Good looking graphics, I'm worried, should I be? [Archive]

wildcat140679

2011-02-06, 11:23 AM

We have seen little to nothing, but the Galaxy, Vanguard and Reaver models that have been shown and they have me some what worried.

Planetside is, how should I say it, is not very good looking game. It wasn't ugly either, but I believe that was the beauty of it, it allowed battles to take place with an unbelievable amount of players at the same time because of those graphics.

The sneak peaks we have seen so far are really good looking and they have me worried if they are not to good looking.

There is nothing wrong with good looking models, but when it comes down to having a crazy amount of good looking models to be rendered all at the same time in a battle, things often turn in to a graphical lag party.

Should I be worried?

Hamma

2011-02-06, 11:44 AM

I think you have valid concern.

But Technology has come a long way over the past 7 years, so I think we will have a much better looking game with similar sized battles.

There is certainly room for graphics improvement in the game, I hope that they do improve them without sacrificing to much in terms of battle sizes or gameplay sizes.

Now on the flip side of all of this - we haven't seen any in engine shots yet only models. Once we see in engine in game shots we can really start to speculate on what we are going to see in PSN.

Kwintus5

2011-02-06, 12:19 PM

Indeed! What Hammy said. The weight from the game on your pc not only depends on the amount of polygones in the models, but also on the use of enviroment-enhancing techniques like shaders and HDR-lightning and dynamic lightsources etc. so models are just models.

In any case, i'm also pretty sure that they want this game to be able to be played on as many computers as possible. So big chances that you can lower the graphics to a lvl where your granny's pc would still be able to run it. :D

Bags

2011-02-06, 12:27 PM

They better have a good engine because in medium to large fights I get 30 fps 800 x 640 resolution, EVERYTHING minimum on a computer from 2007 (win7, 8800 GT, 2.7ghz c2duo, 2GB ram)

It's pathetic. I got 20 fps on a computer from 2002 with integrated graphics and 512mb of ram at 1200 x 1024 resolution with bigger fights!

Furret

2011-02-06, 01:30 PM

I don't know why people care that much about good graphics. There are games that are designed for graphics, and there are games that are designed for gameplay. I think SOE is doing it right if they're making it so low end computers can run the game lag-free. PlanetSide is definitely not a game that needs good graphics, as long as i can tell the difference between a galaxy and a MAX, I'll play the game =D

CutterJohn

2011-02-06, 03:42 PM

Polycounts and textures are generally not the bottlenecks for modern games. Modern cards can handle millions of polygons at once, and with half a gig or more of ram, tons of high quality textures. So long as they don't go crazy with post processing effects and fancy shaders and such, things will be fine.

Daimond

2011-02-06, 04:07 PM

Thing is there is like in all games on PC's you can turn down setting and stuff off like shadows and dumbing down grafix. I just hope unlike in the beginning of PS when people constantly complained about lag and such people were told to turn down there setting not run them at full. People did not they think on an old computer they should beable to run anything with out upgrading. So what happened after 2 years SOE removed High end Grafix, and people stoped complaining, even though didnt acualy do anything. Games looked the same since.

SOE in the past eg EQ2 and such built the game to run on computers in the near future not now. Reason for this is when they start working on the game and build for then by the time games released computers maybe 2+ years above the game. so if they build for 6 years ahead of making the games lest they got a few years before people start say. Update grafix they out of date 2 years into release.

So anyone reading this when game is release or your in beta, before complaining about lag and FPS stuff please, please try turning your settings down first. other wise me may just lose good grafix for the rest of the games life.

Sirisian

2011-02-06, 06:48 PM

I wouldn't be worried unless you have an old computer. Planetside has lasted for over 7 years and as mentioned it's hoped that PS:N will age gracefully. Meaning for people with old computers they might need to play on the lowest possible quality much like when Planetside came out in 2003 I had to play on low settings then when I upgraded my computer in 2006 I could play on the highest quality. I think PS:N will be that way for most people.

