Performace is really bad
Vitor
Join Date: 2011-04-23 Member: 95229Members
Join Date: 2011-04-23 Member: 95229Members
Hello, and sorry for my bad english.
I'm trying to play the beta of NS2, but the performace is just terrible.
I have this rig:
Phenom II x4 955 BE
HD 4870
6GB DDR2 800
M4A78-EM
I cant get a solid 60 fps in any config, all configs, awful, medium and high give me about 30~50 fps on 1920x1080. I get 30 fps most of the time, 50 fps is just when i look the ground.
This performace is normal or i did something very wrong?
I'm trying to play the beta of NS2, but the performace is just terrible.
I have this rig:
Phenom II x4 955 BE
HD 4870
6GB DDR2 800
M4A78-EM
I cant get a solid 60 fps in any config, all configs, awful, medium and high give me about 30~50 fps on 1920x1080. I get 30 fps most of the time, 50 fps is just when i look the ground.
This performace is normal or i did something very wrong?
Comments
Hi Vitor, welcome to the forums. Before everyone jumps in, this is probably the most asked question at the moment ;)
For now it's normal. Performance has improved a lot the past few patches but it's still a big issue for a lot of people and Unknown Worlds is working hard to improve the situation. If I understand the dev posts correctly we can expect more improvements in the upcoming patches. Look at the threads from the past couple of weeks to see their comments for yourself. :)
You call that "really bad"?
I think 30+ is all right for NS2 standarts.
Besides I never heard of anybody, who has more than average 50fps ingame ATM.
Edit: Just as marsvin said. It will improove. Just wait a little longer :-)
This performace is normal or i did something very wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely normal at the current state of the game (as it is not optimized)
Performance will increase over time. Don't worry :)
PS: The different graphics detail settings currently have very little to no influence on fps
You call that "really bad"?
I think 30+ is all right for NS2 standarts.
Besides I never heard of anybody, who has more than average 50fps ingame ATM.
Edit: Just as marsvin said. It will improove. Just wait a little longer :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but that config should crush NS2. If he's getting 30 fps, imagine what the people with the minimum specs are getting. I have a similar setup and I get a consistent 50 fps in Crysis.
Actually, client fps has little affect on lagginess right now (unless your max is 10 fps or less). Personally, as long as they optimize the client side enough to where I get a consistent 60 fps, I'll be happy. That's the refresh rate of my monitor, so any fps over that is pretty much wasted.
Once you go past 60, the human eye cant tell the difference, as evidenced by Peter Jackson's decision to select 48fps over 60fps for The Hobbit because there is virtually no visible difference in motion.
Also, your monitor screen is more than likely running at 60hz, which is a progressive scan. This roughly equates to a maximum of 60fps that your monitor can deliver. If your monitor is set to 75hz, then it's 75fps approx. Any higher, is simply not visible because your screen cannot display it.
Once you go past 60, the human eye cant tell the difference, as evidenced by Peter Jackson's decision to select 48fps over 60fps for The Hobbit because there is virtually no visible difference in motion.
Also, your monitor screen is more than likely running at 60hz, which is a progressive scan. This roughly equates to a maximum of 60fps that your monitor can deliver. If your monitor is set to 75hz, then it's 75fps approx. Any higher, is simply not visible because your screen cannot display it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not entirely true.
Film and television appears faster because it's encoded or recorded in such a way that blurs its frames together slightly. It's also perfectly steady, whereas games speed up and slow down which is very noticeable, moreso than a consistent slow framerate.
With games, which have no blur and inconsistent framerates most of the time, the low framerate is much more noticeable.
For games you want it to be at least 40, preferably 60 if only to have margin, 50 acceptable. To get the best effect you need to have a high margin in which the framerate can wobble around freely and not have it be noticeable.
You may be able to play it at 30, but it will have a noticeably poor refresh rate.
from what i remember an 85Hz CRT monitor was ALOT smoother and more enjoyable than 60Hz.
and a 100Hz (as in 100fps, not frame interpolation) was even SMOOTHER, like swimming in silk...
from what i remember an 85Hz CRT monitor was ALOT smoother and more enjoyable than 60Hz.
and a 100Hz (as in 100fps, not frame interpolation) was even SMOOTHER, like swimming in silk...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I got a 120hz monitor 2 or so weeks ago, and just wow. Things seem... beautiful now. You won't regret it =D
I want to emphasize this point, as it's the biggest barrier to recommending this game to my friends right now. The change in performance from the 'low' setting to 'high' is negligible; what's the point?
