Revert to fresh install? (also includes minor rant)

Comments

• Graydeeus Join Date: 2012-09-07 Member: 158450Members

  September 2012

  "I personally can't play at anything lower than 90/120 fps (engine dependent) as I get nausea & headaches"
  Unless you have a specialist 120 / 200 hz monitor your monitor will be incapable of displaying anything over 60 fps so I am definitely calling shenanigans.
  
  In any case, you really should be hitting around 70 fps on that set up, excluding late game lag. I'm curious as to how you're getting such bad performance.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Dghelneshi Aims to surpass Fana in post edits. Join Date: 2011-11-01 Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow

  September 2012 edited September 2012

  <!--quoteo(post=1975037:date=Sep 10 2012, 06:05 PM:name=Graydeeus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Graydeeus @ Sep 10 2012, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1975037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any case, you really should be hitting around 70 fps on that set up, excluding late game lag. I'm curious as to how you're getting such bad performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  70fps at the start of the game is about as much as you can get on a really beastly computer (i.e. CPU overclocked >4GHz), but I've never seen anyone with more than 50fps during combat. Even a GTX 690 and a 5GHz CPU can't provide a steady 60fps. And before you start to flame me: Yes, there are benchmarks of this.
  
  
  @Luminal: Your graphics card is most likely the bottleneck for your system, even though NS2 depends A LOT more on the CPU than the GPU. I have a similar CPU (i5-3570K stock), but a GTX 670 (OC) and get reasonably smooth gameplay (60fps at game start, going down to a minimum of 30 on servers with lots of players and heavy combat).
  
  I've definitely seen improvements over the course of the development. Hell, you can even see in the code changes for every build that they're optimizing. They're not trying to screw you over.
  
  I would personally also like them to delay the release until they have better performance (e.g. when Max gets to finish a few of his enormous amount of tasks), but it seems like they think it's fine this way. From the start of development until today, they have bitten off way more than they can chew, but they still manage to hold on and produce a very good game, which is an amazing achievement to me. I mean, Max is writing a completely new implementation of the Lua language from scratch. That is the most crazy attempt at optimization I have ever heard of.
  
  I don't really know what you mean by "reverting to a fresh install". You can delete your %APPDATA%\Natural Selection 2\ folder, but that won't do more than reset your settings (unless you use Steam Cloud) and clear the shader cache. Unlike Source games, there aren't like 5000 console variables saved into your config because they don't exist (yet).

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Luminal Join Date: 2012-09-10 Member: 158912Members

  September 2012

  Hi Dghelneshi, don't worry I don't feel like they're trying to screw me over, If anything I feel like they're trying to screw themselves over by not realising that's where they're headed & what a big deal this actually is. At this point I'm just happy I supported UWE & got to watch the development so closely, I'm sorry If my post comes across as whiny as that was not my intention & I concur my specs are far from excellent nowadays but at such a late stage in development this really shouldn't be so much of a problem & optimisation should be the absolute highest priority in my mind at least. The game has been in development for eleventy hundred years what difference would a few months make to get it super polished?
  
  Well If they're not going to listen to such an important member of the community there's little chance they're going to listen to me. It's just this game has come too far in my mind to potentially end up how I've seen several other games die in the past, I dislike sounding melodramatic I just desperately want them to succeed. Thanks for the response

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• CLARK_KENT Vancouver, Canada Join Date: 2002-11-21 Member: 9508Members, Reinforced - Silver

  September 2012

  I do feel your pain.
  
  But I think your logic may not factor in everything.
  
  I think Crysis was extremely demanding compared to the general average power of a gaming computer when it was first launched.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Luminal Join Date: 2012-09-10 Member: 158912Members

  September 2012

  While Crysis was incredibly demanding it was also really unoptimised at launch & still is to this day that's why many hi-end rigs can run Crysis 2 at absolute maximum flawlessly while they'll always struggle to do the same with the original.
  
  <b>GOOD NEWS EVERYONE.</b> Just watched the QA stream on twitch, many people spammed about performance & Charlie touched on it briefly then by the end asked everyone to stop as they're working entirely on optimisation now apparently. Obviously I'm paraphrasing slightly, check the stream for the actual quote.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Dghelneshi Aims to surpass Fana in post edits. Join Date: 2011-11-01 Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow

  September 2012 edited September 2012

  Crysis is not a good comparison. There is pretty much no other game with the same problems as NS2.
  In Crysis you could have good fps on reasonable hardware by changing the settings to the lowest possible. In NS2, it won't matter at all since you'll most likely be CPU bottlenecked on most common gaming hardware. Even if changing settings does improve performance, it won't make such a huge difference since the workload for the CPU increases with the framerate, hence creating a bottleneck and reducing the fps a bit again.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome