I get 36-45 FPS in most spots of the map, but it can peak up to 70+ FPS. Still this is unacceptable and not playable, unless it stays stable.
My specs: Running @ 1080p 2500K @ 4 GHz 8 gigs RAM Game on SSD (Crucial M4) 2x GTX 570 in SLI
BTW, a single GTX 570 is double the power of your single laptop GPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What settings are you playing on? I have WAY WAY WAY crappier specs but my performance is about the same for FPS that you claim to be getting.
Hi everybody. My english is not so good, but i will try to do my best. I play NS2 since the game is released, and i am thus what you call a rookie. I saw on this thread that optimisation in NS2 is not the best in video game world, but i noticed that things are going better and better. My question is simple : does NS2 take care about SLI? My configuration is pretty old :
I5 760 4Go ram GTX295 P55UD4
I know that my graphic card is hold, but as you maybe know, this card is a SLI of two GTX270. Playing NS2 allow me to have about 30/40 FPS with a low graphic parameter profile. I noticed that only one CPU of my card was working : the first reach 70°C in game, whereas the other remain stable at 40°C. Nvidia general control panel is configurate to use all CPU of my card. I tried to specify a configuration for NS2 only, but it seems it is not possible yet. Does someone have an answer, or have i just to wait for a fix?
Thank you for reading, and my apologies for my english. As you know, french people are not very good in foreign langages. ++
Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end. You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.
Don't feed the trolls. There is pointless raging in this thread, and there are people working to find potential solutions to help the devs fix it. I'm a little upset at my computer's general performance too, but it's particularly cruel to have a mental image of the developers in which they're swimming in bags of cache, laughing "Suckers!!" at threads like this.
Hello, i found answer of my question here : <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123193" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=123193</a>
The G0 Q6600 is a beast. It has been a best friend to me and I can overclock it by 200% if I had the cooling. Currently running it at 3.0ghz, I get 45-70fps average early game and about 30-40 lategame. Suck it i-series. My GPU is a GTX460 but that hardly matters for NS2's performance.
Some of you may recall my post at the bottom of page 3 of this thread regarding poor performance.
This is now my second ever post in these forums, as an update to the original.
The performance has improved considerably, however it is still out of playable framerates (for me). Late game i get about 35 fps, which is just horrid.
I believed that now the game has been released, the optimisations would have been carried out to a level sufficient for new players to be able to enjoy the game. I was wrong.
That said, i didn't actually know they were making their own game engine, i thought they were using Source. In hindsight, they should have. Source is a fantastic engine, which looks just as good as Spark (and runs at 100X the speed). I respect them for trying, but so far they have failed. It would be ok if the game was still in BETA, however; it is not. Therefore, unacceptable hardware optimisation is plain rude. Maybe they cannot push their engine any further at this point, which is a shame for them, but more importantly for us paying customers.
I really WANT to respect this game and the company behind it, but the execution of this project was just not up to standards, especially after NS1 which was just fantastic (because they leveraged an already established engine).
Specs: Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz, GTX 580, 8Gb RAM, SSD. Min frames 22, Max 95. Average late game, 35ish = unacceptable.
(I know my CPU is getting old now, but i can literally run ANY other game on absolute max, no lag whatsoever. Even Battlefield 3)
<!--quoteo(post=2010232:date=Nov 4 2012, 06:39 PM:name=Fallward)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fallward @ Nov 4 2012, 06:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010232"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some of you may recall my post at the bottom of page 3 of this thread regarding poor performance.
This is now my second ever post in these forums, as an update to the original.
The performance has improved considerably, however it is still out of playable framerates (for me). Late game i get about 35 fps, which is just horrid.
I believed that now the game has been released, the optimisations would have been carried out to a level sufficient for new players to be able to enjoy the game. I was wrong.
That said, i didn't actually know they were making their own game engine, i thought they were using Source. In hindsight, they should have. Source is a fantastic engine, which looks just as good as Spark (and runs at 100X the speed). I respect them for trying, but so far they have failed. It would be ok if the game was still in BETA, however; it is not. Therefore, unacceptable hardware optimisation is plain rude. Maybe they cannot push their engine any further at this point, which is a shame for them, but more importantly for us paying customers.
I really WANT to respect this game and the company behind it, but the execution of this project was just not up to standards, especially after NS1 which was just fantastic (because they leveraged an already established engine).
Specs: Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz, GTX 580, 8Gb RAM, SSD. Min frames 22, Max 95. Average late game, 35ish = unacceptable.