I'm hoping they find a new engine dude soon
I'm hoping they find a new engine dude soon<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is performance fixes are coming in the future to allow the GPU rather than the CPU to binds the fps. Edit: also, when the socalled "atmospheric" effects are optimized, you will have a very high setting with all kinds of cool light/smoke effects, that probably gives the same fps if the cpu cycles havent been optimized yet then
Lol, other than hiring John Carmack, I cant think of a guy who would do better than Max. He practically did the entire engine by himself, incredible
I'm hoping they find a new engine dude soon<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They left Source behind to make their own Engine. They can either go back to Source, and waste all the development on this Engine, or continue on and hope it pays off. I'd say the yare in a bad spot...they put all their cards on the table and are trying to compete with big name studios...as only an Indie studio. A mistake for a first time game.
And yeah, I notice how if I go from "Really ugly" where it looks worse than 1998 HL with no HD mods, to the best you can do in the current beta, my FPS doesn't change much at all. Also, maxed out, with what is in the game current, it looks like a 2006 / 2007 game in terms of graphics quality....I've seen Source games with better graphics, so I'm not impressed with the performance at all yet.
I love NS, played it alot, was really excited for NS2, but when you look at the development cycle for NS2, it horrible...like a nightmare...they just seem so unorganized, like they made tons of decisions without thinking. 'Course, I'm no dev...so it just looks like that to an out-sider.
ah, misunderstood your post. Another guy helping him would definitely speed it up, but I doubt they have much money to spare for a second guy at the moment
With motion blur, with camera paning being deliberately kept slow and it still looks bad.
<!--quoteo(post=1842226:date=Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1842226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Any game that can hit about 30 fps is fine to play on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only on a console, where the limitations of the control scheme means 30 FPS is quite tolerable. And even then only if it's consistent and not stuttering.
<!--quoteo(post=1842226:date=Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1842226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once you go past 60, the human eye cant tell the difference[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure where the upper limit is, but it's trivially easy to tell the difference between 100 and 200 FPS if there's no correct motion blur. Under a 100 Hz strobe light wiggling your hand quite slowly barely looks like correct motion. A ping pong ball smash under a 100 Hz strobe looks like a dotted line with images of the ball about a foot apart. To get it looking smooth and correct I suspect not even 1000 Hz is enough; but I've never had access to a strobe that goes above 200 Hz.
<!--quoteo(post=1842226:date=Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1842226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]as evidenced by Peter Jackson's decision to select 48fps over 60fps for The Hobbit because there is virtually no visible difference in motion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With motion blur, and they did see an improvement with 60 Hz, they went with 48 Hz as most cost-effective.
<!--quoteo(post=1842226:date=Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Apr 24 2011, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1842226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, your monitor screen is more than likely running at 60hz, which is a progressive scan. This roughly equates to a maximum of 60fps that your monitor can deliver. If your monitor is set to 75hz, then it's 75fps approx. Any higher, is simply not visible because your screen cannot display it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My display runs at 120 Hz in 1024*768 and 160 Hz in 800x600. If a game is not too CPU intensive I will sacrifice image resolution for smooth motion any day; as long as I can have max AF.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/jobs/" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/jobs/</a>
They're already looking for another engine programmer, though they haven't found anyone since it went up a month ago. My guess is a 'programming an engine' job is less desirable in the gaming industry than a 'programming a game' job that was filled within a few days.
Visual evoked potentials are in the 100 ms range. So a perceived difference from the fluidity of true motion of about 1% would correspond to a 1 ms time frame, equivalent to 1000 Hz. That's assuming ideal motion blur to capture the information lost in the intervening time period.
A framerate of 100 fps would correspond to a difference of 10% of the VEP latency.
10 fps would be 100%.
That's one way of thinking about it.
These numbers are correct, but only for CRT TV's - not PC monitors. No one is going to have their PC connected to a CRT TV, not only because of the low refresh rate but also the extremely low resolution. Also, I would completely disagree with your assertion that 30fps is fine to play on. For some games maybe, but not for a multiplayer FPS.
We do not see in frames...and studios have shown humans can tell the difference of up to 300FPS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->If this old United States Air Force study is any clue to you, we've only scratched the surface in not only knowing our FPS limits, and coming up with hardware that can match, or even approach them.
The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
So sick of people thinking because consoles and movies run at 30FPS, that that is the max the human eye can see.
<b>Also UWE</b>, I'm a big fan, I may have just registered, but I've played since 2004(yeah, so not the start, but awhile!), and I was really excited bout NS2. First, I thought it was going to be a free Source mod. My next reaction to that it was going to cost money, was not a good one. Infact, alot of mods were going "retail" and Indie and whatnot, and as a kid of like, 15 then or so? Yeah, I was kinda pissed, because these were some of my favorite mods, and they were free, which was good, cause I was young at the time had no money.
Few years later, I'm getting excited, grown up some more, it's on Source, it's probably going to retail for 10$, 20$ if it had SP. Then I hear, bam, you're making your own Engine, this late into development. I'm kinda disappointed, as I am a huge Source fan to the point people make fun of me, and that building your own Engine would extend the already late, in my opinion, NS2. Fast forward to 2009ish, at one of my favorite communities someone makes a post that NS2 is available for pre-order and there is an in-engine test! 20$, what I expected...of course then I found out it had no SP, so 20$ seems steep to me, but I was thinking bout how you had made your own Engine, so that's fair. Then bam, you bump it up to 35$, unexpected. I start seeing some videos that you guys released and became very excited, it looked to be coming along smoothly.
