None of the graphical settings make a difference for my framerate. I generally play at around 20-30 FPS in huge battles and around 30-35 in small engagements with no one else around. I get the best FPS at the warpgate with around 40-60. I don't expect to get 80-120 FPS ever in huge combat...but I would like to start seeing framerates that are comfortably playable. It is very difficult to aim accurately with these framerates...it starts to get comfortable in the 40s based on me practice shooting at teammates in the warpgate ^_^
Im running an AMD Phenom II x4 955 with an ATI Radeon 6970 with 16 gigs of ram, and i get around 60 frames until im in a battle. Dips as low as 10-20 and is almost unplayable. While this annoys the hell out of me it is a HUGE difference when it comes to playability compared to how the beta was. I would like to see some DEVs comments about the config im about to post because it actually almost seems like the more you crank up your settings (im running ultra) the better it performs and the more it takes off of the CPU. I actually get much lower frames and even worse performance while running on medium or low settings. I hope this helps some and I hope some of the devs can explain which of these options are duplicates and which ones actually aren't doing anything at all.
What i do expect is a Render Distance worth a damn, everytime a big battle starts it gets very bad with players appearing and vanishing all over the place, i can live with the crap fps just fix the bloody Render Distance. And before you say its my **** Computer here is my spec. I7 3770k running at 4.3ghz with all cores unparked 32gb Corsair Memory V77 Motherboard 4gb EGVA GTX680
Your so awesome , of coarse you dont care about your frame rate using a 3770k and gtx680 .. Go into your useroption.cfg files and change render distance from 1.000000 to 4.000000 Do your research vanub .
I initially tried RenderDistance=1500.000000. But this randomly removed other players from sight, if there were close or far away. RenderDistance=3000.000000 so far is better. Not yet come across any random culling with the latter setting. As others have mentioned you need a good quad core CPU. Your CPU is fine if with the FPS counter on (ALT+F4) if [CPU] does not go yellow=bottleneck. [CPU] - blue is fine. I have a GTX 580 graphics card which is 1 generation old ~ top of the range and [GPU] is often yellow \ 99\100% in EVGA Precision X . It would be nice if the devs could put both [CPU] AND [GPU] in the fps counter.
i have phenom 955be 3.2ghz and 7770 ati radeon with 4gb ddr2 i set all medium, flora off, render distance 1000, i set medium so i can see cloaking infiltrator i got low fps when big fight around 15-20fps.. i cant shoot well what the tips for me? what must i change?
This game has been giving me a weird issue the last couple days, it will drop to what seems like a frame every couple seconds for almost a minute then suddenly go back to normal. Happens once or twice a day regardless of whether I am somewhere like the warp gate or in a battle. Anybody else encountering this?
g2.DeCiph3reD Try this. [Rendering] GraphicsQuality=4 TextureQuality=0 ShadowQuality=0 RenderDistance=1500.000000 Gamma=0.490000 MaximumFPS=250 UseLod0a=0 OverallQuality=-1 LightingQuality=4 EffectsQuality=4 TerrainQuality=4 FloraQuality=0 ModelQuality=4 VerticalFOV=74 ParticleLOD=4 ParticleDistanceScale=0.650000 FogShadowsEnable=0 MotionBlur=0 VSync=0 GpuPhysics=1 You know they have right? The reason your not seeing [GPU] is because your constantly CPU bottlenecked. I've also been getting this a lot since the last 30mb patch. I'm also not getting the game lagging to **** loss of 20 fps without fail, so when im at mid 30'ies in a big fight, its very noticeable) in a similar fashion whenever I look down a sight thats more than 2x, extremely annoying as I'm sure people can imagine. Nothing environmental appears to trigger it more or less. It also appears unrelated to the general memory leak/time issue.[/quote]
So saturday 2012-12-15, I upgraded my MB. CPU, and RAM from the AMD 980 to the AMD 8150, below are my thoughts and expereicnes so far. The AMD 980 pre patch (PS2) of ~ 2012-12-8; Prior ro this patch, my rather newish 980 was definately have performance issue with PS2, or rather PS2 was not performing well on my CPU. The reason I bought this CPU was that my motherboard was 7 years old and only an AM3 socket (and NOT an AM3+ socket) thus I could not use any CPUs built for AM3+. The Phenom II 980 @ 3700 was the fastet Phenom ever made by AMD. It has long been held that most games were very poor at using Hyperthreaded cores... instead the best route has been to have the fastest cores and damn the number of cores. While in PS2 Beta, perfromance was poor, but it was poor for most players and the expectation was that performance tweaking would be late in the Beta. Launch rolled around with only mild increases in performance. Launch 2012-11-20: So launch hits and we are off and gaming on the 980. Using alt-F to get a feel for how the PS2 devs saw performance became my beanch mark. Early in launch the game seemed to make poor use of the 980 4 cores full potential. Most times one core would be at 65% while the others would bounce around from 10% to 40%. This would be frustrating becasue the game would indicate an fps of 25 to 35 for most battles. Large battles would jsut sink the CPU to 10 to 15. The game was still very playable, but one wonders just how much of an advantage the enemy has when you felt like you were walking through quicksand. Also the fps was pretty much fluid and linear. That is the fps would quickly slide from high to low like a marble on a plate being sloshed around ( I'll explian