Performance fps , will the devs address this once and for all for launch ? [Archive]

mbarrett

2012-10-19, 07:29 PM

considering i have a half decent computer which as follows , amd bulldozer fx 4100 / gtx 570 / 8 gb ram / w7 , when i play my frames per second are that low it makes me wonder if this is going to be addressed before release date , i know a lot of us are getting well below 30 fps in some fights but i thought bf3 was demanding , planetside 2 literally takes the piss with how much this game demands , to be honest i can't see this changing before launch , i'm also going to do a upgrade for around mid november , i wan't to get a intel i5 cpu and mb bundle from overclockers along with a new graphics card , i'm thinking of a gtx 670 or a gtx 680 . hopefully this will give me much better fps once my upgrade is complete .

WiteBeam

2012-10-19, 07:49 PM

Goku on the Tech Forums is always a great help. Obviously you will see a huge improvement with a new MB, CPU and Graphocs card.

blbeta

2012-10-19, 11:20 PM

My concern about this is having lower populations because people can't play it.

My rig also isn't top of the line but I have to play on low everything to get 30+ fps.

I-5 2400
8GB RAM
GTX 260 896MB (May get something new soon)
SSD

I can play just about everything I throw at it just below max, but not PS2.

Even then I don't care much about that. What I do care about is how animations seem to suck on my machine and people jump all around on my screen. I use to see some of the jumping around in PS1, but it was expected in such an old game. I didn't expect it to be worse in PS2.

subsurface

2012-10-20, 05:38 AM

This^

That is a valid concern. Having to high requirements will greatly limit the community as a whole, especially during a time of economic crisis.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Tatwi

2012-10-20, 09:18 AM

This^ That is a valid concern. Having to high requirements will greatly limit the community as a whole, especially during a time of economic crisis.

While I understand that pc games progress, this is really the single most important issue for the game. If it requires making a second, low end, client that does not use differed lighting, shadows, and projectile physics, that's a whole lot better than SOE having yet another niche game with a player base that can't even come close to Aion's success (3.5 million players), let alone one of the console shooters.

I want PS2 to be amazingly popular, for SOE and for the players. However, it's not going to be if it runs like hell on the currently installed PC hardware base.

james

2012-10-20, 09:23 AM

Its a problem even with a 7970 and a i5 2500k it still drops to 30 fps at points

Sturmhardt

2012-10-20, 10:02 AM

Its a problem even with a 7970 and a i5 2500k it still drops to 30 fps at points

Yup, I have an i5 2500k @4,2Ghz and a 7950 and I still get 20-30 Fps during mediocre action (got the newest drivers). That's just horrible, I don't want to know how it runs on slower systems.

Goku

2012-10-20, 10:14 AM

Yup, I have an i5 2500k @4,2Ghz and a 7950 and I still get 20-30 Fps during mediocre action (got the newest drivers). That's just horrible, I don't want to know how it runs on slower systems.

While I haven't played as much recently my system is identical to yours I NEVER had that bad of performance when overclocked. Has it got even worse? :eek:

mbarret, you are mostly CPU bound. You either need to move up to a Intel processor like the 3570K or possibly AMD's new Piledriver CPU. That CPU is coming out in the next week or so, and I would just for the 8350. It has twice as many cores, higher clock, and more IPC verse your 4100. If you can just do a drop in upgrade as long as your mobo supports it. What do you have for a motherboard?

Aaron

2012-10-20, 10:24 AM

james

2012-10-20, 10:25 AM

Yup, I have an i5 2500k @4,2Ghz and a 7950 and I still get 20-30 Fps during mediocre action (got the newest drivers). That's just horrible, I don't want to know how it runs on slower systems.

yea its a problem, but then i have seen games were only higher end rigs have issues and the mid end run it alright.

If it going to take two 7970's to run this game on ultra or high, thats a problem

Tatwi

2012-10-20, 10:38 AM

While I haven't played as much recently my system is identical to yours I NEVER had that bad of performance when overclocked. Has it got even worse? :eek:

mbarret, you are mostly CPU bound. You either need to move up to a Intel processor like the 3570K or possibly AMD's new Piledriver CPU. That CPU is coming out in the next week or so, and I would just for the 8350. It has twice as many cores, higher clock, and more IPC verse your 4100. If you can just do a drop in upgrade as long as your mobo supports it. What do you have for a motherboard?

