Why is the FPS still an issue? Little to no improvement has been made in 4 months.

But we would see a universal gain in performance for most newer CPUs due to much better and easier multi-threaded/multi-processor optimizations.

However, the amount of time it takes to impliment this switch... People don't truly understand how much work SOE will have to do to get this game even to DX10 let alone DX11. We're talking THOUSANDS of man hours and TONS of bug fixes.

Don't want to jinx it, but things seem to be going better now. only time will tell, IE Tonight when there are 4x the people on

After the hotfix, the fps has been smoother than before this fix **knock on wood**.
However, I do maintain it's still not as smooth as before GU04 hit.

Might wanna go tell your doctor where the bad man touched you.

Nothing about moveing to either of them would necessarily make mutlithreading easier, or indeed more possible.

I think his cancer touched me.

Literally read an article or two. You are completely wrong. DX9 is on old system anticipatorily created for outdated hardware. There is no way in 2006 DEVs could know we'd have the Ivy Bridge processors we have today. Nobody has a crystal ball. DX9 makes their jobs a lot harder.


DX10 and DX11 were developed SPECIFICALLY to allow software developers to optimize their products faster--more efficiently for new hardware.


"Traditionally, rendering is a very serial process. The program needs to setup a bunch of objects and then pass that on to the video drivers and finally to the GPU. There's a high degree of submission overhead, meaning it's possible to choke the CPU while submitting a large number of objects to the GPU. In DirectX 11, multi-threaded rendering is achieved by turning the D3D pipeline into a 3 step process: the Device, the Immediate Context, and the Deferred Context. The important bit here is that the deferred context is full of things that have yet to be sent to the GPU, and that you can have a deferred context for each thread. When developers talk about multi-threaded rendering with DX11, this is what they're referring to. When you use DX11s multi-threaded rendering capabilities correctly, you can have several threads assemble their deferred contexts, and then combine them into a single command list once it comes time to render the scene. "

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28

Hang on a tick here, im talking about mutlithreading in general. Which given DX9 will happily use a different thread to the PS2's main thread for caching drivers to the GPU and what your suggesting still seems to be a fair statement. Because as has been established a banal number of times now, GPU load is not this games problems. Its not graphically intense stuff thats slowing it down and when people say 'oh if you'd have used dx11 and 64 so many more mutlithreading and fasterers, silly you poor design decision make game run slow'.

Which is still, no. AS whilst it might help with the issue of the CPU communicating with the GPU for rendering purposes, thats not where PS2's issues lie in the first place.

Thats some pretty nebulous stuff as well. It basically reduces down to Dx11 mutlithread better.

You forgot about fact that game uses at least 4 GB ram. It means if you have 32 bit os you can use max 3,5GB ram, and your game crashes after half of hour. So in fact, if you want to be cool and play planetside you need to have 64 bit os

Or if your program is large address aware, which PS2 is.

I'm not sainyg 64 bit would not be better. Nor DX11. However they are not the night and day difference people are making them out to be (nothing in the last 4-5 years is). Indeed, they would effect the parts of the game that put the most stress on peoples systems (specifically CPU) i.e the load from having to keep track of large amounts of players, the least. Moreover they would require significant re-writes of the engine.

In short - simply not worth the effort.

Okay just tell me longsignature friend, if you ever player Saints Row 3, you got pop-up screen and you choose between DX 9 and DX 10/11. Which one would you choose?

Dx7, im retro like that.


And if PS2 was coded in Dx7 as with Dx11 or Dx10 or 8 or 2, the biggest problems for performance would remain being keeping track of the 100's of people who are not rendering on your screen and are merely variables the engine is trying to keep track of in order to preserve a coherent gamespace.

The problem is simply not in the fact its 32 bit based or dx9 based.

Sucks that you're unable to enjoy the game, I can certainly sympathize. But the facts are that they're working their ***** off to address performance issues in the game, it's a constant effort. Personally I've noticed consistent major improvements in fps since tech test... well.. to be fair the game was completely unplayable for the first while, and then it was on and off a bit during early beta, but then it just kept on improving (except for short lived bugs) from there.

They say that average fps continues to rise, and I think that's absolutely true, they have an amazing team working on this. That obviously doesn't address your main question which is just "when will I be able to play?", but unfortunately that's just not something I know and not something that they'd probably be able to answer for you.

It does seem rather odd that your system cant play the game at a higher level though, I trust you've tried the various posts by cyclesmchurts on how to set up ps2 for optimal performance and to identify and work around hardware bottlenecks, as well as the tons of other useful tech posts?

My system's much worse than yours and runs it quite well

FPS this week is better than last week.

Overall FPS is still worse than it was in Beta.

Reality:
No. We need whiter armor paint to sell.

Do you know how multithreading work?
If you slice program in 4 thread and run it on 4 core processor it dosent mean program run 4 times faster.
Some thread generate some data that can be used in another thread. Program work at spees of slowest thread. And you dont need 4 cores in fact. Even if you have it windows thread manager can execute few threads at single core. Windows doesnt like to use the extra cores without urgent need.
Also, more threads you have - worse your cpu cache works. Thats because each core use its own cache. So when it change some data it sent it back to ram, so another core need to read it again and again.
This is the back side of SMP.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_coherency

Do we need it?
DX10 was created to one main purpose - kill Windows XP. Yes, there some new stuff was added and a lot of things recoded. But nothing intresting. DX11 was realy different. A lot of changes and tesselation.
So, if you want rewrite code from DX9 to DX11 you need rewrite everything. It take few years. But why do you think it will work better or faster?

PS2 use about 1.2Gb for me.

Windows 2003 Server 32bit support 64Gb of ram.
Where is your god now?

Difference between dx9 and dx10 are huge, difference between dx10 and dx11 is not that huge (from programming perspective)

Difference between XP and Vista are huge. DX10 was designed for Vista. DX11 based on DX10.
But no one will rewrite game. So no matter.

You're not being a dick its just your play style that lets you care about KDR, my play style is different, I don't think KDR is important and I care more about objectives capture and defense, getting to the enemy sundi to suicide bomb it, bringing down that pesky ESF thats giving my team a hard time or even just getting my eng. and spend so time repairing for an hour even if I get killed multiple times, as long as I achieve my goal and have fun.
Each to his own, this KDR is important or not important is an old discussion and its really just down to your play style and philosophy, that is all.