Horrible FPS in Alpha
PoNeH
Join Date: 2006-12-01 Member: 58801Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester
Join Date: 2006-12-01 Member: 58801Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester
I know this is Alpha and all, but is the abysmal FPS representative of what to expect in the release version? The reason why i ask is because I get 40+ FPS on High settings in Crysis, and I don't get more than 5 FPS in NS2. I have visual detail all the way down.
M11x: Core i7, 4GB DDR RAM, 256GB SSD, 1GB Nvidia GT335M w/ Optimus.
M11x: Core i7, 4GB DDR RAM, 256GB SSD, 1GB Nvidia GT335M w/ Optimus.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh, ###### off little kid. You know what I meant...
That's what I'm concerned about. Performance can only be improved so much. The source engine is what handles most of the fluidity of a game. Alpha doesn't necessary indicate that huge hurdles are possible in the performance realm. The engine can only do so much. It is mostly intended for interface, bugs, etc to be improved upon.
he joined in 2003... even if he was a little kid back then it's just not possible now! :)
But seriously, you asked a question with only one answer. It's Alpha, time will tell.
Be thankful it opens at all, FPS will improve as time goes by as will other issues such as connection problems. Untill then submit a bug report of your system specs and the problems you're having and be rewarded with that warm glow that you're helping make NS2 better.
There's only so much you can optimize, unless of course a lot of the slowdown is due to some sort of weird memory leak or something.
<b>really?</b>
Before alpha release the devs would have play tested this on a handul of systems likely to be pretty darn uber
Now that same program that may well have run REALLY well in their closed environment is trying to cope with a world-wide release
The permutations of potential problems due to the variety of computer specs has gone up for UW by insane amounts and thats exactly what they were after
a much wider data field of how their alpha-program handles on a wider range of systems.
I think people who were wanting to just play the game are going to be disappointed for a while to come yet.
Think of yourselves as sub-contractors to UW to bug test not PLAY NS2
If you wanted to just play NS2 perhaps you should have at least waited until beta....
Yes voicing concerns is cool, but it has to be done in a constructive way.
Something some people seem unable to do :s
Bottom line, if you don't have anything productive to say, STFU!
dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...
i guess the same could be said to you though, you basically asked: "i know the game isnt finished, butwhy is so slow?" you answered you're own question :)
but of course the dev's are aiming to make a game that has a playable frame rate, or at least a comparable frame rate to games that look roughly the same.
I've played a lot of alpha's in my time, and this one is waaay ahead of some that i've seen.
It is obviously something on your end, or their alpha is having compatibility issues with your hardware one of the two.
Sigh.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The latest and popular shooter ran smoothly in the largest part of the first mission up to high graphic settings in the trial run, even if generally close to the limit of the <b>30 fps</b> mark and with breaks to around <b>15 fps</b> resulting from special graphic effects.
If you compare the achieved rates with other graphic solution tested by us (gaming performance of mobile GPUs), you can observe that the GPU is on a level between a Geforce 9700M and the favored HD 4650 in high graphic settings. The Alienware 11x lags a bit behind in medium detail settings, which is most likely due to the built-in SU 7300 CPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/Test-Preview-Alienware-M11x-Performance-Check.25840.0.html" target="_blank">M11x review </a> performance in CODMW2
Also:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alienware has obviously considered this fact and has approached this by pairing a comparatively weak Intel Core 2 Duo SU energy savings CPU with a very strong graphic card for the first time. The SU7300 chip has two physical cores and shows a basic clock rate of 1.3 GHz. <b>The chip is 2-3 times slower than common Core 2 Duo</b> chip or the new Core i processors with a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of just only 10W. Alienware overclocked the processor in our prototype to 1.6 GHz ex-factory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to sound like I am bashing your laptop, It is a very good laptop considering its size. But it still is a laptop.
In comparison I get over 60fps in Crysis on high at 1680x1050, yet NS2 alpha will give me 35fps or less most of the time.
LOL
Sorry that's the most productive statement I could add to this topic.
There is always stuff you can optimize. It's just a matter of how much time you can afford to spend on it, and how many visual, and in some cases gameplay, compromises you want to make.
