<!--quoteo(post=1833505:date=Feb 18 2011, 11:30 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 18 2011, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833505"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The answer is that the tasks are split. Artists don't help with the optimisation, game coders don't help with the optimisation (well they can, but it's limited, and Max has stated that he wants to write a system to eliminate this need).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know where you got the notion that artist don't help with optimization but its a daily occurrence from downsizing textures to eliminating polygons from 3D models, the need for artist to always be aware of how they are using system resources is a must or we would get games with 1,000,000 polygon models with 10000x10000 texture maps.
It doesn't even end there in some cases depending on the engine your using the artist is responsible in making collision boxes that are not too complicated, some engines just use the mesh itself as collision but then it renders that mesh twice which is poor for performance.
Artist are always aware that using 500 polygons rather than 1000 polygons or even doing slight things to both the texture maps and collision boxes helps the performance of the levels.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Best technical details so far on the optimization: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=112484&st=0" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...112484&st=0</a>
Basically, the bottleneck is server-side leading to a single digit (or 0) tick/sec. Essentially, the servers aren't sending/receiving enough updates so you get lots of rubberbanding and other 'lag' that most people mistake for a client-side framerate problem. Eventually, client-side hardware will be limiting (e.g. I get 30-70 fps in NS2 vs. 60-200 fps in other comparable games such as L4D2), but right now there is basically little you can do on your end to improve the 'lagginess' of NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1833406:date=Feb 18 2011, 03:23 PM:name=Lemming Jesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lemming Jesus @ Feb 18 2011, 03:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833406"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We're just confused why we are still unable to play the game. From the outside it seems like the devs are not having any issues at all. You guys decided to move to beta with broken performance and massive parts of gameplay missing. We're just now getting DI and it changes the entire way the game works. It's hard to test these gameplay features when no servers can handle a full team of 16 players. Who's to say anything is balanced if we're not doing much more than team deathmatch?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know what a Beta is? A real, PC beta, not just an excuse to play the game either for free or early? Remember when those existed? Oh wait they still do, and this one is currently in one. Perhaps you may have missed it, the developers are still doing <b>feature implementation</b> and the people who bought the game prior to yourself have been experiencing this issues longer. Just chill out, they'll get to it. Besides, wasn't the sentiment torward the beta was that it should not have left alpha to begin with?
After playing 164 I feel that things are on track with NS2. Taking longer than I might have expected initially but each patch we get, we get something more. No one promised you a full working game, because you didn't buy one. You bought a pre-order copy and access to the "WE'RE STILL MAKING THE FRIGGIN' GAME". You're merely getting a taste of what you can expect to get and the way the team handles the community feedback here, I have pretty good confidence in that they'll make into the complete Q.A.'d product you right now wish for.
<!--quoteo(post=1833485:date=Feb 19 2011, 04:52 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 19 2011, 04:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833485"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not entirely true. Film, you see, uses motion blur, which smooths out the frames. You need many more frames per second with video games than with film to see it 'smooth'. <a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">Reference.</a>
juice: you lost me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for posting this. This "my mommy told me that 30 FPS are smooth, they really are!" stuff is just hilarious, people believe it so hard they don't recognize the stuttering / sloppiness in video games because FPS-o-meter says 31. Same with 60 Hz CRT monitors. Gosh, welcome reality.
Let's make this threat sticky so that we don't have a new threat discussing the same topic every 5 days over and over again.
For that said here are some quotes of cory explaining the situation.
<!--quoteo(post=1830078:date=Feb 6 2011, 12:16 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 6 2011, 12:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830078"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We HAVE acknowledged and addressed this on numerous occasions. Max has stated countless times that performance is his #1 priority at the moment, and that is what he has been focused on. Even tasks which may seem on the surface to not be directly related to performance usually are. Its not like there is one problem that is causing all the lag and low framerate, and Max can come on and say we are going to fix X bug and its going to solve all your problems. Max has a list of numerous optimizations that are planned, and hopefully each one of those will keep improving the game more and more.
Its not an exact science. Some optimizations that are expected to make a big impact sometimes result in smaller then expected gains, and vice versa. One optimization may have a large impact, but some other issues may be holding back the gains made from it. Add to that, everyone is running on a completely different system. Some people may see huge gains with one type of graphics card, while people with other cards, don't. Optimizing a game to run on a large spectrum of system specs is a very daunting process, compared to optimizing a game around 1 type of hardware, like an xbox or playstation.
