Quick Note on Optimization

Discussion in 'Player Support' started by codeForge, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. OmniJinx

    You have no idea what you're talking about. With a GTX 560, you are almost certainly being limited by the speed of your CPU, not your graphics card. You can hit Alt-F in-game to see your FPS and either [CPU] or [GPU] depending on what's blocking. Feel free to go ahead and crank your graphics up to High. You'll still get bad FPS, but it'll look prettier.
  2. k4el

    Whatevs, you just go into the development tool and click the "Optimize" button. I think unreal has that... right?
  3. shloobian


    I have yet to see any frame rate drops, i am constantly running around 80 even in the most hectic of situations. I think its just one of those things were some how you have two guys with the exact same system and the get two very different results. Not sure how or why it works that way some times.
  4. H@buster

    Constantly 80? Unless you're running a 6GHz i7, I doubt that.


    Please concentrate your optimization efforts on threading. It's not acceptable that I'm CPU limited @<20fps while my CPU is below 30% load. I'm fine with you guys not using all 8 cores of my Bulldozer, but for the love of god, I need playable framerates.


    Parallelism HO!




    No.
    This is not about reducing polycount or making better LOD models, this is not something that can be automated.
    There is no button to make it magically go fast, just lots and lots of work to be invested into making the code more parallel.
    That should have been a goal from the start, but obviously failed for some reason or another.
  5. TimmyTurdburgler

    That's great to hear, but it'd have been nice to not prohibit everyone who dosn't meet the specs to launch this game. I really don't mind 25FPS, that's about normal for me.
  6. TimmyTurdburgler

    Why is it that people with certain graphics cards are not allowed to launch this game?

    Besides the obvious issues about how an individual's FPS affects other people's gameplay experience, and how nobody should be allowed to decide whether or not they think that their own FPS is good enough, ect.
  7. New Bombay

    Thanks for the communication, and the effort.
    • Up x 1
  8. k4el


    I think you missed the sarcasm in expecting an automated optimization process. If that could be developed it'd be a goldmine and indispensable in a production pipeline.

    *presses optimization button*
  9. Metallideth

    Thanks for the heads up, hope you guys also squash the rendering 150+ players in a "small" area issue.
    • Up x 1
  10. CronN

    Wow doesn't have tons of projectiles flying around. Nor does it have precise information about player direction, states or vehicle movements as PS2 has.
  11. dr_Fell

    Hello.
    I Have Phenom 965 clocked at 3,6 GHz and OC edition of full GTX 460. Outside battle I am getting 50-90 FPS and that's fine. On the other side, during battles, I am getting 20-40 FPS (25-35 usually). Of course CPU is limiting factor there and three of four cores are utilised at about 30-40%. But what is strange - even core that should take most work is utilised 70-80% at most.
  12. Ceebs

    Returning PS1 player.

    Firstly I loved PS1 (well before the underground expansions and the Big walking Mech things). Pre all that PS1 was a great game. I was running it on pretty decent hardware at the time and had no issues with Lag in even the biggest Zerg.

    Now I got PMd that PS2 was available. Even apologised to my wife that I would be spending zero time with here over the next couple of months.

    I’m Running a Alienware M11x (moved away from desktops for space issues, plus carrying a desktop to Afghanistan wasn’t viable) This machine as run everything I’ve thrown at it, however I know how demanding location tracking and ballistic prediction affects the CPU and PS2 is very demanding.

    Current specs are (below minimum I know)
    M11x i3 R3 (I know I’m gimped here, I have no illusions at all)
    16Gb RAM
    GT540M using 310.64

    Personally I can live with PS2 on the rig above. I have heavily tweaked this machine to run as best with few processes as possible, I’m able to get about 30-60 FPS at a starting area and is fluid as a fluid thing to me. In medium fighting I drop to about 25 FPS, in heavy fighting I get about 5-15 FPS (unplayable)

    I can live with 25+FPS on the m11x and still enjoy/pay for PS2 and its about picking my battles and areas Amerish is a no go continent for me. The other two are great if I pick my areas.

    PS2 shows that PC gaming is far from dead, and that makes me smile. I love the Planetside concept but sadly I won’t be upgrading to play just one game, no matter now unique it is. I took a premium membership for 3 months (impatient ****) and will happily give it that time due to the work in progress.

    Cheers for the update.

    Ceeb
    “in Arduis Fidelis”

  13. BroulderPunching

    Don't release the game, then?

    What about the crashing on AMD CPUs?
  14. NOOBASIDE

    i got a 2600k at 4.8 and a gtx 680 lightning pretty heavily overclocked too its saying im limited at 80 fps by cpu... surely i should be able to push 120 or is 120hz dissabled
  15. Miuku

    Then they would never be able to release the game.

    You can always optimize further, find new ways of doing things and grab a little performance from here and there or fix issues.
    • Up x 1
  16. siiix

    i know it only made very little difference of about 2-3 FPS from lowest to highest

    BUT i fixed it, its not 60FPS like it was in the beta, but i get about 35 now , witch is playable

    i used that core unlock program, went to the Nvidia control panel and set physx forced GPU, and disables all AA in nvidia control panel, it still often say CPU, but way more often GPU and the frame rate is only slightly different from CPU to GPU

    i still say the game is broken as the quality of grafix did not improve since beta yet the frame rate dropped 50-80%

    also i have dual boot win8 and win7 (i prefer win7) , win8 was clean install and they both identical with completely separate install locations (harddrive)
  17. LuckyJim

    This post is slightly reassuring, but even so I wonder how much "optimization" can be done. And really, the issue the game engine has.. is it with optimization at all? Wouldn't this engine have to be built from the ground up to properly support multithreading? That seems like a gargantuan task at this stage of development.
  18. t1r0l0k0

    i7 950 4025MHz
    SLI x2 GTX 580 SC
    6GB DDR3
    Sabertooth x58
    NVidia drivers 306.97

    25-30fps in battles...I hope they optimizen better. Thx for the great work!!
  19. SGP

    The limiting factor for me is my core 2 quad @ 2.93ghz.

    I love all these replies complaining about 20+fps in battle; I have just logged out of the game because I was getting 2FPS attacking The Crown at Indar. Before that, I was on 5FPS at a nearby base. I generally get 8-15FPS.

    I would LOVE to see 20FPS. Stop complaining, you haven't seen bad frame rates.
    • Up x 1
  20. Stadulator

    Thanks for this thread!

    My FPS is great, I just need you guys to fix the constant crashing