<!--quoteo(post=1956018:date=Aug 2 2012, 01:18 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Aug 2 2012, 01:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Performance is our #1 priority right now. We have 3 programmers whose current focus is almost exclusively performance. It is easier to deal with the performance now that we are feature complete, because the game code is not changing all the time and causing fluctuating performance as new features get added.
There were a lot of optimizations last patch, and there will be a lot more this next patch. Some impact the server side more then the client, some impact the client more then the server. We are profiling all the different layers of the game, and finding where the biggest gains can be had, but there is no one area that will suddenly double the framerate by fixing. It is a lot of small wins that will keep adding up until the game is running at the rate that we want it to be (which is much much faster then where it currently is).
There will continue to be other balance changes, useability improvements, and bug fixes/polish done to the game, as that stuff is also very necessary in order to get the game in a shipping state, but it does not mean that work on optimization ever stops.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is the plan still to get to JIT compiled LUA, or is that a lost cause at this point and work focuses on optimizing the interpreted LUA as far as possible?
<!--quoteo(post=1955841:date=Aug 2 2012, 12:34 AM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Aug 2 2012, 12:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1955841"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now that you have found a good server you might want to try putting your graphical settings and resolution back high again. The performance of the game is mostly limited by client and server CPUs running the game logic code. Thus lowering resolution and graphics settings doesn't make it perform better. Just try it out and see how it goes. If it lags more you can always go back to low quality and low res.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I found a much better server and I can play with all my settings on and in high detail. Resolution is in the middle since I'm 1920x1080, I haven't gone further up yet. I'm all by myself, but it's amazing looking performance, I'm happy now :D SO HAPPY!! Would it stay this way even with other players online? I freaking hope so... Sucks I couldn't play with anyone, but I'll go on and look for treasure servers I can play perfectly on!
<!--quoteo(post=1955890:date=Aug 2 2012, 12:44 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 2 2012, 12:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1955890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is planned to increase it to 60ticks at release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1955833:date=Aug 2 2012, 12:18 AM:name=james888)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (james888 @ Aug 2 2012, 12:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1955833"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have 4.5ghz already, but even my computer saw performance increases the last two builds. I now avg 75 fps not 60. Its a small gain but a gain. They are bringing down the requirements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not a small gain. That's huge. You have no perspective.
Also <b>LOL</b> @ all these people acting like 3.0 Ghz is <i>low</i>. Believe it or not, people continue to use their computers for years and years, and the <i>most expensive choices</i> from the most recent two generations of Intel processors are not and will not be the standard (or majority) for many, many years to come. There is a reason video game consoles have not been rehashed in more than half a decade- it's because the cost to develop a large improvement over existing technology is too high for what marginal gains it offers. <b>Many video games will continue to be developed to operate on the average system, because it sells more copies.</b> You do not need a +$2,000 computer to game on "high". You need a ~$900 computer (excluding peripherals).
I built an i5 rig that can top out BF3 in a 64 player Caspian with everything maxxed on Ultra at 1080p for $950 by hitting sales, that's including all peripherals. A $150 graphics card is enough for any game I have ever found to be played comfortably with some bells and whistles to boot.
Take the same exact hardware specifications, with the same clock speed and replace the i5 with a C2D and you'll need to run the game on low with DX11 off. I attribute that to very poor development of that particular game, however (BF3) - I can run Metro 2033 on high even with the old C2D. The C2D that still costs $100, even though for less than a $20 more, you could get the i5 which would outperform it completely, but hey 3 Ghz!!!! Cheap!!! Look at all those <i>hertz</i>!
The actual physical architecture and memory cache improvements of Sandy / Ivy bridge (i3-7) are the much larger factor in improved performance. For the money you'll spend on a 4.5Ghz processor the bigger gain is<i> still </i>in the actual design of the chip (and not the clock speed).
<b>Spend less on hardware, pirate fewer games, pay more developers. Rant complete.</b>
for reference, I am <img src="http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/756/71567169.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
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 blame the console generation for lack of a hardware push. Games drove hardware sales and innovation, and vice versa. Now its just the same hardware for 11 years.. Its funny, too, since without hardware progression there's even less reason for consoles to update anytime soon.. its a viscous circle.
I, for one, LOVE developers that focus on PC (*stares angrily at DICE for selling out to EA after promises*) and help push that boundary forward for better games and better hardware.. Thank you to all the Doom 3's and whatnots out there.
That being said.. the approach should definitely be "scale-able" where you can run on your lawn mower pc somewhat, and the PC enthusiast guy can run everything maxed out - and notices a huge difference. <b>Encouraging </b>upgrading should be the model.. not forcing it or discouraging it. IMO.
