<!--quoteo(post=2052478:date=Dec 28 2012, 03:22 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 28 2012, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052478"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->duel me in quake with your fps capped at 30
this statement sounds ridiculous because this discussion is getting more and more ridiculous as you blatantly <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052458" target="_blank">ignore</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052460" target="_blank">previous</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052468" target="_blank">posts</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052469" target="_blank">!</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no competitive gaming experience as you talk ######? Nice...
Anyone who says that the human eye cannot see more than 30 fps is, obviously, stupid and should not be taken seriously so don't get too mad guys. Research has shown that the human eye can distinguish fps up to 200-300 and higher (might cause headaches). The only reason movies look "ok" is because they use motion blur and we simply don't care as much since we don't need to react fast to events that are happening (like we do in a game). If you feel comfortable playing a game at 30 fps then your brain is slow/used to the slowness.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2052466:date=Dec 28 2012, 09:09 PM:name=SixtyWattMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SixtyWattMan @ Dec 28 2012, 09:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052466"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The input lag vsync creates is absolutely unbearable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it is quite annoying but at least it is a constant lag to which you can adjust. I get a headache playing at higher FPS because of the microstutter. which basically forces me to play NS2 on double, heck I tried triple buffering and that is quite something to behold in terms of input lag. At least double is somewhat bearable :P
<!--quoteo(post=2052477:date=Dec 28 2012, 10:19 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Dec 28 2012, 10:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052477"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You kids hear someone say something and believe whatever you want. It is quite funny to see, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. You claim you see stuff like others see ghosts and aliens. You will see what you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's exactly what I say to myself since I read your posts : D
And Yes, Halo is not smooth at all, nearly no "FPS" game on console achieve it, and it's awful to play (even more because of the pad). You notice it even more when you switch from a pad to a mouse or a "mouse for console". No seriously... did you know that earth was flat? <a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm</a>
Btw, even if you monitor does not display 120 "fps", getting a lot more FPS than whats displayable is always better, because it can provide a better mouse movement, smoother, and even better move speed on some engines. More FPS is always better.
if you find the current performance acceptable you have no ideas what you're talking about, really sorry. Seeing all these high end specs, and dipping below 30fps, even under 20/10 its laughable. Talking about how to tweak our systems, just to gain 2-3 extra fps is laughable. many of our systems are fine.
i have no issues playing other games like many others, its just this unstable game's engine which was released unfinished in many many ways which is the biggest let down. Sure we can compare the current engine vs 9+ months ago, we will see progress but comparing it to other stable engines its just no contest, huge let down (in many areas). Don't even try talking your way out of it.
so when the performance will improve? imo it might get better after 2 years if not more most likely, unless something magical happens. Those that were here before the release developers promised better performance at launch of the game, which everyone knows was extremely bad, and still very little changed.
<!--quoteo(post=2052490:date=Dec 28 2012, 04:42 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ Dec 28 2012, 04:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you find the current performance acceptable you have no ideas what you're talking about, really sorry. Seeing all these high end specs, and dipping below 30fps, even under 20/10 its laughable. Talking about how to tweak our systems, just to gain 2-3 extra fps is laughable. many of our systems are fine.
i have no issues playing other games like many others, its just this unstable game's engine which was released unfinished in many many ways which is the biggest let down. Sure we can compare the current engine vs 9+ months ago, we will see progress but comparing it to other stable engines its just no contest, huge let down (in many areas). Don't even try talking your way out of it.
so when the performance will improve? imo it might get better after 2 years if not more most likely, unless something magical happens. Those that were here before the release developers promised better performance at launch of the game, which everyone knows was extremely bad, and still very little changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which at that point UWE will release NS3 with an updated Spark 2.0 Engine. Thanks for paying to beta test NS2 guys!
