Fully optimized - what does it mean?
Ricaz
Join Date: 2007-03-25 Member: 60487Members
Join Date: 2007-03-25 Member: 60487Members
Hello,
I'm wondering, since I have VERY poor performance (avg 20 fps) in the game with my HD5870, what do you think will be the proper requirements once the game is nearing release? How much do you actually think you can improve the performance of this engine? It feels almost impossible to run this at a proper FPS.
I'm asking since the System Requirements you posted are extremely low, almost NS1-like. When I first saw that, I bought the game instantly since that was my biggest fear. I have seen videos from NS2HD which are completely clean, looks like 60+ FPS. I don't know what his setup is like, but it feels kind of awkward to have a decent graphics card that run almost all other new games without any struggle, and to see it fight to the death with NS2.
I'm wondering, since I have VERY poor performance (avg 20 fps) in the game with my HD5870, what do you think will be the proper requirements once the game is nearing release? How much do you actually think you can improve the performance of this engine? It feels almost impossible to run this at a proper FPS.
I'm asking since the System Requirements you posted are extremely low, almost NS1-like. When I first saw that, I bought the game instantly since that was my biggest fear. I have seen videos from NS2HD which are completely clean, looks like 60+ FPS. I don't know what his setup is like, but it feels kind of awkward to have a decent graphics card that run almost all other new games without any struggle, and to see it fight to the death with NS2.
Comments
20fps avg, my office notebook with a 4650m nearly gets that. (15 average³ @1600*900 res, settings high)
To make it better understandable, a 4650m gets an avg score of 6300 in 3dmark06, while a desktop 5870 gets around 20000 with the same settings.
Update your drivers, update your windows.
Get prime95, furmark, cpu- and gpu-z and coretemp, stresstest your pc watch your temps and if something downclocks.
Get rid of crapware, like 123123 startup programms you dont need. (either via msconfig, or try soluto beta - my suggestion for dummies)
Look at my signature link, maybe you find something usefull to try there too.
² Or got got a REALLY REALLY WEAK cpu(~ dualcore < 2ghz) - and wasted money for a 5870 your pc cant handle.
³ last tested a few patches ago, so it might be higher now.
PS: Dunno my avg fps on desktop at - and i dont want to lie, but q6600 quad@stock speed with a gtx 275(12k 3dmark06 btw) and its very playable - at around 35+ fps most of the time.
I remember before i upgraded and still had my ATI 4850 during the alpha which had considerably worse performance to what it is now, i had 40 or so fps.
Horrid imo its unplayable. Now for me a game is unplayable if it hinders me in any way from playing a 100% smooth game. The devs can claim it to be playable but it is not even close. Its pain full not playable.
Specs
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Processor 3.30 GHz 6 cores
4.00 GB
32bit torrented wins 7
480GTX
in no way should i get under 100fps. lua is slow get it out.
Pretty sad you guys could even suggest its a client side problem.
somethings not right, man. i got less of a system with twice your fps.
check everything. especially that torrented OS. gl
i7 920 OC @ 3.2 w/ corsair water cooling
6 gb ddr3 @1800 (but its 32 bit so only 3.3gb)
geforce 295gtx but only run with one gpu with ns2
asus p6 mobo
win 7 32bit
Also, that kind of problem is silly, seeing how I'm GTS 250 and I can manage a 60fps early on, and it comes down to 20-30 in a full game with hydra spam. Chances are that your processor speed is bottle necking your GPU speed, since most optimization involves sending less work over to your CPU to be processed, so it won't get any better until you upgrade that.
Specs
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Processor 3.30 GHz 6 cores
4.00 GB
32bit torrented wins 7
480GTX
in no way should i get under 100fps. lua is slow get it out.
Pretty sad you guys could even suggest its a client side problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your system is nice yes, but expecting to get a framerate in games that's always above 100fps is ridiculous, unless you're running older games or 2D games or with very low settings.
There may be something wrong with your 'torrented' system, as I have an i7 2.8Ghz with a GF 470 and I average 50fps on Tram and 60+ fps on Summit.
Ricaz, your GFX card is more than enough to run NS2, so either your CPU is the bottleneck, or you have very little RAM.
There may be something wrong with your 'torrented' system, as I have an i7 2.8Ghz with a GF 470 and I average 50fps on Tram and 60+ fps on Summit.
Ricaz, your GFX card is more than enough to run NS2, so either your CPU is the bottleneck, or you have very little RAM.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Actually, 100+ framerate on a fast-paced game like NS2 isn't too much to ask for similar systems (assuming his CPU isn't horribly out-dated). But that's something to worry about later. FPS has been increasing over time, albeit really slowly.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have seen videos from NS2HD which are completely clean, looks like 60+ FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->His videos are 30FPS locked. He actually gets upwards of 50FPS, I believe, when he's not recording. (unless it changed last I looked)
What. It's 'playable' for most PCs, until more optimizing and options for less powerful machines are put in.
Anything from smooth as to a slide show.