<!--quoteo(post=1956191:date=Aug 2 2012, 06:41 PM:name=blujay)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blujay @ Aug 2 2012, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956191"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Many video games will continue to be developed to operate on the average system, because it sells more copies.</b> You do not need a +$2,000 computer to game on "high". You need a ~$900 computer (excluding peripherals).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My sub $600 computer plays NS2 at 30-60fps, pretty much the only lag I get is server related.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1956010:date=Aug 2 2012, 04:48 PM:name=atLaNN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (atLaNN @ Aug 2 2012, 04:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956010"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm having no performance issues at all. (even when @ max details) - GTX 570/i5 2500K
And i'm used to play FPS games @ low details to get more fps and stability. Ever seen a "pro" CS player playing @ max details/resolution ? Nope. ^^
Sometimes, you gotta choose ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe, I've got 2 words for your Google "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=NS2+Pixel" target="_blank">NS2 Pixel</a>", too bad it doesn't help that much with FPS on older rigs, because the models are still all High Poly. Hitching is a tad bit less, but by not much...
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1956232:date=Aug 3 2012, 12:55 AM:name=Industry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Industry @ Aug 3 2012, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956232"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just noticed Kouji changed his avatar. Here I was preparing my pitchforks for a new moderator.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah, it's the avatar I use for YouTube/twitter. Not sure yet though as blinking Shikamaru is quite nostalgic XD
I am forever at loss why they on periphery content when the core of the game (performance, hit reg, engine, collision etc.) is in need of serious work.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1956241:date=Aug 3 2012, 01:31 AM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Aug 3 2012, 01:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am forever at loss why they on periphery content when the core of the game (performance, hit reg, engine, collision etc.) is in need of serious work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's all part of the same goal, designing a game is not just having programmers do their thing, while everyone else does nothing. That would be rather counter productive now wouldn't it. I mean NS2 has performance issues of course, but those are being and have been worked on constantly. Sometimes you see huge performance gains, sometimes you see smaller performance gains...
But there are more things to NS2 other then the engine/network performance and that is what the other devs are for. Things like features, balancing, modeling, model animations, rag dolls and so on :)
Yus, animations, plz plz, I know it makes your eyes bleed Brian 2 but hell, I've a few friends who walk around town saying "I build that" or "I made that" ... in 5 years I'm pretty sure you will be happy with what you have achieved here.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1956024:date=Aug 2 2012, 07:30 PM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Aug 2 2012, 07:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956024"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is the plan still to get to JIT compiled LUA, or is that a lost cause at this point and work focuses on optimizing the interpreted LUA as far as possible?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turns out that right now, the problem isn't so much in LUA - even if LUA ran 10 times faster, performance wouldn't increase more than about 20-30%, because about 2/3rds of the time is spent in C++ (now, part of the C++ time is there to interface with Lua, but...). So while a Lua jit would be nice, its not going to solve anything by itself.
The most harmful problem right now is that the bandwidth usages spikes too much when in heavy combat - the dreaded "choke" - and when the bandwidth spikes, the clients gets fewer updates and thus have to predict longer, which takes CPU and drops your FPS just when you need it the most. And as someone pointed out, when you framerate changes, your reflexes will be off and you will miss.
That problem with mostly go away (or at least, the combat will need to be a lot heavier) in the next patch or two though.
For those interested in checking out exactly what's going on, you can use the "p_logall/p_logend" console commands to start/stop the performance logging, and the perfanalyser.py tool to analyse it afterwards. Logs are written in the same APP_DATA location as the normal log.
Its especially useful if you have weird, repeatable behaviour on the client. Then you can start the log, repeat the behaviour, stop the log and check out what happened afterwards.
ZeikkoJoin Date: 2007-12-16Member: 63179Members, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester
<!--quoteo(post=1956241:date=Aug 3 2012, 03:31 AM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Aug 3 2012, 03:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am forever at loss why they on periphery content when the core of the game (performance, hit reg, engine, collision etc.) is in need of serious work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if you were running a game development company you had all of your designers, artists, etc. trying to fix the performance, hit reg, engine and collision issues of the engine?
useful post /mats reiterates what max said a long while back when he redid the marshaling for better efficiency which pulled luajit. still perhaps dushon will talk about what he doesnt want to talk about at some point in the future.
<!--quoteo(post=1956388:date=Aug 3 2012, 08:55 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Aug 3 2012, 08:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The most harmful problem right now is that the bandwidth usages spikes too much when in heavy combat - the dreaded "choke" - and when the bandwidth spikes, the clients gets fewer updates and thus have to predict longer, which takes CPU and drops your FPS just when you need it the most. And as someone pointed out, when you framerate changes, your reflexes will be off and you will miss.
