My experience so far ....
Tec
Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165433Members
Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165433Members
First hi everybody.
I didn't came here to bash NS2 and i must say when i manage
to play it's really amazing and fun but ....
2 hours of experience :
- Long loading times.
- More than 10 crashes so far.
- FPS drops, doesn't matter if it's highest or lowest settings,
specially when you're engaging the enemy it drops from 60 to 30 (i've played only as a marine so far).
- When i'm trying to get to options when i'm in a server playing, mostly it's crashes.
- Precaching crashes.
My specs:
Q9400
560GTX
4 GIG RAM
Win 7 32bit
I'm playing on 1024x1280 res.
For a game that was design for PC only i would have expect 60 stable fps with
far less technical issues.
Please patch it so i could enjoy this great game.
Thanks.
I didn't came here to bash NS2 and i must say when i manage
to play it's really amazing and fun but ....
2 hours of experience :
- Long loading times.
- More than 10 crashes so far.
- FPS drops, doesn't matter if it's highest or lowest settings,
specially when you're engaging the enemy it drops from 60 to 30 (i've played only as a marine so far).
- When i'm trying to get to options when i'm in a server playing, mostly it's crashes.
- Precaching crashes.
My specs:
Q9400
560GTX
4 GIG RAM
Win 7 32bit
I'm playing on 1024x1280 res.
For a game that was design for PC only i would have expect 60 stable fps with
far less technical issues.
Please patch it so i could enjoy this great game.
Thanks.
Comments
Ironically, I think I've had around 10 crashes <b>since the alpha in late 2009.</b>
No precaching stuff either, I just had dark HUD elements at the start of the game when I had texture streaming on.
Really odd that it only seems to only affect some machines.
Remember, COD:Black Ops had a ton of issues when first released to PC, and I think it's safe to say they have a pretty big budget and staff to get stuff patches in place.
I am sure it will be smoothed out in the weeks to come.
But then again I have poured more money than I'd like to admit into my monster.
I didn't turn on the fps monitor last night because I wanted to play, not screw with settings. But my guess is standing in hall I had over 100 fps, in fights 50-80. I could see some very slight chop in some heavy fights.
In case you care what I am running....AMD 955 OC'd to 4.1ghz, 8gb ddr3, 2 x GTX470s. I realize the CPU is older an isn't intel, but I spent the extra money at the time on the cards.
I guess everyone these days plays with v sync on. I've never played with it on since, I don't know, one of the early CS releases back in early 2000s. I just can't aim with v sync on.
I didn't turn on the fps monitor last night because I wanted to play, not screw with settings. But my guess is standing in hall I had over 100 fps, in fights 50-80. I could see some very slight chop in some heavy fights.
In case you care what I am running....AMD 955 OC'd to 4.1ghz, 8gb ddr3, 2 x GTX470s. I realize the CPU is older an isn't intel, but I spent the extra money at the time on the cards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should always play with vsync off. Vsync on can have a severe negative impact on your FPS. Your FPS seems normal for your CPU though. Unfortunately, this game is extremely CPU-demanding, to the point where even people with 4.7+ ghz overclocks can't get 100 FPS stable.
Everyone should take the advice in this thread with a large grain of salt. Things like turning off multicore rendering can actually lower your FPS drastically -- it drops mine by about 15, for example.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone should take the advice in this thread with a large grain of salt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While we're perpetuating dumb hardware myths that have been around since the 90s, care to tell us about how we MUST HAVE mice with 4,000hz polling rates and 2ms refresh rates on our monitors, as well as a Killer NIC? Because the idea that vsync is going to affect your gameplay is a total joke. Blind trials have pretty much proven that even with 120hz / 120FPS, most gamers will never notice if you covertly turn on / off these options they claim will affect gameplay so much.
Performance could be better, sure - but if that means I just have to skip Ambient Occlusion, I'm fine.
This is a PC game. People with antique hardware complain when it does not run.
Also, we don't have the slightest clue what you might have done with your system (e.g. latest Nvidia drivers).
You obviously don't know that much about vsync. While the idea of matching your fps with your monitors refresh rate may seem good, when you enter into graphically intensive part of the game ie: combat in NS2, vsync will auto take you down to the next fps interval. Meaning 60fps down to 30, and even lower possibly because of how vsync handles the double buffering.