Core 2 Q6600, 6GB RAM, 4870 Radeon, Win7 64bit.
The game is still in-development.
Harden up and get over it.
would you have a heat stroke if you found out they built their machines themselves?
Horrid imo its unplayable. Now for me a game is unplayable if it hinders me in any way from playing a 100% smooth game. The devs can claim it to be playable but it is not even close. Its pain full not playable.
Specs
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Processor 3.30 GHz 6 cores
4.00 GB
32bit torrented wins 7
480GTX
in no way should i get under 100fps. lua is slow get it out.
Pretty sad you guys could even suggest its a client side problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, any game thats over 20fps is playable.
That doesnt mean its enjoyable.. but its still playable, because you CAN play it (heck, i whooped ass in cs back in the days with 15 fps max on a 56k modem).
And why are you using a 32bit OS when you have 4gb of ram? Why are you even using a 32bit OS at all? :S
Imho... acquire a win7-64bit install disc and reformat your C-partition and slap the 64bit win7 on it.
I also think people are giving NS2 just a bit too much credit in the stability department. I'm curious as to how others game work on that machine. If he hasn't any issues running Crysis( 2), or similar heavy-duty games, it's just an unlucky hardware\software combination that NS2 is throwing a fit over. I would imagine even with almost the exact same hardware-specs, it's possible to see VERY large differences in performance for NS2 at this moment in time. It is an alpha after all.
It's bad enough your reply is condescending, but it's worse that it is not factual. Just because a game runs well for you (or even the majority of players) does not mean that someone who doesn't get the same performance is lying or has system problems.
People should really stop by the forums, before they spend 35$ on a game beta and expect a constant 60fps. On the bright side, the engine keeps improving.
Im a little curious to how some people play with great fps and others dont. Ofc there is the "cpu bound" issue, but my rig with a 2500k, 8gb ram, a 5850, on 1680x1050, does dip into the 20s in some areas.
I've seen quite a few people post they have ati cards with bad frames. we have pretty much the same specs (2600k 8 gig ram here) but with a 560 ti. it's quiet common that devs work on nvidia first then ati, if at all. speculation that it's the case, of course.
What are you basing that off?
It's true that nvidia often throw money at game developers to get that silly "nvidia, the way its meant to be played" logo into the game. This probably also means they are encouraged to optimise their games to nvidia.
But I remember lots of games which ran badly on nvidia hardware, but great on ati. No idea about actual numbers, but it feels 50/50 to me, and I think the whole "nvidia, the way its meant to be played", makes people think nvidia has fewer performance issues.
<!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro--><b>Edit: More Ontopic</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
My fps is fairly low too, and I'm running on an i7-920 @ 2.67 GHz (default). Don't really feel the need to overclock, as I run most games capped at 60fps.
The graphics card I have, is a Radeon 5870, also at default clocks. Monitor resolution 1920 x 1200.
My laptop is by no means a "gaming" computer, but it manages to run almost everything I play on either medium or high graphics settings (depending on the game). Here's my setup:
HP Pavilion dv7 (Laptop)
Windows 7 64-Bit
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 @ 2.20Ghz
4.00GB of RAM
512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4500/5100 Series
Screen Resolution: 1600x900 (NS2 running at 1280x720)
If anyone has any suggestions as to what I should definitely upgrade, let me know.
<a href="http://imageshack.us/f/199/nopen.png/" target="_blank">FPS</a>....
The ns2_junction readyroom? really?
right over your head, it went
To be fair, I do get good fps, but sometimes in alien bases the framerate drops more than Id like it to. Especially the main hive in Summit for me.
NS2HD does run his game mainly on a 6 cored AMD cpu and a 5870, alternately using his 450 gts because he feels no difference (cpu capped).
Also, there are more computers with radeon cards than geforce ones at the UWE office - if I recall correctly
Scratch that, I was guessing...I figured out how to get my frame rate to actually come up. Turns out my average is actually around 8fps unless I'm staring at a blank wall, at which point it jumps to 20fps. This is on medium and low graphics, there's no difference in framerate.
No it's not. That means the game runs.
If you call that playable, you've got very low standards in games. Go set all your other games to play at 21FPS, I bet you find it a much more inferior experience to the point it's not playable properly.
Also NS2 is CPU heavy. It only uses one processor core. If anyone remembers single core computer games you will know what sort of performance to expect from games, load time were always much higher. And NS2 is constantly filtering through LUA script on top of its game engine, on a single core, at a much more advanced level of technology graphics and so forth than the days of say, Quake 3 single core processor days. Taking that in to account, of course you're going to have a very much less than optimal performance and experience.
EDIT: Until we see the real-time LUA being processed across more than one core I'd never expect an optimal game experience in NS2. I'd like to set a challenge to someone to find me a game, which processes a lot of LUA across more than one core in a modern game. There's a fair few games that integrate some LUA script, most easily off the top of my head right now is WoW. Although it's very little LUA compared to NS2 across one core, and the rest of the game can access other cores as and if needed.