These are all partly reason why we don't want to hype up certain optimizations that are being worked on, because everyone will expect a huge improvement and then be potentially disappointed when the patch comes out and they don't see any difference.
Trust me, Max is as frustrated as any of you. The poor performance eats away at him every day, and he is working hard to improve server lag and framerate. The new features and prototyping you see are coming mostly from Charlie's end (such as the DI at the moment) so its not taking time away from Max's optimizations.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1830168:date=Feb 6 2011, 10:28 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 6 2011, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, the map detail is really not that much of a problem. Its mostly other things running behind the scenes. We've even done tests with a version of the map wtih no lighting and shadows, and then even a version that had all geometry turned off...so nothing was being drawn. And the framerate savings was not as dramatic as you would think. So, the positive aspect of that is that this engine is clearly capable of pushing around a lot of visual detail. But it also means that spending much time to heavily optimize on the art side, or to make a very simple map for example, is not going to give us the biggest impact, compared to other code optimizations that can be done.
That said, we are in the process of testing out an new way of doing the occlusion, which we are hoping will make a difference in framerate.
<!--quoteo(post=1833509:date=Feb 19 2011, 12:49 PM:name=ae.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ae. @ Feb 19 2011, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know where you got the notion that artist don't help with optimization but its a daily occurrence from downsizing textures to eliminating polygons from 3D models, the need for artist to always be aware of how they are using system resources is a must or we would get games with 1,000,000 polygon models with 10000x10000 texture maps.
It doesn't even end there in some cases depending on the engine your using the artist is responsible in making collision boxes that are not too complicated, some engines just use the mesh itself as collision but then it renders that mesh twice which is poor for performance.
Artist are always aware that using 500 polygons rather than 1000 polygons or even doing slight things to both the texture maps and collision boxes helps the performance of the levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes there, but given <b>the context</b>, your reply was semi-irrelevant. The bottleneck is CPU-related, not GPU-related. And in fact much of the issue with playability is server-side, not client-side.
<!--quoteo(post=1833441:date=Feb 19 2011, 01:48 AM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Feb 19 2011, 01:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->163 runs fine on my PC, averaging 50fps now on high at 1080p. Laptop with a substantially slower GFX chip and CPU manages around 20 fps on High at 720p.
The human eye will accept any performance that's around about 12fps as movement. 24 fps is acceptible (used in film) and anything over 30fps is usually perceived as smooth.
If you're getting above 24 fps, quit complaining. It will get better. Or, if you cant wait, buy a faster computer. If you cant afford to buy a faster computer, quit complaining. You knew it was a game that was going to be in development for a long time, like NS1 was.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently you don't read much. Nobody that has been complaining about poor performance is getting anywhere near 24 fps average. We're lucky to get 15. According to your own theory, that does not qualify as acceptable.
Most people aren't even really having FPS problems and don't realize its server CPU lag (no not latency issues those are fine). Server performance is the biggest issue right now and it is often causing the game to appear to be playing at a fraction of the true FPS. It's kinda counterproductive to yell at UWE for not focusing on performance when it's been their priority (besides a few forum posts they aren't doing a great job of making it clear though, probably because discussing technical aspects with the community isn't going to help them all that much).
So, let's all just keep crying about it on the forums with our tears and hopefully they can make a cup full of them and make a toast before they drink them.
So many losers, so little time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really love this post. The image tickles me :3
I got over the poor performance awhile ago my computer is like a year or two old I get 35-40fps which actually looks pretty smooth. The only thing I hate right now is the rubber-banding. Which is actually nothing to do with fps but is a server performance issue which I know is being worked on (Max keeps saying it is). Performance optimization is no easy task.
<!--quoteo(post=1833746:date=Feb 19 2011, 10:20 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Feb 19 2011, 10:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most people aren't even really having FPS problems and don't realize its server CPU lag (no not latency issues those are fine). Server performance is the biggest issue right now and it is often causing the game to appear to be playing at a fraction of the true FPS. It's kinda counterproductive to yell at UWE for not focusing on performance when it's been their priority (besides a few forum posts they aren't doing a great job of making it clear though, probably because discussing technical aspects with the community isn't going to help them all that much).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>per·for·mance</b> (<i>per-fawr-muhns</i>): the manner in which or <u>the</u> efficiency with which something reacts or fulfills its intended purpose.
In my case, ###### FPS = ###### performance. I don't care what the culprit is. Server issues lead to FPS issues. How do I know... let's see... r_stats 1 in console and voila! I can see my crappy FPS flashing before my eyes.
