[Question] Have pavlovshouse been optimized lately?

[M55ikael]

Has anyone else noticed the physical (polygon) bricks among the rubble in Pavlovshouse, most notably on objectives D and E, have been removed? I really liked how it looked as most other games wouldn't use that many polygons for bricks, but now they've disappeared and only the 2d textures remain.

It might have something to do with my graphics settings being erratic and not following what I actually set them to in the menu though.

 

[asphantix]

I really liked how it looked as most other games wouldn't use that many polygons for bricks[...]

Other games wouldn't even wasting polygones on some bricks while you can have the same effect with just a texture and parallax mapping for example...

 

[Icey_Pain]

I have no idea to be honest, though the developers did say they wanted to get rid of some details in the maps in order to gain some performance boosts.
If that's the result of it, then I'm pretty disappointed that they didn't make it an optional graphics setting.

 

[M55ikael]

Other games wouldn't even wasting polygones on some bricks while you can have the same effect with just a texture and parallax mapping for example...

I agree, it seems like the game uses too little in the way of normal/bump mapping and equivanlent technologies. Even though it was inefficient it still was pretty cool as it differentiated it from other games, and there's still plenty of bricks among the rubble on other maps.

 

[M55ikael]

Sorry for the spelling error in the topic, it's been corrected but the topic list won't update.

Here's a comparison, before and after. Detail and textures on ultra, the rest a mix of high and ultra. As you can see the difference is massive. But I think it may be a bug that was a result of the last patch, which I'm looking to confirm with you here.

 

[M55ikael]

Can anyone confirm whether Pavlovshouse (or rather Zab's House aka objective D) looks like the first or second picture on high or ultra settings?

 

[Rumo]

Yes, it does look like the second picture now.

I just joined a server as spectator and took a look at it.

As you have said, they removed the bricks and replaced them with a texture (or just simply removed the bricks as the texture most likely was there before).
It really looks odd now when you see the comparison. Quite a big change and not a positive one (well, for the fps for sure, but...).
The second picture really has no/very less flair compared to the first one, in my opinion.

 

[M55ikael]

Yes, it does look like the second picture now.

I just joined a server as spectator and took a look at it.

As you have said, they removed the bricks and replaced them with a texture.
It really looks odd now when you see the comparison. Quite a big change and not a positive one (well, for the fps for sure, but...).

Thanks a lot. That's sad.

They simply removed the bricks and didn't change anything else. I don't see the point really, ultra should have as much detail as they can cram in there and the rest should be up to your computer. Looks much worse now.

 

[Rumo]

I was too slow with the editing regarding textures.

 

[Rumo]

Any word from a dev if this is going to be the way they will try to get improved perfomance on the maps or is this just a temporary "fix"?

 

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

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

 

[Hopey]

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

Yeah but... What about people who have hardware that passes the requirements. The game still runs badly, and removing some detail doesnt fix the issues of optimizations. The beta was perfectly fine, what did you change to make it run much crappier?

 

[anthonyda]

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

Am I allowed to troll you a bit by saying that RO2 runs a 4-5 yrs old engine with directx9 when most console port are using bright new engine supporting dx11 ?

 

[Robersdee]

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."

This is the single most ignorant thing I've ever seen a mod/DEV/community liason write in my 15 years as a gamer and as an ex game journo. How you have the audacity to poke fun at "ports" and some of your userbase when you have released the single most broken and shoddy release of a game I've seen in a decade. Us, the customer paid for this , to be honest ive seen some of these so called "ports" over the years, most of which are not only larger in scale but have the same, if not more detail than your maps.

And let's be fair, I'm running with everything on low/off and I'm getting 40 fps on a med spec machine, the game currently looks like HL1 and is running at a disgustingly low framerate. Talking to us like this is a disgrace.

 

[illscarlettNP]

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

Wow, you just lost a lot of respect there.

It's funny how you continue to bash "Console ported games", yet sometimes these games simply look better. And take Crysis for example (Not ported). Most moderate machines can run it well, yet they struggle with RO2.

I would rather play a game which has great graphics and plays smoothly, than one where I need to make my game look like Day of Defeat 1.6 to have it play smoothly. Sorry, but your comment was just a big pile of ignorance and repetitiveness. I'm starting to grow sick of you and your DEVS.

 

[rpxy24]

Well i have to agree here... How can one be so pompous & full of himself after failing so hard?

To sum it up, your code is the best, your game is the most detailed & beautiful, gamers are idiots unable to build a rig properly and are unable to adjust their settings. Read the dude's posts...

Beating the recommended specs yet having to overclock the cpu & tweak the inis just to get DOD 1.6 graphic quality (everything on low) & a barely acceptable framerate... but hey apparently it's 1) normal 2) my fault & 3)i'm an idiot for not realising it's my fault...

I reckon you can make good games.
I also reckon you're horribly arrogant, full of yourself, egocentric & pompous.

The nerves...

 

[Richey79]

In common with most console ports, RO2 puts virtually all of the strain on the CPU, off-loading almost none of it onto GPU.

This is the problem.

 

[asphantix]

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

ARE YOU SERIOUS?? In another Thread you guys admit that there's a CPU bug which also cuts down the performance of the GPU - that is why the game runs like crap. Fix that bug and don't be so bloody arrogant and don't make the game look even more ****tier by removing the detail - just fix the bug which causes that our GPU usage is only 20-30%

I run Crysis on ultra very smooth which is indeed a PC title and no console port at all. RO2 is stuttering on low.

specs: Phenom II x6 1055t, Radeon HD 6870, 8GB DDR3 RAM

Son I am disappoint

 

[un_fumeta]

Well, that's a pity. I love the attention to detail in the maps (but for the boundaries), and one of the things that really got my attention was the bricks lying in the ground of a destroyed building.

I have a GTX470 and it's perfectly playable with everything on ultra (no AA but 1920x1280; haven't installed today's patch yet). Probably there are other optimisations that can be done instead of deleting squares.

 

[Rumo]

Thanks John for taking the time to answer.

Well, that's a pity. I love the attention to detail in the maps (but for the boundaries), and one of the things that really got my attention was the bricks lying in the ground of a destroyed building.

Yep, I fully agree with you.
When I first saw them, I was really impressed how they boosted the immersion.

And since I got a workaround for my Crossfire, I could play quite nice with high settings and textures to ultra in my Eyefinity 6144x1152 resolution, so I will miss these details.

Could it be possible to toggle these details ingame with a switch or via setting in the ini in the future or are these bound to the map directly, John?