Shadows/Flora Turned Off (Highly Recommended)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Puppy, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. Ashnal

    Yeah, all programs crashing at once is an out of memory error. Quite nasty those. You CAN avoid them if you're careful though. For instance, I just have to remember to close my browser whenever I start up PS2. If you want to run without a page file and reap the small benefits there are from doing so you can, you just need to make sure you've got enough free RAM before playing PS2, which is usually about 2-3 GB to be on the safe side. I would recommend buying more RAM to get up to 8 GB and running without the page file. RAM's fairly cheap nowadays.

    Next question, do you have vsync on? It can make fps issues worse when it's on, and you don't really need it unless you're running with fps above your monitor refresh rate or playing a game with lots of flickering lights. Turn it off and see how it helps if you've got it on.

    Now this might sound like a duh moment, but the FPS cap in your ini file isn't actually set to 13 is it? Does the game actually cap at exactly 13, or does it fluctuate between 8 and 13 a lot?
  2. Paperlamp

    Agree, but I use it currently.
  3. Bolticus

    I already ran without any other programs, and the game still crashed. I'm also thinking about another 4 GB of RAM.
    Vsync is disabled, and my fps cap is set to 40.

    By FPS cap, I meant in big battles, as long as I look towards the fighting, it pretty much stays locked at 13 fps. And my client seems to have a big problem with towers. In an empty Amp Station, I can end up with 35-40 fps. But inside or around an empty tower, and my fps drops to 15-20.
  4. Zotamedu

    What on earth would you get from porting it to 64-bit? Do you even understand what the difference between x86 (IA-32) and x86-64 means? Things do not magically go faster because you make it 64-bit. In fact, it's quite easy to lose performance. What you get is an easy way to use more RAM, there are ways around it in 32-bit and you get some new fancy instructions to play with. All this at the cost of higher RAM utilisation because now all addresses are 64-bit instead of 32-bit. Way to be kind to the low end players there, making the game use more RAM to keep the same level of performance. I did a quick check on RAM usage and PS2 seems to use about 2.2-2.5 GB or RAM for me. That's less than the limit you can get out of a 32-bit application under a 64-bit OS which would mean that making it 64-bit would mainly waste RAM.

    As for multi threading. First off, get your basic facts straight. I just ran the game for two full hours of an alert on Indar. I was in some battles with multiple platoons. I had four cores active at all times. One was 75 %, two around 40-50% and one at about 30 %. When I turned the game off, all activity dropped to pretty much nothing. So there you go, the game uses four cores. Designing a game to use more is not only hard, because games are not inherently parallel except for the graphics but also stupid since pretty much no one has a CPU with more than four cores anyway. An interesting thing is that I even got loads on up to five logical cores but I do not know what was using the last core. It came and went so it might have been a background process.

    So again, you made a stupid post.
  5. LibertyRevolution

    Yep, I been running no shadows and no flora since feb.
    Glad they added it to the graphic options, I got tired of explaining how to edit the ini file to people.





    Most players of FPS play on lowest settings for highest framerates.
    Higher frames is more important that eyecandy when it comes to killing the enemy.

    If you would like to have all the eyecandy on and handicap yourself, that is your prerogative.
    I will play with the settings that give me the best ability to do my job of killing the enemy.

    Plus, the flora in this game sucks, it pops in at 60-65m, and its animation is poor and repetitive.
    Stuff popping in out of nowhere looks bad. Stuff cycling on a 10 secs loop is bad.
    I would rather have it not there at all.

    Shadows only look good on 5, them flickering low quality shadows in the distance on high are not worth having on.

    If flora and shadows rendered stable at 6000m like the terrain, then I would use them, but they don't.

    I want a stable screen, the only movement should be people, not flicking shadows pop in flora.
    • Up x 2
  6. Aesir

    I'm not a fan of this, gaining an advantage because you play on low settings.. it feels kinda cheap. It's like those proxy rush tactics in 2v2 SC2
  7. Wintermaulz

    Shadows chews up alot of my CPU on all games. Its usually the first things i turn off in a game.
  8. Wintermaulz

    The difference with shadows off, compared to on low, is about 15 fps for me. I cant really play without it :(
  9. moooosa

    I get literally no FPS increase with graphics settings lower than High. Even if I drop the render quality slider to the lowest setting, which reduces the game to resemble something from 1997.

    When I was newer to the game I used to play Infil mostly and I'd often hide in grass and shadows at night time. I probably still try to from time to time without thinking. In a game where visibility is not made a priority (ie it can be hard to see or recognize your enemy and that's "part of the game"), it's a frustrating inconsistency.

    I would much prefer they took some steps to ensure that enemies were consistently recognizable but it isn't going to happen.
  10. SinerAthin

    I'm mainly critizing the system.

    We need settings that can enable people with lower end rigs to play, but these changes should not give them noticable different combat effects.(such as natural night vision, or being able to see through brush)

    Adjusting settings to gain more FPS = I approve wholeheartedly.
    Adjusting settings to make enemies easier to see = That's a cheap tactic.
  11. Deadeye

    If you need to turn off shadows/flora because you insist on using a computer from 2005 then there are, by all accounts, millions of unfilled jobs that will pay you more than enough to get a decent computer. You don't need to spend thousands like some would have you believe and you're not spending it on just this game, you can use it for other games too.

