developers and fans here have been down-playing this issue for long time now. They were promising more stable fps once it officially be released, but nothing have changed. You could say they lied, you should say they're misleading their own customers but developers don't see it like that. The honest truth this game is still in beta, but they were forced to release it because they needed the money.
They can't publicly admit it, it would hurt sales and the game, but everyone knows how serious the issues are expect new players hence this topic. Their have been countless topics like these from new players because they simply could not understand "why can I run other games smoothly but this one lags for me." I'm sure someone will reply defending this problem but the bottom line many of us were mislead about this game, well mostly new players who never had any experience with this game/company.
the game might improve within 2 years or more unless something magical happens like them switching away from lua or who knows. Until then they will be releasing content patches to try to keep this game alive.
funny how playtesters mention many of them have machines a little bit over benchmarks while every patch still break someones game with random level of machines...
I'd have to agree after having played with a core duo at 2.6, 2.8, and 3.4 ghz that 3.4 ghz is a fair and reasonable amount to have listed for recommended specs. And 2.8 ghz as the minimum.
But yeah... to call your experience at 2.8 ghz on a core duo the recommended specs experience just seems wrong to me.
edit: I guess if you preface the recommended specs with some statement about these settings only applying to 16 player servers or below it would be fine though.
Have a dual core? You need a quad. Have a quad core? You need an i7
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.
Did you check the task manager recently while playing? The game uses four cores and has been using four cores for quite some time.
People should really stop defending the developers here. People feel let down (at best) or lied to (at worst) simply because the game runs so poorly. It runs much worse on our machines than other games that look a lot better. And there's no real excuse for that.
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.
But it's not only about looks: Game logic and moddability is, what makes this game perform so badly.
He's talking about performance, not once did he say smooth gameplay.
He is talking about performances too, by 'gameplay' he certainly meant 'the feeling of the game' is not necesseraly smooth even if you have good and stable FPS.
And to some people, don't forget the OP is talking about the recommended specs and how it is misleading, don't tell him to upgrade, that is not the subject of the thread, I think he already understood that.
Here's the why I think they recommended a Dual Core processor. The game only uses 2 cores at any time sadly so realistically you're not getting much benefit from having an i7 or i5 other than newer architecture. What really matters is the actual clock speed, OC'ing to 4ghz isn't entirely out of the question for those processors really. At least not the wolfdale ones at 3.0ghz if I remember correctly. But even something like 3.6ghz which is only roughly a 20% increase on that model should work pretty well.
My dual core C2D is at 4Ghz and gets the low performance (end game) numbers describe in the original post. My mobile core i7 (2.3Ghz - 3.3Ghz) doesn't fare much better either. Presumably the clock speeds aren't high enough, hence you need an overclocked i7 to achieve truly stable performance.
From what I can tell, only a fully-overclocked, modern Intel quad core can hope to attain 60FPS in end game scenarios. Everyone else is just putting up with what they can get.
I don't know if you intended it, but this post implies that NS2's performance is acceptable.
Was that your intention?
I get 60 fps during endgame scenarios with my i5 750 & 5850 CF, so I'd say it's acceptable. Perfect? No. Horrible? No. On my rig NS2 performs at a level I find acceptable. If you factor in that it's very narrow spaces and not really an open world with long draw distances, then sure, maybe I expect a few more fps. But all in all, I get 60 fps endgame and I can play with all the eyecandy on. (Bar shadows not working with CF) Crossfire issues are just as much on AMDs table as they are on UWEs. All in all I'm content.
Now, I don't mean to say that it's working well for everyone, and I do understand that some people are upset; but I do know that a lot of people are sitting on minimum/recommended specs and are expecting to run the game at 60+ fps. Expectations very few games would be able to fulfill. Generally speaking, recommended specs will land you on 60 fps in low intensity situations and around 30 fps in high intensity situations (not on maxxed settings mind you). At least that's been my experience during the last 10 years of gaming.
Anyways, people with high-end rigs experiencing poor performance should run a plog and get in touch with the devs, so that whatever issue there is can be ironed out.
I just want to add here that, as a gamer, I NEVER buy a game I only meet the "recommended specs" for. They have never provided an enjoyable experience for me in the past and I always wound up upgrading soon after realizing that the games runs like crap on the recommended specs.
I don't base my system on game requirements, or the games I get based on my system. I just keep my system as up to date as possible, and everything runs just fine.
When the game runs absolutely horribly, it is true that many players are turned away, but many also stick around for the interesting gaming experience, and in the hope that performance will increase, as promised.
However, when those people then come across a thread like this, where many players are saying that the engine runs just fine, and everything is as good as can be expected, then that hope of improvement is gone. If the performance is not an issue then improvements are not coming, and those players have no reason to stick around.
Trust me. You aren't doing anyone any favours here. You are doing more bad than good.
When the game runs absolutely horribly, it is true that many players are turned away, but many also stick around for the interesting gaming experience, and in the hope that performance will increase, as promised.
However, when those people then come across a thread like this, where many players are saying that the engine runs just fine, and everything is as good as can be expected, then that hope of improvement is gone. If the performance is not an issue then improvements are not coming, and those players have no reason to stick around.
Trust me. You aren't doing anyone any favours here. You are doing more bad than good.
Performances issues aren't always game related. Sometimes people have viruses, too many start-up programs, full HD's (no room for temp or a pagefile), dusty hardware, tar/bug filled hardware, old drivers, corrupted drivers, multiple driver versions, bloated registry, bad video card, blown capacitors, poor contact between heatsink and cpu, software conflicts, hardware conflicts, broken/weak fans, weak PSU, etc.
