real world use cases - FPS boost 48 to 77 - is this a joke?

The things you mention don't matter as long as the testing conditions were consistent.

Using the example you gave of a "super pc running on low settings in the warpgate with no-one else around", if these were the conditions where you previously got 48 fps but now get 77 fps, the game clearly runs better.

The question is why this wasn't done before the game was released last year.

Seriously, folks, you should not be able to squeeze 50% more performance out of a released game. What were all those CPU/GPU cycles being used on?

Spawn an esf = 100fps , fly outside of WG = 90fps , random -insert faction- camping your warpgate with flak =20 fps , try some HAWX moves to bail out = 5fps , bump into a rock = 0 fps.

50+fps is pretty normal for me. Only in really big fights do I drop to around 30 or high 20s & then it's still playable.

A 29 fps jump sounds pretty great though. Especially if it applies to my & everyone else's 30 fps becomes 59fps that's pretty bloody great. And if my 50fps is now 79fps that's brilliant.

I think the game was rushed out. I think soe wanted to start making revenue from it before the product was fully ready.

all of my this

this this

A 29 FPS jump for one PC won't be 29 FPS for another. They could have a 29 FPS increase on mega high-end gear which would translate to less than half of that for most PC's.

I'm not expecting a flat FPS boost and more so stability in frames rates and such.

I get 60 on very low.
20 on Ultra.

I stay on Ultra.

Solid 60 fps for me but then again I have an i5 and a gtx 560 so I'm not hardware limited.

I get 120fps in warpgate and I get 50-60 fps in big sized battles, 45fps in massive battles.

I do?

I get about 40 FPS in the largest 48+/48+ fights... on the smaller fights, I get 60-80 FPS.
Though, I play on a mix between high/medium/low settings.

Mostly, I find myself CPU limited in the large fights though... I think once they sort multi-core, I could see upwards to 100 fps.

60fps on the mark in WG and in the biggest battle I can possibly find (meaning 48+ in any major facility), 19fps. Average for large squad vs. squad to small platoon vs. platoon fights is usually about 35-50. Miraculously I've managed to keep my KDR positive, mostly thanks to the fact that I stay the hell away from any major facility fights these days.

My GPU is a slightly overclocked Radeon HD 7700 series and I have an AMD 4170 quad-core processor with 4.2 Ghz. I run medium graphics quality with everything else set to low and my render quality at 75%. Such a shame because this game is so beautiful at high graphics quality but it just kills my frames.

It uses 4 cores.

I play with 55+ fps pretty solid, unless it gets really busy then it may drop to 40s

Now the limiting factor for me seems to be GPU, tho when it gets busy, CPU is the limiting factor. The most important stat for the CPU is core speed, doesn't really matter how many cores you have.

Getting that with 3.7 GHz, shadows off

Source?

It seems like people did not understand me wholly. I think increasing framerate for machines which can already do 48 is useless. We need to know what performance increase will people who currently have 20 FPS will get. If your machine already runs at 48 FPS, you have ABSOLUTELY no right to complain about performance, and I highly doubt anyone leaves this game because it runs only on 48 FPS, but wouldn't leave if it was over 70. That's BS.

Increasing the performance for those who already run the game well is wasted time. We need to know how it will help those who can barely run the game now, despite having modern hardware (even i it's not the strongest hardware).

Just because you don't notice the difference between 48 and 77 doesn't mean other high skill players don't

If you do basic math though the increase in performance is about 60% so you'll be running at about 32fps if you have 20 before which is totally playable for some and is great for people running at 20fps. I know for myself 20fps or 32fps is totally unplayable, only 40+ is somewhat playable (for myself) and everyone is going to notice a good increase in performance

Also keep in mind that it is still quite early in the optimizing stage so it might even be a 100% increase for some machines...

Also, 'I highly doubt anyone leaves this game because it runs only on 48 FPS, but wouldn't leave if it was over 70. That's BS.' That was a pretty big assumption, and actually one of BCP's main reasons of leaving was because he wasn't getting solid frames, and he was getting over 45+ all the time, I can nearly assure you that if he got a solid 60 or 70+ that might've kept him and his outfit in the game.

If I get 30 FPS stable in big fights (which is perfectly playable, even though not very comfortable) I will come back here and praise the SOE for their success.
I can tell the difference, and I never said I can't tell the difference between 50 and 80. I can run for example Darksiders II on absolute max at about 200-300 FPS, which means 60 real FPS as I have 60 Hertz monitor. And I can tell how smooth that is. My point is not that there is not a significant difference between 50 and 80 FPS (there is) but that increasing framerate for people who run the game this well already is waste of time. I need to know how this miracle patch will increase my FPS from 20.

The whole point of this thread is that people who already run at 48 FPS are much less likely to appreciate any FPS boost than people who can barely run the game now. And that using 48 FPS as a reference for "real world case uses" is an insult to all of us who couldn't hit 48 FPS in a normal play even if we made a deal with devil. Why don't they try this patch on a machine which is not great at running the game in the first place? I wish they posted any data for AMD especially 8 core ones, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in AMDs or CPUs with more than 4 cores.

I fear this patch will end up "rich getting richer" with people with Intels getting a nice boost while people who have 6 or 8 cores and/or AMD will be left in the dust.

Yes, how dare people work and spend money on a good rig and then demand good performance? As one of those "evil rich fat cats"(with an intel core no less!!!1eleven) how may I atone for my sins?
Maybe the devs could cap performance of those evil intel cores so that it's fair?


How dare we ask for better performance along with the rest of everybody.........

48 to 77 is just one example Smedley has. Of course they're trying the patch on a variety of machines. Until the patch comes out there no use speculating and extrapolating from a simple tweet.