<!--quoteo(post=1833825:date=Feb 19 2011, 10:27 PM:name=PoNeH)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PoNeH @ Feb 19 2011, 10:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How do I know... let's see... r_stats 1 in console and voila! I can see my crappy FPS flashing before my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well kinda, but when you are on a laggy server (like almost all of them) the actual game fps is even lower than the visual fps. Just saying, server performance is causing the illusion of even worse fps than the game should handle and r_stats won't even reflect how bad it really is. If the server performance issues get solved fps issues will be much less noticeable although it is obviously lower than it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1833836:date=Feb 20 2011, 04:47 AM:name=Shilorius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shilorius @ Feb 20 2011, 04:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hint: use "r_stats" and "Net_stats" combined. because r_stats does not say much about the server performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Noted.
I did set some time aside this weekend to test out the game locally, and to my surprise, it isn't performing as well as I was hoping. :( Even when lowering the resolution to 1280x720, I was averaging around 25 FPS. Also, I noticed significant mouse delays.
I know some of you believe that anything above 24 FPS is considered 'smooth', but I would have to disagree. The game definitely doesn't feel smooth around 30ish FPS on my end.
It's understandable that people get frustrated when a patch takes a few weeks and ends up not improving performance at all. With the exception of the handful of people with really great computers who can already play the game nicely, the majority of us are still waiting for the patch that brings the performance up to par so that the game is fun to play. Most posters here know the difference between Gameplay tasks and Technical tasks, but there are still a lot of Technical tasks that don't advance that goal at all, and getting a big patch full of those is sort of a drag.
I have been getting a really bad lag when I play today (21st February 2011).
When I press tab (Tab is bugged up? sometimes it doesn't work...) I have something like 100 ping when it says on the server list that it should only be 30 something :/
<!--quoteo(post=1833981:date=Feb 20 2011, 01:42 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Feb 20 2011, 01:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1833981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the exception of the handful of people with really great computers who can already play the game nicely, the majority of us are still waiting for the patch that brings the performance up (..)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the moment the game is laggy for everyone because it's not your hardware.. it's the server which causes lag.
In my last game I joined about 5 servers until I found one without lag or 0-ping-ghosts. After a couple of minutes some other players connected and we startet playing.. The server hat a tickrate of 30. but the longe the game went on the lower got the tickrate until it was at 2 ticks per second..... I guess because I placed (as a alien commandeR) more then 30 infestationpatches.
Graphic, network, etc. performance is a big priority for us. But we don't want to focus 100% on it as it's a moving target. As we add features, the performance "footprint" changes.
But we've got quite a few more optimizations coming for you.
devicenullJoin Date: 2003-04-30Member: 15967Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1834189:date=Feb 21 2011, 07:05 PM:name=Shilorius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shilorius @ Feb 21 2011, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834189"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the moment the game is laggy for everyone because it's not your hardware.. it's the server which causes lag.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definitely this. The server spikes to 100% cpu usage as soon as more then 2 people are connected.
What i dont get is that if we look at ns2hd video's he is not having that much trouble and the game runs pretty good. Now if i look at my own situation its not really the fps, i wont say its the best but for a beta its good enough, however what keeps me from playing is terrible lag. This is even when my ping is in 30ms range, so the first thought would be its probably a server problem, but i get it on every server. Infact even when i host my game locally i can feel the lag. Walk a bit forward and get pulled back slightly its like the lag compensation is pulling my leg constantly. I tried reinstalling ns2 heck even reinstalled windows but with no luck. The only thing at this stage i can think of is that the game is having problems working with one or more hardware components in my pc.
Now over the years i have been in quite a few beta's for other games but it never reached a stage a game was close to being unplayeble. My personal opinion is that ns2 should actually still be a alpha version since alot of people expect a working game even though its a beta. But done is done and true the game has progressed in terms of stability but its still hard to enjoy it at this stage. So damn you ns2hd to be able to play the game :p
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
yeah i gotta agree, while the performance has been getting better overall, its been 6+ months of performance that is still game breaking - that is mostly network, and frame rates.
people will live with the other bugs, i know i would as long as the game was nearly smooth.
i'd really love for you guys to focus on performance, even at the sacrafice of new features and bug fixes.
<!--quoteo(post=1834463:date=Feb 23 2011, 02:16 AM:name=devicenull)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (devicenull @ Feb 23 2011, 02:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834463"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Definitely this. The server spikes to 100% cpu usage as soon as more then 2 people are connected.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol what?
