Love it when that happens...when you're on the outside..that is.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Planetside 2
- Thread starter dremic
- Start date
Love it when that happens...when you're on the outside..that is.
sharknice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
Some people think anything that doesn't run at max settings > 60fps on their machine is poorly optimized no matter what hardware they have or how good the game looks.
Some people think that because they get 60 fps walking out in the middle of nowhere staring at the ground they should get 60 fps in the middle of 100+ player and vehicle battles.
Reality is that games are made to look even better than your machine is capable. This is why they have options to lower graphical settings. So it can look and run good on a range of machines. It sounds like someone is in denial about their computer being the latest and greatest.
The PlanetSide 2 engine runs well and is optimized pretty well. If you look at all the action and detail on screen versus the frames you are getting I would say it is optimized pretty well. It isn't at the same level of optimization as UE3, but it is definitely above average.
!@#$%^&*()
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Messages
- 269
Hell I'm fairly surprised I can even attend the large battles with my macbook.
Then again, the retina has a pretty solid nvidia card -- from what I understand this game seems to run fairly worse on equivalent AMD gear.
Definitely needs some more optimization work (the dev over on reddit confirmed they'll be working on it) but so far I'm pretty impressed.
Now I just need to learn how to play the damn game. lol.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,470
It depends on the shield generators. Many of the generators at the large bases are found behind shields already to prevent ground vehicles from getting in. But in almost every case, the upper levels aren't shielded and you can be airdropped in or the light assault class can use their jet packs to get in. Other times there are doorway shields protecting a small building or room that has a spawn point in it. That building's shield generators are built in and can only be turned off once you capture the entire area.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,470
What drivers you running?
I have a 560ti and running all high settings. The game runs around 60+ fps for me until the large firefights, but it never dips below unplayable. The few times it did during the beta, it was only a couple seconds tops.
I am running the latest beta drivers.
The problem is people have different definitions of "what is playable".
Most of the people who say
"Hellsz yeah brah, its performing tubular"
and i ask "What is your fps in big battles"
"30-40fps man, its awesome"
and then i /facepalm.
The game already has the worst syncing network imaginable, PS1 was this way as well.
Movement is updated i would have to say roughly every 1 second. This is with low ping.Which results in very sudden movement changes, very jerky, very hard to predict.
It's clear they never evolved the network code beyond their MMO network code integration from Everquest (the original).
On top of that then saying 30-40fps is playable, well if that makes you happy.... more power to you i guess?
I only play in big battles, so yes traveling to a battle i get 90-120fps, its great, until more than 20 players or 5 vehicles are within 20 sq/miles.
The problem is people have different definitions of "what is playable".
Most of the people who say
"Hellsz yeah brah, its performing tubular"
and i ask "What is your fps in big battles"
"30-40fps man, its awesome"
and then i /facepalm.
The game already has the worst syncing network imaginable, PS1 was this way as well.
Movement is updated i would have to say roughly every 1 second. This is with low ping.Which results in very sudden movement changes, very jerky, very hard to predict.
It's clear they never evolved the network code beyond their MMO network code integration from Everquest (the original).
On top of that then saying 30-40fps is playable, well if that makes you happy.... more power to you i guess?
I only play in big battles, so yes traveling to a battle i get 90-120fps, its great, until more than 20 players or 5 vehicles are within 20 sq/miles.
Does anyone know how to leave an Outfit?
I accidentally accepted an invite, thinking it was a squad invite, and see absolutely no way to leave in the "Social" menu, nor can I find the answer via anywhere else for some reason.
I've no idea how to leave (or create, for that matter) one.
Thanks.
I accidentally accepted an invite, thinking it was a squad invite, and see absolutely no way to leave in the "Social" menu, nor can I find the answer via anywhere else for some reason.
I've no idea how to leave (or create, for that matter) one.
Thanks.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,470
Again, something is seriously wrong. Be it your setup, your network, your ISP, or the particular Planetside server you are playing on having lag issues. For the record, I currently play on the Matherson East server, and I played the Thebes West server during Beta.
I've only had a few nights where lag was unbearable during the beta. But it was obvious server lag where people were teleporting and rubberbanding. The last 2 weeks of the beta and the first day of release, I have had zero issues with lag with only a couple of exceptions when flying.
Last edited:
Battlefield 3 looks twice as good and runs three times better on my rig. My fps is mostly in the 30s and 40s in this game, dropping into the 20s in a close quarters fight. It's only using 40% of my video card most of the time. Seems like pretty poor optimization to me.
This entire post is a joke. Movies run at 24FPS but it is NOT THE SAME THING. It has been shown that humans are able to see stuttering below 60FPS, why do you think that 60FPS in a game is the ideal amount? Do you think they just picked that number willie nillie?
You have either never played a true competitive FPS or you are going blind
thankfully they decided to not go DX11... which would of helped alleviate this exact problem.
I don't believe anyone is actually "defending" the optimization of the game, just stating that, like my self, the game is running smooth for them.
I've played competitively (a long time ago) and even though my eyes are rather sensitive to picking things up, I never see any stutter even at 50fps unless the game itself actually has issues with stuttering.
It depends on the game. I've run some games that, when maxed visually, ran at 40fps, and it would still look smooth.
For those tweaking the file to run at "Ultimate", I cant speak to that, but if people are noticing stuttering then, there's a reason for that: it's not offered in-game because it's not been optimized yet. So if that's the issue people are having, then maybe they should wait to run on "Ultimate" until it's been optimized.
But, while the game does need some optimization as is right now, having it maxed-out on "High" has been a relatively smooth experience for many people.
I've played competitively (a long time ago) and even though my eyes are rather sensitive to picking things up, I never see any stutter even at 50fps unless the game itself actually has issues with stuttering.
It depends on the game. I've run some games that, when maxed visually, ran at 40fps, and it would still look smooth.
For those tweaking the file to run at "Ultimate", I cant speak to that, but if people are noticing stuttering then, there's a reason for that: it's not offered in-game because it's not been optimized yet. So if that's the issue people are having, then maybe they should wait to run on "Ultimate" until it's been optimized.
But, while the game does need some optimization as is right now, having it maxed-out on "High" has been a relatively smooth experience for many people.
Viper87227
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,017
Restart steam
Again, most people's definition of "playable" is very different. Precision aiming is reduced incredibly at lower fps levels, people with blinders somehow don't feel this. Prepare to be flamed on the 24fps comment, its incorrect, proven mathematically etc etc.
Honestly i wouldn't care if it required turning everyone into square blocks to make it run at 45+ fps minimum, however from what the developers are saying, that wouldn't help. That would only ease the graphical strain, which is not the problem.
The engine is flat out not handling efficiently enough too many things going on at once. They will have to optimize server side / client side for any improvements at all.
You do realize that the topic you are approaching is entirely subjective...30-40fps is "playable", but it isn't anywhere near enjoyable in my humble opinion. When only WATCHING something, yes 24fps is very acceptable. 30-40fps in the case of gaming is a totally different beast, when you take the fact that you feel the correlation between what your hands are doing and what your eyes are seeing, if that makes any sense. I hate playing online MP shooters at anything under 60fps...so to me, 30-40fps is indeed "unplayable" when speaking in relative terms.
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
I used to think this attitude was pure snobbery. Then I got a 144hz display.
I'm not really one to say that the human eyes can fully calculate/perceive anything over (insert some # here)fps, but I know that I can definitely FEEL and at least notice the smoothness on some level when my games run at my monitor's max refresh which is only 60hz.
I can't imagine how smooth 144hz is for gaming...I actually can't stand 120hz televisions for pleasure viewing, ie movies etc. Sports and gaming? Sure...but movies...hell to the no.
another-user
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 984
the biggest problems im having with it are the terribly hit detection, and terrible frame rates. with everything off/ and on medium, im getting low-mid 20fps in 15 person and larger fire fights.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,470
I'm not blind, and I have played competitive FPS.
I either left something out of my post, or you guys are taking me out of context. I was also in a really bad mood earlier and made it sound like I was snobbish and attacking the user I was replying to. Sorry Inu.
erf...you bring up a solid point which I will touch on below also. That correlation between what your hands are doing and your eyes are seeing is very subjective, faster pace=higher fps needed.
