"If you hear someone saying it's easy, have them show you their game with hundreds of people and dozens of vehicles within a single 100 meter firefight. I'd happily accept their advice. *grin* " I could show you my game that can do just that, but its not ready for release so ill keep it to myself until i can let it go with a good consience
plz show i got the feeling its gonna be good one )) btw i never saw more than 50 people on my screen and 40 of them are from my empire D
Well I just recently upgraded from a Crosshair Formula IV with the 1055t to an i7-3770k(see signature) and my fps hasn't drastically improved but it does run steady at 50 fps in huge tech plant fights, while in Ultra settings. The optimization has vastly improved but some of you with older machines have to realize this game is made for the "now" systems, not the "then" systems and will not be seeing huge fps increases.
Other people with "now" systems have to realize that not everyone has the money to drop $350 on a new CPU, and god knows how much more money on other components. I will not be upgrading much, enough to support my battlefield 3 habit. I'll gladly wait for the optimization patch.
The problem with this is the game is so poorly optimized that the "now" machines can't even use their full potential. Quad core and above processors can't reach full steam because of not having multithreading. Graphics cards don't seem to be getting a very high percent of usage, even on Ultra. (My 670 shows fairly low usage stats.)
I expect its a logistical nightmare to keep track of all the calculations and data being sent to the server and players. I'm surprised it runs as well as it does for me during zerg fests at around 40fps. All they have to do is optimize another 25% to the CPU and NIC and I'll be more than happy as 50FPS is very playable in this non twitch FPS. This game is not about that insane 0-input lag gameplay like Tribes, Counter-Strike, Quake, where almost every pixel matters to the hit box.
I use my twitch skill all the time, and to great effect. For me it is just as much about the zero input lag as it is participating in huge combat ... 50 fps would be very welcome, but so would 60. 40 fps feels very sluggish in this game and is not a very pleasant experience if you hope to make those quick zoom-ins, land a couple of shots on someones head and move on to the next target. There is also a memory leak in the game atm that resets if resolution is changed. Another variant of this memleak is it lowers fps by about 10-20 fps until you alt+tab to desktop and back. This was not present before the latest patch.
This is a good thing indeed, especially when I'm getting 5-9 FPS at the spawn, and about 1-2 in battles.
You have no clue what your talking about, using 4 letters I will completely disprove your "built for now" fallacy, those letters are "DX11." If this game was built for modern computers, why is it not using DX11 and all the graphical and performance increases it brings? Just a little bit of info for those who don't know, DX9 was released 9 years ago, that is right, the game is based off of technology from 9 freaking years ago.
No im sorry but YOU have no idea what your talking abut, yes DX9 debuted in 2003, however it had various versions released throughout the 9 year span, the latest and greatest being debuting in late 2008, dx10 progressed with windows 7 but ask the question why dev chose a dx9 platform, its because a good chunk of pcs are still running windows XP, also plenty of graphic cards have more then enough capacity to run this game on high levels using a DX9 card. No need for immediate upgrade, and you have to be a absolute fool to think DX9 has not been improved since 2003. Again like every other thread out there, the problem is known, the game has not been optimized completely for best use of cpu/gpu yet.
After last game I am thinking again, that adressing problem with FPS degradation over time is as important, as making the game to make better use of multicore CPUs. Now, with 3800 Phenom II x4 (2600 NB speed), I am getting FPS that is quite playable at amp stations (I usually have lowest FPS there) in first 20-40 minut after loading the game. Then FPS drops from 35-45 to 25-35 and te difference is big ! Does anyone remember, when that magical patch should be released ?
Yes. There are two main reasons why the game is "poorly optimized": dx9 and 32-bit exe. Why do you think the game crashes so much and must be restarted every 1-4 hours? It is because 4GB is not enough ram for PS2. Why do you think PS2 only uses 2-3 cpu cores? Why do most PC games only use 1-3 cpu cores? One reason is dx9. dx11 supports multiple cpu cores (parallel cpu processing). dx9 supports only one cpu core (serial / linear cpu processing). As far as I know, battlefield 3 is currently the only PC game which uses more than 4 cpu cores. Uncoincidently, Battlefield 3 is one of the few PC games which is dx11. Most new PC games are still dx9 or dx10 and only use 1-3 cpu cores.
The DX9/DX11 comparison comes up occasionally, and while it is true that DX11 has better multi-core support, it's not as simple since both DX9 and DX11 still have the same draw call count problem that has always plagued Windows due to the indirect nature of the graphics system. The discussion about why draw calls are a problem is long and technical (and written many times over on programming forums) and the important thing is that just going to DX11 won't give you a magical boost - the same way there isn't a "use all the cores" button on the compiler (most programmers do wish there was, however).
Fair enough.. But, Cycles, can you at least give us a some more information on why you guys decided to use dx9 over dx11 when developing planetside2 ?? Because i have been following the development of ps2 for agges, even before launch of the beta. And i remember so much talk on how PS2 is gonna be future proof blah blah.. Why is it we are on a dx9 and 32-bit config ? when 90% of AAA games that came out late 2012 are all dx11 and 64-bit ?? Pleasse enligheten us ? just curious on why you chose to do what you did. I mean i do understand that you need to cater for lower end systems, but how can you possibly create a looong lasting MMO game that seems to be made for older systems ? Really confused here :s Thanks
well why they do that maybe because more people could play it. And what do you think makes mmo game succesfull? yeah thats right the people who played it. more people playing the game, more and more game is succesful.
I sure hope they can optimize it a little more. It's quite unpleasant to play with low framerates in battles, it really messes up my aim and drags the whole experience down.
BF3 was released over a year before PS2 and is no where near as big, enough with the comparisons already. If you don't want to upgrade, I heard cs1.6 is good. Game is new, original post claims not yet fully optimised, yet the amount of tears here would terraform mars.
Mate i dont want to sound rude, that´s not my intention, but you seems to be the exact type of gamers that lazy "im sorry devs" devs want. And no, i dont have any crappy computer. And yes, i have a crappy 35-40 fps in large battles. My cpu sits at 40-60% and my card is being totally botlenecked in large battles. It sucks and is ruining the gaming experience. This game is incredibly poor mutithreaded, i can see that in task manager. I know BF3 is not the ideal example, but it makes an incredible job using "All" the processor and resources "perfect multithreading". We need to speak gamers. Common. Devs im sorry to say this but you guys are not doing the homework very well.
