Having poor performance in 188? Post your specs here please!
fmpone
Join Date: 2011-07-05 Member: 108086Members, Squad Five Blue
Join Date: 2011-07-05 Member: 108086Members, Squad Five Blue
Comments
CPU Type, Specs and Speed
Amount of RAM
Graphics Card Brand (ATi/Nvidia) and Model Number (xxxx or xxx)
Graphics Driver Version
Windows Version (XP/Vista/7 32bit/64bit)
FPS examples (Minimum/Maximum) in Summit or Tram please. Also tell us which server you played on. Try running a LAN server and see what FPS you get.
CPU: i7 920 4.2ghz
RAM: 12gb
GFX: AMD 5850
Driver: 11.10
OS: Win7 64bit
FPS: 40-50 in a full game on Summit, but felt like 10.
I then installed the 11.11 drivers and it completely removed the mouse lag and general fps sluggish-ness.
Now my FPS shows 50-70 in a full game but it 'feels' good nearly all the time, like I am actually getting that FPS.
(edit: thats with atmospherics disabled)
4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 399MHz
1280MB GeForce GTX 570
Nvidia Graphics Driver 285.62
MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Summit usually 15 lowest(Lots of turret/hydra spam) 50 highest (usually start of game)
v11.11a AMD: <a href="http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2814" target="_blank">http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2814</a>
v285.79 Nvidia: <a href="http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2808" target="_blank">http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2808</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1886650:date=Nov 24 2011, 07:12 PM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Nov 24 2011, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886650"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I then installed the 11.11 drivers and it completely removed the mouse lag and general fps sluggish-ness.
Now my FPS shows 50-70 in a full game but it 'feels' good nearly all the time, like I am actually getting that FPS.
(edit: thats with atmospherics disabled)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which makes me inclined to attribute that to an improperly configured control-panel which has been reset upon a new driver-installation (or perhaps you were running on just very very old drivers).
<!--QuoteBegin-'Commie-sama'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ('Commie-sama')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 399MHz
1280MB GeForce GTX 570
Nvidia Graphics Driver 285.62
MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Summit usually 15 lowest(Lots of turret/hydra spam) 50 highest (usually start of game)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's your CPU. If you're willing to overclock it (a Q6600 should go to 3.0GHz on air usually), try and do so.
As for me, I indeed have noticed an increase of mouse-lag. On summit it isn't too bad, but on tram it's pretty dreadful (with or without atmospherics\FXAA). So +1 for psyko for consistently managing to have produced the best performing map.
I dont have the control panel installed, just the driver, and my 'old' driver was 11.10 the previous release.
Not to take anything away from psyko, but that award could be going to Evil_bOb soon. ns2_turtle is stunning, both performance wise and functionally.
nVidia's latest WHQL-drivers seem to be functioning correctly with NS2, no performance drop noticed so far with 188.
[EDIT]
That's true Argathor, same for fmpone's veil.
I'm on upper mid range Nvidia hardware, (275 GTX, drivers less than a month old) and don't have any problems offline, very responsive high fps, smoother than 187. Haven't tried servers yet, it might be interesting if people with problems see if the same occurs offline. If its only online it might be to do with changes in the code effecting cpu usage, but a q6600 should always be able to play NS2... at least when its optimized.
Tram by means of space too is also more cramped yet larger in playable size, so the factor isn't the map builder but the engine's own rendering system and techniques. I wouldn't judge one designer to be doing ultimately better as it is not in their control.
It purely is playable space and amount of geometrical detail. If you keep it really simple it performs much better for longer, I've taken to this attribute in my level where I've added almost zero bevelling and shaping where it's not currently needed so I can get performance for longer, before I go more detailed and make development longer. Geometry to me, appears to be the main bounding problem. Static meshes are fine, throw as many in as the eye can see. Although lots of geometry and the engine says "bye bye FPS", to an extent.
8gb ram
gigabyte nvidia gtx460OC (1GB)
win7 64bit
fps about 30 in summit, going in 20s in normal fights
And I installed this copy of windows about 2 weeks ago with newest drivers at the time (but tbh, I played 187 this morning, so why should a driver update have anything to do with performance going down?)
I'm not sure if the fps has decreased much (certainly hasn't increased), but I'm getting stupid amounts of mouse lag.
Having loads of details doesnt make a map playable. Function (balance, style, etc) and performance are much more important. Get those first, add detail afterwards when performance permits. The biggest joke here is that half the players (aliens) see everything in yellow which negates pretty much all detail. Complete waste, for now.
