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
i did with corsair's H60 water cooling for $60, and pushed my i7 920 to 4ghz, from a stock 2.6. this, coupled with going to 64 bit win7 led to MAJOR increases in performance (back around November time frame)
i highly recommend both. ns2 is always smooth for me as long as the tickrate does not drop below 20. ( i generally only play on inversion servers anyways so its never an issue, unless some pug game lasts 2 hours with 400 hydras)
<!--quoteo(post=1909633:date=Mar 4 2012, 12:57 AM:name=Fadergast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fadergast @ Mar 4 2012, 12:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1909633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game i pretty much unplayable for me, when i try to run forward i take 1 step back and 2 forward, feels very unsmooth and laggy. My fps is around 30-40 and ping 40 :/ Does anyone run this game smooth, and what is your specs? Hopefully they will fix the game, rly loved the first one.
My specs: Win7 64bit AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition 3.3ghz Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL8 Sapphire Radeon HD 6990 4GB GDDR5<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its your cpu
dual cores run the game fine, quad and 6 cores get horrible performance
I'm running an i7 2600k which is 3.4GHz. I have it overclocked to the default 4.4 OC speed. I also have a 570 video card, plenty of ram, and an SSD hd.
I don't lag in early game, but after 30 minutes or so it usually starts to bog down. It's probably mostly server end with the low tick rates killing client fps, but lag is lag. Even on the inversion servers (of which I play exclusively), they have to be restarted every 2 or 3 hours or they get unplayable.
<!--quoteo(post=1910052:date=Mar 5 2012, 03:22 AM:name=Floodinator)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Floodinator @ Mar 5 2012, 03:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WTH? Don post such a bul######, that isn't true....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game is only really using 1 core heavily atm, hence why dual cores are better than a quad core that isnt using 3 of its cores or a 6 core that isnt using 5 of its cores
im running a gtx460 and an old core2duo E8400 which is still stock 3ghz and the game seems fine to me for the most part, i think i may overclock to improve things a bit
Your new computer makes a huge difference? Great. Nice to hear. Think of it like this though.
Think of NS2 in terms of a car. Your engine is a bit slow and stuttery right now because it is not working so well. What you did was take your engine out and buy a brand new expensive one and replace it.
That is fine, although that's not what is needed. What is needed is the team to make the performance work better, by taking the engine apart, cleaning, polishing, working with what they got and putting it back together again - as it *should* be able to get the same performance.
I do not think upgrading to get that tiny performance boost is worth it on a beta. It is the software that needs made better not the hardware.
<!--quoteo(post=1910064:date=Mar 4 2012, 10:07 PM:name=fallout1333)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fallout1333 @ Mar 4 2012, 10:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your new computer makes a huge difference? Great. Nice to hear. Think of it like this though.
Think of NS2 in terms of a car. Your engine is a bit slow and stuttery right now because it is not working so well. What you did was take your engine out and buy a brand new expensive one and replace it.
That is fine, although that's not what is needed. What is needed is the team to make the performance work better, by taking the engine apart, cleaning, polishing, working with what they got and putting it back together again - as it *should* be able to get the same performance.
I do not think upgrading to get that tiny performance boost is worth it on a beta. It is the software that needs made better not the hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1910042:date=Mar 4 2012, 05:53 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 4 2012, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910042"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't lag in early game, but after 30 minutes or so it usually starts to bog down. It's probably mostly server end with the low tick rates killing client fps, but lag is lag. Even on the inversion servers (of which I play exclusively), they have to be restarted every 2 or 3 hours or they get unplayable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think it's the server actually... at least not in my case. I get 55-60fps at the start of a round, during the end I'm closer to 10-15fps. It seems to drop the most in heavily infested areas and/or areas with lots of human built stuff. It is a bit weird though how the video settings pretty much does nothing, I get a few fps more at most running at "ridiculously awful" compared to "high".
Really hope that the performance gets better with time though as the game itself is fantastic, but the performance is not where it needs to be.
I'd hate to see this go the way of that other indie FPS "Red Orchestra 2", where the game is great but when they released it... it just ran so horribly regardless of what computer you had that people quit playing. They have now fixed it to an acceptable level (still not great) but it's too late and there's almost no players left. Getting a game to run well on mid-range computers is a must if it's to reach a big enough audience.
My average is..like...50 FPS when playing....70 fps when im quiet.....and i have a lot of drops to constant 20-30 fps.
