I entered it. Enemies were popping in and out at the closest rocks.
I only ever really saw a couple of enemies at a time, but I could always see countless friendlies.
If I could even trade just the friendlies in the spawn room (having no impact on gameplay at that moment) for enemies It would have been a huge difference.

Reading John Carmack's twitter and reading about the development of early 3D games, you can tell everything was about accomodating the hardware that you were going to deploy your program to. When a multitude of combinations of hardware became possible, programming got a little more challenging.

None of this sounds right.

It was already CONFIRMED by wall-hack hackers that the servers already give you player locations beyond render range.

This problem has to be in the client-side programming.

I have never heard such a ridiculous crock of **** committed to the internet from someones mouth.

That being said, I would still like the developers to implement a "player render distance" slider so at least us pilots have a chance.

Yes yes it would be. That's EXACTLY how PS1 works I can't think of a single MMO that handles render distance any other way.

Hey lets limit frame rate while we're at it. Its simply not fair that I get it consistently over 40 while others get 5.

Or what about internet speed? When are they banning high pings if they care so much about whats fair?

Actually it is since most of the lower end machines don't render all the eye candy that disrupts line of sight (LoS) such as fauna. That eye candy, while looking really nice and cool, does make it harder to see people as clearly, compared to without it. In most PC gaming competitions, you'll find people turn off all the silly eye candy and play with a min spec as possible to improve their own personal performance. It's a lot easier to see the guy hiding in the bush if your computer isn't rendering the bush in the first place.

Also, are you now saying that we shouldn't have money shape how a competition works? Last time I checked I assumed you want to see two pro-teams at the Super Bowl rather than some amateur league running around that the super dome. Your machine specs don't generally shape how well you do anyway. Anything above 30 FPS doesn't change the computer other than to make your keyboard and mouse respond a little bit better.

That said, I play better without all the eyecandy to distract me so I turn it off. Are you honestly going to tell me you'd drop $2k on a computer just to get an extra 50 FPS over a $500 with the same low settings? No, you're going to turn on all the eye candy because you can still get a decent frame rate with it all on even if it does distract and interfere with your main objective, identifying other players and killing them.

An amusing link related to Carmack and doom 3 code:

http://kotaku.com/5975610/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-code?post=56177550

Wonder what Forgelight code looks like. I hope there aren't gotos in it.

There's one thing that intrigues me with this.
"...but It's really low like that because of all low spec'd PC's out there!". That Is wrong.
This game Is supposed to be MASSIVE and not your typical 8x8 situation where you could play on any $600 rig out there. Slowdowns, or even being unable to play this game at all were expected. People wants to see alot of people fighting and killing themselfes even If It pushes their PC to the limits!
With that said, why don't you guys push the rendering distance to above 1 km at the very least? Sure, all rich kiddies out there will have an advantage towards me, a mere gamer w/ a 2006 rig but I don't friggin' care. Let hell flow, goddamnit!

As others have posted, let people set their sliders as they wish, or disengage and get the heck out of Renderside Dodge City.

Or just change my HUD to wireframe mode like Battlezone.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true, barring the Shadow-Quality and Flora-Quality settings.
I found that the only way to get PS2 to use my GPU instead of my CPU was to use the hidden Ultra Settings, though Shadows and Flora are both CPU so I turned those off.
Here's my user options ini:

Code:

[Rendering]
GraphicsQuality=5
ShadowQuality=0
RenderDistance=3000.000000
Gamma=0.000000
MaximumFPS=120
UseLod0a=0
VSync=0
OverallQuality=-1
LightingQuality=5
FogShadowsEnable=0
EffectsQuality=5
TerrainQuality=5
FloraQuality=0
ModelQuality=5
ParticleLOD=5
MotionBlur=1
TextureQuality=0
AO=1
NOTICE: When I turn off AO or MotionBlur, I lose FPS and become CPU bound again.

I also play at this resolution in windowed:

Code:

[Display]
FullscreenRefresh=0
Maximized=0
FullscreenWidth=1280
FullscreenHeight=1024
WindowedWidth=1008
WindowedHeight=728
RenderQuality=1.000000
Mode=Windowed
FullscreenMode=Fullscreen
 
[Sound]
Master=1.000000
Music=0.000000
Game=0.500000
Dialog=0.500000
UI=1.000000
UseFloat32Output=1
ExclusiveMode=0
HitIndicator=1
LowAmmoIndicator=1
VehicleChatter=1
MaxVoices=192
SampleRate=44100

Problem solved. Set low to current situation (dual core, 50m cull and 250m max) and set high to recommended (quad core with discrete graphics, 100m cull 400m max). Hell, two stage toggle. This does not make it "best rig wins" it simply breaks it into a two-caste system. F2Pers with bargain rigs and people like me who have dropped $100 bucks on station cash expecting to be able to use my brand new $2000 gaming rig to its fullest. Expensive computer implies greater likelihood of station cash purchase.

I bought my new machine only for this game. Sometimes i am a little disappointed not to see the crown or any base flooded with soldiers... yeah.. thats what i want to see ! But i have to confess that my pc with all settings maxed out only shows 30 fps in massive battles at the state the game is right now... Yeah... i may still dream..

Yes, that is what most people want. People who dismiss the game after reading this, want to have the devs personally E-mail them with daily updates, because they believe their little world is more important than anyone else's... because, reasons.

Most people who get upset about this crap bluster and scream, but when push comes to shove, will still play. Silly overblown things like this, will cause a few people to leave, but I have never seen a game that didn't suffer through this kind of thing once a week. Good games receive people whining about it on a daily basis, because there are so many other people playing, and the mob is a special snowflake that requires a constant cuddle and glasses of warm milk to feel appreciated. If you alter the color of the text menus on the main screen, 10 people will post how it is the next worst thing besides the Rawandan genocide, and abruptly log back on after getting a good fuss out of their system.

It slowly picks away at one's patience until situations where it all comes out in a long winded post, telling most people off for being egotistical gasbags, without a hint of irony.