I guess it depends on the servers capabilities. Generally I see 80-100% cpu usage once we hit around 6 players.
10 players the tick rate is generally above 20, however as previously stated, the more buildings and time that goes on this starts to decrease. More so since the recent DI which is understandable.
The games I've been in, providing are not too long and mass spam everywhere we are getting 15 ticks with 10 players.
I have not played NS2 for a month or two (since the last time when I raged over the lag and gameplay). Today, I tried it again. And quit after less than 5 minutes... My expectations for this game is now officially zero.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1834527:date=Feb 23 2011, 03:33 AM:name=SolidNL)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SolidNL @ Feb 23 2011, 03:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834527"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What i dont get is that if we look at ns2hd video's he is not having that much trouble and the game runs pretty good. Now if i look at my own situation its not really the fps, i wont say its the best but for a beta its good enough, however what keeps me from playing is terrible lag. This is even when my ping is in 30ms range, so the first thought would be its probably a server problem, but i get it on every server. Infact even when i host my game locally i can feel the lag. Walk a bit forward and get pulled back slightly its like the lag compensation is pulling my leg constantly. I tried reinstalling ns2 heck even reinstalled windows but with no luck. The only thing at this stage i can think of is that the game is having problems working with one or more hardware components in my pc.
Now over the years i have been in quite a few beta's for other games but it never reached a stage a game was close to being unplayeble. My personal opinion is that ns2 should actually still be a alpha version since alot of people expect a working game even though its a beta. But done is done and true the game has progressed in terms of stability but its still hard to enjoy it at this stage. So damn you ns2hd to be able to play the game :p
Greetz Solid<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because Fraps is only collecting frames and NS2 fps isn't really that bad. In effect, fraps kind of smooths over the server related lag and rubberbanding a bit so that his videos look better than the actual performance.
<!--quoteo(post=1835121:date=Feb 26 2011, 03:10 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Feb 26 2011, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1835121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats because Fraps is only collecting frames and NS2 fps isn't really that bad. In effect, fraps kind of smooths over the server related lag and rubberbanding a bit so that his videos look better than the actual performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yeah that would make alot of sense, infact i was able to play a decent game a few days ago which i was really able to enjoy.
But i will still hold my opinion that ns2 should not be a beta phase yet to be honest. No offence intended, but i think alot of us like the idea that we get to withness to see a game get build up. But it might effect how some people look at the game that might not be familair with ns to begin with and expect a very playeble product since thats what alot of people seem to expect nowadays when they sign up for a beta.
I guess it depends on the servers capabilities. Generally I see 80-100% cpu usage once we hit around 6 players.
10 players the tick rate is generally above 20, however as previously stated, the more buildings and time that goes on this starts to decrease. More so since the recent DI which is understandable.
The games I've been in, providing are not too long and mass spam everywhere we are getting 15 ticks with 10 players.
That's just my observations anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What speed is your CPU? Are you measuring per-core, or overall?
<!--quoteo(post=1835430:date=Feb 28 2011, 02:41 PM:name=saltybp53)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (saltybp53 @ Feb 28 2011, 02:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1835430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe the Devs should just ask the community to look over the network code or something....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
I don't know where you got the notion that artist don't help with optimization but its a daily occurrence from downsizing textures to eliminating polygons from 3D models, the need for artist to always be aware of how they are using system resources is a must or we would get games with 1,000,000 polygon models with 10000x10000 texture maps.
It doesn't even end there in some cases depending on the engine your using the artist is responsible in making collision boxes that are not too complicated, some engines just use the mesh itself as collision but then it renders that mesh twice which is poor for performance.
Artist are always aware that using 500 polygons rather than 1000 polygons or even doing slight things to both the texture maps and collision boxes helps the performance of the levels.
Basically, the bottleneck is server-side leading to a single digit (or 0) tick/sec. Essentially, the servers aren't sending/receiving enough updates so you get lots of rubberbanding and other 'lag' that most people mistake for a client-side framerate problem. Eventually, client-side hardware will be limiting (e.g. I get 30-70 fps in NS2 vs. 60-200 fps in other comparable games such as L4D2), but right now there is basically little you can do on your end to improve the 'lagginess' of NS2.
Do you know what a Beta is? A real, PC beta, not just an excuse to play the game either for free or early? Remember when those existed? Oh wait they still do, and this one is currently in one. Perhaps you may have missed it, the developers are still doing <b>feature implementation</b> and the people who bought the game prior to yourself have been experiencing this issues longer. Just chill out, they'll get to it. Besides, wasn't the sentiment torward the beta was that it should not have left alpha to begin with?
