Regarding performance

[clench]

If we're talking RO2 numbers

Metro 2033, ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead, S.T.A.L.K.E.R series, Crysis, L4D

Of those, only one is multiplayer anywhere near the scale of this game (not to mention ARMA2 is a buggy and glitchy itself). Singleplayer games cannot compare to this. None of them have persistent stat tracking and destructible environments, and none of them have maps anywhere near the scale and detail. Try again

The original frostbite engine used in BC & BC 2 is more of a resource hog than this game should ever be. Sadly this "uber awesome super customized UE3.5 mumbo jumbo" runs much worse.

If you do a little research you will learn that EA had to reconstruct the whole engine of the game to get better performance, akin to the BS we are going through now. Hence why frostbite 2 is in BF3, and BC 2 still has SOME FPS problems.

And if you did a little research, you would know that EA has like 1000x the resources to develop games with.

 

[Shortwave]

This game runs always above 60fps for me now.
Locked hard and ready to rape.

As for you guys, I had this issue for a while durring beta, it happens.
We all know very well Tripwire isn't like ****ing Activision, who'll ignore every ****ing bug in their game for a month or two while they go party and live it up. Then trickle out ****ty little maps just so noone forgets about them. : /

This is a small group of dedicated modders, with a true passion for this game which to them is honestly an art-form. They ARE working hard at it, working for their money that we all gave to them. Men cannot perform miracles. You need to grow up and have some patience, it's sad when I see people whine about helpless things. AMD/Nvidea and tripwire I'm sure are all looking into things so hold tight.

AMD users.
I got better performance by using the latest CCC Beta Driver.
Some others reported an older driver helping.. 11.3 I think, go look.
I'm only reading 50% usage on my GPU but luckily still getting great frames.

Till' then, go work out a bit.
Or play Space Marines.

 

[vyyye]

Of those, only one is multiplayer anywhere near the scale of this game (not to mention ARMA2 is a buggy and glitchy itself). Singleplayer games cannot compare to this. None of them have persistent stat tracking and destructible environments, and none of them have maps anywhere near the scale and detail. Try again

So what part of "Name an FPS in the last 5 years that isn't a console port" says anything about scale, destructible environments and detail? Oh and.. stat tracking? Haha what? Try remembering what you have said yourself and you might make more sense, sunny.

 

[Tet5uo]

I run the game on this.

http://www.modsrigs.com/detail.aspx?buildid=23594

Yet I get 30-50 FPS usually. I have seen up to 80 FPS, but that will quickly drop. It's all over the place, but averages pretty low.

This is with just "High" preset.

So should I tear out two of my video cards and try to overclock my 6 cores even MORE just to play this?

 

[clench]

So what part of "Name an FPS in the last 5 years that isn't a console port" says anything about scale, destructible environments and detail? Oh and.. stat tracking? Haha what? Try remembering what you have said yourself and you might make more sense, sunny.

I'm sorry, I'm only trying to demonstrate how this game is infinitely more complex then the games people are trying to compare it to and it's being developed by a team that could probably fit in your bedroom with less money than most major developers spend on testing, let alone the actual development. The games you've listed simply cannot compare to this, with the exception of ARMA2, which has it's own issues to begin with. Maybe Tripewire bit off more than they could chew, but even still anyone with any experience with PC gaming can see the potential here.

 

[Das Bose]

What people like you fail to realize due your ignorance is that BF:BC2 has almost two years old engine with destructible environment and maps about three times bigger than RO2.

Despite the lack of detail inside destructible buildings, BF:BC2 has a fair ammount of planted detail around the maps to be honest.

Here is more fair screenshot of the game.

No need to be insulting, the point is clear. Ro2 is rendering a ****load more stuff at any given time, it's not difficult to understand.

 

[skewp]

Im not trying to justify anything, just point out that people are exagerrating. All of those things you listed about BC2, IMO are not as detailed as many people think. The jungles are probably the most detailed thing in BC2. Besides the destruction in BC2 is not that detailed either, its basically the same as in Gumrak, blows a section out of the wall and covers up its simplicity with a lot of smoke/debris.

It blows a section of the wall, collapses the ceilings + adds a beautiful effect of flying debris and thick smoke is a much better description. All of the destruction I saw in RO2 was a top part of the house randomly removed when an arty shell hits it. I also saw arty shell explosions hit 10 meters above the ground and explode in thin air. Sure, I actually like RO2 graphics when theyre maxed out and they do have some nice amount of detail to them BUT STOP BEING SO GOD DAMN NAIVE. My pc is not all that good, but CMON. Guys with i7's and GTX570's can't get more than 50 fps is just WRONG. No game can realistically hope to use that much computer power in years to come... Even 5850's should be able to max this game out with no problem whatsoever. They REALLY REALLY need to put ALL THEIR effort into sorting this **** out.

