Misleading System Requirements
blzd
Join Date: 2012-04-01 Member: 149806Members
Join Date: 2012-04-01 Member: 149806Members
The system requirements for this game are misleading at best.
It is not possible to use the "recommended" system requirements and play a full game smoothly. Note that the performance is generally quite playable (40-60FPS) until mid-late game scenarios, and then becomes unplayable (5-20 FPS). Adjusting resolution has little to no effect on end game FPS, and graphical options are turned off.
That's not even the minimum system requirements.
This is misleading customers into thinking their systems are able to play the game smoothly, when in reality that is not possible. Even systems greatly exceeding the recommended requirements may still experience these same issues. Personally, I kickstarted this game long ago and will never complain about performance issues of my own, but I feel strongly for those buying NS2 under the false pretense of the listed system requirements.
The responses in the technical support threads highlight the issue. The following are typical responses seen from mods and users: Have a dual core? You need a quad. Have a quad core? You need an i7. Have an i7? You need to overclock to 4Ghz+. The end result being, you need a core i7 4Ghz+ to insure stable performance.
Everyone on the forums have figured out what the recommended system requirements should be, why can't UWE?
Long story short: NS2 will never run well on older processors, please change the misleading system requirements.
P.S Good to hear you got the game running on Intel HD4000. Unfortunately that is still the latest Core i7 processor and I doubt anyone is having problems because of lack of graphics power.
It is not possible to use the "recommended" system requirements and play a full game smoothly. Note that the performance is generally quite playable (40-60FPS) until mid-late game scenarios, and then becomes unplayable (5-20 FPS). Adjusting resolution has little to no effect on end game FPS, and graphical options are turned off.
That's not even the minimum system requirements.
This is misleading customers into thinking their systems are able to play the game smoothly, when in reality that is not possible. Even systems greatly exceeding the recommended requirements may still experience these same issues. Personally, I kickstarted this game long ago and will never complain about performance issues of my own, but I feel strongly for those buying NS2 under the false pretense of the listed system requirements.
The responses in the technical support threads highlight the issue. The following are typical responses seen from mods and users: Have a dual core? You need a quad. Have a quad core? You need an i7. Have an i7? You need to overclock to 4Ghz+. The end result being, you need a core i7 4Ghz+ to insure stable performance.
Everyone on the forums have figured out what the recommended system requirements should be, why can't UWE?
Long story short: NS2 will never run well on older processors, please change the misleading system requirements.
P.S Good to hear you got the game running on Intel HD4000. Unfortunately that is still the latest Core i7 processor and I doubt anyone is having problems because of lack of graphics power.
Comments
Still hate engaging in anything with more than 1 person 20minutes into a game.
Game runs fine.
Upgrade your system.
That aside they really should have put the minimum CPU specs as i5@3GHz and recommended as i7@4GHz.
I don't see how people could be happy playing with what the current minimum specs would provide.
Frothy you would be the first person I've heard to say that with a C2D 3ghz. Resolution?
From the forum posts here, those with 3ghz Core 2 Duos are not happy with their performance and the mods are urging them all to upgrade their CPUs.
Mine overclocked to 4Ghz obtained the performance numbers from my post.
25-30 FPS is acceptable on an XBOX where max FPS is 30. That means you're only going to jitter by like 5 frames.
However, when your maximum FPS is 100 or whatever it is in NS2, and you are getting 25-30, the jitter is going to be huge. That isn't really acceptable by most industry standards.
i72630QM GTX460M
average 30 FPS thoughout a game, high of 57 low of 5. Everything turned off, lowest native resolution.
Until NS2, I'd all but given up on computer gaming, which is why my rig is so outdated.
I went to console for about 3 years, so I'm probably used to 30FPS.
Also:
Most Xbox games run at either 30FPS or 60FPS.
According to a benchmark I did with Fraps on January 15th, my average FPS is 41.
Higher FPS is nice, but if your FPS is jumping between 100 and 50 constantly, you're more likely to notice it when it's on the low end.
If your always sitting at 40 FPS, you won't notice a dip to 30 as much because it's not as extreme.
With that being said, more FPS is generally better, but this game outpaces pretty much all current hardware that's out there(barring overclocking).
Does anyone even have a sustained 100+ FPS, even late game?
i5@4Ghz is plenty and undoubtedly no different from the i7@4Ghz simply because the game wouldn't utilise hyper-threading. It's not really the CPU which is the issue for many though. My CPU, when OC'd to 4Ghz is only utilised up to 70-75%. My 6870 OC (950/1100Mhz) is the culprit.
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 620 Processor
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 5670
So i don't really get it
not sure where to find the clockspeed, but i think mine was 2.6Ghz
Everyone judges what is acceptable differently, for some 30fps is just fine. For me, anything under 60 is unacceptable. Which is why I invest in a powerful machine, which leads to frustration when a very powerful machine can't keep a constant 60fps with all the graphics on low, in a game that isn't that visually striking.
Ehrrr No.
This game is poorly multithreaded, if at all.
As far as I've understood, it seems that only 1 core is being fully used by the logical thread, while some minor rendering work is offloaded to a second core.
So it seems the game won't benefit from more than 2 cores.
Btw, i7 = i5 + HT + [negligible frequence differences]
Ns2 barely uses 2 cores, you can imagine the benefits gained from HT.
The only reason why you "need" a quad core is that most processors with the best single threaded performance are gradually being produced only as quad cores.
Making high end dual cores in today's market would be foulish.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. If that is what the game require you put it there, you don't lie to people about your product.
Read up on OC and disable cores to enable even higher OC for AMD cpus. ( only need 2) Little Time, knowledge and a 25$ cooler should boost fps by a lot for you
Get a better PC, or consider your 20-25 dollar/euro purchases more deliberately (this thread has been done a million times).
This is true. I actually disabled HT on my i7 when I got NS2, mainly because in games it does nothing except add more temperature and thus hinder my over clock.
I think I saw a bench mark somewhere that showed 0.2Ghz extra being better than HT in a few games.
As much as I love my i7. This is true, for games, HT does nothing, if all you're going to do is play high end games, don't waste your money, get an i5. I got my i7 thinking I may need the hyperthreading for some applications, I RARELY do. I might do what you did and disable it so I can get higher clocks for the time being (it auto clocked to 4.5, couldn't tune it higher without bluescreeening).
My laptop doesn't allow disabling of the HT.
God I hate my laptop.
Secondly, why are you using a laptop to play games.
16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4870x2
cant run the game smoothly
Nope. Those damn asians even admitted to it in the machines specs. Completely removed the ability to do so.
More than happy if you're savvy enough to find a way to do it though - Mecer P170HM.
And, because I'm a modern man. And an idiot. I'm gonna buy a powerhouse desktop when DayZ standalone gets released though.
We've had playtesters with systems at and just above minimum specs. Framerates are not ideal, but they're hovering around minimum specs so this is expected.
A modern game requires a modern system and by that I mean within the last 4 years and a mid-range CPU and GPU. I don't think this is abnormal for PC games.
I don't know if you intended it, but this post implies that NS2's performance is acceptable.
Was that your intention?
I'm willing to cut the developers some slack because I know they're a small team, and because I believe the game is fun enough to make up for the poor performance. Other people clearly don't share that view, and their disappointment (and even their anger) is clearly justified. Stop pretending it's not.
Speak for yourself, if you look at some of the benchmarks done, you'll see many of us ride out the whole game above 60fps.