<!--quoteo(post=2052489:date=Dec 28 2012, 04:40 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Dec 28 2012, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Btw, even if you monitor does not display 120 "fps", getting a lot more FPS than whats displayable is always better, because it can provide a better mouse movement, smoother, and even better move speed on some engines. The more is always better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are utterly correct. Another relevant link (sciency stuff) for this slightly derailing topic... <a href="http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/" target="_blank">24fps vs 48fps (The Hobbit)</a>
But it does say at the end that lua can always be rewritten to run faster even though it trades up execution speed for ease of access. They also give an example with how hydras use to make things run slow. And Cory stated this
<!--quoteo(post=2052489:date=Dec 28 2012, 03:40 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Dec 28 2012, 03:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's exactly what I say to myself since I read your posts : D
And Yes, Halo is not smooth at all, nearly no "FPS" game on console achieve it, and it's awful to play (even more because of the pad). You notice it even more when you switch from a pad to a mouse or a "mouse for console". No seriously... did you know that earth was flat? <a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm</a>
Btw, even if you monitor does not display 120 "fps", getting a lot more FPS than whats displayable is always better, because it can provide a better mouse movement, smoother, and even better move speed on some engines. More FPS is always better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That article is terrible proof for your side.
1. Those using that air force test clearly didn't finish the article. You know why they could distinguish the planes? It was because of the bright light, which makes the image stick longer in the human eye. "After images" in this article.
2. This article points out the difference between what some of you are trying to claim. The human eye distinguishing a single frame is not the same as how many frames it takes to make a game or movie look/play smooth.
3. I don't think this guy understands how human eyes work. Just look at his hand example. We don't see the world in any form of frames(or snapshots).
If anyone thinks there are still serious performance gains to be made that are as easy as fixing some horrible ai targeting code then they are delusional.
<!--quoteo(post=2052374:date=Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM:name=CommunistWithAGun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052374"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the problem is that the increase of performance on faster rigs is plateaued for some reason. , meanwhile my machine (2500k@4.4Ghz, gtx 680, 8gb ram, 120gb SSD) and dipping below 30 during fights with some bells and whistles OFF. Everyone with a beefier computer is complaining more than those with less speedy machines.
Regardless, FPS below 60 for me is unacceptable anyway. If I wanted to watch a slideshow I'd open Powerpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go to your Nvidia control panel then: - power management mode and select maximum performance - threaded optimisation to on not auto - I also have v-snyc set to off I have a lesser setup and don't go under 60fps unless I'm playing on 20+ servers. I found the first 2 stop the yoyoing of my fps. Also go back through your game options and make sure evertyhing that can be is off or on low. There are alot of option around and it's easy to miss them.
<!--quoteo(post=2052374:date=Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM:name=CommunistWithAGun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052374"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I keep hearing people with terrible computers playing this on ultra everything and pulling 90 consistant fps<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the time when people say that get X fps their not running a fps program or just going off the fps value from the options. They're not watching the fps at combat or just can't feel the dip/jerk when the fps drops in combat.
There are LUA compilers that can approach compiled C++ code in execution speed, the question is really how much of a bottleneck is caused by LUA interpretation (or JIT if it's done that way) versus message passing between the LUA VM and Spark.
Many of you are still missing the point about this games engine........
In terms of optimization, I think it's pretty good, nothing is perfect but it's still pretty good.
What you must realize is that this game is INTENDED to be more hardware intensive than all other current multiplayer First person shooter games. So you will essentially NEVER get as good of performance compared to the current First person shooter games.
<u><b>NS2 uses on the fly Hardware Occlusion Culling. </b></u>
Basically, when something is not in line of site, it is the hardware that determines whether to render it or not, which is done on the fly. <u><b> Almost all current first person shooters use Software Occlusion cullng</b></u>.
When using Software Occlusion, a map is pre-compiled with all possible "visible" spots depending on your location.
Using Software Occlusion culling is much faster, but has a problem. When adding in Dynamic entities, those entities must be rendered even when they are no where near your line of site. You could be across the map and it must still render them. Hardware Occlusion does not have this problem. Could you imagine having to render the entirety of the dynamic infestation on a map with software occlusion?
So Dynamic entities cause a much more severe performance loss with Software Occlusion compared to Hardware Occlusion. However, the problem is since this task is done on the fly and relegated to the hardware, then you need a pretty decent computer.