After playing 164 I feel that things are on track with NS2. Taking longer than I might have expected initially but each patch we get, we get something more. No one promised you a full working game, because you didn't buy one. You bought a pre-order copy and access to the "WE'RE STILL MAKING THE FRIGGIN' GAME". You're merely getting a taste of what you can expect to get and the way the team handles the community feedback here, I have pretty good confidence in that they'll make into the complete Q.A.'d product you right now wish for.
<a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">Reference.</a>
juice: you lost me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for posting this. This "my mommy told me that 30 FPS are smooth, they really are!" stuff is just hilarious, people believe it so hard they don't recognize the stuttering / sloppiness in video games because FPS-o-meter says 31. Same with 60 Hz CRT monitors. Gosh, welcome reality.
For that said here are some quotes of cory explaining the situation.
<!--quoteo(post=1830078:date=Feb 6 2011, 12:16 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 6 2011, 12:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830078"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We HAVE acknowledged and addressed this on numerous occasions. Max has stated countless times that performance is his #1 priority at the moment, and that is what he has been focused on. Even tasks which may seem on the surface to not be directly related to performance usually are. Its not like there is one problem that is causing all the lag and low framerate, and Max can come on and say we are going to fix X bug and its going to solve all your problems. Max has a list of numerous optimizations that are planned, and hopefully each one of those will keep improving the game more and more.
Its not an exact science. Some optimizations that are expected to make a big impact sometimes result in smaller then expected gains, and vice versa. One optimization may have a large impact, but some other issues may be holding back the gains made from it. Add to that, everyone is running on a completely different system. Some people may see huge gains with one type of graphics card, while people with other cards, don't. Optimizing a game to run on a large spectrum of system specs is a very daunting process, compared to optimizing a game around 1 type of hardware, like an xbox or playstation.
These are all partly reason why we don't want to hype up certain optimizations that are being worked on, because everyone will expect a huge improvement and then be potentially disappointed when the patch comes out and they don't see any difference.
Trust me, Max is as frustrated as any of you. The poor performance eats away at him every day, and he is working hard to improve server lag and framerate. The new features and prototyping you see are coming mostly from Charlie's end (such as the DI at the moment) so its not taking time away from Max's optimizations.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1830168:date=Feb 6 2011, 10:28 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 6 2011, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1830168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, the map detail is really not that much of a problem. Its mostly other things running behind the scenes. We've even done tests with a version of the map wtih no lighting and shadows, and then even a version that had all geometry turned off...so nothing was being drawn. And the framerate savings was not as dramatic as you would think. So, the positive aspect of that is that this engine is clearly capable of pushing around a lot of visual detail. But it also means that spending much time to heavily optimize on the art side, or to make a very simple map for example, is not going to give us the biggest impact, compared to other code optimizations that can be done.
That said, we are in the process of testing out an new way of doing the occlusion, which we are hoping will make a difference in framerate.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The marines get flamethrowers and my FPS gets raped by it :/
It doesn't even end there in some cases depending on the engine your using the artist is responsible in making collision boxes that are not too complicated, some engines just use the mesh itself as collision but then it renders that mesh twice which is poor for performance.
Artist are always aware that using 500 polygons rather than 1000 polygons or even doing slight things to both the texture maps and collision boxes helps the performance of the levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes there, but given <b>the context</b>, your reply was semi-irrelevant. The bottleneck is CPU-related, not GPU-related. And in fact much of the issue with playability is server-side, not client-side.
The human eye will accept any performance that's around about 12fps as movement. 24 fps is acceptible (used in film) and anything over 30fps is usually perceived as smooth.
If you're getting above 24 fps, quit complaining. It will get better. Or, if you cant wait, buy a faster computer. If you cant afford to buy a faster computer, quit complaining. You knew it was a game that was going to be in development for a long time, like NS1 was.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently you don't read much. Nobody that has been complaining about poor performance is getting anywhere near 24 fps average. We're lucky to get 15. According to your own theory, that does not qualify as acceptable.
So, let's all just keep crying about it on the forums with our tears and hopefully they can make a cup full of them and make a toast before they drink them.
So many losers, so little time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really love this post. The image tickles me :3
I got over the poor performance awhile ago my computer is like a year or two old I get 35-40fps which actually looks pretty smooth. The only thing I hate right now is the rubber-banding. Which is actually nothing to do with fps but is a server performance issue which I know is being worked on (Max keeps saying it is). Performance optimization is no easy task.