I think the game should have have the option to be playable with constant 60+ FPS with a hardware like this. And (of course) with less graphics....
For instance..I play Crysis 2 with Medium spect in order to have 70 fps, i don't care about maximum spec and 55 FPS. But here in NS2....i have the same performance no matters the graphics details i have chosen.
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
edited March 2012
@sebadigri: Obviously, your <b>graphics</b> card is handling most of the <b>graphics</b> computations, so changing detail is not going to do any good when the game is CPU capped on almost any system. Asking whether performance will ever be improved is also pretty moot, since I don't think there is any developer who wants his game not to be played.
@mushookes: Suggesting that a game runs faster on a machine that has less cores is utterly absurd. Obviously, a 3GHz singlecore will run it faster than a 500MHz 6 core, and there's also CPU architecture, cache size and whatnot, but taking only core count and saying less is more is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
I'm also sick of people saying "y u no multithread?!!!1" or similar "suggestions". I believe a guy programming such an engine, including tools, all by himself is pretty likely to know that such things exist, even more so than the average forum poster. There's no magic button to make things faster or to make things multithread properly. If you're all so much better than Max, then apply for a job at UWE and show him how it's done.
I'm not denying there are huge problems, especially concerning server performance, but ranting about it on the forums and suggesting you have a better understanding of the engine code you've never seen won't make it better.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm seeing so much of this bull###### on the forums and ingame all day, it makes me angry.
I agree. -------- About the non multiple core games:
For instance: Starcraft II; uses only 2 cores, and also uses a lot of CPU. CPU is a bottleneck for sure in that game.
I also tried Assassins creed 4 (Revelations) and it seems to use only 1 Core, CPU is a bottleneck too in that game.
So...if Starcraft 2, one of the most played multiplayer game, doesn't use more than 2 cores (Knowing that Blizzard is a good company with a lot of money)... I really don't know if NS2 will be optimized for this.
<b>I also really don't know if NS2 uses more than 1 core....(I read this inside this topic) so i will try to Set CPU affinity to 1 CORE later and see if the FPS is changed. </b>
Firstly across the board in all the games I've tried it seems flawless to me (of course this is just because my old PC was so bad) and in NS2 it was a breath of fresh air! I can now run the max graphics setting (without AA/AF) which looks great, and when it gets to the biggest action where FPS matters, it rarely drops below 50FPS! It makes a world of difference and I actually PLAY NS2 now whereas before I could only jump in to check out the latest build features and then get fed up of low FPS and quit.
I'm actually relying on server performance now, looking for those servers that don't drop so much in performance at the mid-end game.
The thing to remember also, is that once the game gets nearer release we'll have the new Ivy Bridge CPUs and Kepler graphics cards which even the cheaper versions should be able to handle this game with no problem. I think that's what the devs are relying on over the course of the years building this, while the game needs a lot of hardware performance, by the time they are finished the current low-mid range hardware will have no problem providing a smooth experience (including final game optimisations if any)
Anyway I never moaned about when I had my old PC because that was 5 years old, it was my own problem I couldn't play the game, no UWE's.
<!--quoteo(post=1909793:date=Mar 4 2012, 09:26 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Mar 4 2012, 09:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1909793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How? What do you suggest? Does it look like they <i>aren't</i> doing that?
It's not optimization in the sense that they solve a math problem with some derivatives and stuff. It's a lot more complicated and depends on player feedback (from different hardware setups).
They have less people programming this game than there are classes in TF2, and they've created something many times better than that game already. Performance is a priority, but they have other goals to reach as well. If the art guys produce new models/animations/maps/whatever, it would be foolish to not take some time and add those in (for the 200 people who are playing round the clock and enjoying themselves). BF3 and Crysis are made by enormous companies, on well established (and frankly, dated) game engines, which had all their performance issues worked out before you even knew those games were in development.
This is a *real* beta of a game, not a marketing tool where people trample each other for keys and then play what's basically a release candidate.
Just give it time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How?: - Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable) - Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense - Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often - Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code - Try to identify bottlenecks, like LUA garbage colector taking a large portion of CPU time
I never said they aren't doing optimization, I think it should take even higher priority.
Whether it is "better" then TF2 or anything I won't discuss here. And I am not argueing about putting anything in that is done by the art team; there are things that were added that also required programming work and that should be rather directed at optimization. BF3 was made on their own engine and crysis aswell.
