Many of these points come up on these forums over and over again. I wish I'd saved some of the beta posts, but I'll summarize a few points here: [ The human brain can only see x fps ] Nope, no matter what fps you put there you will be wrong. The human brain sees continuously, not in frames. The only instance of "frame rate" that is interesting here is that the periphery of the eye sees "flicker" more than the central part of the eye. The center of the eye is rich with visual cells while the outer parts of the eye are not, and this may be the reason people consider frame rate something eye perceives. [ anything under x fps is unplayable ] This is not right or wrong, but simply an opinion. There is science behind some of this, and in any twitch game better fps helps. PC's and consoles actually work differently in this respect. On a console, the pathway from CPU to screen is pretty much fixed. On the PC (where Planetside 2 lives) there is a complex pathway from the game CPU code to the pixels on the screen. The CPU does work (we'll call this a CPU frame) which it then passes to the driver (we'll call this a DRIVER frame) and the driver passes this to the GPU (a GPU frame). For 60fps, this means there is 1 CPU frame (16ms) and usually 3 DRIVER frames (16ms x 3 - these are often called "pre-rendered frames") and there are 1, 2, or 3 GPU frames (single-, double-, or triple-buffering). We'll go with double-buffering (the most common) so at 60fps you can get 16ms + 3x16ms + 2x16ms = 96ms. For most people (especially more casual gamers) this is BELOW the threshold of perception and reaction time (average reaction time is typically stated around 120ms). At 45fps, change those numbers to 22ms and you get 132ms (which is ABOVE average reaction time) and then you go to 30fps and it becomes 33ms and 198ms total. [ the devs don't play this on crappy machines so they don't see/care about these problems ] False. My dev machine is nice, yes. It's considered kind of the bottom of the 'high end' bracket. I also have four other machines here (I used to have two laptops, one with integrated graphics) and these are two AMD machines (a Phenom IIx4 and an A6) and two intel machines (Core2 Duo and Core2 Quad) and I also play on an i7 laptop at home almost every night. Some people (me included) can have a great time in this game at 30fps much of the time. It's all about play style. I totally play differently at work and at home. The huge frustration is that you can't yet get that 120fps you and I BOTH want. I would LOVE to say that no one will get below 45fps, and *PERSONALLY* that is my goal. I cannot *PROMISE* that, however. We gave some min specs and you folks have tried a huge number of machines that challenge that (yes, I'm looking at you Pentium 4 single-core guy - YES we have some people playing with those). We've tried to state again and again that we are *NOT* satisfied with where performance is and are going to work on in continuously. In fact, I am again headed to the daily performance meeting with the performance team.
Love posts like that a nice read but slightly worryed about " I would LOVE to say that no one will get below 45fps" part lol Keep up the work jsut hope in couple weeks i can play with smooth fps
I does, depending on the system: my brother has a dual core with 4gb ram and a HD4650, bought 4 years ago. He can barely support DX10 and surely not DX11, but he can still run the game with low settings
You do realize this is an urban myth and completely 100% untrue. I've also got to ask why you ever believed it against the evidence your brain and eyes are giving you. Everyone can see a game running 20 fps doesn't feel smooth, and a game running 60 fps does, including you, but you read some rubbish and now don't trust your own judgement. Read a review of any 120hz monitor and I'll guarantee the reviewer will mention how much smoother animation feels at 120hz. Time to start trusting your eyes and brain again- http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
ok but i have a question for you. how does my fps go down from 100+ fps "out of combat" and 40-70 fps "in huge battles" in beta to what im getting right now 40-50 fps "out of combat"...20-25fps "in huge combat" in the launched game... isn't it go up not down?¿?
Indirectly I was asking about core usage. I suppose it is more appropriate for it to be phrased differently. I'll take this as an answer unless this rephrased question receives a different answer How many cores are the threads allocated to distribute the workload across? Many [infamous] games allocate them primarily to 2 cores. On a similar note, I have noticed my CPU was under heavier load on Core 0 than the other 3 cores. I'll try to make note of which cores are under heavier loads and which are under lighter loads. CPU: Athlon II X4 620 -Stock: 2.60GHZ (200x13) -Overclocked: 3.45GHZ (300x11.5)
What concerns me isn't that EVERYONE isn't getting >45 fps the whole time, it is that people with high end CPUs are apparently CPU bound. Is this an engine limitation, or is there ever going to be an improvement on this front?
If you are running this game on an A6 or a laptop, please answer my thread here http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/odd-fps-issues-on-one-setup-not-another.52303/ I have been waiting almost a week and I have gotten no answer from any developer, seeing as I am a programmer and indy game developer my self I do not see how any system matching the specs I provided can fail to run a modern game at all, even my i7 ivy bridge gets a mere 17fps in battles with more than 10 people, it's frustrating that I have waited this long and no one seems to be providing support yet this is a support forum.
Yes, he can play it. Game looks terrible at low settings, but runs very smooth on that pc. "Performance team" sounds so professional! YAY!
I think some people have a negative placebo effect (whatever the term for that is) because 50 fps is fine.
I suspect the most significant workload the CPU sees is the crunching of all the data the game receives about all the players around you, which is why you see FPS drop in a large battle or even when there are just a lot of people standing around doing nothing. I've noticed the same thing in World of Warcraft when in the major cities like Stormwind or Orgrimmar.
I think its time that people stop trying to tell others that there is no notable difference between 50 fps and 60 .. Lets close this discussion once and for all, cause there is a difference ... We have played shooters long enough to know its not placebo. Try a faster shooter with 50 fps vs 60 or even 70 and tell me you cant feel the difference.
You listed your opinion and I listed mine. I play fine on anything that isn't under 30 fps. The 50-60 gap doesn't really have a noticeable difference to me.
Please re-read this - there is a 35% decrease in input lag from 45 - 60 fps, and this is not perceptible to all people.
All I want is to be able to play this game 30-40 fps with my specs no matter what; I'm happy with that. I don't care about 120 fps I don't play any differently.
That video card is kinda.. well.. bad. What settings are you using, you would probably have to play this game on low settings.