So let me explain it differently...
There are a couple things that are key and have to happen to have those relatively low framerates to be enjoyable.
1. Your framerates aren't spiking all over the place. Your eyes will notice a difference. I did mention this in my previous post. Yes, the human eye can detect at a much higher rate. I am aware of this.
2. You don't have a bottleneck elsewhere that is bringing down the framerates to begin with such as a CPU bottleneck. This part I did not mention in my previous post. As long as you have plenty of CPU power, cranking the graphics settings up high enough that they drop YET REMAIN CONSTANT should not pose too much problem. There are exceptions to this rule of course, such as 3D or high speed motion (e.g. arena shooters such as Quake, UT, Tribes).
Honestly, I don't have a problem with my setup if the frame rates drop IN THIS GAME. I also did not have a problem with it in BF3 either. I do have problems with when the pace of the game speeds up quite a bit. I think there are a lot of people who don't realize how CPU bottlenecked this game is. Many people have said that this game only uses 2 threads, and yet with the sheer size of players this game should have been made to support more. However, with it as it is, you need some serious CPU to help out. My i7 2600k is at 4.3ghz and has zero problems with this game. I am GPU bottlenecked with my 560ti, but it still manages to keep the frames in the 50's and 60's constant with high settings.
Well I would like to give the game a try, but apparently it has other plans .
Every single time I hit "PLAY" on the launcher, it loads up the splash/title screen, and it just gets stuck at 48% loaded. I've let it sit there for quite a while, but nothing happens. Anyone else have a similar issue that they managed to get fixed?
.Every single time I hit "PLAY" on the launcher, it loads up the splash/title screen, and it just gets stuck at 48% loaded. I've let it sit there for quite a while, but nothing happens. Anyone else have a similar issue that they managed to get fixed?
This is dumb dumb dumb, the two can't be compared.
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,797
They need to do some major patching, the game feels like it should be in Beta still.
With everything set to medium I average 20 fps in any kind of fire fight, the random 1 second lag sucks just as bad.
The rate at which certs are earned needs to be increased by at least 3-4x, I have played for 5 hours and earned maybe 100, and considering most gun upgrades costing 100, while new guns cost 300+.
With everything set to medium I average 20 fps in any kind of fire fight, the random 1 second lag sucks just as bad.
The rate at which certs are earned needs to be increased by at least 3-4x, I have played for 5 hours and earned maybe 100, and considering most gun upgrades costing 100, while new guns cost 300+.
Last edited:
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Well I would like to give the game a try, but apparently it has other plans
Every single time I hit "PLAY" on the launcher, it loads up the splash/title screen, and it just gets stuck at 48% loaded. I've let it sit there for quite a while, but nothing happens. Anyone else have a similar issue that they managed to get fixed?
Verify the cache (if you installed it via steam)?
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,797
It looks like one of the Devs admitted on the forum that the game isnt optimized and they are working on improving performance. It looks like they have been making the optimization promise for a while now though.
The game is going to die out fast if they don't fix these problems soon, my rig is exactly the recommended hardware, plus overclocked, yet the game is barely playable on medium.
The game is going to die out fast if they don't fix these problems soon, my rig is exactly the recommended hardware, plus overclocked, yet the game is barely playable on medium.
One of my computers with a q6600 @ 3.4GHz struggles with it. 15-20 FPS in heavy fights.
My other compy with a 3570k @ 4.2Ghz still has FPS limited by CPU, but it's very playable. The lowest it has been is 30fps.
Both comps have a HD 4870.
Anyway, the game only uses two friggin cores. It'd be great if they worked on that.
It shouldn't take such a fast CPU to render just tolerable FPS.
My other compy with a 3570k @ 4.2Ghz still has FPS limited by CPU, but it's very playable. The lowest it has been is 30fps.
Both comps have a HD 4870.
Anyway, the game only uses two friggin cores. It'd be great if they worked on that.