The problem with the AMD 8350 is its price to performance ratio. Xbitlabs showed that Piledriver isn't much of an improvement on the CPU side of things over the previous generation, so the 8350 is going to perform about as well as the current 8 core AMD CPUs. At $180 you absolutely will get better performance for the dollar by purchasing the lowest end i5, the 3330, in everything other than video encoding and software compiling. Sadly, even the Core i3 beats the 8 core AMD CPUs in most games. I wish this wasn't the case, but objectively it is the case. Intel won the general computing x86 CPU war. :(

Goku

2012-10-20, 11:27 AM

Current pricing should be sub $200 for the 8350. I would only recommend it as a drop in upgrade for someone with a AM3+ board. Otherwise Intel makes way more sense. Still waiting to see official reviews to see what the performance looks like though. I'm not expecting any miracles of course.

Sturmhardt

2012-10-20, 04:36 PM

While I haven't played as much recently my system is identical to yours I NEVER had that bad of performance when overclocked. Has it got even worse? :eek:

I'm not sure, I haven't played in a while, but I guess they ramped up the player count a lot while only optimizing the game a little bit.... which results in a worse experience. At least I never noticed any optimization.... but I don't have any numbers. As long as the FPS stay above 40 I'm usually happy with it, but below 30 is not that enjoyable. If you play again let us know how it went, I'm interested if there is a difference or not.

PClownPosse

2012-10-20, 04:44 PM

My computer isn't spectacular, but it's not exactly chopped liver, either and the game, at least at default settings, runs sluggishly. I had to turn a lot of things down and off and my performance improved, but I'm still getting poor FPS. Can't tell if these hitches are graphical or net related, or both. Texture loading takes forever for me as well, but all in all, it's playable.

While it improved over the short time I've played, I'm still getting some "mouse lag," but it's not bad where I feel it affects my ability to aim.

Edit: okay, maybe my computer sucks...

DeadNoob

2012-10-21, 09:19 AM

I actually only get less than 30 FPS with my System wich actually isnt that bad

Phenom X6 1100T BE
Zotac GTX 470 AMP!
6GB RAM

I hope the performance will increase as i actually dont think there are so many People with a Hightech Nasa computer out there ^^

Hmr85

2012-10-21, 09:36 AM

My current setup:
Processor: AMD FX-4100 OC to 4.0ghz
Mobo: ASrock Extreme 3 AM3
Memory: 8 gig of gskill 1600
Graphics card: EVGA geforce 580 GTX 1.5gb

I posted this because with my current setup right now I am getting 60+ when wondering around out in the open world with minor skirmishes but when I reach the big fights I drop down to 25 to 35 FPS which is depressing. Now from what I have read people have said that they have yet to optimize AMD's? is this true?

I have a outfit mate that is also running with pretty much a identical setup but with the amd FX 8150 and 2 580s that get the same FPS as me if not worse sometimes.

Hyncharas

2012-10-21, 04:44 PM

I have a spec way older than yours, Hmr85, and it mostly runs ok. The problem is not what hardware you have now - it's that the studio have only done a graphics optimisation on the "High" setting, and unless you run it at that level for the time being, the game will grind its gears a lot more if you choose "Medium" or "Low".

Another factor is that servers don't increase efficiency based on how populated an area is, instead spreading the latency across entire continents. This means that a substantial amount of bandwidth is being sacrificed in areas of a continent that don't actually need it, so when you have 50+ people in a small zone battling it out, there is no bandwidth optimisations to make graphics run more smoothly.

Sadly with NVIDIA's forums still down due to their ignorance towards user security (like most of the world), you can't even take up the matter with them, which may be a GPU issue.

blbeta

2012-10-21, 09:15 PM

TheBladeRoden

2012-10-22, 03:15 AM

No love for people with 5 year old processors :(

Getting 5 fps in large battles with my Core2 Quad

blbeta

2012-10-22, 05:17 AM

No love for people with 5 year old processors :(

Getting 5 fps in large battles with my Core2 Quad

Here is hoping "optimizations" are good. While I don't have a high end machine, if I can't get a playable FPS even on low with my i5-2400 I have no idea what many are gonna do.

I can get good FPS on all settings if I am flying around by myself, but it isn't smooth for me no matter the settings once I am in a fight around buildings.

Sturmhardt

2012-10-22, 12:06 PM

There is no doubt the game still needs optimization but consider the fact there is 2000 people running around and 100-200 may be on your screen. It's going to take CPU power.

Now that said. We can kiss "Planetside day" goodbye, No machine on this planet is going to handle 2000 players in one location in a game like this; It's just not going to happen. This is not your average MMO (and none of THOSE average mmorpg's have 2000 people around at once) so let's let them do their job and make this game and see what happens. After all these years, one month isn't gonna be that big of a deal.