(I know my CPU is getting old now, but i can literally run ANY other game on absolute max, no lag whatsoever. Even Battlefield 3)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Same thing, I can't run this in eyefinity for squat. I can run just about every other modern game in eyefinity. I'm lucky to get 30-40fps but dips to 10fps in high action at 1080x5760, i5 2.6ghz and radeon hd 6900 series, 8gb ram
The game runs acceptably for me but I have a "monster" computer. I put that in quotes because I haven't upgraded anything since I built it in February of 2010, so there's definitely better out there but it still performs very well with anything I throw at it. I spent an assload on it but the return is that I don't have to keep upgrading.
I've got: Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.67GHz 6 GB of Corsair Dominator Triple-Channel DDR3 RAM(I forget what model specifically but my RAM has heatsink fins on them) ATI Radeon HD 5870
Now, when I say acceptably, I mean it runs fine and I don't get performance issues for the most part. I have had a severe frame rate dip, and this I believe was when Aliens stormed a base, Marines beaconed in, and there was an all out war in one room complete with the white circles on all of the Aliens... possibly the most extreme situation in terms of performance requirements that you can be in. If I really want to be picky, I'd say that for the level of graphics that I'm seeing, the performance doesn't match up. Battlefield 3 with everything up there(not max on everything, but real high if not max on most things) looks leaps and bounds better and performs about the same as NS2 for me. The usual culprit for me is FXAA/SSAO. SSAO noms frames regardless of what game has it, and that's about the only thing I don't have maxed in NS2. All in a resolution of 1920x1200 by the way.
So, I would absolutely love to enjoy the game, I was a big fan of the original, and I love seeing projects like this not die in a dark alley like most indie stuff. That said, I can't for the life of me seem to get this game to run above 25fps with absolutely every effect off and every setting as low as it will go, and my computer isn't <i>that</i> shabby. 650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?
<!--quoteo(post=2010638:date=Nov 5 2012, 12:28 AM:name=SajuukSW)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SajuukSW @ Nov 5 2012, 12:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, I would absolutely love to enjoy the game, I was a big fan of the original, and I love seeing projects like this not die in a dark alley like most indie stuff. That said, I can't for the life of me seem to get this game to run above 25fps with absolutely every effect off and every setting as low as it will go, and my computer isn't <i>that</i> shabby. 650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> some laptops use the onboard graphics card instead of the real graphics card, make sure you make a profile to force ns2 to run using your real video card.
<!--quoteo(post=2010683:date=Nov 4 2012, 09:34 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Nov 4 2012, 09:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010683"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->some laptops use the onboard graphics card instead of the real graphics card, make sure you make a profile to force ns2 to run using your real video card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm very familiar with optimus defaulting to intel integrated at this point, and literally the first thing i did with NS2 was creating an nvidia profile and making sure it used the actual GPU. Still getting 25fps staring at a wall with absolutely no effects on, which is incredibly disappointing...and makes the game unplayable
<!--quoteo(post=2010984:date=Nov 5 2012, 02:16 PM:name=SajuukSW)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SajuukSW @ Nov 5 2012, 02:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm very familiar with optimus defaulting to intel integrated at this point, and literally the first thing i did with NS2 was creating an nvidia profile and making sure it used the actual GPU. Still getting 25fps staring at a wall with absolutely no effects on, which is incredibly disappointing...and makes the game unplayable<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a i7-3517u and a 620m. Didn't expect to play it out well, but seriously, at 800x600 with absolutely everything off I'm getting about 30~ fps. r_stats 1 is telling me waiting for GPU is pending between 0-6ms. And I as well has made sure optimus doesn't interfere and ¤#"! things up. The fact that the GPU would be the bottleneck playing at that resolution with everyhing off just tells me something isn't right.. Drivers perhaps? (I have the latest available). I dunno. Perhaps the 620m just ain't better than that.
Anyone else played NS2 with an Asus UX32VD? Let me know please! Comparing would be great.
The aliens side is just not that much fun right now. For one you get terrible performance the whole time because you are mainly around infestation. Secondly, there just isn't the team unity that marines have. No group structure building, running around healing exos with 3 marines. Being an alien seems to be a lonely, poor performing burden. The most team work you see is a gorge and a onos.
so maybe that helps someone: i play ns2 on a athlon dualcore with 3ghz and a ati 3600. and its performing ok. i just built that thing from parts i had lieing around, because i managed to shortcircuit the mainboard of my gaming pc....dont ask.....
ok, so with that thing i get about 53ish fps in the main menu and i can play the game without any trouble the most time, only if there is a laststand and all the enemys push in it gets a little laggy, so i miss shots etc. all in all im impressed with the performance i get from a pile of junk i had lieing around.
the settings i use are: 12xx to 9xx resolution, with antialaising and anisotropic filtering on, everything else off.(multicore is on)
even on low i think it looks still good and is playable on a rig that isnt even worth 200 bucks.
