Upvote
0
[Question] Have pavlovshouse been optimized lately?
- Thread starter M55ikael
- Start date
D
Deleted member 12421
Guest
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
That is a tad insulting sir, and presumptuous. I will remember this post in the future.
Upvote
0
I dislike the changes, but i can understand TWI position on this. It is easier to delete some bricks than to knock around in the game code looking for the root of the issue. This however, can only be a temporary fix and the bricks should be added in later patches, when the general performance of the game is improved.
And Ramm, please don't take all the whining and anger too seriously and take a day off or two, as this is not a very acceptable answer to your customers, which are not 100% comfortable with your product.
Customer is king, as we say here in Germany
And Ramm, please don't take all the whining and anger too seriously and take a day off or two, as this is not a very acceptable answer to your customers, which are not 100% comfortable with your product.
Customer is king, as we say here in Germany
Upvote
0
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
Sorry Ramm but the game is starting to look a bit ugly in places now and I posted a couple of days ago regarding the blurred and poor appearance of some maps and textures of late. There's also some pretty bad 'pop-up' appearing when using iron sights (trees and bushes) that I did not notice during beta.
I realise we can't have it both ways but I have to say I'm pretty stunned at the poor performance of this graphics engine for RO2. Is it not the same engine as used for BIA Hells Highway? If not ignore the following but BIA HH still looks stunning for an oldie and I'm running crazy amounts of AA with it and the frame-rate rarely drops below the v-sync 60fps even at an insane 2560x1440 res. I realise that RO2 can get a lot busier than HH with the amount of guys running around but still am unable to grasp why RO2 often feels 'clunky' with wildly fluctuating frame-rates and the odd nasty stutter. By the way, I have tried RO2 at a lower res but there's not a great performance boost and then things really do get ugly with my particular monitor!
I understand it is still very early days for RO2 and I'm sure there is more optimising to be done, but does it really have to be optimised by removing the things that contribute so much to the atmosphere of RO2? I have a reasonably good rig ie Q9550 at 3.8 ghz, EVGA GTX480 SC, 4gb ram and although frame rates are playable for me it's certainly not a 'smooth' experience even when turning down from Ultra to High or Medium settings, however, I've a feeling that many including my self take exception to the game being stripped of details for what so far only seem to be minor (if any) performance gains. I'm not an expert or a programmer but surely there is another way? But maybe that means a lot of hard work for you guys at TW and I understand this is a busy and pretty stressful time for you.
I can't speak for everyone but I'd like to ask that you don't take away the choice of running with all of the available eye candy. After all that is what I thought the graphics detail sliders are for. IMO you are pandering to the ignorant who have no idea of what their system is capable of by this 'hard' removal of detail at the expense of players like me who can still run the game at high detail and are prepared to take the performance hit that may come with that. You have already stated that we can't have performance and detail which is a bummer but fair enough
,my point is that it would be good to have the choice of either or a compromise rather than your 'optimisation' being forced upon us.I love the game and the way it looks in all its glory. Please don't remove the choice for us to run it that way.
Apologies for the long waffle,
cheers,
SP
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
Didn't know IL2: Cliffs of Dover was a console port....seeing as how it renders about 10-20 times as much info as ANY RO2 map, and runs 80-120fps on my machine with MAXIMUM settings.
Once again, stop blaming our machines. Every patch you have released has decreased my performance, btw.
Upvote
0
Those bricks on the floor may have made that rubble look more interesting, but it also raises the polygon count of the map.
It was pretty much a really inefficient way to go about making a rubble, and removal of that for performance is understandable for me.
Yes, there is a slider and in a perfect world that'll take care of it, but haven't you guys noticed just how many idiots here ran around with 3 years old computer and complained they can't max the game out with 60+ fps? Or how much **** Crysis 1 got for it's performance on max setting despite the fact that even on high setting the game looked and ran way better than what any other games did during its time?
It was pretty much a really inefficient way to go about making a rubble, and removal of that for performance is understandable for me.
Yes, there is a slider and in a perfect world that'll take care of it, but haven't you guys noticed just how many idiots here ran around with 3 years old computer and complained they can't max the game out with 60+ fps? Or how much **** Crysis 1 got for it's performance on max setting despite the fact that even on high setting the game looked and ran way better than what any other games did during its time?
Upvote
0
The old bricks an similar high detail textures should be in the options under Ultra detailed textures or something an off by default IMO. Just removing them completely is a bad idea when good detail is basically the only graphically impressive feature RO2 has going for it.