If this game had stuck with Software occlusion with all of it's dynamic entities, your performance would be even worse.
I played a lot of NS1 and like to keep tabs on the dev of NS2 so I lurk around here. Performance is one of the issues that's preventing me from purchasing NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=2052378:date=Dec 28 2012, 11:10 AM:name=statikg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (statikg @ Dec 28 2012, 11:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take it easy there pro, the human eye can barely distinguish the difference between 30-60fps. As long as your minimum fps is 30 you will experience maybe a 1% disadvantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2052576:date=Dec 28 2012, 08:17 PM:name=tdizzle26)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tdizzle26 @ Dec 28 2012, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052576"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I played a lot of NS1 and like to keep tabs on the dev of NS2 so I lurk around here. Performance is one of the issues that's preventing me from purchasing NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must have an outdated computer if you are THAT worried about it......
<!--quoteo(post=2052614:date=Dec 28 2012, 08:33 PM:name=Res)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Res @ Dec 28 2012, 08:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You must have an outdated computer if you are THAT worried about it......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was worried about it too- And was proven correct. (2500k @4.4ghz, GTX 680, NS2 installed on SSD, 8gbram)
What about adding just-in-time compilers for LUA like the open source <a href="http://luajit.org/luajit.html" target="_blank">http://luajit.org/luajit.html</a> to speed up game scripts?
<!--quoteo(post=2052378:date=Dec 28 2012, 07:10 PM:name=statikg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (statikg @ Dec 28 2012, 07:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take it easy there pro, the human eye can barely distinguish the difference between 30-60fps. As long as your minimum fps is 30 you will experience maybe a 1% disadvantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2052378:date=Dec 28 2012, 10:10 AM:name=statikg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (statikg @ Dec 28 2012, 10:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052378"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take it easy there pro, the human eye can barely distinguish the difference between 30-60fps. As long as your minimum fps is 30 you will experience maybe a 1% disadvantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2052468:date=Dec 28 2012, 09:10 PM:name=Toothy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Toothy @ Dec 28 2012, 09:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052468"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what about games such as planetside 2 which has hundreds of players and vehicles and aircraft and every bullet anyone fires is a projectile and still runs better than ns2?
also anyone in this thread who is not aware that television and movies are blurred so as to look smooth due to their incredibly low fps should probably refrain from posting thanks if you are not aware of this try pausing and yes, anyone who cannot tell the difference playing with 30fps and 100fps is in the bottom of the barrel skill tier in any game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you know what, I can't run Planetside 2, well I can but its a horrible mess with shadows bringing total darkness and running at maybe 5 FPS even in light battles. I can run NS and get 40 FPS at calm down to 10 FPS when most of the server is infested and everyone is fighting in a packed base.
NS runs better believe me, and this is with the power hog that is that experimental lighting engine that no other games engine has implemented yet.
Also on the 30 FPS debate, that's 30 FPS vision at rest you can under certain conditions force yourself up to a temporary 120 FPS vision under various circumstances (Mainly life threatening or perceived realistic danger) Essentially your eyes FPS isn't 30 except when absolutely calm at resting levels. Get into the game and I dare say 40-50 is possible due to increased blood flow / neural transmission rates / accelerators etc. Also for 30 FPS to work your eyes would have to be perfectly synced with the refresh rate which they aren't so you can notice the difference in 30 FPS vs 60 FPS
The main problem people have is the experimental lighting system. I think NS2 is either the first or one of the first games to use the lighting engine and it shows how demanding the lighting system is. Bare in mind other engines are looking to put this lighting in , in the future. Essentially your high end machines can't run NS2 as well as other games because NS2 is using technology that won't be in most AAA games for 2-3 years. Look at it this way, NS2 is future proof to an extent.
In terms of advantages, sure you get some advantage from 60fps over 30. It does also mean if you can't shoot at 30 FPS you're still going to be hitting the air at 60 FPS anyway. So unless you're being killed due to 10 FPS then chances are you shouldn't be blaming FPS drop for being killed. Its not the games fault its all on you.