It shouldn't take such a fast CPU to render just tolerable FPS.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Ugh...god here we go again.
Sorry but this really gets on my nerves. The frame rate of TV 24fps for several reasons, it was decided that 24fps was enough to give the appearance of fluid motion with film, but film has 2 special properties that rendering does not have.
It inherently captures motion blur, the shutter of whatever is filming stays open for a (relatively) long period to capture that 1/24th of a second, as such it's capturing a slice of time, on film that appears as motion blur on each frame, when you run that at 24fps the motion blur is picked up by our eyes and helps your brain smooth the appearance of motion.
Also film is not interactive, so input polling is not felt when watching film, if you were controlling assets inside a movie at 24fps you would "feel" the responsiveness of that control being completely crap.
Rendering has both of these issues, it does not inherently have motion blur, when you render a scene you're rendering it for an instant in time and when you play those instants side by side you get much less smooth motion. You also feel the lack of responsiveness when altering input, usually most noticeable with analogue-like inputs such as the mouse.
What is acceptable for TV is not the same as rendering basically, the best thing to do is actually test different refresh speeds and frame rates yourself and decide what you think is best for you, I see the difference all the way up to 120fps and after you've used that for a while you find games that run at 30fps and you just laugh at how utterly terrible it is, and actually how that can effect your performance in games.
In my experience most of the people who are "happy" with 30fps are those people who just don't know any better or are too useless at games to see the competitive benefit of a better frame rate.
Perfectly worded.
I'd just like to add, since you brought motion blur in movies up, that in the grand scheme of things that motion blur in videogames can aid low frame rates.
However, I find in most cases that it is reasonably negligible and that too much of it(or any, depending on the implimentation) can really negate the benefits of high framerates.
Just if anybody was thinking of it.
Edit: Good implimentation = DX11 Cryengine 3
I'm still scratching my head as I've read several developer posts stating the game or the engine can scale up to 6 cores. However I've really only saw at most maybe 3 cores being taking advantage of. The testing during beta I have done the game smooths out a lot going from two to four cores, but there isn't a dramatic FPS increase. No difference between three to four cores. All that was done with my 2500K. Overclocking nets a huge increase from FPS in my experience due to allowing more of the GPU to be utilized. This is the #1 reason why I was hoping SOE would not launch early due to performance. Perhaps this just shows nothing much can be done about it.
Concerning the GPU you probably would see a performance jump having a better one. I saw a performance increase going from a GTX 560 Ti to a 7950, you would see a even bigger one.
I'm still wondering if there was a DX11 patch added to this game if it would net any performance boost. Not really adding any extra visuals. Like how WoW saw a 30% jump in performance I think with DX11 vs DX9. If thats possible maybe SOE should focus on that instead of CPU improvements. WoW is CPU bound also.
feels plastic, dx9 2012 for pc is a joke, hitreg, sound for inf, its like soap for tanks.
runs like crap in spite of high end.
network lagging also.
it wasnt ready to get released but seems they couldnt wait.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Yes, exactly right.
Fake motion blur in games is a bit of a problem, it's temporal and generally speaking it processes the past X frames and blurs them together, that creates more of a ghosting effect, essentially the blur is kind of delayed behind your movement.
The polling of those frames is still at X speed however, so if you're blurring between frames you're essentially trying to interpolate data between known good frames, there are some fairly good motion blur systems out there and a LOT of bad ones.
The interesting problem with motion blur in rendered systems is that it comes at quite heavy performance cost which actually lowers the frame rate, quite significantly in some circumstances, so you're really just adding to the problem rather than fixing it.
Motion blur is really more of a cinematic effect to achieve film like qualities in games, despite those film like qualities not necessarily being desirable, kind of like adding in film grain, it's pretty much just for artistic effect and not really to address issues of low frame rate.
Liqq
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 502
Is this worth even downloading or is it the same buggy, boring pos it was 2 months ago?
BLUEFISH44
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,474
For me I feel its runs like a champ, I did see abunch of quads leave a base last night with no one driving them, but other than that no issues here. Great battles, great fun.
Running High settings, 1080p with what feels like a solid frame rate on my laptop.