Then, at Christmas, where you had your two for one deal, me and my cousin went in on it, 15$ felt perfect for what I saw in the video. I knew it was a beta, so I was expecting alot of content not implemented, probably untoptimized, but every beta I had been in, had been pretty much a solid game, just buggy and lacking content. However, yours goes beyond buggy and at best is an Alpha, of course, you even admitted this in a post when you went to beta "It really isn't ready for beta, but we have no choice." to be honest, I lost a little respect there. I understand why you had to do it, but it just felt wrong, like deception, even though you clearly stated it. The videos you had shown off were obviously very selective and well done, not showing the true gameplay until the point.(YEah, course I could have YouTubed videos of other testers, but I figured watching Official videos from you guys would be enough.)
My stand on the whole matter is yes, you guys bit off more than you could chew. You should have finished the Source version, despite limitations, used the funding gained from it to make your own Engine for NS3. It would have been a smarter move, though I know you guys are dedicated to the game and didn't want to present it in any way other than you saw fit. That's a good trait to have, but not good in a business world. I get that you want your first "real" retail game to be an amazing one. I just think from a financial standpoint, it would have been a good idea to compromise on the whole thing. Set some realistic expectations and start small. You guys are trying to make a Triple AAA Engine, with a small dev team and a limited budget...what companies with 30-40 people do with a huge budget and a publisher. I think you guys should have taken baby steps, like I said, finish the Source version, then reveal NS3 a few years later with your perfected Engine, by then it would have had more fans, more of a budget, and more experience...perhaps even a publisher, if you guys wouldn't mind one of those.(I still say Valve should help you guys out, they love to do that kind of thing.)
That said, I won't ask for a refund. I think this is a nice investment, and it really is, because while it doesn't seem like it was a smart buy, it'll pay off in time, like an investment. I think you guys are however setting the price to high. Many of my friends won't purchase / are waiting for it to go down to 15 - 20$, ones that said they would, wouldn't, when they learned there was no SP for 35$.(You can buy alot of nice games for 35$ these days, look at Section 8: Prejudice, 6 hour SP, 32P MP, multiple game modes, 15$)
In the market the way it is today, with the abundance of great MP shooters out, or coming out, and NS2's unique appeal of RTS / FPS is no longer so unique, charging a premium price for what most would consider "budget" title. I'm not trying to bring offense, but if you go on Steam and look for games 35$ and under, you can find a host of games with way, way more content, for cheaper.)
I really hope you guys finish this up, and I really hope you make it big, and get rewarded for all your hard efforts. The problem is, I just can't see it becoming a smash hit, with not alot of publicity, I mean commercials are out of the window, the modding community already knows of it, and their excitement is gone...now Steam marketing can only do -so- much. Of course, you could take off like TripWire did, who knows...then again, they had 1 million dollars from the MSU contest, along with a Engine already done for them, and most of it's content. They had it easier.
<b>
I really hope I'm wrong about everything, one of the few cases where I would hope that. </b>(Trolls, make sure to read this before flaming me.)
Moral of the story: you're being far too pessimistic about UWE and NS2.
They're already looking for another engine programmer, though they haven't found anyone since it went up a month ago. My guess is a 'programming an engine' job is less desirable in the gaming industry than a 'programming a game' job that was filled within a few days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Programming the engine is far more complex and demanding. Not a lot of really ######-hot c++ programmers around that fits the profile they need (and are free; if you are that hot a c++ programmer, chances are you already got a job that pays twice what UWE can pay).
And they can't pick someone who will need to learn on the job; that would cost Max too much time.
So basically they are hoping that there is someone around that is fed-up with doing boring well-paid jobs and want so get into not-so-well paid gaming jobs :-)
annndd right about here is where i would say "thanks for proving you dont know what you're talking about" and "here comes the flood of corrections"...
but it would seem plenty of people above me have taken care of this. :)
please dont spread these rumors anymore. they have been abound on many a forum for years and are continuously proven incorrect. I, personally, can easily distinguish the difference between 100 and 200 fps.. plus, rendered frames are different than real time frames etc etc etc etc... sigh. i thank console developers for this "30 fps = acceptable" phenomenon.. (or look at bioshock, where the game can be rendered at 100 fps but the physics are CAPPED at 15 friggin fps... meaning all physics look like jittery, jarring crap. all because they didn't port it properly from consoles)
I get above 30 fps on rockdown but I hate that map, it has an unfair advantage to the marines because it is just so cramped.
I get about ~19 fps on tram while is annoying because I prefer that map.
Where did you pluck that wrong information from?