<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How?: - Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What "should" be isn't always what is. You're always welcome to contact UWE and offer to design a new multi-threading algorithm. If you can, you really should; it's much more productive than complaining. If you to have no idea how to do such a thing, you've got no business talking about what is and isn't doable.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> LUA is CPU-heavy. That's just a fact of the language.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they optimize code too early, they'll create problems later on when adding new features that conflict, and the opimizations themselves may need to be completely redone.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not going to happen.
If you're going to complain about UWE's methods, it really helps to have some idea what you're talking about first.
The game has changed like the day and the night in the last year. Now is totally awesome in comparison to the 2010 NS2..Could be one of the best games...And that argument is very affected by this hardware optimization we are talking about.
First Person Shooters games needs more FPS than other games. You can play a 30-40 MIN FPS Dragon Age...WoW, SC2 or whatever...But you really need 60+ Fps in First Person shooters.
<b>People are not complaining about NS2 game, just saying that the 1st priority before release the game, will be a very good performance improvement. </b>
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
Please try and remember guys, that when people suggest something should be done better, or improved, it is out of their desire for NS2 to be great. Not some baseless, vindictive and nasty comment to belittle UWE.
Just as people have a responsibility to phrase their comments in a decent way, so too do readers have a responsibility to read the intended meaning behind words.
<!--quoteo(post=1910540:date=Mar 6 2012, 11:40 AM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Mar 6 2012, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910540"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please try and remember guys, that when people suggest something should be done better, or improved, it is out of their desire for NS2 to be great. Not some baseless, vindictive and nasty comment to belittle UWE.
Just as people have a responsibility to phrase their comments in a decent way, so too do readers have a responsibility to read the intended meaning behind words.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be plenty of people that sink hours into crafting arguments that are ultimately only reflections of their opinions. I think they do it because they enjoy a mutual waste of time or being "right".
<!--quoteo(post=1910556:date=Mar 6 2012, 01:19 PM:name=hampton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hampton @ Mar 6 2012, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910556"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There seems to be plenty of people that sink hours into crafting arguments that are ultimately only reflections of their opinions. I think they do it because they enjoy a mutual waste of time or being "right".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1909633:date=Mar 3 2012, 03:57 PM:name=Fadergast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fadergast @ Mar 3 2012, 03:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1909633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game i pretty much unplayable for me, when i try to run forward i take 1 step back and 2 forward, feels very unsmooth and laggy. My fps is around 30-40 and ping 40 :/ Does anyone run this game smooth, and what is your specs? Hopefully they will fix the game, rly loved the first one.
My specs: Win7 64bit AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition 3.3ghz Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL8 Sapphire Radeon HD 6990 4GB GDDR5<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My Specs Win7 Pro. 64bit <b>Motherboard</b> - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX Support and UEFI BIOS <b>CPU</b>- AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core <b>GPU</b>- ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit <b>RAM</b>- G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
I have no issues playing this game on High settings with the best resolution what so ever unless I am on a crappy server. I also do not track FPS because I have no need to. Everything is fluid when it needs to be.
<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 04:32 PM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How?:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thought I'd just go over this again, as there are just so many incorrect statements here:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The bottleneck is the game-logic, which is an inherently single-threaded ordeal, coupled with the fact that it is written in Lua, which is very much a single-threaded scripting-language (although with some limited concurrency support).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> GPU-computing only makes sense for things that are just incredibly parallel and are also rather 'detachable' from the rest of the game, which is why it is usually only physics that are on the GPU (very parallel while not relevant\intertwined with other game-processing tasks).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They're doing that as we speak (I believe they've just started work on entity\targetting-caching).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A fair bit of that has already been done, but you are rather limited in doing that, as too much will affect the moddability of the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF3 was made on their own engine and crysis aswell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm guessing they're using conventional programming-languages that do not introduce the same problems Lua does. While comparing performance against other games is fair, do consider the difference in architecture and the pros and cons that come with that.
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1910640:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910640"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While comparing performance against other games is fair, do consider the difference in architecture and the pros and cons that come with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also do consider millions of $$$ (e.g. better tools) + lots more than just ONE engine programmer (dushan is still a rather recent addition) + help from big companies like Intel/nVidia/AMD.