/Mats<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes sense... atm I'm getting 70-80fps early game but as soon as the map is clogged up I get alot of choke. Choke = lag = more prediction = 4.2ghz I7 3770k can't even handle.
I really hope this is the main issue and not some deep nested problem with the engine.
<!--quoteo(post=1956515:date=Aug 3 2012, 01:08 PM:name=Matty101)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Matty101 @ Aug 3 2012, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hope you guys can pull off something drastic on this...i can play most games at 100+fps(BF3 at 120)...endgame ns2 drops me to 15fps sometimes less.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well i just created my own server, with just me in it, populated the world like it would be end game and i got 25 fps. If it was a bandwidth issues wouldn't that be alleviated in this case? Sounds like the 'action' is just the icing on the cake, a 10fps drop due to action would be fine if i was at 70 fps+ normally
<!--quoteo(post=1956624:date=Aug 3 2012, 12:59 PM:name=Matty101)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Matty101 @ Aug 3 2012, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956624"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well i just created my own server, with just me in it, populated the world like it would be end game and i got 25 fps. If it was a bandwidth issues wouldn't that be alleviated in this case? Sounds like the 'action' is just the icing on the cake, a 10fps drop due to action would be fine if i was at 70 fps+ normally<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did the same thing at first and I freaked out. I finally joined a server with low ping as suggested and I was able to max everything and play with decent fps. I get 40-50 fps in my games.
A bit off topic but is there a need for interpolation to be on, in most games this setting is simply cosmetic, "buffering" net activity and allowing pc to fill in the games missing/slow data and make animation smoother. For playing properly though it was usually turned off so people could shoot at the real locations of enemies and not having those few frames delay. I noticed NS2 was running up to 6 frames for it which seems like a lot.
As someone who has been in the beta for about a year, I will say that performance in the past 3 months has really increased a metric ###### ton. They are making a lot of progress lately. I find my game pretty damn smooth most times, with once in a while latency in big firefights. My rig is good, but not great. See specs below. More optimization is certainly needed, but if you have a machine similar to mine, you will find the game very playable and enjoyable. I am an "aim" focused person playing games like Quake Live and my current gameplay is really good.
<!--quoteo(post=1956658:date=Aug 3 2012, 04:47 PM:name=spaceturtle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spaceturtle @ Aug 3 2012, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1956658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As someone who has been in the beta for about a year, I will say that performance in the past 3 months has really increased a metric ###### ton. They are making a lot of progress lately. I find my game pretty damn smooth most times, with once in a while latency in big firefights. My rig is good, but not great. See specs below. More optimization is certainly needed, but if you have a machine similar to mine, you will find the game very playable and enjoyable. I am an "aim" focused person playing games like Quake Live and my current gameplay is really good.
Specs: i5 2500k, 8g RAM, GTX 560 Ti vid card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
an i5 and a 560ti is not just good, it's at the high end of PC gaming
see Steam's hardware charts (which skews towards better rigs because of Steam) <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey</a> , less than half have dx11 videocards
i'm pretty much a slight step up...i7 gtx590 and 8g, as i said some games under 15 fps unplayable, start-mid game i do alright after that its usually all downhill
@OP i must have missed it but what graphics card are you using? 3.3 ghz should be able to run it decently enough. Most of your complaints about performance i believe would stem from the GPU but i may be wrong.
I've noticed that the game doesn't seem to fully utilize the GPU. I got a 560 Ti and the game only seem to use about 60% of the GPU according to Precision X.
But I have to agree with spaceturtle, they really have made some massive improvements to performance compared to what it used to be.
I purchased this game about 6 months ago because i was an avid fan of the first game. Even though the price was VERY steep for a game of this size, i decided that it was worth it because of the enjoyment i got from the first game for free.
That said, i'm utterly disappointed with NS2.
The performance is HORRIBLE. Absolutely HORRIBLE.
Every time they update NS2 i get excited that they've optimised the engine, but no - more useless content that i have NO desire to access because the game runs like ######.
Don't ask me for my comptuer's specs - all you need to know is i can run ANY game on max except this.
Clearly, Natural Selection 2 is being developed by a group of computer science students with no knowledge of business.
If they even had one person with a business or marketing degree (EVEN A diploma), they'd realise that first and foremost the product has to actually be usable if they want any form of success.
They require positive word of mouth at this stage of development, but i've told more then ten friends to stay completely away from this.
Yes, i understand this is BETA - save the lecture; selling access to BETA stage is the perfect opportunity to spread some positive word of mouth. That said, the Beta has to give me SOME reason to actually do this.