Then again there are people, like myself, who are buying new computers to play modern games who are excited and want to see this game on max settings. I do feel bad though since I used to have slow computers and it was annoying not being able to play a game when it was released.

Bags

2011-02-06, 07:28 PM

I upgraded my computer in 2007 and ps plays as bad on it as it did on my old one.

TheRagingGerbil

2011-02-06, 08:44 PM

I upgraded my computer in 2007 and ps plays as bad on it as it did on my old one.

Then you have other issues...

My 2007 upgrade runs current PS like a dream.

Bags

2011-02-06, 10:01 PM

Then you have other issues...

My 2007 upgrade runs current PS like a dream.

Every game I throw at it runs good to great

Crysis -- good
TF2 -- great
L4D1/2 -- great
WoW -- good to great

etc

It's PS and not working on win7 or vista.

Sifer2

2011-02-07, 12:03 AM

Wait until we know minimum specs before complaining IMO. Hopefully they understand its better to keep big battles rather than have more eye candy. If they don't then they have lost the battle already. So I say just wait an see.

wolfkrone

2011-02-07, 01:09 AM

Should I be worried?

No.
SOE have learned a lot about system requirements in recent years. Compare Free realms to EQ2 and you'll see what I mean, they wont screw it up.

Firefly

2011-02-07, 07:43 AM

I upgraded my computer in 2007 and ps plays as bad on it as it did on my old one.
I hate to be another on the opposite side, but I upgraded mine in 2009 and it plays spectacular.

Bags

2011-02-07, 07:53 AM

Do you have win7 or vista?

Krushiev

2011-02-07, 07:57 AM

I hate to be another on the opposite side, but I upgraded mine in 2009 and it plays spectacular.

I have to agree. I upgraded my PC in 2008 and the only upgrade since was a new GFX card (Nvidia 240 gt), I'm running PS as smooth as butter. EDIT: Upgraded from Vista to Win 7 64

120fps while running with 2 (almost) full squads, and nothing but gunfire, enemies and explosions around me.

190 something when I'm in Sanc.

Krush

Bags

2011-02-07, 08:33 AM

Do you guys have xp, vista or win7? My new computer ran a lot better when I had xp back in '07.

I run in compatibility mode for xp now but I don't think that helped.

Hamma

2011-02-07, 09:22 AM

Seconded.

I updated my computer a couple years back and it runs awesome.

Win7 here

demise14

2011-02-07, 09:38 AM

Do you guys have xp, vista or win7? My new computer ran a lot better when I had xp back in '07.

I run in compatibility mode for xp now but I don't think that helped.

What's your specs? That's awful. Any decent computer made around '06 should run the game great, regardless of the OS. It's not some $200 eMachine is it?

NVM, I see your specs here (win7, 8800 GT, 2.7ghz c2duo, 2GB ram).

You definitely shouldn't be running on minimum video settings. Not that what you have is amazing, but way more than enough to run PS. Go here to verify: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/

Firefly

2011-02-07, 09:56 AM

I ran it in XP, then upgraded to Pissta, and now I run in Win7 and it ran/runs fine.

morf

2011-02-07, 10:12 AM

I'm running fine on vista 64 on my machine purchased in 2008. But the thing is we're comparing apples to oranges here. If the idea behind your 2008 update was to pull 50 frames on the games you played in 2008 then you probably aren't going to have great results playing games that come out in 2011. If you invested in top of the line or at least latest generation components in 2008 then you will probably be just fine.

Bags

2011-02-07, 02:38 PM

What's your specs? That's awful. Any decent computer made around '06 should run the game great, regardless of the OS. It's not some $200 eMachine is it?

NVM, I see your specs here (win7, 8800 GT, 2.7ghz c2duo, 2GB ram).

You definitely shouldn't be running on minimum video settings. Not that what you have is amazing, but way more than enough to run PS. Go here to verify: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/

it blows ps req's out of the water.. it's not amazing for 2007 or now but by 2003's standards it is.