<!--quoteo(post=1910571:date=Mar 6 2012, 07:48 PM:name=pRiNcEkAhUnA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pRiNcEkAhUnA @ Mar 6 2012, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My Specs Win7 Pro. 64bit <b>Motherboard</b> - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX Support and UEFI BIOS <b>CPU</b>- AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core <b>GPU</b>- ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit <b>RAM</b>- G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
I have no issues playing this game on High settings with the best resolution what so ever unless I am on a crappy server. I also do not track FPS because I have no need to. Everything is fluid when it needs to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok i also use, ASUS Crosshair V Formula, Socket-AM3+ ATX, 990FX+SB850, DDR3, 4xPCIe(2.0)x16, CFX&SLI, SATA 6Gb/s, USB 3.0, X-FI, EFI but not the AMD FX processor, i wonder what makes it run like crap for me. Should be able to run this game without any problems. But i have no doubt they will fix the problem later on, just think its weird. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1910562:date=Mar 6 2012, 12:30 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Mar 6 2012, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is an imposter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My forum account, game, steam account and name predate yours.
<!--quoteo(post=1910526:date=Mar 6 2012, 11:39 AM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 6 2012, 11:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910526"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What "should" be isn't always what is. You're always welcome to contact UWE and offer to design a new multi-threading algorithm. If you can, you really should; it's much more productive than complaining. If you to have no idea how to do such a thing, you've got no business talking about what is and isn't doable. LUA is CPU-heavy. That's just a fact of the language. If they optimize code too early, they'll create problems later on when adding new features that conflict, and the opimizations themselves may need to be completely redone. Not going to happen.
If you're going to complain about UWE's methods, it really helps to have some idea what you're talking about first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Omega was merely presenting information that some forum-goers may not be aware of. How you construe this as "complaining" is mind-boggling.
Truth of the matter is, and I've said this before, LUA was potentially not the best choice for game logic. Anyone with any background in programming can tell you this. Scripted languages are slow. They must be interpreted at run-time, or ran from byte code which must run through a virtual machine. Compiled languages have a <b>very distinct and well understood advantage</b> to code that must run in a virtual machine, and that is speed of execution.
So, if there is any way they can whip LUA into a mulithreaded shape then NS2 may see tremendous leaps in performance. <b>Max said they are working on this and it is difficult</b>.
Apparently we must explicitly state our intentions on this thread, so here's a disclaimer: My opinions are based off my experience. I am not complaining, but dearly want other NS2 players to be aware of a potential underlying cause for poor performance.
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
@OP (fadergast)
if you are getting 40 fps and 40 ping and you are still getting pulled backwards, then it most likely is the server. use net_stats 1 in the console (hit ~) and look at the server ticks. should be ~25 to 30 for good performance. otherwise you will be rubber banding. there is a reason the devs are tweeting on the main page for "beefier" servers to volunteer. the server is the main cause of the casual player experiencing performance issues. if the server tick is low, your fps will be as well due to prediction. (i believe that net_stats cmd also shows predicted frames at the bottom) try to stick to "inversion" servers - they are VERY beefy. some examples are : 420 clan, lerk more, #156, and of course inversion's own. (They are all inversion hosted, they just change the name of the servers, as a side note, i only play on these kind of servers, i dont know WHO can play when the tickrate is below 20!?)
Comments
DO IT NOW!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GET TO THE DROPSHIP!
this, coupled with going to 64 bit win7 led to MAJOR increases in performance (back around November time frame)
i highly recommend both. ns2 is always smooth for me as long as the tickrate does not drop below 20. ( i generally only play on inversion servers anyways so its never an issue, unless some pug game lasts 2 hours with 400 hydras)
My fps is around 30-40 and ping 40 :/
Does anyone run this game smooth, and what is your specs?
Hopefully they will fix the game, rly loved the first one.
My specs:
Win7 64bit
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition 3.3ghz
Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL8
Sapphire Radeon HD 6990 4GB GDDR5<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its your cpu
dual cores run the game fine, quad and 6 cores get horrible performance
I don't lag in early game, but after 30 minutes or so it usually starts to bog down. It's probably mostly server end with the low tick rates killing client fps, but lag is lag. Even on the inversion servers (of which I play exclusively), they have to be restarted every 2 or 3 hours or they get unplayable.
dual cores run the game fine, quad and 6 cores get horrible performance<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WTH? Don post such a bul######, that isn't true....
