Are we still waiting on optimization?

zastels · October 2012

<div class="IPBDescription">AMD Bulldozer 8120</div>I'm still not satisfied with how this game runs. I'm getting 30-80 fps.

The game is coming in less than a month. How much better is optimization going to get?

I have an AMD 8120, and an ATI 6950, and my performance is not consistent. I can play BF3, CSGO, basically everything perfectly fine. I also find that it now takes considerably longer to load into a map, like almost 3 minutes. I have 8 gigs of ram.

I think it's easy to point the finger and say ya I have bulldozer, go get an i5, but all my other games work fine.

ownos · October 2012

yes

IronHorse · October 2012

stick with your AMD.. so much more is coming

zastels · October 2012

I hope so! I just checked out Veil for the first time, and that is some top tier stuff in the industry let me tell ya. That map is beautiful!

It ran between 60 and 30 fps with just me in the map alone. Often times it would hitch and kinda microstutter. I don't think it's the map so much as the engine.

Running ATI tray tools, my GPU sits at or near 100% while my CPU doesn't go anywhere near max.

IronHorse · October 2012

run r_stats and see if your cpu is waiting on your gpu (its displayed in ms)
Also, if you have multiple cores, you'll find that them using 50% each is actually them using the maximum amount, supposedly.

Daphisto · October 2012

You could always try playing the mod, NS2:Classic which has super high FPS due to it not using alien infestation/cysts (which seems to cause the FPS issues, especially later game).

I wonder if UWE is aware of that.

TimMc · October 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daphisto @ Oct 10 2012, 12:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You could always try playing the mod, NS2:Classic which has super high FPS due to it not using alien infestation/cysts (which seems to cause the FPS issues, especially later game).

I wonder if UWE is aware of that.</div>

I'm sure they are. Loads of slowdown bugs have existed relating to cysts, and been fixed in the past.

IronHorse · October 2012

They are.
Use the "cinematics" command in the console to see whats taking priority :)

Again, though, sit tight.. while i cant promise anything, there's a lot that's being worked on right now in regards to performance that has me excited for the future of NS2.

1dominator1 · October 2012

I know I am.

{GGs} Chicken · October 2012

Don't worry OP, it's a beta, and performance won't get fixed overnight.

Shrike3O · October 2012

I think his concern is that it's NOT going to be a beta in three weeks, and he doesn't feel it's well optimized.

Sharp-Shooter · October 2012

no offence to anyone, but the AMD line of bulldozers are a complete joke, i can disable 2 cores on my i5 and it will run much better then your 8 core, mainly because games dont really use multicore past 2 cores, 4 max is what anyone who games should need..

clock speed + architecture is whats going to matter most for gaming, not having more then 4 cores

i get 70 fps average on my i5 with 680, and get a reasonable 40-60 fps on my old E8400 oc to 4.0ghz with gtx 285... think about it, why is my old machine getting pretty good frames on ns2? well cause of high clockspeed on a dual core

Davil · October 2012

When they say optimized my guess is they're talking mostly about the current issue with the game not taking advantage of multiple cores on processors. I have an i7 2600k OC'ed to 4.4ghz and 2 gtx580's myself, and of course I see no lag unless there is a lot of exo shooting. But that's more likely a server side issue.

WombatLOL · October 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sharp-Shooter @ Oct 10 2012, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>no offence to anyone, but the AMD line of bulldozers are a complete joke, i can disable 2 cores on my i5 and it will run much better then your 8 core, mainly because games dont really use multicore past 2 cores, 4 max is what anyone who games should need..

clock speed + architecture is whats going to matter most for gaming, not having more then 4 cores

i get 70 fps average on my i5 with 680, and get a reasonable 40-60 fps on my old E8400 oc to 4.0ghz with gtx 285... think about it, why is my old machine getting pretty good frames on ns2? well cause of high clockspeed on a dual core</div>

That's odd. I have an e8400 at 3.8 ghz and have an amd 6850, I only get 40-60 when not in gun fights and cysts aren't spammed everywhere.

Sharp-Shooter · October 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WombatLOL @ Oct 10 2012, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989500"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>That's odd. I have an e8400 at 3.8 ghz and have an amd 6850, I only get 40-60 when not in gun fights and cysts aren't spammed everywhere.</div>
maybe i remember wrong, but performance was acceptable, or maybe this game runs better on nvidia, what are the devs using for development anyway

Good_Apollo · October 2012

Yeah this has been a concern of mine since the alpha. There's been progress but, at least for me, it's only been less crashing and maybe an extra 10 frames. The game just CHUGS averaging 40FPS at the menu and 10-20 FPS average with lows of 5. Turning the settings down to 1024x768 (from 1360x768) and all to low or off I only get an increase in 2-4 frames!

By no means do I have a monster system (4 years ago it was decent) but this is still pathetic. Don't get me wrong I love the damn game but it's irritating to say the least.

Windows 7 64-bit
E8500 @ 3.16ghz
9800GTX+
4gig RAM

I mean ###### I played the BF3 beta maxed out and it was running smooth as butter with a little chop in the underground areas of Metro with a full server. Not comparing UW to DICE as far as manpower goes or anything, just saying there seems to be a more than a little work to be done for optimization of NS2...

Benson · October 2012

really 10-20 fps average?

i sit around 40-60

win 7 x64

amd phenom II x4 945 3.15 Ghz

Nvidia gtx 560

8GB ddr3

zastels · October 2012

r_stats says that when I dip below 40 fps, my MS delay is 25.

So next to CPU is says 25ms when lagging.

Anyone have any insight on this?

koewi · October 2012

if it's shown next to your frames, it's kinda ur ping in the moment u get under 40 fps ...
if its written under the fps it could be the time, which shows, if the cpu is waiting for your graphiccard to render and shows how long it waits

for example, if i get around 10 fps in middle to big fights my ping jumps up to to 120ms ... thats rly interesting ... maybe somebody can explain this to me :D ... it seems like the game is compansating low fps over the ping ... crazy ######, cause it doesn't help at all, im still looking at a slideshow ;)

Wilson · October 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zastels @ Oct 11 2012, 08:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>r_stats says that when I dip below 40 fps, my MS delay is 25.

So next to CPU is says 25ms when lagging.

Anyone have any insight on this?</div>

I think you mean GPU delay, as that is what is under r_stats. If it is 25ms then that means your graphics card is the bottleneck. Try turning your resolution down and some of the graphics settings as well.

zastels · October 2012

No I am not referring the the GPU delay, which was about 2-4ms

zastels · October 2012

I didn't receive a reply on the delay of 25ms I posted about.

Shouldn't I be getting 100+ FPS with an 8120, 69502gb, and 8 gigs of ram?

Wilson · October 2012

I don't understand where it says 25ms, can you post a screenshot?

zastels · October 2012

I tried using printscreen but it was all black. I'll have to use my phone, but I'm about to head to work. I'll do it in 6 hours.

Cico · October 2012

just use steam screenshot manager. i think it's f12 the standard key

Are we still waiting on optimization?

Comments