"CPU Speed
Recommended: 1.8 GHz
You Have: 2.7 GHz Performance Rated at: 4.725 GHz
PASS

RAM
Recommended: 512 MB
You Have: 2.0 GB
PASS

Video Card
Recommended: Direct3D compliant video card with 64 MB (NVIDIA GeForce4+ /ATI Radeon 8500+)
You Have: GeForce 8800 GT
PASS"

I'm running fine on vista 64 on my machine purchased in 2008. But the thing is we're comparing apples to oranges here. If the idea behind your 2008 update was to pull 50 frames on the games you played in 2008 then you probably aren't going to have great results playing games that come out in 2011. If you invested in top of the line or at least latest generation components in 2008 then you will probably be just fine.

D00d, planetside came out in 2003, not 2008. I bought a machine in 2007 to play a four year old game and it barely can.

I can run SC2 with med -> high/ultra, in huge 2v2 battles get 40+ fps with a 1900 x 1080 resolution.

planetside orange alerts on minimum EVERYTHING at 800 x 640 gives ~30 fps.

Traak

2011-02-08, 01:25 AM

D00d, planetside came out in 2003, not 2008. I bought a machine in 2007 to play a four year old game and it barely can.

I can run SC2 with med -> high/ultra, in huge 2v2 battles get 40+ fps with a 1900 x 1080 resolution.

planetside orange alerts on minimum EVERYTHING at 800 x 640 gives ~30 fps.

There is definitely something wrong with your system's interactions with PS. Wait until the new PS comes out and see if it sits well with your system, in which case the old PS will be irrelevant.

I run my LAPTOP at 1680 X 1200, which is native res, max everything, and it does okay until firefights and such, but it sucks at firefights at any resolution or detail settings. That's why I do support and have for all these years. I think the slaptop gags on all the network load that the CPU is having to digest.

PS is rather network bandwidth intensive, far more than SC or any other game I can think of at the moment. Inefficient code, for one thing. Might wanna try a separate network card that has its own processor and RAM to process network info, and take the load off the CPU. Your MoBo might be gagging the CPU with all the network stuff, which can be bypassed with a gaming network card.

Newegg.com has one, last time I checked.

SKYeXile

2011-02-08, 01:37 AM

Planetside runs pretty poor on Vista and windows 7, its runs FARRRRRRRRRRR better on XP.

my E6700, 4gb ram and 2 1950XTXs on XP run it better than a:

I7
6gb DDR3 RAM
5970

Not worried about PS:N though since it will be a new engine.

Daimond

2011-02-08, 04:39 PM

Ran the game on a intell 1 core cpu, 1 gb sd ram, and an ati x600 in beta till about a year in on xp got maybe 20-30 fps in heavy battles.

about late 2003 got an ati x800, picked up too about 30-40 fps on xp.

about 2005 upgraded to duo core 2.66 ddr 2 gb of ram and an ati x4850 ran on xp got around 40-60 fps in locked conts with every one at that bases seamed.

last few years been running intel quad core 2.8 ddr 2gb ati hd 5850 running windows 7 off a 80gb SSD. No matter where I am or what battle im in does not drop below 55 fps.

Bags

2011-02-08, 04:47 PM

That's good for you I guess?

bender

2011-02-11, 04:04 PM

Bags

2011-02-11, 04:10 PM

I'm running PS as smooth as butter ( xp ) . If you have vista i suggest doing a dual-boot setup and have ps run on xp.

INTEL CORE I3 540 4 GHZ - stable
CPU cooler: Noctua NH-D14
Motherboard: ASUS P7P55D-E PRO
OCZ 1600MHZ DDR3 4GB GOLD CL 8-8-8-24
Video Card: EVGA GTX 570
Sound Card: Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty pro PCI-E
Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 226bw 22 in 2ms - 1680 x 1050
Computer Case: ANTEC Twelve Hundred

If PSN wasn't coming out this year I'd probably do something like that, but it's not really worth the hassle at this point. I just have to avoid red alerts, and I don't even play that much so it's not really a big deal.