The game is only really using 1 core heavily atm, hence why dual cores are better than a quad core that isnt using 3 of its cores or a 6 core that isnt using 5 of its cores
im running a gtx460 and an old core2duo E8400 which is still stock 3ghz and the game seems fine to me for the most part, i think i may overclock to improve things a bit
Think of NS2 in terms of a car. Your engine is a bit slow and stuttery right now because it is not working so well. What you did was take your engine out and buy a brand new expensive one and replace it.
That is fine, although that's not what is needed. What is needed is the team to make the performance work better, by taking the engine apart, cleaning, polishing, working with what they got and putting it back together again - as it *should* be able to get the same performance.
I do not think upgrading to get that tiny performance boost is worth it on a beta. It is the software that needs made better not the hardware.
Think of NS2 in terms of a car. Your engine is a bit slow and stuttery right now because it is not working so well. What you did was take your engine out and buy a brand new expensive one and replace it.
That is fine, although that's not what is needed. What is needed is the team to make the performance work better, by taking the engine apart, cleaning, polishing, working with what they got and putting it back together again - as it *should* be able to get the same performance.
I do not think upgrading to get that tiny performance boost is worth it on a beta. It is the software that needs made better not the hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
okay. what hardware are you using to run ns2?
I don't think it's the server actually... at least not in my case. I get 55-60fps at the start of a round, during the end I'm closer to 10-15fps. It seems to drop the most in heavily infested areas and/or areas with lots of human built stuff. It is a bit weird though how the video settings pretty much does nothing, I get a few fps more at most running at "ridiculously awful" compared to "high".
Really hope that the performance gets better with time though as the game itself is fantastic, but the performance is not where it needs to be.
I'd hate to see this go the way of that other indie FPS "Red Orchestra 2", where the game is great but when they released it... it just ran so horribly regardless of what computer you had that people quit playing. They have now fixed it to an acceptable level (still not great) but it's too late and there's almost no players left. Getting a game to run well on mid-range computers is a must if it's to reach a big enough audience.
My stock sandy bridge i7-2600K @ 3.4 Ghz generally keeps my FPS above 40. I'm plenty happy with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Constant 100+, preferably constant 120.
2x GTX 580
20 fps in late game.
and constant 60fps is acceptable, but prefer 120.
I have:
i5 750 3.8Ghz / Nvidia 560 ti GPU / 4GB RAM. / 75Hz Monitor
My average is..like...50 FPS when playing....70 fps when im quiet.....and i have a lot of drops to constant 20-30 fps.
I think the game should have have the option to be playable with constant 60+ FPS with a hardware like this. And (of course) with less graphics....
For instance..I play Crysis 2 with Medium spect in order to have 70 fps, i don't care about maximum spec and 55 FPS. But here in NS2....i have the same performance no matters the graphics details i have chosen.
Obviously, your <b>graphics</b> card is handling most of the <b>graphics</b> computations, so changing detail is not going to do any good when the game is CPU capped on almost any system. Asking whether performance will ever be improved is also pretty moot, since I don't think there is any developer who wants his game not to be played.
@mushookes:
Suggesting that a game runs faster on a machine that has less cores is utterly absurd. Obviously, a 3GHz singlecore will run it faster than a 500MHz 6 core, and there's also CPU architecture, cache size and whatnot, but taking only core count and saying less is more is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
I'm also sick of people saying "y u no multithread?!!!1" or similar "suggestions". I believe a guy programming such an engine, including tools, all by himself is pretty likely to know that such things exist, even more so than the average forum poster. There's no magic button to make things faster or to make things multithread properly. If you're all so much better than Max, then apply for a job at UWE and show him how it's done.
I'm not denying there are huge problems, especially concerning server performance, but ranting about it on the forums and suggesting you have a better understanding of the engine code you've never seen won't make it better.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm seeing so much of this bull###### on the forums and ingame all day, it makes me angry.
--------
About the non multiple core games:
For instance: Starcraft II; uses only 2 cores, and also uses a lot of CPU. CPU is a bottleneck for sure in that game.
I also tried Assassins creed 4 (Revelations) and it seems to use only 1 Core, CPU is a bottleneck too in that game.
So...if Starcraft 2, one of the most played multiplayer game, doesn't use more than 2 cores (Knowing that Blizzard is a good company with a lot of money)... I really don't know if NS2 will be optimized for this.