Almost every single minute of dev time should be spent on optimisation at this point. I'd rather play ONE map that runs fine than have access to lots of maps that don't run at all.
Please Unknown Worlds, seek business advice. I completely regret my investment with this product.
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.
I wish people would stop spreading false information about the GPU--for the last time the GPU doesn't even matter at this stage in development. I could use my integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000 and achieve the same FPS as with my GTX 570 installed. If you don't believe me just type "r_stats 1" in console and check out how much actual video card memory you're using.
Comments
There were a lot of optimizations last patch, and there will be a lot more this next patch. Some impact the server side more then the client, some impact the client more then the server. We are profiling all the different layers of the game, and finding where the biggest gains can be had, but there is no one area that will suddenly double the framerate by fixing. It is a lot of small wins that will keep adding up until the game is running at the rate that we want it to be (which is much much faster then where it currently is).
There will continue to be other balance changes, useability improvements, and bug fixes/polish done to the game, as that stuff is also very necessary in order to get the game in a shipping state, but it does not mean that work on optimization ever stops.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is the plan still to get to JIT compiled LUA, or is that a lost cause at this point and work focuses on optimizing the interpreted LUA as far as possible?
I found a much better server and I can play with all my settings on and in high detail. Resolution is in the middle since I'm 1920x1080, I haven't gone further up yet. I'm all by myself, but it's amazing looking performance, I'm happy now :D SO HAPPY!! Would it stay this way even with other players online? I freaking hope so... Sucks I couldn't play with anyone, but I'll go on and look for treasure servers I can play perfectly on!
Thanks Dev and thanks again everyone ;)
Is that true? Source?
That's not a small gain. That's huge. You have no perspective.
Also <b>LOL</b> @ all these people acting like 3.0 Ghz is <i>low</i>. Believe it or not, people continue to use their computers for years and years, and the <i>most expensive choices</i> from the most recent two generations of Intel processors are not and will not be the standard (or majority) for many, many years to come. There is a reason video game consoles have not been rehashed in more than half a decade- it's because the cost to develop a large improvement over existing technology is too high for what marginal gains it offers. <b>Many video games will continue to be developed to operate on the average system, because it sells more copies.</b> You do not need a +$2,000 computer to game on "high". You need a ~$900 computer (excluding peripherals).
I built an i5 rig that can top out BF3 in a 64 player Caspian with everything maxxed on Ultra at 1080p for $950 by hitting sales, that's including all peripherals. A $150 graphics card is enough for any game I have ever found to be played comfortably with some bells and whistles to boot.
Take the same exact hardware specifications, with the same clock speed and replace the i5 with a C2D and you'll need to run the game on low with DX11 off. I attribute that to very poor development of that particular game, however (BF3) - I can run Metro 2033 on high even with the old C2D. The C2D that still costs $100, even though for less than a $20 more, you could get the i5 which would outperform it completely, but hey 3 Ghz!!!! Cheap!!! Look at all those <i>hertz</i>!
The actual physical architecture and memory cache improvements of Sandy / Ivy bridge (i3-7) are the much larger factor in improved performance. For the money you'll spend on a 4.5Ghz processor the bigger gain is<i> still </i>in the actual design of the chip (and not the clock speed).
<b>Spend less on hardware, pirate fewer games, pay more developers. Rant complete.</b>
for reference, I am <img src="http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/756/71567169.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Its funny, too, since without hardware progression there's even less reason for consoles to update anytime soon.. its a viscous circle.
I, for one, LOVE developers that focus on PC (*stares angrily at DICE for selling out to EA after promises*) and help push that boundary forward for better games and better hardware.. Thank you to all the Doom 3's and whatnots out there.
That being said.. the approach should definitely be "scale-able" where you can run on your lawn mower pc somewhat, and the PC enthusiast guy can run everything maxed out - and notices a huge difference.
<b>Encouraging </b>upgrading should be the model.. not forcing it or discouraging it. IMO.
My sub $600 computer plays NS2 at 30-60fps, pretty much the only lag I get is server related.
And i'm used to play FPS games @ low details to get more fps and stability.
Ever seen a "pro" CS player playing @ max details/resolution ? Nope. ^^
Sometimes, you gotta choose ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, I've got 2 words for your Google "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=NS2+Pixel" target="_blank">NS2 Pixel</a>", too bad it doesn't help that much with FPS on older rigs, because the models are still all High Poly. Hitching is a tad bit less, but by not much...
yeah, it's the avatar I use for YouTube/twitter. Not sure yet though as blinking Shikamaru is quite nostalgic XD
It's all part of the same goal, designing a game is not just having programmers do their thing, while everyone else does nothing. That would be rather counter productive now wouldn't it. I mean NS2 has performance issues of course, but those are being and have been worked on constantly. Sometimes you see huge performance gains, sometimes you see smaller performance gains...