so my tip is, if you have performance issues, lower the resolution but leave antialiasing on, the visual difference is minimal.(oh and anisotropic filtering can be turned off too, in fact, ill turn it off next time)
<!--quoteo(post=2008415:date=Nov 3 2012, 01:38 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Nov 3 2012, 01:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that doesn't sound right. what's your system specs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't, that;s why I'm here asking if anyone knows if it's something other than specs.....And before anyone askes, yes, my drivers are updated. -w-
Specs: Intel Core i7-3930K 6-Core, Asus Rampage IV Extreme, Nvidia GeForce GTX680, 6.00 Gb RAM
<!--quoteo(post=2008426:date=Nov 3 2012, 01:48 PM:name=Katana314)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana314 @ Nov 3 2012, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it should be obvious any and all performance issues are just as frustrating to Unknown Worlds as they are to us, especially given how bad it used to be.
They gained a lot of their current state by reaching out to the community and having them do work for us; does anyone know if it's plausible for the community to help with these performance issues in some way? For instance, they could find someone with particularly bad performance issues (ie, the man with 4 FPS ingame, above) and have them run some sort of special profiling tool to track down any particular issues. Knowing code, sometimes it's something as basic as a certain method running 400 times more than it needs to because of some unexpected hardware configuration.
It might not be beyond belief that some of us already have such development tools. I have Visual Studio 2010 on my computer, and I'm sure many IDE developers provide some sort of external monitoring that one could place on a QA machine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, this is what I'm asking about; There's a community for this, who apart of that knows what might fix the issues.
<!--quoteo(post=2008458:date=Nov 3 2012, 02:20 PM:name=Kenichi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kenichi @ Nov 3 2012, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nice how you supplied you're machine stats to go along with it. "rocking the ball park of 6 ram, plus overclocking" hardly count as stats. If you want me to think you deserve to have better performance you should at least let us know what you're working with. As far as I know you got 6 gigs of ram, and overclocked i3, and an integrated intel graphics chip. What you gave us tells us nothing significant at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I was actually on the road on my laptop at the time, and felt like posting. I couldn't access the specs off hand, mostly because I have a crap memory, sorry.
<!--quoteo(post=2009474:date=Nov 4 2012, 07:41 AM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Nov 4 2012, 07:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end. You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh huh, right....I'm not going to get into it, mostly because I juse want an answer, but I'm going to assume you're just talking out your rear end when you say that. I never said, at the beginning, I said early on, and if I did, I meant half way through, I.E. the beginning of when you're supposed to start optimizing....Optimization is a long process, not an 'oh, we're gonna sit down and do it in one go', no, it tends to go on along side actual development, to avoid....THIS. You optimize section by section, and yeah, it slows thigns down deving wise; But it's more effecient to say...Line up each piece of the puzzle, before you put it all down? It's unrealistic to try and optimize a large game, like this, all at once, at the end, 'think someone said it earlier, 'it's far too difficult to go through every line of code to sort out what are probably small bugs.' There is not perfect optmization formula or plan, but trying to optimize it at the end, and close to a release date....Well, games have done it; They didn't live to see anything passed their inital launch though.
ill probably get burned at the stake for saying that, but my fps annoy me aswell.
I get about 110-120 in an empty room but when ###### goes down (exos,crags etc.) they go down to 50-60.
I got a 120 Hertz screen and im used to have a stable 120 fps on high graphic settings in almost all games. (and i already deactivated alot here)
And believe me when youre used to 120 hertz, 50 fps looks like crap for you.
Please refrain from any posts showing your lack of experience with 120 hertz screens by saying that the eye cant see past 60 fps, it is not true and it has been confirmed many, many times.
Well first off, *you* will probably flame me for saying 'get hard,' thats just personal feeling, in a more constructive role, I agree with 'the eye doesn't see past 35 (remember TV's came out at 32 and no one notices rubbish?) fps' being a fallacy.
The parts of a second your eyes decide to work might correlate one second with an updated image series, the next with a bunch of frames not changing as often, so over a few seconds the image is sometimes refreshed more often during your 'attention bandwidth' and sometimes not. Thus, you notice lower fps.
Edit: Remember some people can detect 440hz sound from 336/444hz ... also it appears (heh) that the eye cones/rods can detect down to *2-3 photons* and still send a signal to the brain. I wonder, a good test for people who believe humans can't differentiate past ~32fps is ask them how many senses we have. 5 is the wrong answer.
<!--quoteo(post=2013388:date=Nov 6 2012, 06:34 PM:name=TripleZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TripleZero @ Nov 6 2012, 06:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ill probably get burned at the stake for saying that, but my fps annoy me aswell.
I get about 110-120 in an empty room but when ###### goes down (exos,crags etc.) they go down to 50-60.
I got a 120 Hertz screen and im used to have a stable 120 fps on high graphic settings in almost all games. (and i already deactivated alot here)
And believe me when youre used to 120 hertz, 50 fps looks like crap for you.