 

[fieldsofillusion]

ahem, not to be this guy, but i have 5 other UE3 engine games that all run better than this game. i also can play wholly unoptimized games like saint's row 2 and black ops without many hitches. i can also run high fidelity games like crysis and metro 2033 without much of an issue on their high/maximum settings.

it's really disappointing that a "for gamers" dev is acting like this. sure, your game looks real nice, but why is it that the lowest settings look worse than any of your previous games and i only get about half the frame rate? i'm not looking for a refund and have been posting my issues in hopes for a fix in the future, but i come home from work today to see an excuse as to why people are getting poor performance on mid to high end systems on mud settings. this isn't acceptable and you guys need to take the responsibility for your game.

i'm not even trying to run this game on ultra, i've tried to play it on medium settings and i get close to the same fps as if it was on ultra, same goes for high, and i'm sorry TW, but i'm not gonna play this game on lowest settings where it looks like a quake 2 mod. if i wanna play a ww2 sim that looks like crap, i'll go back to ostfront.

 

[skewp]

ahem, not to be this guy, but i have 5 other UE3 engine games that all run better than this game. i also can play wholly unoptimized games like saint's row 2 and black ops without many hitches. i can also runs high fidelity games like crysis and metro 2033 without much of an issue on their high/maximum settings.

it's really disappointing that a "for gamers" dev is acting like this. sure, your game looks real nice, but why is it that the lowest settings look worse than any of your previous games and i only get about half the frame rate? i'm not looking for a refund and have been posting my issues in hopes for a fix in the future, but i come home from work today to see an excuse as to why people are getting poor performance on mid to high end systems on mud settings. this isn't acceptable and you guys need to take the responsibility for your game.

i'm not even trying to run this game on ultra, i've tried to play it on medium settings and i get close to the same fps as if it was on ultra, same goes for high, and i'm sorry TW, but i'm not gonna play this game on lowest settings where it looks like a quake 2 mod. if i wanna play a ww2 sim that looks like crap, i'll go back to ostfront.

Amen.

 

[some idiot]

RO2 is pushing more polygons, models, and shaders than most (if not all) other shooters currently on the market.

Sure it's pushing more of that stuff, except something is preventing the GPUs from actually working on any of it. RO2 runs nearly the same for me on a 4890, 6870 and a GTX570, and all at about 50% GPU utilization. I've never seen a CPU limited FPS before, ever. And the framerates aren't even the biggest problem, it's the micro stutters that make 50 FPS feel like 15.

There's a problem somewhere, and it's not our computers.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

It blows a section of the wall, collapses the ceilings + adds a beautiful effect of flying debris and thick smoke is a much better description. All of the destruction I saw in RO2 was a top part of the house randomly removed when an arty shell hits it. I also saw arty shell explosions hit 10 meters above the ground and explode in thin air. Sure, I actually like RO2 graphics when theyre maxed out and they do have some nice amount of detail to them BUT STOP BEING SO GOD DAMN NAIVE. My pc is not all that good, but CMON. Guys with i7's and GTX570's can't get more than 50 fps is just WRONG. No game can realistically hope to use that much computer power in years to come... Even 5850's should be able to max this game out with no problem whatsoever. They REALLY REALLY need to put ALL THEIR effort into sorting this **** out.

No it only does all the stuff when the entire building collapses, and even then the collapse is entirely scripted. It is obvious that the "beautiful effect of smoke and debris" is there to cover up how simplistic the destruction system actually is. No one is being naive, we've all seen the performance threads for the last 3 weeks or so. I have performance issues as do a lot of people, TW has acknowledged the issue a while ago. I'm not saying that there isn't an issue..

TW has said they are working on the issue, and so far have fixed it for a small group of people. The reason is runs poorly is because of a variety of issues that have been extensively covered in other threads. Simply put, it is not supposed to run this poorly, except that it isn't fully utilizing some people's rigs.

 

[fieldsofillusion]

also would like to state that i've never played a game where i've been above recommended settings and had to play on the lowest graphics fidelity for a smooth experience. never once in my 20 years of playing pc games.

