Sorry, but I can't take anyone who feels the need to boast and criticize seriously, especially when it's about something they're not even obligated to. Like I said, you revere BF3, so go play that instead. Stop wasting air. People who are actually worth existing need it more than you.
You don't understand how making games works, and as a result are blaming who exactly? You are faulting other people for your own knowledge shortcomings. Battlefield 3 has a limit to how many players and geometry it has to render, the maps are finite in size, as is the player count. Everything is designed around that, as is pretty much every multiplayer game that isn't an MMO. Planetside 2 has to 'suffer' with the fact that it does not have a finite map size, it does not have a finite player count. This is why textures that you honestly shouldn't be looking at for more than a second look less sharp - your optimisation is RIGHT there, and you're complaining about it. They're clawing back memory, CPU time, and GPU time every which way they can, and you have the nerve to come on the forums to not only complain that they're not, but tell them that the optimisations they are making so that YOU can have a better experience doesn't suit you. If you don't like it, don't play it. There's a reason games like Planetside 2 aren't made, and it's because they're BARELY technically feasible. No other MMO comes close technically, no other game full STOP comes close technically. I'm sure they'd LOVE to lock the player count to 64, or even 128, and make a perfect 32v32 or 64v64 shooter - but that's not what they want, and it's not we want out of Planetside 2. You keep comparing apples to oranges, why don't you go eat your orange, instead of complaining why your apple isn't like an orange. We're all happy with the apple we're given, even if it's a little bruised for now. [edit]You've probably not even bothered to try and tweak your profile - you just assume your machine can run high/ultra, because another game that is non-comparable (no game is next to Planetside 2) runs it no problem.
1) You are DEFINETELY lying OR have a problem with your computer if you drop to 30FPS 2) Your screen is sh*t or your eyes are sh*t if you think the game looks like dog sh*t. Or maybe you play on low settings? idi0t... 3) Maybe your overclock is unstable, considered that? 4) Bro, you are sure as héll lying.
I've spent around $120 on subs and SC. I've stop playing and posting for a few weeks now, logging in once a while for the inactive certs bonus and to see if SC are on sale or not. I've cancelled my sub, and won't play again until FPS better. I'm just tired of putting up with it, tired of complaining. I believe it will get better eventually, I'm still hopeful, that's why I'm still lurking instead of completely forget about this game. In the mean time I'm playing Defiance beta, and bought the game, can't wait til April 2nd.
Invalid point number 1 "Battlefield 3 has a limit to how many players and geometry it has to render" If you didn't know so does PS2 it is simply on a larger scale. PS2 just like every other game only renders what is within the players field of view so the scale of this game means nothing. Invalid point number 2 "Planetside 2 has to 'suffer' with the fact that it does not have a finite map size, it does not have a finite player count. This is why textures that you honestly shouldn't be looking at for more than a second look less sharp - your optimisation is RIGHT there" No the textures that I took screenshots of are the result of lazy graphical artwork and have nothing to do with optimization. If they were "clawing back CPU and GPU time" every which way they could I would assume they would focus on making their engine more efficient at taking advantage of modern hardware. Unfortunately they do not as anyone with a multicore processor and a high end GPU will find that neither are even close to being 100% utilized. My typical usage is around 35% for my processor and 70% for my GPU indicating that this engine isn't very good at utilizing modern hardware. BF3 on the other hand pegs my processor between 60-100% usage and 100% consistently on my GPU. Invalid point number 3 "If you don't like it, don't play it. There's a reason games like Planetside 2 aren't made, and it's because they're BARELY technically feasible " I am a paying customer and I have the right to complain about a product in which I am not getting the satisfaction that I feel I deserve. By the way PS2 is no technical marvel, and MMO FPS games are few and far between because they are an unsafe bet from a profitability standpoint for any developer, not because they aren't technically feasible.
Excuse me, as far as I know, do you have to pay for this game? No. Do you have to subscribe to it monthly with cost? No. So, what do you expect? SOE is working hard as a team, notice this game is in beta version. I'm sometimes pissed too at the FPS, but you have to know this game is FREE OF CHARGE.
Do you seriously believe that if SOE wasn't making money on PS2 that it would still be up and running and supported ?. This is nonsense I paid for in game items and this entitles me to give my feed back as a paying customer. If more customers demand accountability from the coders at SOE to provide a game which actually works properly it will happen. Unfortunately I feel as though there are too many worthless sheep playing PS2 and putting up with these problems and defending the devs for this to happen. BTW this game hasn't been in BETA status since it launched in November.
Still unplayable and my system higher then minimum. Was playable before GU2. Seems like this game needs more then ddr2 4gb ram though. Moving pointer drops fps, map takes forever to load as well as consoles. Just bad memory management going on it seems to me.
There hasn't been any performance buffs since yesterday. How about trying to post up your system spec's, game settings, AMD/Nvidia control panel setting to see if somebody can help you?
TheOperation, stop with the scale doesn't matter because they don't render nonsense. It shows your ignorance. You're in a massive fight, hundreds of people but you're looking at the floor. Should be fine right? And yet the server will be sending you data for all those hundreds of people. Your CPU needs to process this data, and your GPU needs to be ready to render anyone of these people at a moments notice. Then add the data you'll be receiving about nearby hexes just incase you need to render then, and then data from other continents about their current state... You get the idea. Not rendering doesn't mean your computer isn't getting hammered with more data to process than BF3 could ever give you.
Yes. SOE must fix the abysmal frame rates. In a battle, not that big, they can drop to about 24 fps and the indicator shows it is CPU bound. If iI were GPU bound would just reduce the graphics settings. I have an overclocked i7 with the the cores unparked. Please fix this SOE.
It doesn't matter to the extent that it would cause this game to look the way it does and run the way it does. The server sending my computer information about the position and whereabouts of other players has an incredibly small if not negligible impact on frame rates. Also to be quite frank hundreds of people battling in one area is also a very rare occurrence because of PS2's scale. I simply cannot understand the general mentality ITT, how can ANYONE look at PS2 and think yep it looks good and runs well?
Of course it matters. If you have a massive data overhead like you do in an MMO, it can push CPUs hard and reduces the maximum graphical capability that is realistically achievable. You really don't understand the amount of data your computer is having to deal with. I can't understand the mentality of anyone complaining about how the game runs or looks. It's called subjectivity. I am happy with how the game looks and runs.
Except that both Higby and CyclesMcHurtz have posted stating that there is a known bug they are working on that impacts framerates severely when loading resources quickly. 1)Maybe you should do a little research before you accuse someone of lying.
Higby and CyclesMcHurtz have both been claiming to be "optimizing" the game and that it was one of there primary focuses SINCE the game launched. They have even released patches which claimed to have optimized the game and none of them have lived up to their promise.
Clearly this is not the case when my CPU sits happily at 35% usage, stop skating around the true issue of why this game isn't optimized; Their code is not heavily mutlithreaded and cannot use modern processors to their full advantage, nor does their engine seem to make use of modern GPU's probably because its coded for DX9......... and not DX11 like it should be.
Clearly you don't understand that multithreading is not only bloody hard to do correctly, but isn't a cure all if scenarios prevent multi threading. Games from a coding point of view don't support multi threading too well. Also, why should it be DX11 (which is entirely seperate from not using modern GPUs btw)? That would make the min spec for the game Win7, not something you want to do in a multiplayer only game, especially a F2P one which relys on large numbers of players to maintain profit (which is another reason why it might not look good enough for your tastes).
1) maybe you should UNDERSTAND the comment before making interpreting the post wrong? 2) maybe you should UNDERSTAND that people don't have time for research.
