I think some people posting here need to calm down :) Its only a game lads. Rather than assuming that the game wont improove, why not wait and see whether or not it does improove.
<!--quoteo(post=1956797:date=Aug 4 2012, 05:29 AM:name=deathmonger87)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (deathmonger87 @ Aug 4 2012, 05:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, that was a bit overdone. The game is not unplayable as you make it sound--it's just heavily CPU dependent. I would consider 4GHz the minimum to have a 100% playable experience at this time with 4.5GHz recommended if you like things to never drop below say 55FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My PC is similar to yours, same CPU @4,5Ghz and a GTX 570 in OC and it always drops below 50fps in some areas heavily infected and in great fights (the endgame is usually a mess).
This game is horrid in terms of required specs... UNW isn't going to make any major money on this game unless they make it so 3-3.5GHz processors (most computers have this speed) can play at 60fps on low settings. According to previous posts in this thread, you need a 4GHz processor to get 60 frames. I only get 46fps max in gameplay on my 3.1 GHz quad core processor with 640x480 and lowest everything.
Would be nice to see a reduction in cpu use if possible. We got a optimization for ram last patch but I don't think that's nearly as a major as the cpu bottleneck many incur. It is a steam game and ~60% according to the HW survey are on duo core or lower.
<!--quoteo(post=1955808:date=Aug 2 2012, 02:50 AM:name=elmo9000)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elmo9000 @ Aug 2 2012, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1955808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game at the moment doesnt run acceptable on any hardware people have right now, so performance remains the biggest thing they need to improve. They do know that its a huge issue, and are working on it. Sadly the progress on that department hasnt been too great so far, but we shall see if they can pull off some huge increase before the game is released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clearly you weren't around in early beta. Or even mid beta.
<!--quoteo(post=1956795:date=Aug 4 2012, 12:21 AM:name=Fallward)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fallward @ Aug 4 2012, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956795"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Clearly, Natural Selection 2 is being developed by a group of computer science students with no knowledge of business.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clearly they already have your money.
I remember when the game ran at a literal 2 fps (if one was lucky) so I say suck it up and wait. Or if your one of those whiners who considers 35fps to be totally unplayable then you can go and ***** yourself afaic.
I get good framerates (80ish on the settings screen) with high quality settings at 2560x1440 (almost double the pixels of 1920x1080).
My PC cost (when I bought it) about $1500. Today, if you watch your sales and MIRs carefully, you can build a computer very slightly slower for about $650 (I paid a premium for some things that don't affect gaming performance). You'd have an i5-3570k Ivy Bridge with a GeForce 660 Ti and 8GB of RAM...
So, if a $650 computer is in the "nobody can afford" category still, I don't know what to say... The PS3 cost about that much at launch.
I get 25 to 30 frame pretty much always and nothing I do can seem to make it better. It's really unfortunate. I may be getting a new PC this Christmas but still... Did this game really need specs like this for it to be fun? I am not dissing this game at all, I think it's fun when I can actually play it, but I've seen so many games that look as good, if not better, than this one and I have no problem at all running them on this 5+ year old PC.
I knew this would be an issue on release. I'm sure others knew it too. Optimization has always been a slow, tedious, and annoying as hell issue. My FPS started off around 15-7 FPS early/mid-beta. I haven't changed my computer in any way. I have a dual 2.4 ghz processor that is OCed to 3.0ghz. Not impressive. Now, I get 40-60 FPS. Maybe it's because I'm comparing the early beta to 1.0, but it seems reasonably smooth (not perfect, mind you).
I'm sure people have suggested this (no, I did not read this entire thread because my eyes would bleed), but have you guys turned off most, if not all, of the graphic features? Turn everything off except core rendering. If you do this, your FPS should increase by 10-20 FPS.
If you have your settings all off, and have a lot better system than me, and get terrible performance.... I can't really help you... update your video card? Make sure the animal porn (we are all guilty of this) didn't give you any spyware or viruses. Have less programs running in the background. Other than that... guess I gotta say what everyone says and kinda sucks to hear:
i would say the progress on optimization issues is rather disappointing after so much concerns through out the last year. nevertheless, i still sort of dun understand why people need to have a top class i7 cpu overclocked just to run a 24 slot server while we could do it easy 32 slots in ns1? they started the project 2006 so what were they planning...? do they not plan to let any server operatable if they actually made the game 2009 summer?
really. if you want to save this game unlike d3 or sc2, speed up with your optimization work before you lose your reputation.
<!--quoteo(post=2007694:date=Nov 2 2012, 10:50 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 2 2012, 10:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007694"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i would say the progress on optimization issues is rather disappointing after so much concerns through out the last year. nevertheless, i still sort of dun understand why people need to have a top class i7 cpu overclocked just to run a 24 slot server while we could do it easy 32 slots in ns1? they started the project 2006 so what were they planning...? so do they not plan to let any server operatable they actually made the game 2009 summer?
really. if you want to save this game unlike d3 or sc2, speed up with your optimization work before you lose your reputation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hm. They didn't actually make the game in the Summer of 2009 (don't want to get into that terrible PR work on that whole date - it annoyed me too). The game is still being "made". NS1 could handle more people because... well, that was the half-life one engine. This engine is still being working on.
And on the 2006 topic, I'm pretty sure there was hardly any REAL work being done on NS2, besides pipe dreams (I could be wrong).
Basically threatening UWE to increase optimization or they will lose their reputation.. won't work. Also, only so many people can work on optimization. Not everyone in UWE does that. Anyway, I don't see the need for more servers until more people play (sounds bad, but I have never seen every server full, soooo).
<!--quoteo(post=2007702:date=Nov 3 2012, 10:56 AM:name=Sampson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sampson @ Nov 3 2012, 10:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hm. They didn't actually make the game in the Summer of 2009 (don't want to get into that terrible PR work on that whole date - it annoyed me too). The game is still being "made". NS1 could handle more people because... well, that was the half-life one engine. This engine is still being working on.
And on the 2006 topic, I'm pretty sure there was hardly any REAL work being done on NS2, besides pipe dreams (I could be wrong).
Basically threatening UWE to increase optimization or they will lose their reputation.. won't work. Also, only so many people can work on optimization. Not everyone in UWE does that. Anyway, I don't see the need for more servers until more people play (sounds bad, but I have never seen every server full, soooo).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> pug servers with less players lose momentum fast. as if you could see in ns1 servers with 20+ slots are way popular than those on standard 6vs6s and that the last standing servers are mostly those big servers. imagine having 3 people quitting a game after a round finishes in a 12 slot server. game experience would go bad and the rest are likely to look for another one. it is the server size that matters, not the numbers. and i am pretty sure that performance issue are scaring people away already. regionally we had like 12 servers filled up in peak hours but now only half of what it was is filled. and yes, it was happy friday, and the launch was on a wednesday, in universities mid terms too.
and i mean no threatening but real world exprience. blizzard has been a great company in the past and it has become the target of flames after releases of sc2 and d3. they promised that we will have pvp in d3 and clan systems in sc2 SOON after release. the clan system isnt here 2.5 years after release and i didnt even see any news on pvp last time i visit a random d3 fansite. yet it is well known in the community that player numbers are dropping rapidly. i didnt look up for sales of MOP very seriously but i heard rumours that it was well below expected. seems they are releasing the number next week.
i am pretty sure some of the members in the development team are into at least one of the games and they know these stories, nor they want to lose their future business or losing the money you are earning. lets hope that they are not those who take the money, hop in into a ferarri and run away.
Yea the last optimization made it still choppy but actually went from 5 fps to 15ish fps on my laptop with all settings off and multi core rendering on. (Doesnt seem to make a difference when I have this turned on or off) (My desktop which is 2 years older than my laptop runs with almost all settings on high/max and gets a steady 45~60 fps.
Laptop Specs: (If that helps)
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit Intel® Core i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.2GHz 4096MB RAM 96 DPI (100 percent) DirectX11 1GB Radeon HD 7450M 1366 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Optimisation is not an easy process. It's not like the just go back over the code line by line and refactor stuff and say "Gosh, why didn't I just make this ###### fast in the beginning!!"
It can be extremely difficult to determine where extraneous latency is coming from in modern software, I am not a coder but I understand a little more than you're average bear.
Graphics optimisation on the game, as far as I can tell is more or less complete, I'm sure they'll chip away at it but I don't imagine there is a lot more to gain. I run a 4870 and I get good enough fps at a realistic resolution and detail level. (low and not much, ha!).
The NS2 engine "Spark" isn't like other engines, it works in a very different way which enables it to be more flexible. This engine has been getting written with along with NS2 by UWE. They are not only making a game, but they are making the underlying technology to BUILD games. This is akin to designing a car from the propulsion system up. That is a *lot* of work. Now, I know, it's not your problem nor is it mine but I think having an appreciation for the degree of complexity brings more enjoyment and satisfaction when it all comes together.
I can't wait to get a new fast PC and play at 2560x1440 :D
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--quoteo(post=1955805:date=Aug 2 2012, 02:42 AM:name=CobraCommander)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CobraCommander @ Aug 2 2012, 02:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1955805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Tl;dr When I started playing, I got the impression that this game might try to go off as a Next Gen PC game, meaning everyone has to upgrade for this newer looking game. Its just a thought I got after it run sooo slow with the lowest settings and the release within 2 months, so it worries me that this is as good as I'll be able to play it ;_; They also haven't announced PC requirements to play this game ;_; I hope that's a good thing. I just want the Developer to confirm that this game will be much more playable soon and will optimize NS2 for most people's decent PCs. Read on if you'd like.</b>
I played all day today and I gotta say I can't play anymore until the game actually runs normal on my PC. I had to change the graphics settings to the lowest possible to play it. No bloom, no nothing. Even had to drop to the lowest resolution and it looks really ugly but I tried to play to see all the new maps and play as most of the aliens. It looks horrible on my PC and it's still lagging ;_; I can play any other game but this one being the game I really wanna play and it sucks that it's still in beta and barely playable, barely ;_; <!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> I know I'm not the only one with this problem, so it should be getting worked on by the small team. So the question is: When will the team focus on making the game more playable in terms of making NS2 run faster on everyone's PC? Maybe you guys started on it, but I keep seeing posts about the game running slower instead of faster and the claim of the game getting its long awaited optimization now only come from users. I want to hear it from the Devs themselves that they're focusing on this major issue. I'd like to see the rest of the Features implemented too, but I really really wanna see this run on my PC too!
I know it has to do with my PC being 3.3GHz. What am I gonna do? I'm not going out to buy a better piece of hardware anytime soon. TB, I'm sure has the same issue, as his is 3.2GHz too, which is why he had to travel to the UWE Studio to play the game. So I'm assuming UWE isn't really working on it, it's more like they'll get around to it after they finish balancing the game, which is forever because you'll always have to keep making change no matter what. I wanna play this so badly and I don't wanna sound like a brat because I respect the Dev team, but I'll be patient enough if they're confirm they're doing something about this so I know I didn't pre-order a game that isn't going to run fine on my PC. So are you guys? This is the first time I ever pre-ordered a game too, lmao. I normally say fu to pre-orders, but I loved NS1 too much, so I had to give some green.
Thanks everyone!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->whats really odd about this is my pc is only 2.66ghz and the game runs fine not bashing you or anything just kinda odd how you have a higher clock than me and i dont have your issue maybe what ever optimization theyve done only affects slower comps so far idk?<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--quoteo(post=2007739:date=Nov 2 2012, 11:32 PM:name=OnosFactory)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OnosFactory @ Nov 2 2012, 11:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007739"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Never seen a sever full ... ? What ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For those of you playing on *shudder* a laptop or an i3 or below (includes old core 2 duo's and quads), yea the game is going to run badly. Laptops because, let's be honest, even if a laptop is meant for gaming it's not really good for it. And i3's and below because of the architecture of the processors. Also keep in mind ram, video card, and operating system make a pretty big difference as well. If you have the know-how to put together a computer yourself, I'd recommend it. It's really not all that hard to be honest. Go on tigerdirect or somewhere similar and get a cheap bare-bones kit and you'll probably only need to add in a video card. For about $350 you can get a 3.5ghz i5 with motherboard and 4gb ram (after rebate). From there a decent video card like a gtx 560 is only about $180, and then you just need a few other parts to make it work. I know it sucks to spend that much, but that's how PC gaming has been especially in the old days.
I for one am pretty happy that UWE didn't sacrifice the graphics for something ugly that more people could play.
<!--quoteo(post=2007789:date=Nov 3 2012, 07:22 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Nov 3 2012, 07:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For those of you playing on *shudder* a laptop or an i3 or below (includes old core 2 duo's and quads), yea the game is going to run badly. Laptops because, let's be honest, even if a laptop is meant for gaming it's not really good for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asus G75. Running NS2 with 1080p, everything on or high, ambient occlusion on medium. And this is not even<i> that</i> powerful laptop.
That "hurr durr, you can't play games on a laptop" really belongs to 2004...
I'm very interested in the game but my laptop is pretty bad and I would like to avoid wasting over 20€, so here I am =). As I said I understand the limits imposed by the hardware that I currently have: since I bought it 3 years ago I never expected to run anything with a steady frame rate and good quality, so I'm not here to ask for a miracle. What I would like to know is if my computer will be able to run the game with an average of 30 fps (I'm used to occasional drops below 25-20 but I would prefer to avoid them) with the right settings(in the option menu and various .ini files), I never cared much about the graphic of a game anyway. These are my specs: Windows Seven 64-bit Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.20 GHz (clearly below the minimum system requirements) 4 GB RAM (recommended system requirements) Nvidia GeForce GT 240M (Kinda-ish above the minimum system requirements base on the benchmarks I found)
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=2007962:date=Nov 3 2012, 04:04 AM:name=Thorondor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thorondor @ Nov 3 2012, 04:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007962"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asus G75. Running NS2 with 1080p, everything on or high, ambient occlusion on medium. And this is not even<i> that</i> powerful laptop.
That "hurr durr, you can't play games on a laptop" really belongs to 2004...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except that most who buy laptops and then attempt to play games are those who bought it retail and because the store's employee told them it was "a gaming laptop" with a "powerful geforce 220m" etc..
In my experience that's like 90% of all laptop owners who have issues running a game. Now if you've built your laptop piece by piece and know what is needed - then you're somewhat exempt from that typical accusation that you cant play games on a laptop. (Still heating and vendor driver issues occasionally though)
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
I don't have any problems at all. Also, I'm on a laptop.
i7-2670QM 2.2ghz 8g Ram Nvidia 560m Windows 7
On the following seeings I get about a 56fps average. I keep ambient occlusion off for about a 4 fps speed increase over medium, and about a 8-10 fps increase over high. It's graphically not a big deal to me so I go for a few extra fps.
1600 x 900 Wait for Vsync: Tripple Buffered Texture Quality: High Infestation: Rich Antialiasing: On Bloom: On atmospherics: On atmospheric filtering: On Ambient Occlusion: Off Shadows: On Texture Streaming: Off Multi-core rendering: On
Basically I'm not seeing the problem guys. This may be a decent laptop, but compared to desktops it's not that great.
I know no one here gives two ######, but I'm gonna put my two cents in anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=2007755:date=Nov 2 2012, 10:56 PM:name=beagle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beagle @ Nov 2 2012, 10:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007755"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can be extremely difficult to determine where extraneous latency is coming from in modern software, I am not a coder but I understand a little more than you're average bear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am, and I can tell you....Yes, it is really, really hard to omptimize later in the process, and still hard in the early parts, however this game is going on what? A year+ of development, with a beta to actually test optomization? And still has serious problems. Horridly low FPS, crashes of both client, and server from what I've seen, and probably other small bugs that I haven't noticed. I have a rig, desktop mind you, that can run most games at max settings, within reason. [it'll lag out for something with say 50+ people active, or if I play on server on another containent.] I code, dabble in 3d modeling, and play games, this thing's a beast most the time, and going into it, even on low settings I get 10 FPS resting [at the menu], and a whooping 4, <b>4</b>, in game, with everything turned off. The only solution to make it playable; reduce resolution to the lowest setting and keep all the options off. I'm sorry, normally I defend the devs of a game, especially if they're building from the ground up, but there -is- no defence here. They started this well before the beginning of this year, had a lengthy, and covered, beta where they're supposed to use the feedback given, and they over-looked the biggest issue. I hate to say it, but Lofung or whoever said they'd lose rep from this was right; They made a good game, but it can't properly run in it's current state, and people who aren't fans of the series, if you can call it that, are going to buy this, see the hidious FPS, and go 'herp derp, it's a crap indie game, waste of my money', then tell people to AVOID IT. Which, again, I hate to say, they should, because this is just silly. A game is supposed to work right out of the box, with the recommended level of hardware and specs. Maybe a minor bit of tweeking, not 'oh, I need to change my resolution, both in game and natively, and put it down on the ######tiest settings.' They shot themselves in the foot here, and there's no defending it; If you're a dev and a publisher, you don't launch a game incomplete, which NS2 is, it shows poor 'craftmenship' as it were, and a lack of understanding.
That said, ###### at them and at eachother won't fix this. Unless the devs are all blind and dumb, and don't read feedback, don't look at fourms, or don't even play their own game, they already know it's an issue, and are probably scambling to fix it.....But, again, when it's late in the development stage [and yes, this 'full release' is still in deving....] it's extreamly difficult to optomize, since you have to account for 50 million things.
Considering this is the 'Optimization' thread, and we'll problem not see a major change for some time, instead of idly ######, can we help eachother? I don't have solutions personally, I've only played so much of the game before moving to something else, but as some of you've said, your game runs fine, while people with more powerful computers aren't. I mean, I'm rocking in the ball park of 6 RAM, plus overclocking, and I still get 'out of memory' errors from this one game. As I said above, we shouldn't need to go to such lengths to get it to work; But at the same time, we might have to for some time ,and even so, there's probably easier solutions. If we can figure out what is actually causing the massive drops in FPS, at least in a general way, we can probably 'patch' it ourselves, locally on our comps, and give the devs an idea of what to look at.
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?
<!--quoteo(post=2008379:date=Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM:name=Gigaus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gigaus @ Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->even on low settings I get 10 FPS resting [at the menu], and a whooping 4, <b>4</b>, in game, with everything turned off. Considering this is the 'Optimization' thread, and we'll problem not see a major change for some time, instead of idly ######, can we help eachother? I don't have solutions personally, I've only played so much of the game before moving to something else, but as some of you've said, your game runs fine, while people with more powerful computers aren't. I mean, I'm rocking in the ball park of 6 RAM, plus overclocking, and I still get 'out of memory' errors from this one game. As I said above, we shouldn't need to go to such lengths to get it to work; But at the same time, we might have to for some time ,and even so, there's probably easier solutions. If we can figure out what is actually causing the massive drops in FPS, at least in a general way, we can probably 'patch' it ourselves, locally on our comps, and give the devs an idea of what to look at.
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> that doesn't sound right. what's your system specs?
<!--quoteo(post=2008379:date=Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM:name=Gigaus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gigaus @ Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a rig, desktop mind you, that can run most games at max settings, within reason. ... even on low settings I get 10 FPS resting [at the menu], and a whooping 4, <b>4</b>, in game, with everything turned off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got around 2fps running on an inspiron 1525 laptop with intel integrated graphics. woefully underpowered machine for this game, but i tried it for grins. your desktop isnt much faster than that.
honestly, there is no way UWE will be able to make the game run fast on a machine that currently runs it at 4fps.
I think it should be obvious any and all performance issues are just as frustrating to Unknown Worlds as they are to us, especially given how bad it used to be.
They gained a lot of their current state by reaching out to the community and having them do work for us; does anyone know if it's plausible for the community to help with these performance issues in some way? For instance, they could find someone with particularly bad performance issues (ie, the man with 4 FPS ingame, above) and have them run some sort of special profiling tool to track down any particular issues. Knowing code, sometimes it's something as basic as a certain method running 400 times more than it needs to because of some unexpected hardware configuration.
It might not be beyond belief that some of us already have such development tools. I have Visual Studio 2010 on my computer, and I'm sure many IDE developers provide some sort of external monitoring that one could place on a QA machine.
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=2008379:date=Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM:name=Gigaus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gigaus @ Nov 3 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Considering this is the 'Optimization' thread, and we'll problem not see a major change for some time, instead of idly ######, can we help eachother? I don't have solutions personally, I've only played so much of the game before moving to something else, but as some of you've said, your game runs fine, while people with more powerful computers aren't. I mean, I'm rocking in the ball park of 6 RAM, plus overclocking, and I still get 'out of memory' errors from this one game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice how you supplied you're machine stats to go along with it. "rocking the ball park of 6 ram, plus overclocking" hardly count as stats. If you want me to think you deserve to have better performance you should at least let us know what you're working with. As far as I know you got 6 gigs of ram, and overclocked i3, and an integrated intel graphics chip. What you gave us tells us nothing significant at all.
<!--quoteo(post=2008339:date=Nov 3 2012, 10:27 AM:name=Kenichi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kenichi @ Nov 3 2012, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically I'm not seeing the problem guys. This may be a decent laptop, but compared to desktops it's not that great.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then, you're extremely lucky.
I get 36-45 FPS in most spots of the map, but it can peak up to 70+ FPS. Still this is unacceptable and not playable, unless it stays stable.
My specs: Running @ 1080p 2500K @ 4 GHz 8 gigs RAM Game on SSD (Crucial M4) 2x GTX 570 in SLI
BTW, a single GTX 570 is double the power of your single laptop GPU.
Comments
My PC is similar to yours, same CPU @4,5Ghz and a GTX 570 in OC and it always drops below 50fps in some areas heavily infected and in great fights (the endgame is usually a mess).
Clearly you weren't around in early beta. Or even mid beta.
<!--quoteo(post=1956795:date=Aug 4 2012, 12:21 AM:name=Fallward)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fallward @ Aug 4 2012, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956795"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Clearly, Natural Selection 2 is being developed by a group of computer science students with no knowledge of business.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly they already have your money.
I remember when the game ran at a literal 2 fps (if one was lucky) so I say suck it up and wait. Or if your one of those whiners who considers 35fps to be totally unplayable then you can go and ***** yourself afaic.
My PC cost (when I bought it) about $1500. Today, if you watch your sales and MIRs carefully, you can build a computer very slightly slower for about $650 (I paid a premium for some things that don't affect gaming performance). You'd have an i5-3570k Ivy Bridge with a GeForce 660 Ti and 8GB of RAM...
So, if a $650 computer is in the "nobody can afford" category still, I don't know what to say... The PS3 cost about that much at launch.
I'm sure people have suggested this (no, I did not read this entire thread because my eyes would bleed), but have you guys turned off most, if not all, of the graphic features? Turn everything off except core rendering. If you do this, your FPS should increase by 10-20 FPS.
If you have your settings all off, and have a lot better system than me, and get terrible performance.... I can't really help you... update your video card? Make sure the animal porn (we are all guilty of this) didn't give you any spyware or viruses. Have less programs running in the background. Other than that... guess I gotta say what everyone says and kinda sucks to hear:
Wait.
really. if you want to save this game unlike d3 or sc2, speed up with your optimization work before you lose your reputation.
really. if you want to save this game unlike d3 or sc2, speed up with your optimization work before you lose your reputation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hm. They didn't actually make the game in the Summer of 2009 (don't want to get into that terrible PR work on that whole date - it annoyed me too). The game is still being "made". NS1 could handle more people because... well, that was the half-life one engine. This engine is still being working on.
And on the 2006 topic, I'm pretty sure there was hardly any REAL work being done on NS2, besides pipe dreams (I could be wrong).
Basically threatening UWE to increase optimization or they will lose their reputation.. won't work. Also, only so many people can work on optimization. Not everyone in UWE does that. Anyway, I don't see the need for more servers until more people play (sounds bad, but I have never seen every server full, soooo).
And on the 2006 topic, I'm pretty sure there was hardly any REAL work being done on NS2, besides pipe dreams (I could be wrong).
Basically threatening UWE to increase optimization or they will lose their reputation.. won't work. Also, only so many people can work on optimization. Not everyone in UWE does that. Anyway, I don't see the need for more servers until more people play (sounds bad, but I have never seen every server full, soooo).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pug servers with less players lose momentum fast. as if you could see in ns1 servers with 20+ slots are way popular than those on standard 6vs6s and that the last standing servers are mostly those big servers. imagine having 3 people quitting a game after a round finishes in a 12 slot server. game experience would go bad and the rest are likely to look for another one. it is the server size that matters, not the numbers. and i am pretty sure that performance issue are scaring people away already. regionally we had like 12 servers filled up in peak hours but now only half of what it was is filled. and yes, it was happy friday, and the launch was on a wednesday, in universities mid terms too.
and i mean no threatening but real world exprience. blizzard has been a great company in the past and it has become the target of flames after releases of sc2 and d3. they promised that we will have pvp in d3 and clan systems in sc2 SOON after release. the clan system isnt here 2.5 years after release and i didnt even see any news on pvp last time i visit a random d3 fansite. yet it is well known in the community that player numbers are dropping rapidly. i didnt look up for sales of MOP very seriously but i heard rumours that it was well below expected. seems they are releasing the number next week.
i am pretty sure some of the members in the development team are into at least one of the games and they know these stories, nor they want to lose their future business or losing the money you are earning. lets hope that they are not those who take the money, hop in into a ferarri and run away.
Laptop Specs: (If that helps)
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit
Intel® Core i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
4096MB RAM
96 DPI (100 percent)
DirectX11
1GB Radeon HD 7450M
1366 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
It can be extremely difficult to determine where extraneous latency is coming from in modern software, I am not a coder but I understand a little more than you're average bear.
Graphics optimisation on the game, as far as I can tell is more or less complete, I'm sure they'll chip away at it but I don't imagine there is a lot more to gain. I run a 4870 and I get good enough fps at a realistic resolution and detail level. (low and not much, ha!).
The NS2 engine "Spark" isn't like other engines, it works in a very different way which enables it to be more flexible. This engine has been getting written with along with NS2 by UWE. They are not only making a game, but they are making the underlying technology to BUILD games. This is akin to designing a car from the propulsion system up. That is a *lot* of work. Now, I know, it's not your problem nor is it mine but I think having an appreciation for the degree of complexity brings more enjoyment and satisfaction when it all comes together.
I can't wait to get a new fast PC and play at 2560x1440 :D
I played all day today and I gotta say I can't play anymore until the game actually runs normal on my PC. I had to change the graphics settings to the lowest possible to play it. No bloom, no nothing. Even had to drop to the lowest resolution and it looks really ugly but I tried to play to see all the new maps and play as most of the aliens. It looks horrible on my PC and it's still lagging ;_; I can play any other game but this one being the game I really wanna play and it sucks that it's still in beta and barely playable, barely ;_;
<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I know I'm not the only one with this problem, so it should be getting worked on by the small team. So the question is: When will the team focus on making the game more playable in terms of making NS2 run faster on everyone's PC? Maybe you guys started on it, but I keep seeing posts about the game running slower instead of faster and the claim of the game getting its long awaited optimization now only come from users. I want to hear it from the Devs themselves that they're focusing on this major issue. I'd like to see the rest of the Features implemented too, but I really really wanna see this run on my PC too!
I know it has to do with my PC being 3.3GHz. What am I gonna do? I'm not going out to buy a better piece of hardware anytime soon. TB, I'm sure has the same issue, as his is 3.2GHz too, which is why he had to travel to the UWE Studio to play the game. So I'm assuming UWE isn't really working on it, it's more like they'll get around to it after they finish balancing the game, which is forever because you'll always have to keep making change no matter what. I wanna play this so badly and I don't wanna sound like a brat because I respect the Dev team, but I'll be patient enough if they're confirm they're doing something about this so I know I didn't pre-order a game that isn't going to run fine on my PC. So are you guys? This is the first time I ever pre-ordered a game too, lmao. I normally say fu to pre-orders, but I loved NS1 too much, so I had to give some green.
Thanks everyone!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->whats really odd about this is my pc is only 2.66ghz and the game runs fine not bashing you or anything just kinda odd how you have a higher clock than me and i dont have your issue maybe what ever optimization theyve done only affects slower comps so far idk?<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I meant all servers being full.
I for one am pretty happy that UWE didn't sacrifice the graphics for something ugly that more people could play.
Asus G75. Running NS2 with 1080p, everything on or high, ambient occlusion on medium. And this is not even<i> that</i> powerful laptop.
That "hurr durr, you can't play games on a laptop" really belongs to 2004...
As I said I understand the limits imposed by the hardware that I currently have: since I bought it 3 years ago I never expected to run anything with a steady frame rate and good quality, so I'm not here to ask for a miracle. What I would like to know is if my computer will be able to run the game with an average of 30 fps (I'm used to occasional drops below 25-20 but I would prefer to avoid them) with the right settings(in the option menu and various .ini files), I never cared much about the graphic of a game anyway.
These are my specs:
Windows Seven 64-bit
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.20 GHz (clearly below the minimum system requirements)
4 GB RAM (recommended system requirements)
Nvidia GeForce GT 240M (Kinda-ish above the minimum system requirements base on the benchmarks I found)
I apologize for my English.
That "hurr durr, you can't play games on a laptop" really belongs to 2004...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that most who buy laptops and then attempt to play games are those who bought it retail and because the store's employee told them it was "a gaming laptop" with a "powerful geforce 220m" etc..
In my experience that's like 90% of all laptop owners who have issues running a game.
Now if you've built your laptop piece by piece and know what is needed - then you're somewhat exempt from that typical accusation that you cant play games on a laptop.
(Still heating and vendor driver issues occasionally though)
i7-2670QM 2.2ghz
8g Ram
Nvidia 560m
Windows 7
On the following seeings I get about a 56fps average. I keep ambient occlusion off for about a 4 fps speed increase over medium, and about a 8-10 fps increase over high. It's graphically not a big deal to me so I go for a few extra fps.
1600 x 900
Wait for Vsync: Tripple Buffered
Texture Quality: High
Infestation: Rich
Antialiasing: On
Bloom: On
atmospherics: On
atmospheric filtering: On
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Shadows: On
Texture Streaming: Off
Multi-core rendering: On
Basically I'm not seeing the problem guys. This may be a decent laptop, but compared to desktops it's not that great.
