Never claimed "supercomputer" that was your term, just more capable than yours is of running the game without the "slide show" with PhysX on and ultra settings...your hardware simply cant handle all of it currently. Its amazing you are making the point for me, Im done wasting time with you, enjoy!
Are you really that incompetent when it comes to computers? The slideshow is not "normal lag", and I don't know how many times I have to explain that I don't have framerate issues with PhysX on either. The issue I was having was a massive stutter, dropping to less than one fps, then immediately crashing and getting a Planetside2.exe error. It obviously has nothing to do with the hardware being inadequate, as I can run this game with PhysX on Ultra just fine, when PhysX works properly. This issue has only started after GU9. PhysX worked fine for months. My framerate with complex PhysX on the screen was fine too. Apparently, there is some glitch that occurs(and typically not when anything complex related to PhysX was going on) that's been causing me to crash to desktop since GU9. It's not just me, either. The forum is filled with people crashing to desktop with high end computers. You made my point for me LOL. You get 5-10 fps more than me in a large fight, with a watercooled and overclocked Ivy Bridge CPU and a Titan. WTF is wrong with your computer? As for the GPU's, a normal 660 can run this game on Ultra just fine. I know several people who do, with LGA1155 and LGA2011 CPU's. It has nothing to do with the GPU being inadequate, if it ran perfectly with PhysX on for months. It's obviously got something to do with instability in the software, since it only started since GU9. Please learn how computers work before you embarrass yourself further with your watercooled overclocked supercomputer that gets a whopping 5-10 fps more than my supposedly inadequate one LOL! I believe that you do get about 5-10 fps more than me, since someone I play PS2 with has a 680 with an overclocked i5-3570K as well, and he only gets 5-10 fps more than I do(always CPU limited as well), when we go to the same locations and compare fps, using identical settings.
on the original topic. i have found that stuttering occurs when the application is reaching its memory limits. the crash occurs becuase your computer cannot swap out the data in memory with new data, or it simply crashes becuase it cannot free up used memory (leak). i find that using ultra settings makes this occur more often (phys x user) and i have found turning off phys x does help. but on ultra settings i still occasionally crash. so i found a happy medium with a custom set up of medium to high details with phys x running. like OP said running the game with no physx is rubbish in appearance
Intel X79 , Asus Rampage IV Extreme Intel Extreme Edition Core i7 3970X 1.2 KW Corsair AX1200i EVGA GTX 780 EVGA GTX 780 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 1866Mhz Windows 7 RAID 0 120 GB Intel 520 Series SSD] RAID 0 120 GB Intel 520 Series SSD ] RAID 0 1 TB Western Digital Caviar Black] RAID 0 1 TB Western Digital Caviar Black] RAID 0 14x Blu-ray Disc Burner 40-in-1 Media Card Reader D-Link Wireless DWA-566 PCI Express Desktop Adapter Your garbage is nothing compared to my rig. Trust me. Stick with that $2 computer of yours. LOLOLOLOL
Well you're kinda getting ripped off with the 3970X. $500 extra for almost no performance over the 3930K. It's literally 2-5%. Secondly, that's a nice computer, but not that crazy. If you said dual E-5 Xeons with 512GB of RAM and 4 Titan's I'd be impressed. I like how you included the 40 in one card reader but not what case it's in lol... Got a picture of it? Getting better framerate than the guy with the overclocked, watercooled i5 that gets 5 fps more than my "garbage" I hope.
Haha, how cute. "deserve to get shot on sight!" is that what you say when people simply state a exaggerated post. If the world could be cleansed of stupid people, you probably would be one of them. ^____^
Blackdove, Having crossed paths in other threads, I noticed this one and after reading it I can see why you are not so happy. However I have also noted that you seem to jump on people when they question something - so dont take the following wrong. Firstly our hardware is fairly close, but the video cards do have a big diff.And turn off V-Sync man! Trust me - I tried to have it on and found it dropped way low in the FPS like you are getting. In one thread where we were almost chatting you put out the video card you got - which was the first 660 run done by gigabyte, and not the newer TI I have. By the specs and tests - I wouldn't have bought the card you got - at the time the ASUS was a much better card. So I wouldn't expect your system to run full ultra with that card IMO. I don't with mine either. The CPU you have... 4 core @ 3.3ghz... launch Q3 of 2011.. and its end of life. for ultra you want 3.8+ even in to the 4's. Thats why my CPU is clocked up - even from 3.3ghz to 3.8 I see a huge diff in the games performance. Also I must admit that while my sig says everything high - through the patchs I have been mostly running custom medium setting with and with out physx turned on. Perhaps try it. (I had soldier models on high tho and some other settings) I did however come across this thread: https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...p-with-your-fps-try-this.130391/#post-1806896 I grabbed the app and loaded ultra settings - it was actually a better run - altho I changed the rez to 1080p instead of what he had set. Give it ago - what have you got to lose? I know you didn't change anything - but with updates there have been alot of changes. I wouldn't try and run the game at max settings tho and the hardware you are sporting doesn't look like it could do it, mine can't either. Good luck
