No onder graphics engine is worse than Forgelight Engine. Please remake it because.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Zarth, Mar 17, 2013.

  1. SgtBreastroker

    The game is terribly optimized.
  2. Colt556

    I have to chime in for D, since that's a stupid idea that far too many people have.

    SOE isn't some indie dev. They do not need donations to do anything. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation and could easily throw millions of dollars into a game without it hurting them. Not that any game even needs that much money anyways. We are also not investors. We are not here to invest in their company in the hopes they give us a decent game. If we wanted to do that we'd go to kickstarter. We are customers. We are consumers. They provide a product, if it is good we buy it, if it is bad we give them the finger for putting out a terrible product.

    Frankly, the way they've handled PS2 from a technical aspect is absolutely disgusting. You can't even render more than 60 players on screen at any given time. And I should not be dropping to 20 fps in a large fight when I'm on a ******* i7 processor and a GTX660 GPU. They really need to get in gear and fix this ****. There really is just no excuse for how poorly optimized this game is.

    The average household PC is several times stronger than even the strongest console out there. The majority of PC gamers have PCs that far outstrip what the PS3 or 360 can do. Even now a very large quantity of PC gamers have PCs that outshine the PS4 or the 720, and those haven't even ******* been released yet. Blaming consoles for holding graphics back is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, blaming consoles for all the problems the industry has suffered over the past ten years is reasonable.
    • Up x 1
  3. Wasdie

    I'm sorry for bumping this thread but I cannot let this go without a response.

    Where did I EVER say that you cannot use multiple cores? I actually said ". Sure you can throw friend requests, chat, outfit operations, map updates, and all of that stuff on other ports and send it at the same time, but when you're client has to track every bullet, every player, every vehicle, and every explosion (splash damage), the network utilization becomes heavy and your CPU has to decode that while trying to keep sync with the master server." which implies threading. Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

    There are plenty of things in this game that can be threaded no problem, and they are. The issue comes when the CPU has to set up the scene to render. In order for a scene to be rendered the CPU needs to get the placement of every character, vehicle, debris, and anything else that renders a shadow (as you cannot calculate shadows unless the scene is set up), or can interact with the player in any way. There are also all of the gameplay elements that you need to track. Bullets being fired (every single round is tracked), explosions, grenades thrown, landmines, and anything else that can change the state of the scene for your or anybody else you're tracking.

    Those things cannot just be threaded and magically use several cores. They need to be sent from the server to your client in a linear fashion so that your client can maintain a sync with the server. THUS we have the CPU bottleneck which destroys everybody's machine regardless of how much GPU power you throw at it.

    I am currently throwing 2 GTX 570s at this game and that means squat when I'm in a big battle because the game is CPU bottlenecked. There are far more than 256 players being tacked at any given time during big battles (unless you enjoyed the old rendering where infantry would only render within about 200 meters of you). BF3, BF2, and Joint Ops all don't have nearly the amount of network information being sent across from client to server and back to client like Planetside 2 does. So you're comparing apples to oranges.

    FoV also doesn't mean squat when talking about the CPU bottleneck. Your CPU has to be able to track every single entity within a certain 360 degree radius from you otherwise your client would not know if anybody was around you, just those who were within your FoV. Thus you could get shot from any angle and not hear it or be able to react to it. Just drop dead. FoV does matter for your GPU but as for the CPU the extra amount scene space it has to set up is nothing.

    Now for your examples. BF3 does not have 128 player servers, it has 64 player servers AND network latency has been an issue since the alpha and still lags behind other games in the genre. I never played Joint Ops so I cannot comment but BF2 uses things like hit scan to drastically reduce the amount of data the server and clients need to process.
  4. Hyperz

    I'm really not going to go into a pointless technical discussion with someone who's clearly not well educated on the subject. But in case you hadn't figured it out yet, PS2 uses your FoV to prioritize players which are in your FoV when it hits the limit of how many players the client will handle, much in the same way as it does with distance (players "rendering" less far the denser the population in the area). FoV is also used for occlusion culling which in fact DOES also impact CPU overhead. I'll just leave it at that, believe what you will. The performance issue is not a technical limitation, it's a design limitation. Enjoy.
  5. Cyanide

    Like someone else said, everything was fine before GU-04. They just broke something again.
  6. Colt556

    Does anyone know, factually, how many players can be rendered before they stop rendering? Because really that's one of my biggest problems. I mean ******* BF2 can support 250 players. That's larger than most battles in PS2. It seems like if there's more than 60 players the game stops rendering them. Hell, in the biolab fight I was in the other day it felt more like 30 players. Has anyone bothered to test this and find out the exact number? Because I know it's something pitifully low for a game with it's one and only selling point being "huge battles"
  7. Hyperz

    Doubt it. But it's probably really close to 256, maybe a bit less. For reference:

  8. Colt556

    I can absolutely guarantee PS2 does not support 250 characters on screen at one time. Based off the fights I've seen I'd say it renders 60, tops.

    Would be nice if the major outfits got a couple platoons and tested.
  9. Barana

    That, and the clientside hit-detection thing isn't helping. I wonder how much of a performance gain players would get (and how many hacks would be made obsolete) if SoE finally offloaded the calculations onto the server like every other MMO in existence.

    I start to have people blinking in and out of existence when my outfit stages for a push at peak time at a warpgate. On a really good day, there's probably at least two platoons there, which is our infantry + air and armor.

    If I had to guess, I'd say the engine starts limiting the renders when there's a platoon-worth of people onscreen. In the situation I described above, the render distance is usually around 20 meters or so (probably wrong on that estimate)
  10. Hyperz

    Actually, I remember a Friday Night Ops episode where the featured outfit had all their guys lined up in rows of 12 at the start. They stated they had ~120 players participating. As they moved the camera to their position not all of them were being rendered and there was pop-in/out at like 10-30 meters. With the other pubs that were around the warpgate I guess 128 would be a really fair estimation. I'm sure it's more than 60 though.

    Edit: it was an NC outfit on Miller, 1-2 months ago I think.
  11. Colt556

    Based off these two posts I'm just gonna stick with my assumption that it's 60-64 players. Especially when you take into consideration conservative estimates, like Hyperz 120, we have to remember that sometimes things seem far larger than they really are. 60 players together at one time is huge, it can very easily seem like a lot more. So until someone does a hard test to count, I'll just stick with 64.

    And of course there's another problem. Even if it isn't 60, even if it's more. It SEEMS like 60. When I'm running around a Biolab and having pockets of infantry pop in and out, it really does seem like a mere 60 players are actually rendered. Even if the game is rendering guys I can't see. That's quite pitiful considering PS2's sole selling point is it's scale. When battles are reduced to Battlefield levels because of rendering, that's sad. Truthfully I don't care how big a battle is if I can only see 60 people at a time. May as well play Battlefield for that. Hell, I could boot up Project Reality and see 250, three times as many players as I can see on PS2. They really need to fix that.
  12. TRSS11

    What people do with an engine is not representative for the engine (stupid that people judge Frostbite by Battlefield 3 and CryEngine by Crysis 3) but I agree that the game needs to be improved in my ways.
  13. CapperDeluxe

    Holy thread necro Batman!
  14. haldolium

    A necromancer :eek: