I get 45-60fps with no noticeable drops below 40's in BF3. A game with 64 players, way more going on, and much higher graphics reqs.
I give them a few years, my patience, and my review to the community. If you don't like it, I don't care.
A) huge difference between those engines, especially networking wise, and that is why you have an entire team the size of UWE staff dedicated to catching hackers in BF3. UWE can't afford that. This is why the game is priced differently, its an indie game, not backed by EA Tech support forums are where you come to troubleshoot your issues, not post your review or flame. Please see general discussion.
graphics is not what is forcing the fps down for most people. Its the logics thread.
I 'only' have a 2.8 i7 930. it goes to 3Ghz in turbomode.
I can run in full hd, with most graphic options to full, just fine. stay around 60 fps which I find very playable. For people who desire more fps, then yes.. a better cpu would probably be needed.
Where does this exist?
I have a dated PC myself, but with my I3-2100 at 3.1ghz, I only break above sixty in early game, but as soon as action starts, it dips to 40 *early game*. Late game, I'm lucky to hold 30, and I mean LUUUCKY.
@DC_Darkling I know about the Intel HD Graphics I have, and do believe I have it disabled entirely, but I've been going through the Nvidia control panel, and can see no where for the settings I have for NS2 any option where I could choose. Hopefully that means its using my actual GPU.
I'm aware there is no turbo on it, but what I'm saying is, his turbo speed is below my norm clock speed, so why is his experience so vastly different than mine? I'm just trying to find the difference.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
ok ok.. basics.
you get console with the ~ key.
in console you can see if NS2 uses your gtx card. It will say.
now type in r_stats 1
it will now supply you with a overlay ingame where it states fps, and more important, on who it is waiting.
So we can atleast see if its the vidcard or the cpu.
You can also use profiler in console. (type profiler)
Do this when its really bad, and click open the biggest purple bars. Then make a screenshot of that.
As for the cpu.. im no programmer, so this is guessing.. but perhaps a newer cpu handles the instructions better?
I'm not completely computer illiterate so don't worry about basic instructions unless I ask for them, I can tell you already from past experiences with r_stats, that its my renderthread. So its lead me to believe its cpu bound, like you said.
However it always fluctuates between 0-5ms at all times. The only time I ever see the gpu move is oddly, when I'm in game-menu. In-game itself, its always solid 0. I will test this and post screenshots for the sake of continuing the thread, but this is my preview of whats to come.
Many popular PC games dont need "high" and "beauty" graphics
CS1.6 , Half-life series , Minecraft
Take example like Crysis 3 , Multiplayer almost like anyother FPS (COD 100%) , but players are not much
This is a matter of time my friends , game-dev can easily make this game playable on low/mid-end PC
But they want or not , that is their choice
I just have to chime in here to say that I completely agree with blujay. Being a programmer also, there is no practical reason for them to write their game in a scripting language. Performance is certainly getting better, but there's only so much you can do with a scripting language.
I just played about 4-5 rounds on 3 maps, and of which my render thread and gpu both stayed relatively close to 0, if not locked at it completely. Very few times did it stray, but when it did, it was as I said 0-5 and very fast, and sporadic, and never permanently. I did manage to get one good screenshot out of it with profile, but not even sure how good it will be but it was the only time I seen it spike.
my fps stayed 40-60, avg about 50, for the first 15 minutes or so, but once things got heavier, the lowest I saw it dive was about 25 while sitting outside a hive, at the forward base while pushing into it.
@DC_Darkling I know about the Intel HD Graphics I have, and do believe I have it disabled entirely, but I've been going through the Nvidia control panel, and can see no where for the settings I have for NS2 any option where I could choose. Hopefully that means its using my actual GPU.
I'm aware there is no turbo on it, but what I'm saying is, his turbo speed is below my norm clock speed, so why is his experience so vastly different than mine? I'm just trying to find the difference.
You need to set all that crap to Application Controlled.
imho ns2 is the worst optimized game i have ever encountered. I do really love the game and the work uwe has put into it, but the need to overclock the cpu to get into playable levels (60+ fps) at the endgame is just wrong (i'm on a i7 2600k at 4,4ghz / gtx570). Same goes for the dedicated server. I'm really afraid that ns2 will be just another good game that dies within 1-2 years of release because at some point no one is willing to pay for such a big machine to just host a game server...dunno if multiple server on one machine is possible without hitting too much on the performance.
btw i'm totally fine with poor graphics to get stable fps, just give me an option for that
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
omg people.. behave..