Please refrain from any posts showing your lack of experience with 120 hertz screens by saying that the eye cant see past 60 fps, it is not true and it has been confirmed many, many times.
i5 2500k Oced on 4,8 Ghz
2 x GTX 670s in SLI
12 GB RAM 1866 Mhz
Game is installed on an SSD<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I myself have a new i5k @ 4.2 with a single 560ti with every setting turned off or lowest setting on 1920 res and I never go below 60fps on a 18 man sever normally 80/90 in combat. There was another thread about sli profiles for NS2 from memory it recommended using the dishoured profile to get 99% scaling. Since you're getting worse fps then me take a look ingame using r_stats to see if you're GPU is at 0ms waiting time or 10+. IF it's over 0 you're getting some GPU bottle necking going on which shouldn't be happening if your sli is working properly. To give you some idea my GPU is at 8ms waiting time.
<!--quoteo(post=2013649:date=Nov 7 2012, 12:35 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 7 2012, 12:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013649"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's what you get for trying to run a current gen PC exclusive on a toaster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Toaser? Wtf. He has one of the flagship cards of the last generation and a high end CPU from an architecture architecture that is 3 years old. Three years doesn't end a computers life. I have an e8500 and a GTX260, still not even a toaster, though I get 20-30fps. Not the best playability, but I just have to choose my servers well to stay in 30fps.
But if you think stuff from last generation is a toaster, you are a gullible consumer.
I dont know too much about optimizations in the technical sense, but one thing that struck me as odd was the 'light sources' count on r_stats... ~150 light sources in any given area? Isn't that a bit much ? After having messed around with the spark editor a bit I'm going to guess it's ambient light, but regardless.. that can't be right. Or I'm just misunderstanding.
<!--quoteo(post=2013657:date=Nov 7 2012, 06:43 AM:name=Tacota)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tacota @ Nov 7 2012, 06:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013657"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Toaser? Wtf. He has one of the flagship cards of the last generation and a high end CPU from an architecture architecture that is 3 years old. Three years doesn't end a computers life. I have an e8500 and a GTX260, still not even a toaster, though I get 20-30fps. Not the best playability, but I just have to choose my servers well to stay in 30fps.
But if you think stuff from last generation is a toaster, you are a gullible consumer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't even notice the post where he gave specs, but then clearly he has a severe issue on system as I rarely get below 30 FPS with a Q6600/560ti.
<!--quoteo(post=2013673:date=Nov 7 2012, 12:54 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 7 2012, 12:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013673"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Didn't even notice the post where he gave specs, but then clearly he has a severe issue on system as I rarely get below 30 FPS with a Q6600/560ti.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see it was added on in an edit most likely. Proceed.
And yeah, I just turn all the fancy stuff off and play fine, and still looks great to be honest. It also fixed my mouse input lag as well, thankfully. My crosshair always seemed a bit behind my actual mouse position when aiming. Haven't bothered to narrow down what setting it is, but one of them caused it for me. I assume it isn't an issue for those with better CPU/GPU.
So yeah, even older PC's can get the game running decently enough if you just turn everything off (no multicore rendering though)
Upgrading soon though cause this game is a true beauty when you can turn everything on :)
<!--quoteo(post=2008379:date=Nov 4 2012, 05:22 AM:name=Gigaus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gigaus @ Nov 4 2012, 05:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008379"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know no one here gives two ######, but I'm gonna put my two cents in anyway.
**SNIP**
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to needlessly doubt your bona fides but I would argue that you can't really "optimize" something until you are done with it.
4fps is a problem of another kind, you say you do 3d rendering etc? Got any funny things turned on in your drivers regarding precision or line anti-aliasing or some such? Could be worth an investigation.
I would be wholly surprised if the NS2 ran at 4fps and no other applications were effected. But you're an expert so surely you've been measuring all the right things during game to see where the latency is.
<!--quoteo(post=2009474:date=Nov 4 2012, 11:41 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Nov 4 2012, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end. You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without being rude I agree.
<!--quoteo(post=2010638:date=Nov 5 2012, 03:28 PM:name=SajuukSW)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SajuukSW @ Nov 5 2012, 03:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, I would absolutely love to enjoy the game, I was a big fan of the original, and I love seeing projects like this not die in a dark alley like most indie stuff. That said, I can't for the life of me seem to get this game to run above 25fps with absolutely every effect off and every setting as low as it will go, and my computer isn't <i>that</i> shabby. 650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
650m by looks of the specs, particularly the memory bandwidth and the fact its GDDR3 means its pretty heavily constrained on memory intensive game tasks. The goto stuff would be lower resolution, less/no AA (check drivers) and lowering the mipmap quality.