But there are more things to NS2 other then the engine/network performance and that is what the other devs are for. Things like features, balancing, modeling, model animations, rag dolls and so on :)
Turns out that right now, the problem isn't so much in LUA - even if LUA ran 10 times faster, performance wouldn't increase more than about 20-30%,
because about 2/3rds of the time is spent in C++ (now, part of the C++ time is there to interface with Lua, but...). So while a Lua jit would be nice, its
not going to solve anything by itself.
The most harmful problem right now is that the bandwidth usages spikes too much when in heavy combat - the dreaded "choke" - and when the bandwidth spikes, the clients gets fewer updates and thus have to predict longer, which takes CPU and drops your FPS just when you need it the most. And as someone pointed out, when you framerate changes, your reflexes will be off and you will miss.
That problem with mostly go away (or at least, the combat will need to be a lot heavier) in the next patch or two though.
For those interested in checking out exactly what's going on, you can use the "p_logall/p_logend" console commands to start/stop the performance logging, and the perfanalyser.py tool to analyse it afterwards. Logs are written in the same APP_DATA location as the normal log.
Its especially useful if you have weird, repeatable behaviour on the client. Then you can start the log, repeat the behaviour, stop the log and check out what happened afterwards.
/Mats
So if you were running a game development company you had all of your designers, artists, etc. trying to fix the performance, hit reg, engine and collision issues of the engine?
Well, good luck with that.
/Mats<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes sense... atm I'm getting 70-80fps early game but as soon as the map is clogged up I get alot of choke. Choke = lag = more prediction = 4.2ghz I7 3770k can't even handle.
I really hope this is the main issue and not some deep nested problem with the engine.
beta.
If it was a bandwidth issues wouldn't that be alleviated in this case?
Sounds like the 'action' is just the icing on the cake, a 10fps drop due to action would be fine if i was at 70 fps+ normally
If it was a bandwidth issues wouldn't that be alleviated in this case?
Sounds like the 'action' is just the icing on the cake, a 10fps drop due to action would be fine if i was at 70 fps+ normally<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did the same thing at first and I freaked out. I finally joined a server with low ping as suggested and I was able to max everything and play with decent fps. I get 40-50 fps in my games.
For playing properly though it was usually turned off so people could shoot at the real locations of enemies and not having those few frames delay.
I noticed NS2 was running up to 6 frames for it which seems like a lot.
Specs: i5 2500k, 8g RAM, GTX 560 Ti vid card.
Specs: i5 2500k, 8g RAM, GTX 560 Ti vid card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
an i5 and a 560ti is not just good, it's at the high end of PC gaming
see Steam's hardware charts (which skews towards better rigs because of Steam) <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey</a> , less than half have dx11 videocards
I got a 560 Ti and the game only seem to use about 60% of the GPU according to Precision X.
But I have to agree with spaceturtle, they really have made some massive improvements to performance compared to what it used to be.
I purchased this game about 6 months ago because i was an avid fan of the first game. Even though the price was VERY steep for a game of this size, i decided that it was worth it because of the enjoyment i got from the first game for free.
That said, i'm utterly disappointed with NS2.
The performance is HORRIBLE. Absolutely HORRIBLE.
Every time they update NS2 i get excited that they've optimised the engine, but no - more useless content that i have NO desire to access because the game runs like ######.
Don't ask me for my comptuer's specs - all you need to know is i can run ANY game on max except this.
Clearly, Natural Selection 2 is being developed by a group of computer science students with no knowledge of business.
If they even had one person with a business or marketing degree (EVEN A diploma), they'd realise that first and foremost the product has to actually be usable if they want any form of success.
They require positive word of mouth at this stage of development, but i've told more then ten friends to stay completely away from this.
Yes, i understand this is BETA - save the lecture; selling access to BETA stage is the perfect opportunity to spread some positive word of mouth. That said, the Beta has to give me SOME reason to actually do this.
Almost every single minute of dev time should be spent on optimisation at this point. I'd rather play ONE map that runs fine than have access to lots of maps that don't run at all.
Please Unknown Worlds, seek business advice. I completely regret my investment with this product.
I wish people would stop spreading false information about the GPU--for the last time the GPU doesn't even matter at this stage in development. I could use my integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000 and achieve the same FPS as with my GTX 570 installed. If you don't believe me just type "r_stats 1" in console and check out how much actual video card memory you're using.