 

[NightriderAOF]

ahem, not to be this guy, but i have 5 other UE3 engine games that all run better than this game. i also can play wholly unoptimized games like saint's row 2 and black ops without many hitches. i can also run high fidelity games like crysis and metro 2033 without much of an issue on their high/maximum settings.

it's really disappointing that a "for gamers" dev is acting like this. sure, your game looks real nice, but why is it that the lowest settings look worse than any of your previous games and i only get about half the frame rate? i'm not looking for a refund and have been posting my issues in hopes for a fix in the future, but i come home from work today to see an excuse as to why people are getting poor performance on mid to high end systems on mud settings. this isn't acceptable and you guys need to take the responsibility for your game.

i'm not even trying to run this game on ultra, i've tried to play it on medium settings and i get close to the same fps as if it was on ultra, same goes for high, and i'm sorry TW, but i'm not gonna play this game on lowest settings where it looks like a quake 2 mod. if i wanna play a ww2 sim that looks like crap, i'll go back to ostfront.

They're not using the same version of UE3 that RO2 is. RO2 uses a heavily modded version of UE3. Quit *****ing at TWI and telling them they're just giving you excuses. They told you the reason why RO2 runs well on some machines and poorly on others. They gave you facts. Excuses my ***, you're just angry that it isn't optimized yet and refuse to listen to the explanations as to why and instead just want to ***** and moan.

And wow, people in this thread need to read he first post before running their mouths off. If you're asking why it runs poorly on your machine with good hardware, it's clearly explained in the first post of this thread.

 

[fieldsofillusion]

They're not using the same version of UE3 that RO2 is. RO2 uses a heavily modded version of UE3.

And wow, people in this thread need to read he first post before running their mouths off. If you're asking why it runs poorly on your machine with good hardware, it's clearly explained in the first post of this thread.

i read the first post thoroughly, maybe you should have read my entire reply.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

also would like to state that i've never played a game where i've been above recommended settings and had to play on the lowest graphics fidelity for a smooth experience. never once in my 20 years of playing pc games.

Consider yourself lucky, this has happened to me with every UE3 game I have ever played.

 

[NightriderAOF]

i read the first post thoroughly, maybe you should have read my entire reply.

Now you need to read what you wrote in your response. The games you said that run well for you WERE CITED AS EXAMPLES IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD.

 

[skewp]

No it only does all the stuff when the entire building collapses, and even then the collapse is entirely scripted. It is obvious that the "beautiful effect of smoke and debris" is there to cover up how simplistic the destruction system actually is.

Ok, let's say it's simplistic, but it's still 10 times more impressive looking than the "destruction" I saw in RO2 so far. But this is completely flooding the thread with offtopic crap.

Despite the fact I keep finding problems in this game I'm still enjoying it. Mazohistic but true lol

 

[powerbits]

Im not trying to justify anything, just point out that people are exagerrating. All of those things you listed about BC2, IMO are not as detailed as many people think. The jungles are probably the most detailed thing in BC2. Besides the destruction in BC2 is not that detailed either, its basically the same as in Gumrak, blows a section out of the wall and covers up its simplicity with a lot of smoke/debris.

sorry but BC2 has much more graphical DIRECT X 11 splendar and destructianal enviroment

i like RO2 but if you want a contest in looks, then bc2 would win.

however the games are different, so you cant realy compare them

but in all fairness my GPU's use only 50-70% power on RO2 and 100% on bc2.. so somehow the game needs more optimisation

 

[fieldsofillusion]

Now you need to read what you wrote in your response. The games you said that run well for you WERE CITED AS EXAMPLES IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD.

wow, i didn't know that i cited a "game x" as a game that i play... i think i've explained myself pretty well, from playing hardcore technical benchmarks like crysis, shattered horizon and GTA4, down to the really unoptimized games like black ops and saint's row 2. even metro 2033 runs well on my system. i hate to tell you, but metro 2033 is insane looking, like, really high fidelity texturing, effects and mapping, and is a total system hog, yet it runs fine on my rig.

you can continue to blindly defend a dev comment like this, and while i'm glad that they're trying to address the issue, it doesn't change the fact that the game is not running well, and frankly, isn't using anywhere close to the amount of resources any other game i just mentioned is using.

also, caps only means screaming, if you wanna not look like a jackass use italics.

EDIT: also, i still enjoy this game and respect TW as developers, so take your fanboy rage elsewhere.

 

[skewp]

Now you need to read what you wrote in your response. The games you said that run well for you WERE CITED AS EXAMPLES IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD.

Have you read what Ramm said about machines they used to make and run the game "without problems"? Try running Metro 2033 on those machines. Now take a stronger PC which runs Metro 2033 without problems and run RO2. IMO what Ramm said in that regard is absolute bull****. And if you can't see that you're plain stupid.

Oh noes I offended a game developer who did me a favour and made this game for me so I can enjoy it ( I DO enjoy it even with all the flaws. But I'm a university student. I had to work my *** off to afford a semi decent PC and this game. Stop being a freaking saint.