Pretty sure I broke my laptop trying to play NS2. It has BSODed a few times during NS2 and now NS2.exe is missing, validating the game cache says it will redownload the exe, and then it tells me it can't be done, I have a disk read error. Great.
I just got this game during the sale and the performance is pretty bad on my end. I can get a good FPS if I disable everything and drop my resolution pretty low. Every other game I have runs great on my system and Source engine games usually run beyond great. If I try running it at my native res with all effects disabled/low (1920x1200) hover around 40-50 fps and when in fighting scenarios it drops to 20-30's.
Intel i5 2500k @ 3.3 and 3.7 during boost
nVidia 560ti FPB driver - 314.07 - WHQL
Windows 8 x64
I changed some stuff in the Deferred.render_setup file to test out the effects. I do have coding knowledge but I do not have any experience with Direct3d so shoot me what I actually did.
Anyway I believe I lowered the shader resolution of infestation (not sure tho). This gave me a steady 10 FPS increase, while I did not notice any in game change in visuals. I'd love to see some other people test it. Note that you can only host a local game because you will get kicked if joining servers for having different game files.
This only works with infestation on minimal and other settings on low (haven't tester other settings). The fps increase is noticeable directly after start in main menu and of course also in game.
If more people experience same results, and this actually doesn't have negative impact, it might be worth for UWE to look into (simple?) things like these....
i5 with 2.3 GHz here.
I only play on servers with max 20 players.
My minimum FPS are 40 in end-game.
I only drop to < 20 fps if the server can't hold the tick rate at 30.
with "net_stats" you can see if the server you are playing on is shit. (tick rate and prediction steps).
Each prediction step you CPU has to calculate is a kick to the performance-balls.
Play on official UWE servers if you want to get sure the performance problems aren't server side.
well, I shouldn't upload things when I'm almost asleep. I'm at work right now so I have full blown MS Excel powers (yaaaay):
edit: i7 2600k @ 4,4ghz, 8GB RAM, GTX570 / 310.90 / 1280x720@120hz / everything except multicore rendering on off or low. IMHO this is still bad performance for my machine, but of course its playable. I will try to redo one benchmark at 1920x1080 this evening to see if this changes anything or how much the impact on fps is there.
The devs should at least change the minimum and required specs, because as it stands, it is clearly misleading. recomended specs will get you sub 25fps.
and sub 25 fps is not playable in this game. just look at how many views this thread has. clearly its not a minor issue, its happening to many poeple.
responses from a couple of my buddies on another forum
Ye I have to set everything to the lowest setting on my i7 @ 4.4 570-Sli to be able to maintain steady fps. This is a game where 40+ fps is an absolute necessity.
It runs like **** on my rig too. Sure my rig is old but it's still decent, but I end having to run it @ like 1600 res to have it playable. It's been notorious for being poorly optimized.
__________________
Mobo: Asus P8Z68-M Pro| CPU: Intel i5-2500 @ 3.3ghz : 8gb DDR3 Kingston RAM| VGA: Nvidia Gigabyte 896mb GTX260 | HDD: 2x640gb WE SATAII | Case: Thermaltake ARMOR | PSU: Coolmaster Silent Pro M700 | Sound: SB X-FI Xtreme | OS: Vista x64 SP2 Home Premium | Monitor: Black Widscreen LG 24" LCD
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@Aaronel
Impossible. The only thing a game can do is push hardware to its max. If the hardware was somewhat faulty to begin with, then yes that will kill it. But like I said, hardware has to be faulty to begin with.
The biggest component I see die in work pc's every time is the harddisk drive. So I can only say 'bad luck there'.
@madpainful10
If your comment gets lost in the wall of text, its best to make a fresh topic.
@ghostree3
I will not say if it influenced fps, I did not check. But it will significantly influence performance, and most people do not check the ingame fps counter.
@tehsasa
I did a benchmark yesterday and I got much better results then you did. But your i7 is similar to mine and so is the vidcard.. interesting. Did you bench in summit?
YOu can read my full bench in the topic for benching ofc.
Wonder if its related to me having tripple channel mem.
@Drowningw
Thats the odd thing isnt it. I have a i7, I do not use any form or sli, and I got a middle vidcard. (570). But I rarely get below 40fps. Same as with tehsasa, more info? Check the benchmark topic.
But it gets odd that such similar hardware gets such different results.
Must either be in the settings of the os/drivers then, or stuff like motherboard, tripple channel, etc
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2013
Closing this one, this forum is for tech support and troubleshooting, not for discussions on how good or bad your PC can run the game. Which is what this thread has turned into...
Comments
Intel i5 2500k @ 3.3 and 3.7 during boost
nVidia 560ti FPB driver - 314.07 - WHQL
Windows 8 x64
Anyway I believe I lowered the shader resolution of infestation (not sure tho). This gave me a steady 10 FPS increase, while I did not notice any in game change in visuals. I'd love to see some other people test it. Note that you can only host a local game because you will get kicked if joining servers for having different game files.
Anyway to test it backup "Deferred.render_setup" in the folder core/renderer/ and replace with this: http://degoeiekanjt.nl/Deferred.render_setup
This only works with infestation on minimal and other settings on low (haven't tester other settings). The fps increase is noticeable directly after start in main menu and of course also in game.
If more people experience same results, and this actually doesn't have negative impact, it might be worth for UWE to look into (simple?) things like these....
I only play on servers with max 20 players.
My minimum FPS are 40 in end-game.
I only drop to < 20 fps if the server can't hold the tick rate at 30.
with "net_stats" you can see if the server you are playing on is shit. (tick rate and prediction steps).
Each prediction step you CPU has to calculate is a kick to the performance-balls.
Play on official UWE servers if you want to get sure the performance problems aren't server side.
edit: i7 2600k @ 4,4ghz, 8GB RAM, GTX570 / 310.90 / 1280x720@120hz / everything except multicore rendering on off or low. IMHO this is still bad performance for my machine, but of course its playable. I will try to redo one benchmark at 1920x1080 this evening to see if this changes anything or how much the impact on fps is there.
and sub 25 fps is not playable in this game. just look at how many views this thread has. clearly its not a minor issue, its happening to many poeple.
responses from a couple of my buddies on another forum
Impossible. The only thing a game can do is push hardware to its max. If the hardware was somewhat faulty to begin with, then yes that will kill it. But like I said, hardware has to be faulty to begin with.
The biggest component I see die in work pc's every time is the harddisk drive. So I can only say 'bad luck there'.
@madpainful10
If your comment gets lost in the wall of text, its best to make a fresh topic.
@ghostree3
I will not say if it influenced fps, I did not check. But it will significantly influence performance, and most people do not check the ingame fps counter.
@tehsasa
I did a benchmark yesterday and I got much better results then you did. But your i7 is similar to mine and so is the vidcard.. interesting. Did you bench in summit?
YOu can read my full bench in the topic for benching ofc.
Wonder if its related to me having tripple channel mem.
@Drowningw
Thats the odd thing isnt it. I have a i7, I do not use any form or sli, and I got a middle vidcard. (570). But I rarely get below 40fps. Same as with tehsasa, more info? Check the benchmark topic.
But it gets odd that such similar hardware gets such different results.
Must either be in the settings of the os/drivers then, or stuff like motherboard, tripple channel, etc