<b>per·for·mance</b> (<i>per-fawr-muhns</i>): the manner in which or <u>the</u> efficiency with which something reacts or fulfills its intended purpose.
In my case, ###### FPS = ###### performance. I don't care what the culprit is. Server issues lead to FPS issues. How do I know... let's see... r_stats 1 in console and voila! I can see my crappy FPS flashing before my eyes.
Well kinda, but when you are on a laggy server (like almost all of them) the actual game fps is even lower than the visual fps. Just saying, server performance is causing the illusion of even worse fps than the game should handle and r_stats won't even reflect how bad it really is. If the server performance issues get solved fps issues will be much less noticeable although it is obviously lower than it should be.
because r_stats does not say much about the server performance.
because r_stats does not say much about the server performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Noted.
I did set some time aside this weekend to test out the game locally, and to my surprise, it isn't performing as well as I was hoping. :( Even when lowering the resolution to 1280x720, I was averaging around 25 FPS. Also, I noticed significant mouse delays.
I know some of you believe that anything above 24 FPS is considered 'smooth', but I would have to disagree. The game definitely doesn't feel smooth around 30ish FPS on my end.
When I press tab (Tab is bugged up? sometimes it doesn't work...) I have something like 100 ping when it says on the server list that it should only be 30 something :/
At the moment the game is laggy for everyone because it's not your hardware.. it's the server which causes lag.
In my last game I joined about 5 servers until I found one without lag or 0-ping-ghosts. After a couple of minutes some other players connected and we startet playing.. The server hat a tickrate of 30.
but the longe the game went on the lower got the tickrate until it was at 2 ticks per second.....
I guess because I placed (as a alien commandeR) more then 30 infestationpatches.
But we've got quite a few more optimizations coming for you.
Definitely this. The server spikes to 100% cpu usage as soon as more then 2 people are connected.
Now over the years i have been in quite a few beta's for other games but it never reached a stage a game was close to being unplayeble. My personal opinion is that ns2 should actually still be a alpha version since alot of people expect a working game even though its a beta. But done is done and true the game has progressed in terms of stability but its still hard to enjoy it at this stage. So damn you ns2hd to be able to play the game :p
Greetz Solid
people will live with the other bugs, i know i would as long as the game was nearly smooth.
i'd really love for you guys to focus on performance, even at the sacrafice of new features and bug fixes.
lol what?
I guess it depends on the servers capabilities. Generally I see 80-100% cpu usage once we hit around 6 players.
10 players the tick rate is generally above 20, however as previously stated, the more buildings and time that goes on this starts to decrease. More so since the recent DI which is understandable.
The games I've been in, providing are not too long and mass spam everywhere we are getting 15 ticks with 10 players.
That's just my observations anyway.
I have not played NS2 for a month or two (since the last time when I raged over the lag and gameplay). Today, I tried it again. And quit after less than 5 minutes... My expectations for this game is now officially zero.
See ya in another few months?
Now over the years i have been in quite a few beta's for other games but it never reached a stage a game was close to being unplayeble. My personal opinion is that ns2 should actually still be a alpha version since alot of people expect a working game even though its a beta. But done is done and true the game has progressed in terms of stability but its still hard to enjoy it at this stage. So damn you ns2hd to be able to play the game :p
Greetz Solid<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because Fraps is only collecting frames and NS2 fps isn't really that bad. In effect, fraps kind of smooths over the server related lag and rubberbanding a bit so that his videos look better than the actual performance.
Well yeah that would make alot of sense, infact i was able to play a decent game a few days ago which i was really able to enjoy.
But i will still hold my opinion that ns2 should not be a beta phase yet to be honest. No offence intended, but i think alot of us like the idea that we get to withness to see a game get build up. But it might effect how some people look at the game that might not be familair with ns to begin with and expect a very playeble product since thats what alot of people seem to expect nowadays when they sign up for a beta.
Greetz
I guess it depends on the servers capabilities. Generally I see 80-100% cpu usage once we hit around 6 players.
10 players the tick rate is generally above 20, however as previously stated, the more buildings and time that goes on this starts to decrease. More so since the recent DI which is understandable.
The games I've been in, providing are not too long and mass spam everywhere we are getting 15 ticks with 10 players.
That's just my observations anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What speed is your CPU? Are you measuring per-core, or overall?
>.>
buzz word alert!!!!