An yeah I also don't get why the dev wants to insult our machines when they already admit a CPU bug of theirs is why it runs so badly for most of us. Once our GPU's are at 80% or more usage then you can say we need to upgrade.
An yeah I also don't get why the dev wants to insult our machines when they already admit a CPU bug of theirs is why it runs so badly for most of us. Once our GPU's are at 80% or more usage then you can say we need to upgrade.
Upvote
0
A scattering of simple cuboid shapes on the floor cannot have had significant performance impact. In the screen posted above they account for what, maybe 600 polys? Rendered with the engine's simplest shader? For the massive improvement they make to the scene that's well worth it.
On the other hand, they obscure proned players so it's sensible to have them either in the map at all times or never.
Edit:
On the other hand, they obscure proned players so it's sensible to have them either in the map at all times or never.
Edit:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You guys should seriously optimize your coding and engine before you start pulling graphical detail from maps. This is not the proper way to "optimize" a map, rather than a quick band aid fix...with a placebo effect. I understand there are issues with the coding/optimization/engine of RO2 and some peoples rigs aren't running to their full potential due to those. Maybe if you fixed the engine/coding first, you wouldn't have to dumb down the graphic details?! I have yet to also see Nvidia or ATI release a driver thats been recently optimized for RO2?!
One of the first things I noticed in Pavlov's house was the bricks on the ground and I was impressed. I built my computer just so I would be able to run this game on ultra, bricks included so I could get that "wow" factor.
One of the first things I noticed in Pavlov's house was the bricks on the ground and I was impressed. I built my computer just so I would be able to run this game on ultra, bricks included so I could get that "wow" factor.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I want to love this game, but I can't due to the nasty FPS. You know something is horribly wrong when you can run ARMA 2 better than a UT3 game.
Upvote
0
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
I upgraded my rig just for this game <3 so I could actually run it on ultra <3
Shame you have to lower the detail because folks have gotten used to these ports ._.
but I suppose its the way gameing have changed, people dont understand that pritty games requieres pritty rigs. just the idea of getting enough memory and 64bit systems seems alot to ask of communities these days.
I remember being impressed by the bricks too.. they have removed them compleatly now? D=
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
What about the people with brand new hardware like my self, and still not being able to play the game well? This feels worst then a console port in terms of optimization for highend hardware
Upvote
0
so tell us your specs. I'm not sure if you are trolling or just stupid
Upvote
0
Pavlov takes more memory than other maps. My rig runs at half memory capacity and stutters / pauses every second due to being totally overloaded by... whatever it is in Pavlov that makes everyone crawl and crash. [BRICKS] Sometimes it crashes, but always it lags. Poor map optimization IMO... too many objects, too much something is overloading the engine. That's why they removed the bricks, to see if it would improve the situation.
Note the thousands of again very costly convex polys used in floorboards. They don't look spectacular as they are. IMO trade them in for masked texture sheets just to see if that helps the map run better.
IMO somebody didn't play their map to make sure it ran OK.
Note the thousands of again very costly convex polys used in floorboards. They don't look spectacular as they are. IMO trade them in for masked texture sheets just to see if that helps the map run better.
IMO somebody didn't play their map to make sure it ran OK.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
Congrats, you just made me want to get a refund from Steam. Blaming it on hardware? Are you kidding me? Lame excuse.
I'm a big RO fan, bought the first game. But this is inexcusable.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This /\
As of late I've noticed that the whole game looks blurrier, massive amounts of pop-in (compared to none before the occlusion setting was changed in the beta), and a downgrade of detail. And the worst thing is, it didn't give any real performance gain. I think the fact that putting textures and detail to low doesn't really help the smoothnes of the game and frame rate prooves my point.
Well, that's not completely true as arty no longer kills my frame rate and it doesn't crash as often. But I urge you, please make the extra detail you put in the game available to those who have good enough computers to run it. Speaking for myself I actually bought this computer just to play RO2.
Upvote
0
Now some details are gone, and the game runs bad like before... And now? Tell me, what machine specs do i need for this game, when a q8200 @ 2,7ghz and a Geforce 560 ti arent enough to run this game smooth even on medium?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Same here. Quite distracting as the texture pop-in registers as movement to the eye, drawing your attention away from the enemy.
i7 Q720
GTX280M
4GB
Upvote
0