As far as people concerned that the game doesn't play noticeably better then the engine test -- the engine test was not the game. It was the basic framework of the graphics engine, to test compatibility on other machines. But it had very little to do with the actual game. It wasn't running most of the game code, there were a fraction of the models/detail/effects and gameplay in it, all of which slows down performance. Not to mention all of the server lag issues that are going on with the actual game. If we included the same stripped down engine test with this alpha, everyone would notice a significant improvement in frame rate running around on it.
And, we don't have the luxury of optimizing the game for 1 console system, like an 360 or PS3. We have to deal with a ton of different systems and specs and graphics cards, all with their own little quirks. Some people are actually getting surprisingly good FPS on low end systems, and some other people with high end systems are getting bad FPS in the alpha. That is what the alpha is for, to give us the information so we can try and make adjustments and optimizations to get the game working at a decent FPS on as many different systems as possible.
So, relax, give us time, and if the final release of the game doesn't run any better for you then it does now, then maybe there is something to worry about.
--Cory
thanks :)
- <a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/Test-Preview-Alienware-M11x-Performance-Check.25840.0.html" target="_blank">M11x review </a> performance in CODMW2
Also:
Not to sound like I am bashing your laptop, It is a very good laptop considering its size. But it still is a laptop.
In comparison I get over 60fps in Crysis on high at 1680x1050, yet NS2 alpha will give me 35fps or less most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you greek by any chance?
Alphas are suppose to make you cry.
Betas are too, but dev teams have spoiled gamers by making betas almost like demos. And I think thats whats going on here. Some here are expecting a demo...and they are playing a game that actually requires testing from them. They don't know what to do with themselves...but ###### on the forums.
Anyway, games DRASTICALLY change from alpha to beta, and then another drastic change from beta to release. If this was 2 weeks before release, then yea...I'd be worried. But at this point, we just have to patient and see how things improve...one patch at a time.
EDIT: I just read Squeals post :)
I know I am on a laptop, but this gem is by no means underpowered. Regardless, I feel that the developers are not intending on limiting this game to high-end gaming rigs only.
- <a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/Test-Preview-Alienware-M11x-Performance-Check.25840.0.html" target="_blank">M11x review </a> performance in CODMW2
Also:
Not to sound like I am bashing your laptop, It is a very good laptop considering its size. But it still is a laptop.
In comparison I get over 60fps in Crysis on high at 1680x1050, yet NS2 alpha will give me 35fps or less most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, that article is based on the first revision of my laptop, which lacks the Core i7 processor, NVIDIA Optimus, and the SSD hard drive that my rig has.
Operating System:
Windows 2.6.1.7600
CPU Type:
Intel® Core™ i7 CPU 930 @ 2.80GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):
2.83
System Memory (GB):
5.99
Video Card Model:
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Video Card Driver:
atiu9pag.dll
Desktop Resolution:
1680x1050
Not too bad. On Battlefield BC my fps for my setup is usually around 78-90 fps with max graphics. Hopefully this helps :)
There is always stuff you can optimize. It's just a matter of how much time you can afford to spend on it, and how many visual, and in some cases gameplay, compromises you want to make.
As far as people concerned that the game doesn't play noticeably better then the engine test -- the engine test was not the game. It was the basic framework of the graphics engine, to test compatibility on other machines. But it had very little to do with the actual game. It wasn't running most of the game code, there were a fraction of the models/detail/effects and gameplay in it, all of which slows down performance. Not to mention all of the server lag issues that are going on with the actual game. If we included the same stripped down engine test with this alpha, everyone would notice a significant improvement in frame rate running around on it.
And, we don't have the luxury of optimizing the game for 1 console system, like an 360 or PS3. We have to deal with a ton of different systems and specs and graphics cards, all with their own little quirks. Some people are actually getting surprisingly good FPS on low end systems, and some other people with high end systems are getting bad FPS in the alpha. That is what the alpha is for, to give us the information so we can try and make adjustments and optimizations to get the game working at a decent FPS on as many different systems as possible.
So, relax, give us time, and if the final release of the game doesn't run any better for you then it does now, then maybe there is something to worry about.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you please sticky this, or copy and paste it on the other 20 topics with the same questions???
I mean seriously we ALL want the game to run smooth, but it's ALPHA they even said before they released it that it's not optimized yet and will run poorly, how is this a shock to ANYONE??? You should have expected to get around 15-30 fps, and if you are getting that then good, that's how it's suppose to be AT THIS STAGE.