<b>I also really don't know if NS2 uses more than 1 core....(I read this inside this topic) so i will try to Set CPU affinity to 1 CORE later and see if the FPS is changed. </b>
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 2.4Ghz
8GB DDR2 Dual Channel Memory
Nvidia GTX 260
128GB SSD (Crucial M225)
(No overclocking)
I had to run the game on the ridiculously awful setting and even then the FPS would be below 30FPS when it mattered.
I've now just built this:
Intel Core i7-3820 3.6Ghz
16GB DDR3 Quad Channel Memory
Nvidia GTX 560Ti 384 shaders 2GB (I underestimated this card!)
128GB SSD (Crucial M4)
Firstly across the board in all the games I've tried it seems flawless to me (of course this is just because my old PC was so bad) and in NS2 it was a breath of fresh air! I can now run the max graphics setting (without AA/AF) which looks great, and when it gets to the biggest action where FPS matters, it rarely drops below 50FPS! It makes a world of difference and I actually PLAY NS2 now whereas before I could only jump in to check out the latest build features and then get fed up of low FPS and quit.
I'm actually relying on server performance now, looking for those servers that don't drop so much in performance at the mid-end game.
The thing to remember also, is that once the game gets nearer release we'll have the new Ivy Bridge CPUs and Kepler graphics cards which even the cheaper versions should be able to handle this game with no problem. I think that's what the devs are relying on over the course of the years building this, while the game needs a lot of hardware performance, by the time they are finished the current low-mid range hardware will have no problem providing a smooth experience (including final game optimisations if any)
Anyway I never moaned about when I had my old PC because that was 5 years old, it was my own problem I couldn't play the game, no UWE's.
It's not optimization in the sense that they solve a math problem with some derivatives and stuff. It's a lot more complicated and depends on player feedback (from different hardware setups).
They have less people programming this game than there are classes in TF2, and they've created something many times better than that game already. Performance is a priority, but they have other goals to reach as well. If the art guys produce new models/animations/maps/whatever, it would be foolish to not take some time and add those in (for the 200 people who are playing round the clock and enjoying themselves). BF3 and Crysis are made by enormous companies, on well established (and frankly, dated) game engines, which had all their performance issues worked out before you even knew those games were in development.
This is a *real* beta of a game, not a marketing tool where people trample each other for keys and then play what's basically a release candidate.
Just give it time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How?:
- Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable)
- Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense
- Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often
- Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code
- Try to identify bottlenecks, like LUA garbage colector taking a large portion of CPU time
I never said they aren't doing optimization, I think it should take even higher priority.
Whether it is "better" then TF2 or anything I won't discuss here. And I am not argueing about putting anything in that is done by the art team; there are things that were added that also required programming work and that should be rather directed at optimization. BF3 was made on their own engine and crysis aswell.
- Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What "should" be isn't always what is. You're always welcome to contact UWE and offer to design a new multi-threading algorithm. If you can, you really should; it's much more productive than complaining. If you to have no idea how to do such a thing, you've got no business talking about what is and isn't doable.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LUA is CPU-heavy. That's just a fact of the language.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they optimize code too early, they'll create problems later on when adding new features that conflict, and the opimizations themselves may need to be completely redone.<!--quoteo(post=1910523:date=Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Mar 6 2012, 10:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1910523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not going to happen.
If you're going to complain about UWE's methods, it really helps to have some idea what you're talking about first.
First Person Shooters games needs more FPS than other games. You can play a 30-40 MIN FPS Dragon Age...WoW, SC2 or whatever...But you really need 60+ Fps in First Person shooters.
<b>People are not complaining about NS2 game, just saying that the 1st priority before release the game, will be a very good performance improvement.
</b>
Just as people have a responsibility to phrase their comments in a decent way, so too do readers have a responsibility to read the intended meaning behind words.
Just as people have a responsibility to phrase their comments in a decent way, so too do readers have a responsibility to read the intended meaning behind words.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be plenty of people that sink hours into crafting arguments that are ultimately only reflections of their opinions. I think they do it because they enjoy a mutual waste of time or being "right".
This is an imposter.
My fps is around 30-40 and ping 40 :/
Does anyone run this game smooth, and what is your specs?
Hopefully they will fix the game, rly loved the first one.