NS2 is cpu intensive because of Lua, hence you don't want to go into combat while hardcapping your fps with vsync. You need to go in with as much fps as possible.
Would you notice it if I tuned your car to make it accelerate 0-100 km/h half a second slower?
Probably not.
Would it affect your performance in a car race?
Probably.
Please tell me more about "dumb hardware myths" though, I'm sure you know far more about it than me (protip: that was sarcasm; you don't).
VSync can cause mouse lag in a lot of games and NS2 is no different, it especially becomes apparent when Multi-core rendering and VSync are enabled at the same time. This gives the illusion of a framerate lower than it actually is. Not to mention the interval framelocking Voodoo described above. For most users disabling vsync will actually improve their experience. I play on an OC'd I5 ivy with a 6950HD and with VSync on I get noticeable hitching and mouse lag. I personally would rather deal with any minor screen tearing than the mouse lag I experience with VSync enabled.
Stop saying crap like this.
Learn before you debate.
Of course I think we only have Double Buffering V-sync in NS2?
As for the performance and crashing issues. Patience. This game has come a long way even since August and it's only getting better with each update.
NS2 is cpu intensive because of Lua, hence you don't want to go into combat while hardcapping your fps with vsync. You need to go in with as much fps as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some graphics cards (like nVidia's) have a best-of-both-worlds mode to address that exact scenario.
Basically, it only tries to vsync when your framerate is over 60, and if the framerate drops below 60, it stops trying to vsync. So when performance is good, you get a tear-free experience, but if performance drops in a busy scene, your framerate doesn't suffer (but you get tearing).
Personally, the reason I rarely use vsync is that it tends to add a massive amount of input lag. I haven't tried with NS2, but I've seen some games where enabling vsync adds multiple frames of latency. An extra 100+ms of input lag on a game can be really frustrating. That could just be poor engine design, but since it affects many games, it's a fact of life.
Learn before you debate.
Of course I think we only have Double Buffering V-sync in NS2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The OP in that thread is actually wrong on several points; see the last post in the same thread.
Was there a particular part of my post that you felt was crap? Or just the whole thing in general?
"The OP in that thread is actually wrong" What do you mean ?
I'm playing fps since the first UT.
I know how to tweak/config my GPU + game configs done all that in
last 13 years. A game (NS2) that give me the same FPS (drops) on lowest or high settings
got a serious engine problem or it doen't not fit my OS which is Win 7 (32 bit).
I play Rage,Crysis 2 on stable 60 fps high settings. COD4 (promod)
with high setting config lock on 125 FPS. Bad Company 2 55-60 fps on high settings.
I should not experience this kind of problems with a game
that have average graphics and design for PC.
Look at it this way, the only processors capable of hosting a 24 player server don't actually exist... To make up for that, hosts have to take a sandy bridge or ivy bridge and overclock it to somewhere around 4.4 GHz...
EDIT: Just in case you misread that, "The OP in that thread" is referring to Arkalius from HardOCP, not you.
Look at it this way, the only processors capable of hosting a 24 player server don't actually exist... To make up for that, hosts have to take a sandy bridge or ivy bridge and overclock it to somewhere around 4.4 GHz...
EDIT: Just in case you misread that, "The OP in that thread" is referring to Arkalius from HardOCP, not you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So selling a game with this is a fraud:
(Steam)
Recommended:
OS:Windows 7 32/64-bit / Vista 32/64 / XP
Processor:Core 2 Duo 3.0 ghz
Memory:4 GB RAM
Graphics:DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, AMD 5770, NVidia GTX 450 or better
DirectX®:9.0
Hard Drive:5 GB HD space
Other Requirements:Broadband Internet connection
Q9400 is a slow CPU for this gaming generation ? You're kidding me right ?
Graphics almost didn't change from 2007.
So, are their requirements realistic? Perhaps not. I might have put that as a minimum requirement, not a recommended. Perhaps they were expressing it as a targeted requirement of where they expected to get it, but haven't gotten there yet. In that case they should have updated it, perhaps they forgot.
It's not like they're in a vast conspiracy with Intel and AMD to require people to buy new processors. I'm sure they'd rather their game was accessible to more people. But UWE just has one guy doing engine work (from scratch!), IIRC, and that's a pretty big load for one person to tackle. Getting the functionality in there was a bigger priority than performance.