That lighting system is actually a part of a rendering approach called "Deferred Rendering" which has been available in some games since a few years.
Its main advantage over the more traditional "forward rendering" is that lights actually get rendered independently of the scene geometry. Basically this means the following: You can theoretically render an unlimited amount of light sources inside the scene, and the engine only draws pixels that actually got lit. This is a huge speed up compared to forward rendering, where lights consume quite a bit more processing power.
If you take a closer look at stuff in NS2, you can see that there are many more light sources throughout the map that illuminate everything nicely and cast shadows everywhere. Most games can not achieve playable framerates with that many light sources.
However, Deferred Rendering has a few draw backs: One is that most hardware Anti-Aliasing techniques such as MSAA do not work and produce incorrect rendering results (nearly no visible geometry or distorted polygons throughout the screen...) if used. The other i can directly think of is that alpha blending is much more difficult to use, but not impossible.
<!--quoteo(post=2052403:date=Dec 29 2012, 06:02 AM:name=Neoken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Neoken @ Dec 29 2012, 06:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why people keep claiming stuff like this. You're totally wrong. For instance, playing images at a rate as low as 20 fps is enough to obtain the sense of motion, but it doesn't mean that anything above 20 fps is redundant. You can perceive images at a much faster rates and are able to distinguish different levels of smoothness depending on the fps. Seeing something at 60 fps will appear much more smoother than 30 fps. The difference is actually immense when you're playing a fast paced shooter.
I'm saddened to see that the 'human eye can't see above 30fps' thing is still going around.
Films look palatable because of motion blur, but they look much smoother at higher frame rates (see The Hobbit for a recent example).
Now for games they do not have the same type of motion blur, so frame rate is much, much more important for looks; add in the effect on mouse movement and input lag and it's a very pivotal issue for fast paced games, especially shooters.
In terms of smoothness 120 FPS is a huge improvement over 60, which is a massive improvement over 30, I can't comment on the changes above 120 because I haven't seen them in action, but I'd guess that the difference between 120 and 240 would probably still be noticeable, but smaller than that of 60-120.
So yes, my wish would be that 125 fps constant (Quake standard :D) at low settings on current hardware would be attainable for this game, but 60+ would be a good start.
Comments
this statement sounds ridiculous because this discussion is getting more and more ridiculous as you blatantly <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052458" target="_blank">ignore</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052460" target="_blank">previous</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052468" target="_blank">posts</a> <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126530&view=findpost&p=2052469" target="_blank">!</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no competitive gaming experience as you talk ######? Nice...
Aliens.
I know it is quite annoying but at least it is a constant lag to which you can adjust. I get a headache playing at higher FPS because of the microstutter. which basically forces me to play NS2 on double, heck I tried triple buffering and that is quite something to behold in terms of input lag. At least double is somewhat bearable :P
That's exactly what I say to myself since I read your posts : D
And Yes, Halo is not smooth at all, nearly no "FPS" game on console achieve it, and it's awful to play (even more because of the pad). You notice it even more when you switch from a pad to a mouse or a "mouse for console".
No seriously... did you know that earth was flat?
<a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm</a>
Btw, even if you monitor does not display 120 "fps", getting a lot more FPS than whats displayable is always better, because it can provide a better mouse movement, smoother, and even better move speed on some engines.
More FPS is always better.
i have no issues playing other games like many others, its just this unstable game's engine which was released unfinished in many many ways which is the biggest let down. Sure we can compare the current engine vs 9+ months ago, we will see progress but comparing it to other stable engines its just no contest, huge let down (in many areas). Don't even try talking your way out of it.
so when the performance will improve? imo it might get better after 2 years if not more most likely, unless something magical happens. Those that were here before the release developers promised better performance at launch of the game, which everyone knows was extremely bad, and still very little changed.
i have no issues playing other games like many others, its just this unstable game's engine which was released unfinished in many many ways which is the biggest let down. Sure we can compare the current engine vs 9+ months ago, we will see progress but comparing it to other stable engines its just no contest, huge let down (in many areas). Don't even try talking your way out of it.
so when the performance will improve? imo it might get better after 2 years if not more most likely, unless something magical happens. Those that were here before the release developers promised better performance at launch of the game, which everyone knows was extremely bad, and still very little changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which at that point UWE will release NS3 with an updated Spark 2.0 Engine. Thanks for paying to beta test NS2 guys!
