unplayable on lowest settings
elfprince13
Join Date: 2012-12-17 Member: 175393Members
Join Date: 2012-12-17 Member: 175393Members
<div class="IPBDescription">any work arounds or possible fixes?</div>My machine has a 2.53GHz C2D, 512MB NVidia 9600m GT, and 8GB of DDR3 - in other words, it's fully capable of playing Starcraft 2 quite smoothly on medium settings. However NS2 gets between 1 and 10 frames per second on lowest settings (720x480, low quality everything, no effects, multicore rendering enabled), even in the menu or playing by myself in exploration mode.
I pre-ordered before the engine test, and have been patiently waiting for the performance to improve for almost 3 years. It would really be great to not have to wait another year for a hardware upgrade before I can play this game (especially because I've been hawking it to friends ever since the beta opened).
I pre-ordered before the engine test, and have been patiently waiting for the performance to improve for almost 3 years. It would really be great to not have to wait another year for a hardware upgrade before I can play this game (especially because I've been hawking it to friends ever since the beta opened).
Comments
Intel Core Duo E6400 (2.13GHz), nvidia 8800GT, 5 GB DDR2 RAM
lowest settings and 1024x768
but no multicore rendering
in the menu it shows around 100 fps.
As for Starcraft 2, it's quite amazing what Blizzard can pull off, SC2 will even play on my worklaptop with i5 and intel onboard graphics.
Intel Core Duo E6400 (2.13GHz), nvidia 8800GT, 5 GB DDR2 RAM
lowest settings and 1024x768
but no multicore rendering
in the menu it shows around 100 fps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2047553:date=Dec 18 2012, 07:05 AM:name=Zaggy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zaggy @ Dec 18 2012, 07:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2047553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Looking at your specs, I'm afraid the CPU and GPU are the problem, mostly the GPU.
As for Starcraft 2, it's quite amazing what Blizzard can pull off, SC2 will even play on my worklaptop with i5 and intel onboard graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sehzade's post makes it pretty clear that the GPU makes all the difference in the world (8800GT is definitely a step up in power from a 9600m, even if it's a generation older). I agree that Blizzard's work is impressive, but it seems to me that the performance on NS2 is also noteworthy in it's terribleness. I really can't think of a reason why the *main menu* of NS2 should have a lower framerate on lowest possible settings than a 4v4 battle on maxed supply and medium settings in SC2. It seems like there has to be some shader in particular that ought to be hooked up to performance settings but isn't that must be responsible for that ridiculous of a performance hit.
Are there some built-in profiling tools that I can use to figure out what the culprits are?
What are the chances that, say, a 1GB GT 650M (or a generational improvement thereof) on my next machine will see decent performance? If not, I may as well contact Steam customer service and see if they'll convert my pre-order copy + Black Armor into giftable items since the game will be worthless to me for the foreseeable future.
Are there some built-in profiling tools that I can use to figure out what the culprits are?
What are the chances that, say, a 1GB GT 650M (or a generational improvement thereof) on my next machine will see decent performance? If not, I may as well contact Steam customer service and see if they'll convert my pre-order copy + Black Armor into giftable items since the game will be worthless to me for the foreseeable future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+650M&id=122" target="_blank">GPU</a> will make quite the difference.
From <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=125888&view=findpost&p=2044439" target="_blank">this </a> post:
<!--quoteo(post=2044439:date=Dec 12 2012, 04:51 PM:name=xtal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xtal @ Dec 12 2012, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not from support but maybe you should post screenshots from in-game profiler. Maybe we will figure out something from them. Open console (key ~), type <b>profile</b>, now space key freeze profiler and you can expand/contract tree. Post screenshots showing expanded tree in places where violet bars are biggest - where engine is working most intensive.
Example screenshot from profiler:
<img src="http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/302/2012112500060thread1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comparing NS2 and Far Cry 3 or Starcraft 2 is disingenuous - NS2 is doing things in real time and in more detail, when most games use pre-rendered lighting, so they don't take any hit in performance.
Starcraft 2 was released in 2007 for gods sake, and it doesn't really do much more than Command & Conquer which came out way back in 1995 - which in turn was only a pseudo 3D render of Dune II which was released in 1992 / 1993 for computers like the Amiga. The Amiga had a 14Mhz processor (A1200) and 2Mb of RAM, and ran it quite happily.
Just stop with the comparisons to Starcraft, when you're comparing a pair of roller skates to a racing car, in terms of what it has to do.
Comparing NS2 and Far Cry 3 or Starcraft 2 is disingenuous - NS2 is doing things in real time and in more detail, when most games use pre-rendered lighting, so they don't take any hit in performance.
Starcraft 2 was released in 2007 for gods sake, and it doesn't really do much more than Command & Conquer which came out way back in 1995 - which in turn was only a pseudo 3D render of Dune II which was released in 1992 / 1993 for computers like the Amiga. The Amiga had a 14Mhz processor (A1200) and 2Mb of RAM, and ran it quite happily.
Just stop with the comparisons to Starcraft, when you're comparing a pair of roller skates to a racing car, in terms of what it has to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was hoping to not go there but yeah, you cannot compare SC2 and NS2, SC2 is way older and while it is 3D, it really isn't a FPS.
And even if they were of same age and gametype, SC2 is made by Blizzard, they have a big team and budget to polish it a lot before release.
@elfprince13
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=2012992" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...amp;pid=2012992</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2012992:date=Nov 6 2012, 08:14 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 6 2012, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2012992"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For those wishing simply to contribute to performance in ns2 , possibly helping the cause of your slow downs for everyone down the road yet without an immediate fix for you personally... Please submit a performance log of the most polarizing instance of fps drop by typing p_logall to create a round long log of your performance. The log is saved in your appdata folder at the end of a round or exit and you can zip it up and link it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->