Combat Performance
DjRopi
Join Date: 2011-06-16 Member: 104854Members
Join Date: 2011-06-16 Member: 104854Members
Hey Everyone,
New to the boards but i've been following ns2 for quite sometime now. Finally decided to drop down for the beta after watching some ns2hd footage. Gotta say i'm loving the core elements of this game, looks very promising and its already a lot of fun. However, like most I am experiencing pretty choppy performance with a mid range gaming rig.
My problem is there are times when I can churn out some decent frames, but normally in any form of combat everything goes to hell. If i'm a marine i'm forced to spray randomly with my 9fps in hopes of hitting an enemy, while playing as a skulk is a slideshow. 1v1 plays fine as long as the server is not lag city, but if there are many more people the combat is near unplayable. Specs:
Core 2 Duo 2.13, 2.1
Ati mobility radeon hd 4650 (yes i know, its a laptop *facepalm*)
4 gigs of ram
Not an impressive computer, and it is a laptop, but i'm able to get most current gen games running decently as long as the aa is cranked down and such. I know ns2 still has a lot of optimization to go as its a brand new engine, but I guess my main concern is the terrible performance in any large scale combat. The ns2hd videos were misleading because he can beast this game with no problem =).
New to the boards but i've been following ns2 for quite sometime now. Finally decided to drop down for the beta after watching some ns2hd footage. Gotta say i'm loving the core elements of this game, looks very promising and its already a lot of fun. However, like most I am experiencing pretty choppy performance with a mid range gaming rig.
My problem is there are times when I can churn out some decent frames, but normally in any form of combat everything goes to hell. If i'm a marine i'm forced to spray randomly with my 9fps in hopes of hitting an enemy, while playing as a skulk is a slideshow. 1v1 plays fine as long as the server is not lag city, but if there are many more people the combat is near unplayable. Specs:
Core 2 Duo 2.13, 2.1
Ati mobility radeon hd 4650 (yes i know, its a laptop *facepalm*)
4 gigs of ram
Not an impressive computer, and it is a laptop, but i'm able to get most current gen games running decently as long as the aa is cranked down and such. I know ns2 still has a lot of optimization to go as its a brand new engine, but I guess my main concern is the terrible performance in any large scale combat. The ns2hd videos were misleading because he can beast this game with no problem =).
Comments
Don't really see the real purpose of this topic? (And the many alike)
Performance of the game will get better over time, you might even feel a difference each patch.
Try net_stats in console and check server tickrate, it should be around 30 if you want it to be "lag free".
For your FPS, there is nothing to do but to wait. You're seriously running 9-10FPS the whole time? I'm getting 30-60FPS. (at least in B178, haven't checked my framerate in B179)
There's tons of un-optimized factors driving up resource usage atm, as there really should be at this point.
In truth I did not know the hl2 engine had been abandoned until I actually got into a game and started asking other players. The ns2hd videos were the only real gameplay presentations to go by, which is why it kinda sucked when I jumped in a game and I couldn't even get that performance on the lowest resolution and graphical settings.
Core game is great, I have no intention of cancelling my pre-order, but some general timeline as to when this game may be in the realm of retail (or at least playable for those without a $2000 pc) would be nice. Keep up the good work UW.
We can't make any promises as to how well the game will run on your specific system, as it can vary pretty wildly from one system to the next, and there are some not so great servers out there, which are also contributing to some people having a worse playing experience then others. But, rest assured, there are plenty more optimizations that can be done, and that we will be doing, and I imagine that in the next few months the game should be running quite a bit better then it currently is.
I hope you can stick with us during the development of the game.
--Cory
There are some patches that did increase performance quite a bit, although you might not be seeing the improvement as much as someone with a better machine yet. It's getting there though. You might want to take a closer look at the actual performance using <i>r_stats</i> in the console and noting your FPS in different situations so you can compare between patches. Using the <i>net_stats</i> command, you can see the server's performance, notably the tick rate labeled as "Serv update" or something. This indicates how many updates per seconds are sent by the server. The last patch had some improvements on that side, and now I see decent games hovering around 17-22 ticks. If you see it drop below 15, then everything, both local and server-wise, will start going crazy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Core game is great, I have no intention of cancelling my pre-order, but some general timeline as to when this game may be in the realm of retail (or at least playable for those without a $2000 pc) would be nice. Keep up the good work UW.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, now, let's not exaggerate ;) This might have been true for Build 150 or something, but right now, a ~800$ PC will get decent performance out of NS2 (unless you meant laptop). Development and optimization are far from over and I believe it will run decently on your machine eventually. I also own a laptop, slightly weaker than yours, and I intend to see NS2 running on it one day! (but for now I'll just stick to my desktop :p)
Oh and timelines don't have a very good history around here...
I've been here. For nearly a decade. Nice to know I've been noticed this whole time..
If you type "net_stats" in the console it brings up a bunch of data in the top left part of the screen (see below).
<a href="http://imgur.com/LwSuu" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/LwSuul.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
Basically, the server rate can be used as a rough proxy of server performance (with more server load = lower server rate = more lag). 20-30 ticks/s is desired (i.e. little to no lag), 10-20 ticks/s is playable but the lag will become noticeable, and <10 ticks/s means the server is going to be a lagfest.
<!--quoteo(post=1853761:date=Jun 16 2011, 09:40 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jun 16 2011, 09:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853761"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am curious what the target server tickrate is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seconded.
In source games, it seemed that 33, 66, and 100 were the standards. Are we going to be able to run 100 tick servers in spark?
To be honest shadows should be turned off by default and there should be an option in the menu to turn them on..
Even on my system 5850 i7 950 the shadows have quiet a performance hit and its no surprise since shadows are quiet expensive to render and there are no shortage of shadow casting lights in NS2...