@kombine
Hmm, may want to click open the biggest purple bars to there fullest. But you haven't described a truly bad setup.
Only thing I can remotely imagine is that the older cpu's just handle the code a lot poorly, but this gets beyond most of my expertise. Im not a coder.
@ibemad
Uwe is very open, so you can watch a lot of the lua code itself. However rather then say badly optimized, I wasn't kidding about it being the logic thread. I haven't seen a game yet with a logic thread as this one, so intertwined that.. at the moment.. they can not multithread it.
has less to do with optimization and more with time I, asume. I did read about max wanting to multithread it, but aparently thats problematic to do on a short timespan. (I am in no wau connected to uwe, so I could be wrong here).
I said it before. Mods like NS2 classic, which use most of the lua code from ns2 minus stuff like cysts and power nodes and stuff like that, run very very smooth. All points to the insane amount of logic this game processes.
@stardog
Worth the test, but it should not matter performance wise. (unless your application picks a setting with less performance). Most drivers can handle this fine these days.
Yes I tested. Then again, different hardware, different results. So still possible.
Worth the test @kombine
@tehsasa
minus the socket, we have sort of similar CPUs. I got a 930 I7. Its slower then yours, I do not overclock, it only goes into turbo up to 3Ghz.
yet I get stable 60fps on even busy scenes & servers. I run at a windowed fullscreen HD resolution. I happen to also have a 570 gtx.
So you are ideal to compare results. Are you finding 60fps acceptable/playable, and if so.. what is your fps? You should get similar or better, as from what I can see, your i7 is superior to mine.
this will be very interesting!
Overclocked everything is running above 60 fps most of the time, even above 100, but there a places where I'm dropping near 60 without anyone around.
As soon as the late game hits or if there is much infestation (which I keep on low)/alien buildings, I'm running between 60 and <30 all the time.
It is not the max fps I'm caring about, but the constant up and down between 60 and <30 fps. Many benchmark show that the fps are not constant at all, just look at the official benchmarking thread.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@tehsasa
odd.. you should pull more stable dps. I hardly dip below 40, almost never. And I asure you I run infestation on Full.
As your vidcard and cpu are similar to mine, mind if we compare more specs?
I can not see a real reason why you should even get close to 30fps when I hardly do.
You need to set all that crap to Application Controlled.
A lot of those options don't have the option to be Application Controlled. Some of them are simply on/off. Which is why I have anything that can be put to application, done so already.
Good tip though.
@DC_Darkling this is actually interesting cause I've had same feeling about my i3 3220 (2x3,3GHz) versus some older CPUs getting better performance. I thought it's about cache memory size on CPU but it's seems it's not, cause you two got same amount. Are you sure you don't get FPS dips below 30fps? Cause sometimes I get ~23fps.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@xtal
a new benchmark run is on the todo list, yes.
But a old run had stable fps all around. yes I had a few moments in logs when it dipped very low but all were explainable to my rig. If I go from readyroom into the world it dips its fps while it loads. As I run steam on my mechanical drives instead of my ssd, I find that behavior expected.
in match it runs fine.
But yes, expect me to do some benchmarks soon, as I can not puzzle the different results together.
Okay I did some quick benchmarking on summit: ns2 Frames: 114479 - Time: 1341593ms - Avg: 85.331 - Min: 46 - Max: 165
everything on low/off except multicore rendering / 1280x720 120hz
I'm suprised it's not dropping below 46 on summit. Apologize for the Exaggeration that I drop below 30 (in my defense I overclocked a few days ago and didn't play much). Could anyone please make a graph of my fraps log? I'm on OpenOffice only and couldn't find any good graphs there: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/187842/ns2 2013-03-05 20-25-26-12 frametimes.zip
I personally think, there will be no performance improvements down the road. Anyone tells you there will, lying. why? simply you should have some extra performance when you decrease resolution in any kind of app. In ns2 it doesnt matter you got 1080p res or 800x600, if fps is 40 at THAT point of the match, you can't improve it no matter what you do. then I think we got 2 choices here either playing ns2 on low population servers (14) or overclocking the cpu instaed of expecting some kind of magic from devs. I got 2500k i5 cpu and its unplayable with stock speeds at 20+ servers(at least for my taste). 10 minutes into game then performance goes down the toilet.. so I'm overclocking before I play ns2, restarting and putting it back to stock after I finished playing. yeah its pain but worth it to play ns2
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@tehsasa
Libreofficecalc (libreoffice is a fork of openoffice) has a diagram option which makes what you want. Also id need the fps file not the one you zipped.