The more is always better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are utterly correct. Another relevant link (sciency stuff) for this slightly derailing topic... <a href="http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/" target="_blank">24fps vs 48fps (The Hobbit)</a>
<a href="http://www.ns2hd.com/2012/04/performance-where-is-it-now-and-where.html" target="_blank">http://www.ns2hd.com/2012/04/performance-w...-and-where.html</a>
But it does say at the end that lua can always be rewritten to run faster even though it trades up execution speed for ease of access. They also give an example with how hydras use to make things run slow. And Cory stated this
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=126019&view=findpost&p=2046324" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=2046324</a>
So yea things will get better.
And Yes, Halo is not smooth at all, nearly no "FPS" game on console achieve it, and it's awful to play (even more because of the pad). You notice it even more when you switch from a pad to a mouse or a "mouse for console".
No seriously... did you know that earth was flat?
<a href="http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm" target="_blank">http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm</a>
Btw, even if you monitor does not display 120 "fps", getting a lot more FPS than whats displayable is always better, because it can provide a better mouse movement, smoother, and even better move speed on some engines.
More FPS is always better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That article is terrible proof for your side.
1. Those using that air force test clearly didn't finish the article. You know why they could distinguish the planes? It was because of the bright light, which makes the image stick longer in the human eye. "After images" in this article.
2. This article points out the difference between what some of you are trying to claim. The human eye distinguishing a single frame is not the same as how many frames it takes to make a game or movie look/play smooth.
3. I don't think this guy understands how human eyes work. Just look at his hand example. We don't see the world in any form of frames(or snapshots).
Regardless, FPS below 60 for me is unacceptable anyway. If I wanted to watch a slideshow I'd open Powerpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go to your Nvidia control panel then:
- power management mode and select maximum performance
- threaded optimisation to on not auto
- I also have v-snyc set to off
I have a lesser setup and don't go under 60fps unless I'm playing on 20+ servers. I found the first 2 stop the yoyoing of my fps. Also go back through your game options and make sure evertyhing that can be is off or on low. There are alot of option around and it's easy to miss them.
<!--quoteo(post=2052374:date=Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM:name=CommunistWithAGun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 28 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052374"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I keep hearing people with terrible computers playing this on ultra everything and pulling 90 consistant fps<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the time when people say that get X fps their not running a fps program or just going off the fps value from the options. They're not watching the fps at combat or just can't feel the dip/jerk when the fps drops in combat.
In terms of optimization, I think it's pretty good, nothing is perfect but it's still pretty good.
What you must realize is that this game is INTENDED to be more hardware intensive than all other current multiplayer First person shooter games. So you will essentially NEVER get as good of performance compared to the current First person shooter games.
<u><b>NS2 uses on the fly Hardware Occlusion Culling. </b></u>
Basically, when something is not in line of site, it is the hardware that determines whether to render it or not, which is done on the fly. <u><b> Almost all current first person shooters use Software Occlusion cullng</b></u>.
When using Software Occlusion, a map is pre-compiled with all possible "visible" spots depending on your location.
Using Software Occlusion culling is much faster, but has a problem. When adding in Dynamic entities, those entities must be rendered even when they are no where near your line of site. You could be across the map and it must still render them. Hardware Occlusion does not have this problem. Could you imagine having to render the entirety of the dynamic infestation on a map with software occlusion?
So Dynamic entities cause a much more severe performance loss with Software Occlusion compared to Hardware Occlusion. However, the problem is since this task is done on the fly and relegated to the hardware, then you need a pretty decent computer.
If this game had stuck with Software occlusion with all of it's dynamic entities, your performance would be even worse.
maybe because he thinks 30 fps isn't a hindrance.
gg
I guess my eye is superhuman.