Well, first of all, I don't have a problem with people questioning anything. I have a problem with people who are condescending without the knowledge to be condescending, like YoXn. I also suspect that his computer is completely fictional, since he hasn't supplied us with a picture of it, after making his claims. My framerate is completely fine now that I disabled PhysX(thank you for the concern though), and it was when I was running PhysX until it would go from 60 down to less than one and crash every 20 minutes. This happened after GU4 as well, and then it was eventually fixed so that PhysX worked fine again for a long time. GU9 broke it again. I am CPU limited almost always, however my CPU is not nearly at 100% load. I did not get the GK107 660. The only 600 series card I've ever owned is my GK104 Gigabyte 660Ti, which I chose over the Asus, for a number of reasons. One of them being that, one of the reviews I read comparing the different AIB 660Ti's couldn't review the Asus because it was non-functional on delivery. I also prefer the coolers that Gigabyte uses, and I wanted to match my motherboard, which is a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 motherboard, which I chose over Asus as well. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...erformance-and-Architecture/Clock-Clock-Sandy As you can see, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and even the brand new Haswell are pretty close clock for clock, and especially close in the kind of single-threaded work that PS2 is doing, since intra-core bandwidth for multithreading isn't as much of a concern. Memory latency and bandwidth are also almost identical, with Sandy Bridge-E obviously being he best with more cores and quad memory controllers. I realize that 3.3GHz is not as fast as 3.8, however it seems sufficient, since I get 5-10 fps less than the guy with the overclocked 4.5GHz i5-3570K, and also my two friends who have i5-3570K's. I may have mentioned that several of my friends have 660's, a 4GB 680, 2x580's. We've all gotten the PhysX related crash, despite having very different hardware. Their CPU's range from i5-2600K to 3770K to 3820. It's not like there are that many architectural differences between them to make the fps that different, and since we're ALL CPU limited in anything other than an empty map on PS2, it's to be expected that we've all got similar FPS, but with the people who have higher clocks getting slightly better fps. Since I only use the in-game settings for stability(and have my GPU at 80% power target underclocked for stability as well), the Ultra setting is only applicable to texture. I have no problem running this, and given how well the game ran on my old GPU(a Gigabyte 560Ti), and how well it runs on Ultra on my friends with 660's, I really don't think it's a graphically intense application(especially give that it uses post processing AA and I normally use 8xMSAA and 16xAF). I'm pretty sure that Ultra and lowest possible settings have no difference in fps for most people, which stands to reason, since they are just graphics settings that don't load the CPU. Anyway, I always use Adaptive Vsync, as I don't want to have the horrible gameplay experience one gets without Vsync. I know some people say cap the fps using the .ini(which I have done in an attempt to fix the 2D menu GPU load glitch), but that wouldn't let the GPU do Vsync, and Nvidia GPU's/driver do it very well. The whole input latency myth isn't really a big deal, since the max latency it can add with the right settings is one frame refresh(with fast hardware this should be 16ms on a 60Hz monitor). I manage to get plenty of headshots(even in this game with people warping all over not on my end). I can't and never have been able to play games with Vsync off. The horizontal tearing is so distracting, and I'd prefer 16ms added latency to my image tearing in half.
Unfortunately you are wasting time with logic on this one...you can see he continues to comment how he only "gets 5-10FPS less" than my pc, but fails to comprehend that is my absolute minimum with ultra settings AND PhysX without a crashing to desktop issue or stuttering problem he is having. You are right, his hardware will not handle it currently but despite the obvious he will post again why he should be able to do so.
Well its working for you now - thats cool and I am glad its working so you can enjoy the game. I tried ultra with the app that I linked to - kept getting fps drops down in to the tens so I changed back to my own config. Which is mostly high anyway. I know the CPU's are not much different - it seems to be clock speed that helps them along with this game. In the testing I did it seemed physx related coding got a big up from some simple clock speeds being applied. I don't mean the pretty physx, I mean the general on how objects work in the games world. (Futuremark has good tests for it) Never really seen bad tearing myself but personal pref I gusss - even if there is a tiny bit of tearing I'd rather the FPS haha thats me. The card I had ref'd to was the gigabyte model GV-N66TOC-2GD - which was the windforce card and second 660ti they did. not too much of a diff but enough to reconsider the first run they did. Anyway - all good - you got it runnning fine. I was thinking if you wanted - of posting my config as I use physx so I get all the pretty, but its not on ultra Enjoy the game mate!
Well - I can run on ultra as well - but the fps dips random in to the 10s and 15's.... with physx on of course. So IMO I can't run it in unltra... if that makes sense? Blackdove in this case can run it in ultra with an FPS he likes... with out physx stuff and thats cool. I also think others might be able to run their game at alot better settings then they currently have if he can run on ultra with out problems. I mainly run with these as I like the way it looks and I get good fps as well. I was wondering if mine could do ultra fine with out physx - but I am happy with it atm so I am all good See ya's in the field
Instead of arguing, ill try giving a suggestion. You can try using Windows event viewer, and looking at application errors. It will at least tell what .dll the game faulted on, which may point you in a more specific direction.