    If you're turning shadows/flora off because you need a crutch to get kills, I just feel nothing but pitty for you. I manage to kill people just fine while enjoying how my game looks.

    I play using the ingame highest settings. I do, however, have physx off for now. That just seems to suck up frames. I went from 30-40 fps in huge battles to 60+ by turning it off.
  12. Zotamedu

    Wow, just wow. I had already given out the price for the most stupid post in this thread but it seems like I'll have to take that back and give it to you.

    I have a computer from last year. It has the latest generation of hardware in it. The single best gaming CPU around, the i7 3770 and a GPU in the $250 range, the Radeon HD7870. I'm almost always limited by my CPU and remember, there are no faster CPUs for gaming around as of yet. That will not change until Intel releases the Ivy Bridge-E and Haswell later this year. I also run 16 GB of RAM, the game uses about 2.5 GB and it's all installed on a Samsung 830 SSD. I still need to keep shadows off to stay at 50-60 FPS consistently. This is by no means a bad computer. In fact, it'll be above average. So please, stop talking out of your **** because you obviosuly need a computer FROM THE FREAKING FUTURE to play this game at max settings with a decent framerate.
  13. Chiss


    To both of you, NO.
    It's not about low settings having an advantage. It's about people who do not need low settings, using them, because they give an advantage. Very different.

    I feel very sorry for anyone who gets under 60fps, and i would never accuse them of 'cheating'.
    • Up x 2
  14. UrMom306

    I can't believe the amount of people calling turning down their settings for better frames cheap, lol. You all must not play FPS games very much cause this is the norm. I can play this game, bf3, etc. on ultra, do i though? No because I want every ounce of fps that I can get, mix that with my 120hz monitor and I have the best possible movement and tracking. Better frames always trumps fancy details, FPS games are competitive, killing the enemy is always more important than seeing bushes, flowers, and shadows. If you want to play with fancy details and possibly hinder your frames and vision then by all means go ahead, but don't come in here and whine for it to be mandatory.
  15. Deadeye

    My post wasn't about you or people like you. I know the game is not optimized. It's the reason I bought a computer with close to the specs they used at conventions: in order to play it somewhere near where they programmed it for. If you're having performance issues on a computer that should be able to run the game at least decently, then complain. I fully support complaints like that that.

    My post was for people who want to buy one box and play games on it for 10 years. Well this is PC gaming, we're suppose to care about what we game on and are committed to keeping our rigs upgraded. If you want to buy one box, then buy a console, god knows they're not coming out with those except every 6-7 years anymore.

    My post was also for people who have an otherwise over-the-top computer but who play on low like they're MLG gamers (when everyone knows they're not) and can't compete, apparently, unless they have a crutch that gives them an advantage. Those people are just bad.

    So, next time, before you assume something is about you, try to get the facts straights. But you seem to like to talk out of your *** too, Mr. authority.
    • Up x 1
  16. Zotamedu

    But your point is moot since even a new computer needs to have shadows turned off. You are also extremely arrogant when you call people cheap for not spending a lot of money on a new computer every other year.

    Next time, try having a valid point. Then we can discuss it.
  17. Deadeye

    My point's not entirely moot. People do still need to upgrade their computers and stop complaining that technology has left them and their rigs on the side of the road and others need to learn to stop using a crutch because it just makes them a bad gamer.

    Also, who died and made you referee of what's valid or invalid? I came into this thread and posted how I feel about the subject. Whether you think it's valid or invalid doesn't mean a damn thing to me but go ahead, keep thinking you're some kind of authority. It's funny to watch.

    Ya know what's really funny about this thread though? People saying they'd leave if they couldn't run the game. What if they made it look like Planetside 1 where everyone had 200+ FPS and then SOE said it was to help people be competitive. I wonder how far that would fly... I don't personally think anyone would even take the game seriously. Nice little catch 22, don't you think?
    • Up x 1
  18. NoctD

    Is there a way to turn off the blur/glare you get from higher graphics settings? That's really annoying.
  19. mindbomb

    these settings do nothing. You can't hide in 6 inches of grass or in broad daylight.
    If you need to lower the settings for whatever reason, that is fine, but don't act like you found some secret advantage.

    Shadows in particular seems to run 100% on the gpu anyway, so it has no bearing on the fps in a cpu limited game like this.
  20. Zotamedu

    I'm not so sure about that. I did a quick test now. It's been ages since I turned shadows off so I figured it was worth checking if they had done some optimization on them since I last tried.

    Just walking around the warpgate didn't give any noticeable effect but then there's only like two large shadows showing at the time anyway. So I headed of to a Bio lab. I tested running over the landing pad and into the building a couple of times. There are lots and lots of shadows here form structures and from the trees. With no shadows, I got the same 50-60 fps I always get. With shadows, it dropped to 30-40 fps as I ran. I did the same test standing inside the spawnroom looking out and got the same frame rate dip. I was still CPU limited most of the time but with shadows on, the GPU would show up every now and then. So I don't think it's all GPU.

    Anyhow, I lose 20-30 fps by adding high quality shadows and there's no way I'm playing this game with 30-40 fps.

    Some day I'll see what the flora does for my frame rate. If it's unaffected, I'll keep it on. The game did look a lot better with shadows so it's kind of a shame that I can't play with them on.