I don't believe in the 2000. They said that this is the goal but I guess we can assume they only achieved half of that or less. If they achieved 2000 players on 1 continent they would have made a partytweet or something about it, but they never have and they are absolutely silent about playernumbers. Plus I have not seen bigger fights than in PS1. Not once.

Btw, there are several games that don't have too much of a problem to let you fight 1-200 opponents, Mount and Blade does it, even Just Cause 2 has a Mod (!!) that lets you play with 1500 guys... (search it on youtube) so I'm not too impressed by the performance here.

ChronixPsyc

2012-10-22, 04:24 PM

I've got an Alienware M17x R2 with 8GB RAM, 5870 1GB, iy 740QM and this game runs like a dog and I don't really understand why. In a few months, I'll be upgrading my 5870 to a 7970m or something equivalent, but atm, its too expensive to get it (£413 on ebay + £91 shipping).

Is this just because the game is still in testing or will it run like this all the time?

Hyncharas

2012-10-22, 05:27 PM

Goku has responded I see so this might have been said already.

Everytime. Okay, let me stress this... Everytime. ... Hey.. EVERYTIME. (not 49 out of 50) E V E R Y T I M E there is ANY patch, be it 119k or 12k or 2 gigs. ALWAYS make sure to delete your useroptions.ini and ww_crashuploader.exe files. If you don't you will lose 30-50 fps.

I appreciate that advice but, to be honest, we shouldn't really have to do that ourselves! The program should do it automatically.

In the end the issue is server-side, not client-side. Like most games during a beta, unless GPU companies actually release a performance update to their drivers, but ultimately some bugs take longer to iron out than others. Some bugs are even a failure of technology, which can take over a year to overhaul.

There is also the fact that not every ISP, or residential area in which a game is played, is the same everywhere else. This can be due to environmental factors where DSL or Fiber simply can't be put in. As it stands, this is unlikely to ever change.

Vanu Playa

2012-10-23, 01:08 AM

Just reading all your responses and have to say that I too am a little depressed about the performance of the game. I originally had an Athlon X3, to which I added an NVIDIA GTX560TI video card and got 8GB of RAM just for this game. After a week of putting up with poor performance I did the cheap thing and went for an Athlon X4 processor, one more core and 500MHZ more clock speed, thinking it would make a difference, and it did! Well till after a few patches. Currently it is running decent, but not great. I did all the tricks I found online, deleted the user.ini file, then played around with the graphics settings till I was able to pull 15-20 FPS during battles. I still, however, see frame rates as low as 5FPS, which is unacceptable in my book. I know I don't have the most cutting edge machine, but how many average gamers do? In my eyes, a quad core processor and a good video and plenty of RAM, all if which I have should! Let's just hope the next patch fixes these issues, otherwise it will be a near death blow to this game. For all those who played the first planetside, it too had the same problems. I originally had an Athlon XP1600 and a whopping 2GB of RAM running on Windows 98 back in the day, after spending some cash, and upgrading my system, it finally played decent. Boy that takes me back!

bullet

2012-10-23, 01:29 AM

I hope they address the performance issues or readjust the Min/Rec specs because what I'm running right now is pretty much in between the Min/Rec. I can get some decent FPS, when I'm by myself in a field. In a large battle, its 5-20 FPS depending on the number of people. This is with everything on low , except Graphics because on low Infils are completely invisible, render set to about 80%. I'm not sure if they fixed the infil thing yet, but the Low or Med setting on Graphics doesn't make a huge difference in FPS.

Phenom II X4 965
HD 5770
4GB

I'm holding off on upgrading until they decide what they want to do. I know I need to though.

Illtempered

2012-10-23, 02:07 AM

I'm impressed with the optimization thus-far. When I first played, the game made my HP notebook shutdown due to heat. I know I know, the game's not for notebooks, but it was all I had at the moment. I'm buying a new rig, partly to play Planetside!

Now I can play without shutdowns, and even get decent FPS, all things considering. I can't wait to try it on the new beastly machine I'm buying.

Ghost Runner

2012-10-23, 06:07 AM

Hmm well I'm using an older i7 950 no Ocing with 6 gigs of ram and a GTX 570 I never see anything below playable except in the Warp gate upon logging in give it 10 seconds and it clears up for me My other rig is a phenom X6 3.0ghz running with a 9800GTX and runs very well on that most of the time also 6 gigs of ram both on windows 7 64

Only thing I can think of is the AMD is running only at 1280x1024 which is why it might not be having problems like the other AMD users.