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

I would welcome a 50% fps boost very much, thats like going from 20 to 30 or 15 to 22.5 in big battles

until a lot of next gen console ports are released that actually require a better pc, I dont see a reason to upgrade mine just for 1 game, bring on the optimisations so I can squeeze another 1 or 2 years out of this one

I'm not too lazy to check for myself, I'm nowhere near my Gaming PC and I would check it out if I could, away on holidays for a week.

35-50ish here depending on whats going on.

3.5ghz quadcore AMD and a ATI Radeon 5870 gpu with 8GB Ram.

I've heard of better machines getting lower framerates in PS2 and other games so I've been reluctant to upgrade. There is either something wrong with newer hardware (very likely in AMD/ATI setups) or the engines of the newer games (also likely). Once things settle down (as in better hardware constistently gives better performance), then I will upgrade. But as I've said, somethings not clicking, and its either the new hardware or the new games or both.

I have a Geforce 670 and get no stuttering.. but plenty of FPS loss in large battles often dropping me to 20ish FPS, sometimes even lower... it's to do with my CPU i'm sure, I have a first generation i7 and this (and most games) is not optimized for multicore well

I will kill for get atleast 15 fps in big fights

ok, i never actually thought this was such a problem till reading all these comments.

I currently run on a system i bought back in 2008 consisting of a Q6600 core 2 quad remember those?? before the "i" processors? 2.4GHz overclocked to 3.6GHz (because im vanu you see) and up until 2 weeks ago i was using an equally old 9600GT 1GB SONIC edition graphics card, in that state and running most settings on low or off i got 35-40 FPS doing anything from running around solo to a small battle 10-20 people. Above that it would be roughly 20-25 FPS but i have NEVER thought to myself "i would kill over 9000 NC to get 15 FPS" it just wasn't that bad... and before you say about that not being "playable" FPS it isn't, but for a 5/6 year old system i'd say that's pretty danm good.
Anyway i went out and bought myself a new shiny graphics card, the GTX 650 Ti Boost to be exact. Next port of call was my game options .ini file...cranked all the settings to full "ultra" leaving out shadows....who wants shadows?? and to my surprise 55-65 FPS in everything but bio-lab battles with 2/3 platoons battling it out where it drops to about 30-35 FPS sometimes the bottleneck even switches to the "GPU" but generally my CPU takes the hits, it's old tech just can't keep up but tbh it's doing a danm good job so finally to my point i don't like to brag or put anyone down but anyone complaining about bad gameplay due to low FPS either has their PhysX set to their CPU not their GPU thus putting excess load on their cpu or.... well i don't really know what else it could be because im running a 5 year old cpu with a graphics card that even now was already outdated in relativity to the 7 series that is out at the moment so i can't see how anyone can have much worse than me and im getting playable FPS just from a GFX card update.

Anyway just thought i'd add my thoughts keep these optimizations coming i would welcome seeing 60 FPS in bio-labs now Edit : After reading a few more comments i see there actually aren't alot of people complaining oh well.

I get 60 - 100 FPS when idle at warpgate, 30 - 50 FPS when in large fights.
But that was after i OC'd everything and use Crossfire for PS2. Before i had 40-50 FPS at WG and 10-25 FPS in big fights. Before and now i still get the occasional drop to 1-5 FPS, wich can probably be blamed on server issues or bad lines of code by mistake.

The game is using my graphic cards propperly (for the most part) but CPU usage is rather low for my taste and never passes 20-23%, but then again, most games dont. At the moment, my biggest problem is that the game is not clearing the memory propperly for me and continues to build up to 3.2GB and then crashes. A few weeks ago i could play for 2hours before logging off and restarting the game or it would crash, now it can run 5 and a half hours straight before i need to do it.

Though im somewhat sceptical to what the actual "performance improvement" will give, i must say i realy hope they can give me an additional 10 (big fights) - 20 (WG) FPS across the board, it's a wait and see i guess.

My settings?
High on everything, shadows off, rendering quality 85%, render distance 4.4 KM.
My rig? Look at my sig. It's not the newest crap you can find, but it packs a punch still (especialy now i OC'd it).