Clearly there is something else going on behind the scenes, if my driver update solved the issue for me. I think the game holds a lot more performance potential than some people are getting at the moment. If mouse lag has turned up this patch, I would think it is most likely not their PC hardware (as a driver update fixed mine).
Is there any way I could work out what was going wrong if I reverted back to 11.10 and it happened again?
Is there any way I could work out what was going wrong if I reverted back to 11.10 and it happened again?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had 11.9 when trying out the new build the first time. I had major mouse lag and it was a terrible experience trying to aim anything that moved. I upgraded to 11.11 and it solved the issue. Runs nice and smooth now!
Installed Memory(RAM): 6.00 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320
I normaly get about 30 FPS but it seem horiblew this build. I even lowed my graphics to medium, them 'Ridiculously Awful' and then even lowered my Display resolution but still seems bad for some reason?
For reference:
AMD X6 1090T @ 3.2Ghz
16Gb RAM
AMD 5870 / NV GTS 450
Gets the frames you see in my videos (I use each GPU interchangably - the point to take away is the much weaker 450 can produce the frames you see in my vids.)
6gb ddr3
amd 5870
windows 7
Playing on aus pure 1. 40-55 ticks out of combat in summit. Sometimes when walking into a new area it will temporarily go down to 10-20 for a few seconds presumably because its trying to load what was being occluded really well? Dips to 20's in combat, get mouse lag and things teleporting slightly.
NS2 is almost input-lag free too (other than a general lower than normal fps feeling). The difference between driver changes for me was like playing two totally different games. Whatever is causing the problems significantly impedes input to the game.
I rolled back my gfx driver to 11.10 to see if I could make a video of how bad the input-lag is with this issue, but my FPS is still smooth with no input-lag.
If it isn't the actual driver release, what else changes (or can change) when you only download/install a new gfx driver? (as that has fixed it for two of us at least)
So is this insider information that the originally posted specs during alpha are never going to be able to handle "Spark"?
I play every game I own on a gt 220 just fine, even Dirt 3 but ns2 still feels extremely sluggish and in my latest run with this build I had render issues I experienced back in the alpha like walls disappearing and artifacts triangulated from center screen. Don't get me wrong, I get ~50 FPS on a win7/64bit OS, 1090T/gt220/16GB of ram but the experience is less than desirable for myself.
<i>(all drivers are up to date)</i>
(And the 320 is a 128-bit DX 10.1 card and NS2 is a DX 9 game)
(And the 320 is a 128-bit DX 10.1 card and NS2 is a DX 9 game)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whether a card is DX10, or 9 or 11 doesnt matter if the card is a slow card. You can have a really slow card that's DX11 enabled, and a really fast DX9 card which would play NS2 much better. Saying this, currently NS2 is more CPU limited than GPU.
The average PC (on according to Steam's latest servey) should be able to play NS2 if not now, then deffinatly on release.
The average PC (on according to Steam's latest servey) should be able to play NS2 if not now, then deffinatly on release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think his point was more that running a dx9 game with dx10.1 hardware won't give better performance simply because a more recent version of DirectX is supported, disregarding overall card performance.
Sorry Obraxis, I generally agree with you but this time not so much. Are you saying my AMD Athlon 1090T Black Edition is inferior?
A statement like that almost makes me feel ";removed from the code on lua based engines" because my wallet is smaller than the guy next to me. My system can rock out great performance on every game I own and to say with my specs I am below the average systems out there. I mean I still play rainbow six vegas 2 and dirt 2 on my dual core AMD/9800gt rig.
Taking all comments into consideration I have to lean towards LUA being a single threaded animal so you could have enough cores to blot out the sun but unless the CPU speed is very high you are screwed to be blunt about it.
The game is not unplayable but it is undesirable for me at this time personally.
<u><i>Crossing fingers santa sprinkles some magic dust on Spark to make it smooth as sleigh tracks in soft snow.</i></u>
The 320 isn't a slow card, for its series it is an average card.
If Crysis 1 can be played by a video card but NS2 can not, there's a problem. Why? NS2 is using an inferior render. If anything, the problem is not in the video card but the software maker to attune to the most recent version.
I'm sorry, there's a <b>worse</b> card in the 300 series than the 320? Do they make 310s or something?
The 320 is drastically inferior to the 340, 350, 360, and 380 cards. Calling the 320 "average" is like calling an 2gb of RAM "average". The 300 series in general is pretty behind the times, too.