Agreed. Also what you can do to help increase speed is run your game in a Window, and at about 1/2 or 3/4 the size of your screen's resolution. This *may* gain you another 5-10 fps.
At the moment NS2 uses mostly 1 core of any multi-core/threaded system, which is why CPU Ghz and general speed affects FPS more than how many cores you have.
You can build a really decent NS2 Desktop system for about $/£/€ 700-800with an i5 and Geforce 560 - did so for a friend a week ago and it's blazing.
DjRopi, I'm afraid your CPU isn't mid-rage any more, in gaming-system wise it's on the lower end according to the latest Steam Survey (Avg CPU is 2.3 Ghz to 2.69)
I'd start saving for a new system tbh. But NS2 will be even more optimized in the future so stick with it :)
The server program is basically one big loop. Every time it goes through another loop it computes the next state of the game. Think of the game states as frames of a movie. Many pictures within a short time create the illusion of motion. In the same way many game states create the illusion of a continuous game world. Obviously it takes some time to process the next game state. The current target seems to be to have 30 game states per second, so the server will try to go through its game loop 30 times per second. If there's too much to calculate the server won't be able to do that. Instead of 30 game states it may only manage to compute 20 or fewer game states. And just like low fps causes "choppiness" on the screen, low game states per second will cause choppy game play.
In truth I did not know the hl2 engine had been abandoned until I actually got into a game and started asking other players. The ns2hd videos were the only real gameplay presentations to go by, which is why it kinda sucked when I jumped in a game and I couldn't even get that performance on the lowest resolution and graphical settings.
Core game is great, I have no intention of cancelling my pre-order, but some general timeline as to when this game may be in the realm of retail (or at least playable for those without a $2000 pc) would be nice. Keep up the good work UW.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You only need around 1000$.
270$ Cpu
200$ Gpu
100$ Mainboard
140$ Ram
50$ PSU
100$ Case
------------
960$ And you are near Highend!
No joke. The games somehow stopped getting nicer since DX9 ( because 360/PS3).
You don't really need the biggest and best!
The difference is that HighEnd runs at 90 Fps (FullHD) and Mid at 40-90.
And with a "cheap" Rig frim 2011 will easy survive till PS4/XBOXwhatever!
On OP. Why do you as "gamer" use a Laptop?
For sound ( get a Smartphone), for Skype ( get a smartphone), twitter (get a smartphone).
Sorry for my language but IMHO "gamer" Laptops are pur nonsense! My GPU-Unit is twice as thick than a modern Laptop. Think about it!
I was referring to DjRopi, the OP. I know you're old school, Penguin.
--Cory
I didn't know the numbers for Source, I think it's safe to assume that range is standard. That's somewhat good news, since from what I read on this forum B179 is getting close to the low end of the standard (15-20 tickrate).
We can't make any promises as to how well the game will run on your specific system, as it can vary pretty wildly from one system to the next, and there are some not so great servers out there, which are also contributing to some people having a worse playing experience then others. But, rest assured, there are plenty more optimizations that can be done, and that we will be doing, and I imagine that in the next few months the game should be running quite a bit better then it currently is.
I hope you can stick with us during the development of the game.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks Cory, put most of my worries to rest. It would be hard for me not to support a game with such excellent community support. I look forward to the coming months.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah i know. just busting yer balls.
and welcome, 104-854
I upgraded back in January, so its a bit of a beast
Intel i5 2500k (OC'd 4.3GHz)
4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
AMD HD 6950
With B178/179 I'm almost to the point where I could use effectively use VSync (my monitors are 60Hz).
<!--quoteo(post=1853936:date=Jun 17 2011, 09:20 AM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Jun 17 2011, 09:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853936"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't know the numbers for Source, I think it's safe to assume that range is standard. That's somewhat good news, since from what I read on this forum B179 is getting close to the low end of the standard (15-20 tickrate).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this was just my experience with talking with server owner/operators and my own research. I believe 33 was the default, but if you had a good enough server, you could up it to 66 or 100 to provide a smoother experience. It seems the current default is 30 for spark, though it would be nice to see it eventually be able to support much higher tickrates eventually.
Intel i5 2500k (OC'd 4.3GHz)
4GB DDR3 1333 RAM
AMD HD 6950
With B178/179 I'm almost to the point where I could use effectively use VSync (my monitors are 60Hz).
Well, this was just my experience with talking with server owner/operators and my own research. I believe 33 was the default, but if you had a good enough server, you could up it to 66 or 100 to provide a smoother experience. It seems the current default is 30 for spark, though it would be nice to see it eventually be able to support much higher tickrates eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice, I got same except GTX570 and 4.2Ghz. Could you give me your average FPS on marines in ns2_summit without any players, because I was thinking about switching from GTX570 to HD6970. Thanks!
Higher tickrates should be possible with the server, afaik.
From anecdotal accounts, the actual tickrate has been in the single digits until the latest patch, and now it varies from 15-20 depending on what is going on in the game and how long the server has been running. I guess if 30 is "default" then that would be the target for when whatever is slowing it down is fixed.
In source it also depended on FPS. Atleast for non Dedicated ( not sure its there also?).
If the Server could run the game only at 30 FPS you got only 30 Ticks.
I don't know if it is the same in Spark.
@jiriki
NS2 isn't very GPU lasting so don't use this game to choose betwen GPUs.
I have a i7-975, hd5870, 12 gigs ram. 65 to 115 FPS in Marinestart depending where i look.
ATI cards have higher clocks except for shaders.
What GPU time ( 20% of what)?
So 100MS = 10Fps
And 90MS = 20-25 (i think eleven would be right)
If I understood MS right!