I just hope they fix the ultra low settings so that I can get a steady 120fps, after buying a 144hz monitor nothing compares to lightboost, I dont even wanna play a new game anymore unless I can get over 90 frames. I feel bad for all of the people in denial who cling to the false idea that the human eye cant perceive anything above 24fps. Poor console peasants are just getting 60fps, when pc has moved on to 120fps and beyond, with affordable 1600p 120hz panels just around the corner.

Affordable 1600p 120hz panels? You missed your chance on the Yamakasi Catleaps when they were still cheap. 27" IPS 2560x1440 @120hz.

I play at 1440p ultra and get 80+ FPS in small/medium battles, largest battles I drop to 50-60, tanking/flying I usually get 100.

Full specs for those of you who are wondering - http://www.overclock.net/lists/display/view/id/5351207

I get 70+ fps when flying a Gal at altitude with no aircraft in visual range. Maybe 40 during long distance infantry fights. It drops to a very jerky sub 20 in a Biolab fight.

77 stable fps? I'd take that. The key point being stable fps. Unless they can stop the fps from spiking/crashing so much, then even a big average fps rise won't help as much as it should.

None of this made any sense at all, lol.

Bro, Gaming on a Macbook is painful. I do 15 FPS EVERYWHERE. hopefully this patch will bump it up to around playable levels, 20-30, as I'm getting my rig done by christmas.

I consider my rig to be pretty good. But never get 48 in fights. Still and 30% - 50% improvement is worth waiting for IMO.

The current faction weapon balance annoys me more than lack of new content.

I get 48 FPS all day and more in most scenarios. Try working on getting your PC up to the level that this game demands with tweaks and upgrades, instead of expecting the devs to hand you performance on a silver platter.

Money has little to do with it, if you run Sandy/Ivy/Haswell with any 480+ series Nvidia GPU the game runs just fine, and by that I mean 30-40 minimum in the largest of Amp Station/Bio Lab lagfests. 100+ flying or in smaller fights. You can build a Sandy/Ivy/Nvidia rig for less than 1k that will run the game this way, it's just the game is optimized worse than Metro 2033/LL, and that's impressive.

PS2 is the only game where ultra low settings gets you the same performance as ultra on high end systems. I wanna be able to get 144 fps on low like I do in BF3, 77 fps beats what we'r getting now but still doesnt cut it for those with 120hz and up monitors which is quickly becoming the new pc standard.

Though spending a few hundred dollars to upgrade your system for one game is a bit steep of a solution. The game still doesnt run anywhere near where it should for acceptable frames for a twitchy FPS, which is why the whole dev team was told to get it done and do it now.

New player with a new PC build hears about PS2, tries it out. Game runs terribly compared to other games they play, <40 fps at any major base fight. They dont play PS2 anymore because they laugh at its optimization. No new money comes in. No new money means the game gets less funding. Less funding equals less content. Soon people start leaving because the same old same old every day and newer more exciting tittles are being released that get their interest. Suddenly servers became a ghost town during non-prime time, new players are further discouraged away from the game. (a bit of a worst case scenario, but its already happening)

Its not like people are getting terrible results on just outdated hardware. People with recent machines, past 3-4 years are getting terrible results. Just like yourself, i wouldnt call the 2500k a bad chip, but getting 48 frames is not acceptible in a game where TTK can be within half a second. You need higher framerates to ensure smooth and accurate reaction times and reflexes. So are you going to spend 200 dollars for a new CPU and another 100 or so for a mobo? To get all of a mere 5-10 fps? I should hope not, thats not a very wise investment.

Not to mention even with upgrading you still have issues with frame drops, spikes up and down, that make absolutely no sense at all. Again this messes up with input and makes the game feel clunky when played. Dusted off BF3 the other day and it jsut felt miles better because my input was smooth. I could track targets easier, more shots landed where i wanted. It just felt like a better experience in that respect.

Not to pick on you mate, but telling people to spend loads of money on a F2P is just a real silly solution and only kicks the can down the road.

i5/i7 4.5ghz-5ghz = 30-40 fps in worst conditions (massive battle)

There is some variable to that 24 fps # , but seriously at 120 mhz there is nothing different beyond the actual number you are perceiving .

Not true at all, I can instantly tell when my frames drop from 120 to 90, hell even 144 to 120 is noticeable to me. Also Lightboost currently only works between 100-120hz, if you've never experienced blur free gaming then your truly missing out.

http://www.blurbusters.com