You must have an outdated computer if you are THAT worried about it......
I was worried about it too- And was proven correct. (2500k @4.4ghz, GTX 680, NS2 installed on SSD, 8gbram)
<img src="http://i.imgflip.com/1bgw.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kyk-1A9JDXQ/TdN-e2OdKuI/AAAAAAAAAWc/Rnkmx3nde8A/s1600/Ray_Can_t_See_######.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I thought you died? Only explanation for a post that removed from reality.
also anyone in this thread who is not aware that television and movies are blurred so as to look smooth due to their incredibly low fps should probably refrain from posting thanks
if you are not aware of this try pausing
and yes, anyone who cannot tell the difference playing with 30fps and 100fps is in the bottom of the barrel skill tier
in any game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you know what, I can't run Planetside 2, well I can but its a horrible mess with shadows bringing total darkness and running at maybe 5 FPS even in light battles.
I can run NS and get 40 FPS at calm down to 10 FPS when most of the server is infested and everyone is fighting in a packed base.
NS runs better believe me, and this is with the power hog that is that experimental lighting engine that no other games engine has implemented yet.
Also on the 30 FPS debate, that's 30 FPS vision at rest you can under certain conditions force yourself up to a temporary 120 FPS vision under various circumstances (Mainly life threatening or perceived realistic danger) Essentially your eyes FPS isn't 30 except when absolutely calm at resting levels. Get into the game and I dare say 40-50 is possible due to increased blood flow / neural transmission rates / accelerators etc. Also for 30 FPS to work your eyes would have to be perfectly synced with the refresh rate which they aren't so you can notice the difference in 30 FPS vs 60 FPS
The main problem people have is the experimental lighting system. I think NS2 is either the first or one of the first games to use the lighting engine and it shows how demanding the lighting system is. Bare in mind other engines are looking to put this lighting in , in the future. Essentially your high end machines can't run NS2 as well as other games because NS2 is using technology that won't be in most AAA games for 2-3 years. Look at it this way, NS2 is future proof to an extent.
In terms of advantages, sure you get some advantage from 60fps over 30. It does also mean if you can't shoot at 30 FPS you're still going to be hitting the air at 60 FPS anyway. So unless you're being killed due to 10 FPS then chances are you shouldn't be blaming FPS drop for being killed. Its not the games fault its all on you.
Its main advantage over the more traditional "forward rendering" is that lights actually get rendered independently of the scene geometry.
Basically this means the following: You can theoretically render an unlimited amount of light sources inside the scene, and the engine only draws pixels that actually got lit. This is a huge speed up compared to forward rendering, where lights consume quite a bit more processing power.
If you take a closer look at stuff in NS2, you can see that there are many more light sources throughout the map that illuminate everything nicely and cast shadows everywhere. Most games can not achieve playable framerates with that many light sources.
However, Deferred Rendering has a few draw backs:
One is that most hardware Anti-Aliasing techniques such as MSAA do not work and produce incorrect rendering results (nearly no visible geometry or distorted polygons throughout the screen...) if used.
The other i can directly think of is that alpha blending is much more difficult to use, but not impossible.
<a href="http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html" target="_blank">http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are people ignoring this post and link?
<a href="http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html" target="_blank">http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html</a>
If you can't see the difference between these, well... You're blind.
Films look palatable because of motion blur, but they look much smoother at higher frame rates (see The Hobbit for a recent example).
Now for games they do not have the same type of motion blur, so frame rate is much, much more important for looks; add in the effect on mouse movement and input lag and it's a very pivotal issue for fast paced games, especially shooters.
In terms of smoothness 120 FPS is a huge improvement over 60, which is a massive improvement over 30, I can't comment on the changes above 120 because I haven't seen them in action, but I'd guess that the difference between 120 and 240 would probably still be noticeable, but smaller than that of 60-120.
So yes, my wish would be that 125 fps constant (Quake standard :D) at low settings on current hardware would be attainable for this game, but 60+ would be a good start.