Also why would anyone want to play on large servers? less skill involved, more mindless aiming. (yes thats a opinion, feel free to play on big ones)
I personally think, there will be no performance improvements down the road. Anyone tells you there will, lying. why? simply you should have some extra performance when you decrease resolution in any kind of app. In ns2 it doesnt matter you got 1080p res or 800x600, if fps is 40 at THAT point of the match, you can't improve it no matter what you do. then I think we got 2 choices here either playing ns2 on low population servers (14) or overclocking the cpu instaed of expecting some kind of magic from devs. I got 2500k i5 cpu and its unplayable with stock speeds at 20+ servers(at least for my taste). 10 minutes into game then performance goes down the toilet.. so I'm overclocking before I play ns2, restarting and putting it back to stock after I finished playing. yeah its pain but worth it to play ns2
Lowering resolution does improve fps, at least it does for me. UWE is also constantly working on optimization, but it doesn't happen linearly or in even patch. We may go several patches with either no or worse performance and then have a huge jump in another.
I personally think, there will be no performance improvements down the road. Anyone tells you there will, lying. why? simply you should have some extra performance when you decrease resolution in any kind of app. In ns2 it doesnt matter you got 1080p res or 800x600, if fps is 40 at THAT point of the match, you can't improve it no matter what you do. then I think we got 2 choices here either playing ns2 on low population servers (14) or overclocking the cpu instaed of expecting some kind of magic from devs. I got 2500k i5 cpu and its unplayable with stock speeds at 20+ servers(at least for my taste). 10 minutes into game then performance goes down the toilet.. so I'm overclocking before I play ns2, restarting and putting it back to stock after I finished playing. yeah its pain but worth it to play ns2
Lowering resolution does improve fps, at least it does for me. UWE is also constantly working on optimization, but it doesn't happen linearly or in even patch. We may go several patches with either no or worse performance and then have a huge jump in another.
Hm he means performance when you get those dips late game. Your res change had a significant impact you had all the base settings on high with a AMD Radeon HD6950. Changing res would give you benefits because your gpu is stressed. Early game it might be the same case as the CPU is not stressed.
Once you get those large dips late game lowering res with all settings on low will not help increase framerates unless your GPU is pretty old.
Comments
Where does this exist?
I have a dated PC myself, but with my I3-2100 at 3.1ghz, I only break above sixty in early game, but as soon as action starts, it dips to 40 *early game*. Late game, I'm lucky to hold 30, and I mean LUUUCKY.
My Settings
My DXDIAG
pastebin.com/gAC5LQBk
I might add I'm on a pretty fresh install of Windows with only a handful of programs installed thus far.
I'd figure about 2-3 days old.
you can see in console when you loadup the game.
Your cpu has no turbo option.
http://ark.intel.com/products/53422/Intel-Core-i3-2100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_10-GHz
I'm aware there is no turbo on it, but what I'm saying is, his turbo speed is below my norm clock speed, so why is his experience so vastly different than mine? I'm just trying to find the difference.
you get console with the ~ key.
in console you can see if NS2 uses your gtx card. It will say.
now type in r_stats 1
it will now supply you with a overlay ingame where it states fps, and more important, on who it is waiting.
So we can atleast see if its the vidcard or the cpu.
You can also use profiler in console. (type profiler)
Do this when its really bad, and click open the biggest purple bars. Then make a screenshot of that.
As for the cpu.. im no programmer, so this is guessing.. but perhaps a newer cpu handles the instructions better?
However it always fluctuates between 0-5ms at all times. The only time I ever see the gpu move is oddly, when I'm in game-menu. In-game itself, its always solid 0. I will test this and post screenshots for the sake of continuing the thread, but this is my preview of whats to come.
CS1.6 , Half-life series , Minecraft
Take example like Crysis 3 , Multiplayer almost like anyother FPS (COD 100%) , but players are not much
This is a matter of time my friends , game-dev can easily make this game playable on low/mid-end PC
But they want or not , that is their choice
my fps stayed 40-60, avg about 50, for the first 15 minutes or so, but once things got heavier, the lowest I saw it dive was about 25 while sitting outside a hive, at the forward base while pushing into it.