If I pop Dark light I can get 40 - 50 fps in red alerts so it's a bandaid fix.

Rbstr

2011-02-11, 04:24 PM

Hell, back with a Pentium 4, a geforce 6-something and 2 gb of ram I got a standard 30fps or so on whatever my old 19inch 4:3 was. I can't recall the graphics settings I used.
30 is all you really need anyway, not very many people can tell the difference above that(unless they care specifically about frame rates, I'm talking useability).

I find it LOLZ that you get that poor of a frame rate. You've surely got something installed improperly.

I upgraded last year to an i5, 275gt, 4gbram and win7. It runs BC2 and EVE on high settings and 1080p res. almost flawlessly (until you hit a 900man fleet fight or something, ain't no computer handling that well, unless you lower your settings). I expect I be find on PS:N, assuming it's out by around a year from now, might not be able to do high settings, meh.

I'll probably do another upgrade around 2 years anyway.

bender

2011-02-11, 04:51 PM

If PSN wasn't coming out this year I'd probably do something like that, but it's not really worth the hassle at this point. I just have to avoid red alerts, and I don't even play that much so it's not really a big deal.

If I pop Dark light I can get 40 - 50 fps in red alerts so it's a bandaid fix.

True , i had dual boot on my old rig . Right now just using xp , vista is crappy for games. Might try win7 1 day but dont see the point , games these days are being hold back because of consoles.

@ Rbstr

For FPS is good that u can play with only 30 , i cant for me my sweet spot is 60.

Bags

2011-02-11, 07:45 PM

Hell, back with a Pentium 4, a geforce 6-something and 2 gb of ram I got a standard 30fps or so on whatever my old 19inch 4:3 was. I can't recall the graphics settings I used.
30 is all you really need anyway, not very many people can tell the difference above that(unless they care specifically about frame rates, I'm talking useability).

I find it LOLZ that you get that poor of a frame rate. You've surely got something installed improperly.

Yeah, I have the planetside wire installed properly. PS is the only game that runs unsually poorly.

Thanks for the laugh about not being able to tell the difference between 30 fps (nearly a slide show) and 60 fps (pretty much smooth).

CutterJohn

2011-02-11, 09:00 PM

Eh. 30 fps is quite playable. There is a difference, but not nearly as pronounced as 10 fps would be.

Rbstr

2011-02-11, 09:22 PM

Yeah, I have the planetside wire installed properly. PS is the only game that runs unsually poorly.

Because every game uses 2003's version of direct X or whatever? It could quite readily the fault of a wrong version of soemthing old or a conflict with something new on your system or how you run it. You're using XP compatibility not the XP virtual machine, right?

Thanks for the laugh about not being able to tell the difference between 30 fps (nearly a slide show) and 60 fps (pretty much smooth).
Man you must hate the flip-books that are 24fps movies and TV.

Bags

2011-02-11, 09:22 PM

Eh. 30 fps is quite playable. There is a difference, but not nearly as pronounced as 10 fps would be.

30 fps is playable everywhere but CQC. Unfortunately the only place I get below 60 is CQC in orange -> red alerts.

Because every game uses 2003's version of direct X or whatever? It could quite readily the fault of a wrong version of soemthing old or a conflict with something new on your system or how you run it. You're using XP compatibility not the XP virtual machine, right?

Man you must hate the flip-books that are 24fps movies and TV.

Yes to the first question.

To the second question...

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

The fact is that the human eye perceives the typical cinema film motion as being fluid at about 18fps, because of its blurring.

Just think of modern games: Have you ever played Quake with 18fps? There is no motion blur in those games, thus you need a lot of frames per second more.

However, you see the spots and the dirt of single frames in a cinema film, don't you? And those movies are played at 24fps. So there is a difference between seeing motions fluid and seeing that there's something (dirt) at all. Read on.

Video games don't have motion blur like movies... thus you need higher fps for it to look smooth.

LordReaver

2011-02-13, 03:15 AM