It's good to know who's system runs NS2 well. It makes it easier to resolve the issue. A person could have a C2D+GTX 690 run NS2 like crap, while a C2D+570 runs it smoothly. After working on the issues it could be a PC issue (OS, hardware, software). If you didn't know about the C2D+570 running smoothly, you'd have a harder time figuring it out; blaming it on the game.
Also, UWE constantly post about working on performance. Who cares if non-UWE personnel say the engines fine as-is?
Also, UWE constantly post about working on performance. Who cares if non-UWE personnel say the engines fine as-is?
I guess you are right. Nobody in the history of the world has ever listened to anyone that wasn't completely and definitively informed about what they were talking about.
While overclocking mine to extreme levels for just 60 fps(only game that doesnt play at 120 flat). Others around me clearly dont have the fps. Warping and bad rego are a result.
Performance is why ive quit.
Good luck uwe, but id say the first question of your next game wont be if its a good game. It will be "does it run at an acceptable performance level"
Here's the why I think they recommended a Dual Core processor. The game only uses 2 cores at any time sadly so realistically you're not getting much benefit from having an i7 or i5 other than newer architecture. What really matters is the actual clock speed, OC'ing to 4ghz isn't entirely out of the question for those processors really. At least not the wolfdale ones at 3.0ghz if I remember correctly. But even something like 3.6ghz which is only roughly a 20% increase on that model should work pretty well.
You should stop posting, you don't know how computers work.
3.0ghz on a C2d != 3.0ghz on a Sandy Bridge i5.
It goes like this: the game needs x instructions, the processor needs x cycles per instruction. The CPI of Sandy Bridge is improved, so 3.0ghz on the new architecture > 3.0ghz on the old architecture. Clock speed IS NOT a consistent or universal standard.
Comments
They can't publicly admit it, it would hurt sales and the game, but everyone knows how serious the issues are expect new players hence this topic. Their have been countless topics like these from new players because they simply could not understand "why can I run other games smoothly but this one lags for me." I'm sure someone will reply defending this problem but the bottom line many of us were mislead about this game, well mostly new players who never had any experience with this game/company.
the game might improve within 2 years or more unless something magical happens like them switching away from lua or who knows. Until then they will be releasing content patches to try to keep this game alive.
But yeah... to call your experience at 2.8 ghz on a core duo the recommended specs experience just seems wrong to me.
edit: I guess if you preface the recommended specs with some statement about these settings only applying to 16 player servers or below it would be fine though.
I'm wondering what's wrong with your system. I have a weaker system and don't have issues with late game 12v12 fights.
Did you check the task manager recently while playing? The game uses four cores and has been using four cores for quite some time.
But it's not only about looks: Game logic and moddability is, what makes this game perform so badly.
And to some people, don't forget the OP is talking about the recommended specs and how it is misleading, don't tell him to upgrade, that is not the subject of the thread, I think he already understood that.
My dual core C2D is at 4Ghz and gets the low performance (end game) numbers describe in the original post. My mobile core i7 (2.3Ghz - 3.3Ghz) doesn't fare much better either. Presumably the clock speeds aren't high enough, hence you need an overclocked i7 to achieve truly stable performance.
From what I can tell, only a fully-overclocked, modern Intel quad core can hope to attain 60FPS in end game scenarios. Everyone else is just putting up with what they can get.
Now, I don't mean to say that it's working well for everyone, and I do understand that some people are upset; but I do know that a lot of people are sitting on minimum/recommended specs and are expecting to run the game at 60+ fps. Expectations very few games would be able to fulfill. Generally speaking, recommended specs will land you on 60 fps in low intensity situations and around 30 fps in high intensity situations (not on maxxed settings mind you). At least that's been my experience during the last 10 years of gaming.
Anyways, people with high-end rigs experiencing poor performance should run a plog and get in touch with the devs, so that whatever issue there is can be ironed out.
Live and learn.
However, when those people then come across a thread like this, where many players are saying that the engine runs just fine, and everything is as good as can be expected, then that hope of improvement is gone. If the performance is not an issue then improvements are not coming, and those players have no reason to stick around.
Trust me. You aren't doing anyone any favours here. You are doing more bad than good.
Performances issues aren't always game related. Sometimes people have viruses, too many start-up programs, full HD's (no room for temp or a pagefile), dusty hardware, tar/bug filled hardware, old drivers, corrupted drivers, multiple driver versions, bloated registry, bad video card, blown capacitors, poor contact between heatsink and cpu, software conflicts, hardware conflicts, broken/weak fans, weak PSU, etc.
It's good to know who's system runs NS2 well. It makes it easier to resolve the issue. A person could have a C2D+GTX 690 run NS2 like crap, while a C2D+570 runs it smoothly. After working on the issues it could be a PC issue (OS, hardware, software). If you didn't know about the C2D+570 running smoothly, you'd have a harder time figuring it out; blaming it on the game.
Also, UWE constantly post about working on performance. Who cares if non-UWE personnel say the engines fine as-is?
Lies! Or act of God.
I guess you are right. Nobody in the history of the world has ever listened to anyone that wasn't completely and definitively informed about what they were talking about.
Performance is why ive quit.
Good luck uwe, but id say the first question of your next game wont be if its a good game. It will be "does it run at an acceptable performance level"
You should stop posting, you don't know how computers work.
3.0ghz on a C2d != 3.0ghz on a Sandy Bridge i5.
It goes like this: the game needs x instructions, the processor needs x cycles per instruction. The CPI of Sandy Bridge is improved, so 3.0ghz on the new architecture > 3.0ghz on the old architecture. Clock speed IS NOT a consistent or universal standard.