I'm really curious as to the flaw in my system.
I'm not mad or judging, I just want to know what I COULD do, y'know?
btw i'm totally fine with poor graphics to get stable fps, just give me an option for that
got a job, have no brony avatar, can't upgrade becuase i don't live in a country that wages wars for oil. any other suggestions?
yeah wages war for oil... that's why the global price is so low...
Don't be so sensitive.
@kombine
Hmm, may want to click open the biggest purple bars to there fullest. But you haven't described a truly bad setup.
Only thing I can remotely imagine is that the older cpu's just handle the code a lot poorly, but this gets beyond most of my expertise. Im not a coder.
@ibemad
Uwe is very open, so you can watch a lot of the lua code itself. However rather then say badly optimized, I wasn't kidding about it being the logic thread. I haven't seen a game yet with a logic thread as this one, so intertwined that.. at the moment.. they can not multithread it.
has less to do with optimization and more with time I, asume. I did read about max wanting to multithread it, but aparently thats problematic to do on a short timespan. (I am in no wau connected to uwe, so I could be wrong here).
I said it before. Mods like NS2 classic, which use most of the lua code from ns2 minus stuff like cysts and power nodes and stuff like that, run very very smooth. All points to the insane amount of logic this game processes.
@stardog
Worth the test, but it should not matter performance wise. (unless your application picks a setting with less performance). Most drivers can handle this fine these days.
Yes I tested. Then again, different hardware, different results. So still possible.
Worth the test @kombine
@tehsasa
minus the socket, we have sort of similar CPUs. I got a 930 I7. Its slower then yours, I do not overclock, it only goes into turbo up to 3Ghz.
yet I get stable 60fps on even busy scenes & servers. I run at a windowed fullscreen HD resolution. I happen to also have a 570 gtx.
So you are ideal to compare results. Are you finding 60fps acceptable/playable, and if so.. what is your fps? You should get similar or better, as from what I can see, your i7 is superior to mine.
this will be very interesting!
As soon as the late game hits or if there is much infestation (which I keep on low)/alien buildings, I'm running between 60 and <30 all the time.
It is not the max fps I'm caring about, but the constant up and down between 60 and <30 fps. Many benchmark show that the fps are not constant at all, just look at the official benchmarking thread.
odd.. you should pull more stable dps. I hardly dip below 40, almost never. And I asure you I run infestation on Full.
As your vidcard and cpu are similar to mine, mind if we compare more specs?
I can not see a real reason why you should even get close to 30fps when I hardly do.
A lot of those options don't have the option to be Application Controlled. Some of them are simply on/off. Which is why I have anything that can be put to application, done so already.
Good tip though.
Did you test:
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/119506/the-official-benchmarks-thread
a new benchmark run is on the todo list, yes.
But a old run had stable fps all around. yes I had a few moments in logs when it dipped very low but all were explainable to my rig. If I go from readyroom into the world it dips its fps while it loads. As I run steam on my mechanical drives instead of my ssd, I find that behavior expected.
in match it runs fine.
But yes, expect me to do some benchmarks soon, as I can not puzzle the different results together.
everything on low/off except multicore rendering / 1280x720 120hz
I'm suprised it's not dropping below 46 on summit. Apologize for the Exaggeration that I drop below 30 (in my defense I overclocked a few days ago and didn't play much). Could anyone please make a graph of my fraps log? I'm on OpenOffice only and couldn't find any good graphs there: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/187842/ns2 2013-03-05 20-25-26-12 frametimes.zip
Libreofficecalc (libreoffice is a fork of openoffice) has a diagram option which makes what you want. Also id need the fps file not the one you zipped.
Also why would anyone want to play on large servers? less skill involved, more mindless aiming. (yes thats a opinion, feel free to play on big ones)
Lowering resolution does improve fps, at least it does for me. UWE is also constantly working on optimization, but it doesn't happen linearly or in even patch. We may go several patches with either no or worse performance and then have a huge jump in another.
Hm he means performance when you get those dips late game. Your res change had a significant impact you had all the base settings on high with a AMD Radeon HD6950. Changing res would give you benefits because your gpu is stressed. Early game it might be the same case as the CPU is not stressed.
Once you get those large dips late game lowering res with all settings on low will not help increase framerates unless your GPU is pretty old.
Restart steam.