<!--quoteo(post=2013758:date=Nov 7 2012, 05:40 PM:name=Tacota)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tacota @ Nov 7 2012, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ah I see it was added on in an edit most likely. Proceed.
And yeah, I just turn all the fancy stuff off and play fine, and still looks great to be honest. It also fixed my mouse input lag as well, thankfully. My crosshair always seemed a bit behind my actual mouse position when aiming. Haven't bothered to narrow down what setting it is, but one of them caused it for me. I assume it isn't an issue for those with better CPU/GPU.
So yeah, even older PC's can get the game running decently enough if you just turn everything off (no multicore rendering though)
Upgrading soon though cause this game is a true beauty when you can turn everything on :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're having delayed mouse input the most likely culprit is the GPU buffering many frames to achieve v-sync or double/triple buffering. This ads many frame latencies which would be consistent with delayed mouse input.
Also, kudos on turning things down when they don't run as well. NS2, on my rig, runs, in my opinion, at a reasonable speed. No action, 55-90fps depening on scene complexity. Worst case scenario puts me at about 20, thats on docking in stabmon with a bunch of players. For an old i5 750@3.5 with a 4870/1GB and 8GB system ram running off big mechanical disks I think thats about right. 1600x900 resolution, constrained by GPU.
I'm not excusing the performance issues with the game, on some systems there is clearly something NQR but I also think some people aren't used to games made for PC as opposed to console ports.
Not sure what you are on about. My old beater runs the gam fine with an avg. 60-70fps. no multisampling, anti-aliasing or supersampling.. Using 1920x1080, minimal cyst graphics and such. and my game still looks sweet as hell :)
<!--quoteo(post=2009474:date=Nov 4 2012, 04:41 AM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Nov 4 2012, 04:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end. You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're completely right. NS2 is still far from a finished product. We should not be expecting an optimized game.
Comments
I get 36-45 FPS in most spots of the map, but it can peak up to 70+ FPS. Still this is unacceptable and not playable, unless it stays stable.
My specs:
Running @ 1080p
2500K @ 4 GHz
8 gigs RAM
Game on SSD (Crucial M4)
2x GTX 570 in SLI
BTW, a single GTX 570 is double the power of your single laptop GPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What settings are you playing on? I have WAY WAY WAY crappier specs but my performance is about the same for FPS that you claim to be getting.
Try using single GPU and test the fps?
My english is not so good, but i will try to do my best.
I play NS2 since the game is released, and i am thus what you call a rookie. I saw on this thread that optimisation in NS2 is not the best in video game world, but i noticed that things are going better and better.
My question is simple : does NS2 take care about SLI? My configuration is pretty old :
I5 760
4Go ram
GTX295
P55UD4
I know that my graphic card is hold, but as you maybe know, this card is a SLI of two GTX270.
Playing NS2 allow me to have about 30/40 FPS with a low graphic parameter profile. I noticed that only one CPU of my card was working : the first reach 70°C in game, whereas the other remain stable at 40°C.
Nvidia general control panel is configurate to use all CPU of my card. I tried to specify a configuration for NS2 only, but it seems it is not possible yet.
Does someone have an answer, or have i just to wait for a fix?
Thank you for reading, and my apologies for my english. As you know, french people are not very good in foreign langages.
++
You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.
I'm a little upset at my computer's general performance too, but it's particularly cruel to have a mental image of the developers in which they're swimming in bags of cache, laughing "Suckers!!" at threads like this.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123193" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=123193</a>
Good game ;)
This is now my second ever post in these forums, as an update to the original.
The performance has improved considerably, however it is still out of playable framerates (for me). Late game i get about 35 fps, which is just horrid.
I believed that now the game has been released, the optimisations would have been carried out to a level sufficient for new players to be able to enjoy the game. I was wrong.
That said, i didn't actually know they were making their own game engine, i thought they were using Source. In hindsight, they should have. Source is a fantastic engine, which looks just as good as Spark (and runs at 100X the speed). I respect them for trying, but so far they have failed. It would be ok if the game was still in BETA, however; it is not. Therefore, unacceptable hardware optimisation is plain rude. Maybe they cannot push their engine any further at this point, which is a shame for them, but more importantly for us paying customers.
I really WANT to respect this game and the company behind it, but the execution of this project was just not up to standards, especially after NS1 which was just fantastic (because they leveraged an already established engine).
Specs: Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz, GTX 580, 8Gb RAM, SSD. Min frames 22, Max 95. Average late game, 35ish = unacceptable.
(I know my CPU is getting old now, but i can literally run ANY other game on absolute max, no lag whatsoever. Even Battlefield 3)
This is now my second ever post in these forums, as an update to the original.
The performance has improved considerably, however it is still out of playable framerates (for me). Late game i get about 35 fps, which is just horrid.
I believed that now the game has been released, the optimisations would have been carried out to a level sufficient for new players to be able to enjoy the game. I was wrong.