<!--quoteo(post=2007755:date=Nov 2 2012, 10:56 PM:name=beagle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (beagle @ Nov 2 2012, 10:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2007755"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can be extremely difficult to determine where extraneous latency is coming from in modern software, I am not a coder but I understand a little more than you're average bear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am, and I can tell you....Yes, it is really, really hard to omptimize later in the process, and still hard in the early parts, however this game is going on what? A year+ of development, with a beta to actually test optomization? And still has serious problems. Horridly low FPS, crashes of both client, and server from what I've seen, and probably other small bugs that I haven't noticed. I have a rig, desktop mind you, that can run most games at max settings, within reason. [it'll lag out for something with say 50+ people active, or if I play on server on another containent.] I code, dabble in 3d modeling, and play games, this thing's a beast most the time, and going into it, even on low settings I get 10 FPS resting [at the menu], and a whooping 4, <b>4</b>, in game, with everything turned off. The only solution to make it playable; reduce resolution to the lowest setting and keep all the options off. I'm sorry, normally I defend the devs of a game, especially if they're building from the ground up, but there -is- no defence here. They started this well before the beginning of this year, had a lengthy, and covered, beta where they're supposed to use the feedback given, and they over-looked the biggest issue. I hate to say it, but Lofung or whoever said they'd lose rep from this was right; They made a good game, but it can't properly run in it's current state, and people who aren't fans of the series, if you can call it that, are going to buy this, see the hidious FPS, and go 'herp derp, it's a crap indie game, waste of my money', then tell people to AVOID IT. Which, again, I hate to say, they should, because this is just silly. A game is supposed to work right out of the box, with the recommended level of hardware and specs. Maybe a minor bit of tweeking, not 'oh, I need to change my resolution, both in game and natively, and put it down on the ######tiest settings.' They shot themselves in the foot here, and there's no defending it; If you're a dev and a publisher, you don't launch a game incomplete, which NS2 is, it shows poor 'craftmenship' as it were, and a lack of understanding.
That said, ###### at them and at eachother won't fix this. Unless the devs are all blind and dumb, and don't read feedback, don't look at fourms, or don't even play their own game, they already know it's an issue, and are probably scambling to fix it.....But, again, when it's late in the development stage [and yes, this 'full release' is still in deving....] it's extreamly difficult to optomize, since you have to account for 50 million things.
Considering this is the 'Optimization' thread, and we'll problem not see a major change for some time, instead of idly ######, can we help eachother? I don't have solutions personally, I've only played so much of the game before moving to something else, but as some of you've said, your game runs fine, while people with more powerful computers aren't. I mean, I'm rocking in the ball park of 6 RAM, plus overclocking, and I still get 'out of memory' errors from this one game. As I said above, we shouldn't need to go to such lengths to get it to work; But at the same time, we might have to for some time ,and even so, there's probably easier solutions. If we can figure out what is actually causing the massive drops in FPS, at least in a general way, we can probably 'patch' it ourselves, locally on our comps, and give the devs an idea of what to look at.
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?
Considering this is the 'Optimization' thread, and we'll problem not see a major change for some time, instead of idly ######, can we help eachother? I don't have solutions personally, I've only played so much of the game before moving to something else, but as some of you've said, your game runs fine, while people with more powerful computers aren't. I mean, I'm rocking in the ball park of 6 RAM, plus overclocking, and I still get 'out of memory' errors from this one game. As I said above, we shouldn't need to go to such lengths to get it to work; But at the same time, we might have to for some time ,and even so, there's probably easier solutions. If we can figure out what is actually causing the massive drops in FPS, at least in a general way, we can probably 'patch' it ourselves, locally on our comps, and give the devs an idea of what to look at.
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that doesn't sound right. what's your system specs?
... even on low settings I get 10 FPS resting [at the menu], and a whooping 4, <b>4</b>, in game, with everything turned off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got around 2fps running on an inspiron 1525 laptop with intel integrated graphics. woefully underpowered machine for this game, but i tried it for grins. your desktop isnt much faster than that.
honestly, there is no way UWE will be able to make the game run fast on a machine that currently runs it at 4fps.
They gained a lot of their current state by reaching out to the community and having them do work for us; does anyone know if it's plausible for the community to help with these performance issues in some way? For instance, they could find someone with particularly bad performance issues (ie, the man with 4 FPS ingame, above) and have them run some sort of special profiling tool to track down any particular issues. Knowing code, sometimes it's something as basic as a certain method running 400 times more than it needs to because of some unexpected hardware configuration.
It might not be beyond belief that some of us already have such development tools. I have Visual Studio 2010 on my computer, and I'm sure many IDE developers provide some sort of external monitoring that one could place on a QA machine.
Nice how you supplied you're machine stats to go along with it. "rocking the ball park of 6 ram, plus overclocking" hardly count as stats. If you want me to think you deserve to have better performance you should at least let us know what you're working with. As far as I know you got 6 gigs of ram, and overclocked i3, and an integrated intel graphics chip. What you gave us tells us nothing significant at all.
Well then, you're extremely lucky.
I get 36-45 FPS in most spots of the map, but it can peak up to 70+ FPS. Still this is unacceptable and not playable, unless it stays stable.
My specs:
Running @ 1080p
2500K @ 4 GHz
8 gigs RAM
Game on SSD (Crucial M4)
2x GTX 570 in SLI
BTW, a single GTX 570 is double the power of your single laptop GPU.