more on why this is significant later). This meant that while playing (defending a small installation) the fps might be 40 and as soon as any one enemy came anywhere near the fps would just plummet and then bounce all around during the battle. The PS2 patch of 2012-12-08 and the 980. The patch of 12-08, changed not only how much fps I got, but changed how the fps responded when conditions changed. The fps went from high of 45 to a low of 35. Thats a full 10 fps and in that range the game is VERY playable. Had I not already ordered a new CPU, I would have ben happy with that level of performance. However, more than just an increase in FPS, there seemed to be a new "stickiness" or compresable range to the fps. That is to say given our prior installation battle, the fps might start at 45 and when the enemy came in it would creep down to 35... but at 35 there seemed to be built in stop that prevented the fps from just bouncing further down. Think of a spring. Its easy at first to compress the spring but as the pressure builds the spring is more resistant to that pressue. Between the increase in fps and this new found resistance to wild fps drops the game felt pretty dern sexy. Enter the 8150; 2012-12-16 ( note I have only played with this once for about 3 hours) The 8150 has a lower clock speed than the 980 ( 3600 versus the 3700 of the 980) and its allowable temp range is more limited 62C versus 71C. Also the design of the 8150, while truely an 8 core CPU, is such that pairs of cores share a cache while on the 980 each core had its own cache. None of these designs on the 8150 are that great for gaming. So you can imagine that from arrival date to the date I got to test it was filled with great trepidation. In my one session, it seems that in truth I have gained and not lost fps, but the gain was very marginal ... about 3 fps. That seems paltry ( and it is), but due to the new found "resistance" of the patch it does provide for a measurable increase in stablity/playabilty to the game. Now I have 48 to 39 fps most times, but just as important, the new CPU seems even MORE resistance to dips in fps and it does seem to recover that lost fps much quicker. Using our spring analogy, I seem to have stiffer springs. So instead of a 10 point bounce there is resistance to about 8 points and when it does dip to 38 or 39, the fps springs back to the high 40's very quickly. To be sure, I saw number dip to the mid 20's in the bio lab in a larger battle, but the game just could not keep me there, the CPU would spike back to mid 40's at any chance and then again resist any drop below 38 until the battle was just so intense once again the drop would come. The new 8150 came with a closed loop water cooled system with 2*120mm fans. This "hoss" of a system was a bit of a struggle to squeeze into my Cooler Master Storm Scout case. I had to remove the 200mm top fan to make room for the radiator which was taller than the 120mm fans attached to it. Had it bee the exact same size, I could have kept the top mounted fan. I decided that I was NOT going to do as reccomended and have the fan draw in cold air to pass over the radiator, but instead have it run in the old conventional air cooled manner and expell the hot case air out the back and across the radiator. As there is still a 120mm in the front of my case, and ample ventalation for air to easily enter the case this actually seems to work fine. VGA cooling: just a quick note here. I have ATI HD 6850. With the card telling the VGA card fan what to do, I found that at slow speeds, the fan was moving air too slow to force it exit the case, instead the fan just lightly blew air across the heat sink and with the air barely moving, it just seeped around the plastic housing and sat in the case. By forcing the VGA fan to always run at 60% the air was moving with enough speed, such that it tends to truely eject out the back of the case. In addition, the GPU never really has a chance to heat up to any great extent, as the fan is always blowing pretty hard across it. This is in contrast to the norm where the GPU is allowed to get very hot before the fan speed is then ramped up to try and cool it back down. Doing things my way, the case does not seem to get "heat soaked" such that it cant then cool itself off no matter how much air you blow in it. The water cooler system includes a software program to set fan speed controls (aka custom mode) plus you can just use an arbitrary silent mode or extreme mode. I have not tried the silent mode. In extreme mode the fans spin up to 2500 rpm. This sounds about like have a jet plane in your case. I cannot imagine anyone playing for long with it making that much noise. However, at that speed the system can cool an unloaded CPU from 45C to 36C in about 1 minute. IncredIble! Normal is "custom" mode. You set a low CPU temp and ramp up CPU temp ( defaults are 40 and 50). From idle to CPU temp 40c the fans run at 600 to 660 rpm. This is completely silent. As the CPU temps increase the fans increase 660 to 720 seems to bs a point, then 960, and then 1200, which is 50% of full rpm speed. Even at 1200 rpm the fans are not adding much sound. In my one 3 hour session it did get to 44.5C with fan speeds of 1200. But it never got higher in 3 hours of playing. This is MUCH quieter than my air cooled system, overall. As noted above the VGA fan stays at 60% and as such provides the bulk of noise from entire rig. I have now switched on the "AI tweaker" auto OC for the CPU(via the ASUS MB). Indications are that it is now OC'd to 3900, or 300 over the stock and 200 over the 980. I dont really think I will see that much change, but the MB, CPU, and radiator all seem to be suffcient to handle that load.