My specs:
Win7 64bit
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition 3.3ghz
Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL8
Sapphire Radeon HD 6990 4GB GDDR5<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My Specs
Win7 Pro. 64bit
<b>Motherboard</b> - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX Support and UEFI BIOS
<b>CPU</b>- AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core
<b>GPU</b>- ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit
<b>RAM</b>- G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
I have no issues playing this game on High settings with the best resolution what so ever unless I am on a crappy server. I also do not track FPS because I have no need to. Everything is fluid when it needs to be.
Thought I'd just go over this again, as there are just so many incorrect statements here:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Improve multithreading to actually use multi-cpu systems better. (and I know this is hard, but certainly should be doable)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bottleneck is the game-logic, which is an inherently single-threaded ordeal, coupled with the fact that it is written in Lua, which is very much a single-threaded scripting-language (although with some limited concurrency support).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Eventually move code from CPU to GPU or CPU to GPU where it is possible/makes sense<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GPU-computing only makes sense for things that are just incredibly parallel and are also rather 'detachable' from the rest of the game, which is why it is usually only physics that are on the GPU (very parallel while not relevant\intertwined with other game-processing tasks).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Look at existing code and improve the way it is done, for example by reducing the amount of interations with special algorythms, or using caches for things that are accessed often<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're doing that as we speak (I believe they've just started work on entity\targetting-caching).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Removing portions of LUA code and reimplementing it as C/C++ code<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fair bit of that has already been done, but you are rather limited in doing that, as too much will affect the moddability of the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF3 was made on their own engine and crysis aswell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm guessing they're using conventional programming-languages that do not introduce the same problems Lua does. While comparing performance against other games is fair, do consider the difference in architecture and the pros and cons that come with that.
Also do consider millions of $$$ (e.g. better tools) + lots more than just ONE engine programmer (dushan is still a rather recent addition) + help from big companies like Intel/nVidia/AMD.
Win7 Pro. 64bit
<b>Motherboard</b> - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX Support and UEFI BIOS
<b>CPU</b>- AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core
<b>GPU</b>- ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit
<b>RAM</b>- G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
I have no issues playing this game on High settings with the best resolution what so ever unless I am on a crappy server. I also do not track FPS because I have no need to. Everything is fluid when it needs to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok i also use, ASUS Crosshair V Formula, Socket-AM3+ ATX, 990FX+SB850, DDR3, 4xPCIe(2.0)x16, CFX&SLI, SATA 6Gb/s, USB 3.0, X-FI, EFI
but not the AMD FX processor, i wonder what makes it run like crap for me.
Should be able to run this game without any problems.
But i have no doubt they will fix the problem later on, just think its weird. :)
im not trolling!?
My forum account, game, steam account and name predate yours.
LUA is CPU-heavy. That's just a fact of the language.
If they optimize code too early, they'll create problems later on when adding new features that conflict, and the opimizations themselves may need to be completely redone.
Not going to happen.
If you're going to complain about UWE's methods, it really helps to have some idea what you're talking about first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Omega was merely presenting information that some forum-goers may not be aware of. How you construe this as "complaining" is mind-boggling.
Truth of the matter is, and I've said this before, LUA was potentially not the best choice for game logic. Anyone with any background in programming can tell you this. Scripted languages are slow. They must be interpreted at run-time, or ran from byte code which must run through a virtual machine. Compiled languages have a <b>very distinct and well understood advantage</b> to code that must run in a virtual machine, and that is speed of execution.
So, if there is any way they can whip LUA into a mulithreaded shape then NS2 may see tremendous leaps in performance. <b>Max said they are working on this and it is difficult</b>.
Apparently we must explicitly state our intentions on this thread, so here's a disclaimer: My opinions are based off my experience. I am not complaining, but dearly want other NS2 players to be aware of a potential underlying cause for poor performance.
if you are getting 40 fps and 40 ping and you are still getting pulled backwards, then it most likely is the server.
use net_stats 1 in the console (hit ~) and look at the server ticks. should be ~25 to 30 for good performance. otherwise you will be rubber banding.
there is a reason the devs are tweeting on the main page for "beefier" servers to volunteer.
the server is the main cause of the casual player experiencing performance issues.
if the server tick is low, your fps will be as well due to prediction. (i believe that net_stats cmd also shows predicted frames at the bottom)
try to stick to "inversion" servers - they are VERY beefy. some examples are : 420 clan, lerk more, #156, and of course inversion's own. (They are all inversion hosted, they just change the name of the servers, as a side note, i only play on these kind of servers, i dont know WHO can play when the tickrate is below 20!?)