That said, i didn't actually know they were making their own game engine, i thought they were using Source. In hindsight, they should have. Source is a fantastic engine, which looks just as good as Spark (and runs at 100X the speed). I respect them for trying, but so far they have failed. It would be ok if the game was still in BETA, however; it is not. Therefore, unacceptable hardware optimisation is plain rude. Maybe they cannot push their engine any further at this point, which is a shame for them, but more importantly for us paying customers.
I really WANT to respect this game and the company behind it, but the execution of this project was just not up to standards, especially after NS1 which was just fantastic (because they leveraged an already established engine).
Specs: Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz, GTX 580, 8Gb RAM, SSD. Min frames 22, Max 95. Average late game, 35ish = unacceptable.
(I know my CPU is getting old now, but i can literally run ANY other game on absolute max, no lag whatsoever. Even Battlefield 3)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same thing, I can't run this in eyefinity for squat. I can run just about every other modern game in eyefinity. I'm lucky to get 30-40fps but dips to 10fps in high action at 1080x5760, i5 2.6ghz and radeon hd 6900 series, 8gb ram
I've got:
Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.67GHz
6 GB of Corsair Dominator Triple-Channel DDR3 RAM(I forget what model specifically but my RAM has heatsink fins on them)
ATI Radeon HD 5870
Now, when I say acceptably, I mean it runs fine and I don't get performance issues for the most part. I have had a severe frame rate dip, and this I believe was when Aliens stormed a base, Marines beaconed in, and there was an all out war in one room complete with the white circles on all of the Aliens... possibly the most extreme situation in terms of performance requirements that you can be in. If I really want to be picky, I'd say that for the level of graphics that I'm seeing, the performance doesn't match up. Battlefield 3 with everything up there(not max on everything, but real high if not max on most things) looks leaps and bounds better and performs about the same as NS2 for me. The usual culprit for me is FXAA/SSAO. SSAO noms frames regardless of what game has it, and that's about the only thing I don't have maxed in NS2. All in a resolution of 1920x1200 by the way.
650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?
650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
some laptops use the onboard graphics card instead of the real graphics card, make sure you make a profile to force ns2 to run using your real video card.
I'm very familiar with optimus defaulting to intel integrated at this point, and literally the first thing i did with NS2 was creating an nvidia profile and making sure it used the actual GPU. Still getting 25fps staring at a wall with absolutely no effects on, which is incredibly disappointing...and makes the game unplayable
I have a i7-3517u and a 620m. Didn't expect to play it out well, but seriously, at 800x600 with absolutely everything off I'm getting about 30~ fps. r_stats 1 is telling me waiting for GPU is pending between 0-6ms. And I as well has made sure optimus doesn't interfere and ¤#"! things up. The fact that the GPU would be the bottleneck playing at that resolution with everyhing off just tells me something isn't right.. Drivers perhaps? (I have the latest available). I dunno. Perhaps the 620m just ain't better than that.
Anyone else played NS2 with an Asus UX32VD? Let me know please! Comparing would be great.
There is a reason right now why random = alien.
i play ns2 on a athlon dualcore with 3ghz and a ati 3600.
and its performing ok.
i just built that thing from parts i had lieing around, because i managed to shortcircuit the mainboard of my gaming pc....dont ask.....
ok, so with that thing i get about 53ish fps in the main menu and i can play the game without any trouble the most time, only if there is a laststand and all the enemys push in it gets a little laggy, so i miss shots etc.
all in all im impressed with the performance i get from a pile of junk i had lieing around.
the settings i use are: 12xx to 9xx resolution, with antialaising and anisotropic filtering on, everything else off.(multicore is on)
even on low i think it looks still good and is playable on a rig that isnt even worth 200 bucks.
so my tip is, if you have performance issues, lower the resolution but leave antialiasing on, the visual difference is minimal.(oh and anisotropic filtering can be turned off too, in fact, ill turn it off next time)
No, it doesn't, that;s why I'm here asking if anyone knows if it's something other than specs.....And before anyone askes, yes, my drivers are updated. -w-
Specs: Intel Core i7-3930K 6-Core, Asus Rampage IV Extreme, Nvidia GeForce GTX680, 6.00 Gb RAM
<!--quoteo(post=2008426:date=Nov 3 2012, 01:48 PM:name=Katana314)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana314 @ Nov 3 2012, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it should be obvious any and all performance issues are just as frustrating to Unknown Worlds as they are to us, especially given how bad it used to be.
They gained a lot of their current state by reaching out to the community and having them do work for us; does anyone know if it's plausible for the community to help with these performance issues in some way? For instance, they could find someone with particularly bad performance issues (ie, the man with 4 FPS ingame, above) and have them run some sort of special profiling tool to track down any particular issues. Knowing code, sometimes it's something as basic as a certain method running 400 times more than it needs to because of some unexpected hardware configuration.