shadow quality 0 looks like absolute pants ... but it gives a nice boost ... something a disabled HUD also does, so when are you fixing it?
Why oh WHY does this game run on only one core, when we have multiple core systems in most gaming rigs???? That's the best reason why this game runs so poorly, seriously, it's 2012!?!
Are the developers aware that the HUD steals 10FPS? If I disable it using CTRL +F10 I get a jump in CPU limited fps of 10fps. If you guys are serious about optimizing this game, I really think you should take a serious look at the user interface and why it hogs so much CPU resources.
I really don't understand this game.. 2 days ago I written enthusiastic post about how my FPS improved. Now, 2 days ago, during even smaller battles than 2 days before I am at 20-30 FPS, and loosing many kills because of that. I noticed that the game updated itself - maybe devs reverted changes, because most people noticed decrease in performance. I don't know. But 2 days ago my performance was definitly better. ****, even my FPS at warpgate is lower by 10.
He is talking about large battles. People don't seem to understand this. Doesn't matter what your render distance is set to, in a huge battle, you can only see players within 100m or enemies that have been spotted by someone. I love this game for its' huge battles. The problem is that you can only see a fraction of the people involved in the battle. Which just ends up making it a cluster f*ck. You end up having tons of aircraft constantly flying in and out of view, small groups of enemies approaching slowly becoming larger groups, and etc. etc. etc. you get the point. People that lag in large battles are going to experience low performance om huge battles obviously. They take away the fun for people with up to date computers because of people using 6 year old PCs. Obviously this is one of the major flaws of PC gaming* Single player games are not as affected, while MMOs are the most affected by optimization issues.
As a reference it would be nice to hear from someone on what FPS they get with a top of the range dual graphics card beast - Nvidia 690GTX or a ATI Radeon 7990. .. my cpu never goes above 60% in game but the graphics card easily tops out at 100%... with the game engine in its current state.
see, Im beating a dead horse here, but OPTIMIZATION IS NOT A BAD THING!!! If done right, people from low end computers, to high end computers will enjoy the benefits. As I've mentioned before there are games out there that are able to run things perfectly.
I have an intel e 6400 dual core running at 2.13ghz, nvidia 520 gt 1 gb and 3.5gb ram. Anyway that you guys will improve it well enough to run on that setting?
I have been telling them a couple of hundred times, even reported situations in game where it chugs the fps down ... I got a response saying there is room for optimzing there. What i dont understand is why they dont look into these "little" things that can potentially give everyone more fps untill we get the january patch. If i max out my gpus nvidia settings this HUD is sometimes responsible for a 10-15 fps drop and sluggish mouse movements. Disable the HUD and voila! all gone and playable...
Lawd almittey. When will people stop with this crap. 1) The code is srsly unoptimised EVERYONE (SoE included) recognizes this. 2) There is a serious bug with the game rendering in people EVERYONE (SoE included) recognizes this 3) 6 years old, hah, the oldest processor within the min spec the C2D-E6850 is 4.5 years old. even then processor age is largely irrelevant, despite what the marketing people at AMD/Intel would have you believe, the massive jump forward in tech in the last 5 years has not been a night and day difference. 4) A MMO without an expansive playerbase, will fail. Suggesting "I PAID X AMOUNT Y MONTHS AGO, SOE SHOULD CATER TO MEMEMEMEMEMEME" is quite simply an a idiotic business plan for them to follow. In short this idea that people with lower specs, this legion of people with Pentium 4's and Athlon 64's are hobbling this game for everyone else. Is a rather vile meme that unfortunately appears to have taken off. And, I might add, if this is the case. Your Athlon is arguably under the minimum specification, as such if you actually knew wtf you were talking about. you'd realize your advocating yourself being excluded. A very good case in point, in fact about how the age of a processor within about 5-4 years is no where near as relevant as people seem to think it is.
I don't think we can expect it to run well on anything below the minimum specs. Sorry bud. When people are talking about the optimization problems, there talking about nearly everyone playing whom meet the minimum specifications by quite a way, or the rec specs, even i7 and i5 users with Sli/crossfire graphics. Being in the 20fps in large battles with a hell of a lot of tweaking.