It might not be beyond belief that some of us already have such development tools. I have Visual Studio 2010 on my computer, and I'm sure many IDE developers provide some sort of external monitoring that one could place on a QA machine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, this is what I'm asking about; There's a community for this, who apart of that knows what might fix the issues.
<!--quoteo(post=2008458:date=Nov 3 2012, 02:20 PM:name=Kenichi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kenichi @ Nov 3 2012, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2008458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nice how you supplied you're machine stats to go along with it. "rocking the ball park of 6 ram, plus overclocking" hardly count as stats. If you want me to think you deserve to have better performance you should at least let us know what you're working with. As far as I know you got 6 gigs of ram, and overclocked i3, and an integrated intel graphics chip. What you gave us tells us nothing significant at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I was actually on the road on my laptop at the time, and felt like posting. I couldn't access the specs off hand, mostly because I have a crap memory, sorry.
<!--quoteo(post=2009474:date=Nov 4 2012, 07:41 AM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Nov 4 2012, 07:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end.
You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh huh, right....I'm not going to get into it, mostly because I juse want an answer, but I'm going to assume you're just talking out your rear end when you say that. I never said, at the beginning, I said early on, and if I did, I meant half way through, I.E. the beginning of when you're supposed to start optimizing....Optimization is a long process, not an 'oh, we're gonna sit down and do it in one go', no, it tends to go on along side actual development, to avoid....THIS. You optimize section by section, and yeah, it slows thigns down deving wise; But it's more effecient to say...Line up each piece of the puzzle, before you put it all down? It's unrealistic to try and optimize a large game, like this, all at once, at the end, 'think someone said it earlier, 'it's far too difficult to go through every line of code to sort out what are probably small bugs.' There is not perfect optmization formula or plan, but trying to optimize it at the end, and close to a release date....Well, games have done it; They didn't live to see anything passed their inital launch though.
150 fps solid.
(120 fps monitor so thats all that counts ).
Yea.
Get a job.
I get about 110-120 in an empty room but when ###### goes down (exos,crags etc.) they go down to 50-60.
I got a 120 Hertz screen and im used to have a stable 120 fps on high graphic settings in almost all games. (and i already deactivated alot here)
And believe me when youre used to 120 hertz, 50 fps looks like crap for you.
Please refrain from any posts showing your lack of experience with 120 hertz screens by saying that the eye cant see past 60 fps, it is not true and it has been confirmed many, many times.
i5 2500k Oced on 4,8 Ghz
2 x GTX 670s in SLI
12 GB RAM 1866 Mhz
Game is installed on an SSD
The parts of a second your eyes decide to work might correlate one second with an updated image series, the next with a bunch of frames not changing as often, so over a few seconds the image is sometimes refreshed more often during your 'attention bandwidth' and sometimes not. Thus, you notice lower fps.
Edit: Remember some people can detect 440hz sound from 336/444hz ... also it appears (heh) that the eye cones/rods can detect down to *2-3 photons* and still send a signal to the brain. I wonder, a good test for people who believe humans can't differentiate past ~32fps is ask them how many senses we have. 5 is the wrong answer.
I get about 110-120 in an empty room but when ###### goes down (exos,crags etc.) they go down to 50-60.
I got a 120 Hertz screen and im used to have a stable 120 fps on high graphic settings in almost all games. (and i already deactivated alot here)
And believe me when youre used to 120 hertz, 50 fps looks like crap for you.
Please refrain from any posts showing your lack of experience with 120 hertz screens by saying that the eye cant see past 60 fps, it is not true and it has been confirmed many, many times.
i5 2500k Oced on 4,8 Ghz
2 x GTX 670s in SLI
12 GB RAM 1866 Mhz
Game is installed on an SSD<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I myself have a new i5k @ 4.2 with a single 560ti with every setting turned off or lowest setting on 1920 res and I never go below 60fps on a 18 man sever normally 80/90 in combat. There was another thread about sli profiles for NS2 from memory it recommended using the dishoured profile to get 99% scaling. Since you're getting worse fps then me take a look ingame using r_stats to see if you're GPU is at 0ms waiting time or 10+. IF it's over 0 you're getting some GPU bottle necking going on which shouldn't be happening if your sli is working properly. To give you some idea my GPU is at 8ms waiting time.
That's what you get for trying to run a current gen PC exclusive on a toaster.
Toaser? Wtf. He has one of the flagship cards of the last generation and a high end CPU from an architecture architecture that is 3 years old. Three years doesn't end a computers life.
I have an e8500 and a GTX260, still not even a toaster, though I get 20-30fps. Not the best playability, but I just have to choose my servers well to stay in 30fps.
But if you think stuff from last generation is a toaster, you are a gullible consumer.
I have an e8500 and a GTX260, still not even a toaster, though I get 20-30fps. Not the best playability, but I just have to choose my servers well to stay in 30fps.
But if you think stuff from last generation is a toaster, you are a gullible consumer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't even notice the post where he gave specs, but then clearly he has a severe issue on system as I rarely get below 30 FPS with a Q6600/560ti.
Ah I see it was added on in an edit most likely. Proceed.
And yeah, I just turn all the fancy stuff off and play fine, and still looks great to be honest. It also fixed my mouse input lag as well, thankfully. My crosshair always seemed a bit behind my actual mouse position when aiming. Haven't bothered to narrow down what setting it is, but one of them caused it for me. I assume it isn't an issue for those with better CPU/GPU.
So yeah, even older PC's can get the game running decently enough if you just turn everything off (no multicore rendering though)
Upgrading soon though cause this game is a true beauty when you can turn everything on :)
**SNIP**
Iunno, that's my two cents, take it how you will...It's not unreasonable to think we could actually work together, and try and optomize the game for our own computers, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to needlessly doubt your bona fides but I would argue that you can't really "optimize" something until you are done with it.
4fps is a problem of another kind, you say you do 3d rendering etc? Got any funny things turned on in your drivers regarding precision or line anti-aliasing or some such? Could be worth an investigation.
I would be wholly surprised if the NS2 ran at 4fps and no other applications were effected. But you're an expert so surely you've been measuring all the right things during game to see where the latency is.
<!--quoteo(post=2009474:date=Nov 4 2012, 11:41 PM:name=Regnareb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Regnareb @ Nov 4 2012, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gigaus, I assume you never really worked on such projects or is not a programmer. The optimization part nearly never occurs at the beginning or throughout the process on this kind of projects. It begins once you have all the features in place and sure that those will not have to be totally reworked. You can do sporadic optimization if it's totally unusable, but if you optimize every bit of it during the development, I can assure you, your project will never end.
You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without being rude I agree.
<!--quoteo(post=2010638:date=Nov 5 2012, 03:28 PM:name=SajuukSW)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SajuukSW @ Nov 5 2012, 03:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, I would absolutely love to enjoy the game, I was a big fan of the original, and I love seeing projects like this not die in a dark alley like most indie stuff. That said, I can't for the life of me seem to get this game to run above 25fps with absolutely every effect off and every setting as low as it will go, and my computer isn't <i>that</i> shabby.
650m, i5 2540, 6gb DDR3. I know, it's a laptop, but no other game has ever run so poorly. Suggestions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
650m by looks of the specs, particularly the memory bandwidth and the fact its GDDR3 means its pretty heavily constrained on memory intensive game tasks. The goto stuff would be lower resolution, less/no AA (check drivers) and lowering the mipmap quality.
<!--quoteo(post=2013758:date=Nov 7 2012, 05:40 PM:name=Tacota)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tacota @ Nov 7 2012, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2013758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ah I see it was added on in an edit most likely. Proceed.
And yeah, I just turn all the fancy stuff off and play fine, and still looks great to be honest. It also fixed my mouse input lag as well, thankfully. My crosshair always seemed a bit behind my actual mouse position when aiming. Haven't bothered to narrow down what setting it is, but one of them caused it for me. I assume it isn't an issue for those with better CPU/GPU.
So yeah, even older PC's can get the game running decently enough if you just turn everything off (no multicore rendering though)
Upgrading soon though cause this game is a true beauty when you can turn everything on :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're having delayed mouse input the most likely culprit is the GPU buffering many frames to achieve v-sync or double/triple buffering. This ads many frame latencies which would be consistent with delayed mouse input.
Also, kudos on turning things down when they don't run as well. NS2, on my rig, runs, in my opinion, at a reasonable speed. No action, 55-90fps depening on scene complexity. Worst case scenario puts me at about 20, thats on docking in stabmon with a bunch of players. For an old i5 750@3.5 with a 4870/1GB and 8GB system ram running off big mechanical disks I think thats about right. 1600x900 resolution, constrained by GPU.
I'm not excusing the performance issues with the game, on some systems there is clearly something NQR but I also think some people aren't used to games made for PC as opposed to console ports.
My old beater runs the gam fine with an avg. 60-70fps.
no multisampling, anti-aliasing or supersampling..
Using 1920x1080, minimal cyst graphics and such. and my game still looks sweet as hell :)
You often have to throw away some of your work, so if you optimize everything, you throw away a lot of time and money. First you have to try the thing, see if it works well, and then after you can optimize it.
Optimizing right in the middle of the process will bring you into a vicious circle and nothing will be done... or badly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're completely right. NS2 is still far from a finished product. We should not be expecting an optimized game.