Regarding performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
Nobody said it wasn't running well, and TWI has even said they're working on fixing it, so I don't know why you're still *****ing about it in the first place.
I don't think anyone was disputing what you said here, but the issue is so many people come to the forums and say, "I can play X game why not RO2" without realizing the performance is hugely flawed by the game under-utilizing some medium-to-high en rigs.
dude, if you're not getting it by now, nothing i say will make you understand. so how about we agree to disagree?
Jesus christ ladies, get a grip.
Thanks for the update Ramm, really good of you to come and post something more wordy than "we're working on it".
Thanks for the update Ramm, really good of you to come and post something more wordy than "we're working on it".
Here is my personal experience (on my iPhone at work, so I apologize if I forget a proper name of a setting or something):
I just bought a new PC with an AMD Phenom 955, Sapphire Radeon 6850, 4 gigs of RAM. 64 bit Win 7.
Booted up the game for the first time late last night. Started out in single player with a nice solid 65-66 FPS. When I finally got into action I was sitting around 40-50. This is on the default high settings, by the way.
Decided to take it online and give it a whirl on a 64 man server. I sat around 50 FPS in wide open space. 30-40 with about 10 soldiers around me, but in close quarters and arty going off I've seen it hit as low as 10.
I tried setting the graphics to medium to see if I could get better performance. It was about the same. So I went back to high, turned shadows off, AA off, framerate smoothing off, that other option at the bottom as well (forgot what it was lol). Also tried depthoffield to false like others have. No real difference.
While it's playable. It at least seems impossible to tweak with my setup. I pretty much gave up. Maybe I should try playing a 32 man server instead?
I see people with way better rigs having worse issues.
I just bought a new PC with an AMD Phenom 955, Sapphire Radeon 6850, 4 gigs of RAM. 64 bit Win 7.
Booted up the game for the first time late last night. Started out in single player with a nice solid 65-66 FPS. When I finally got into action I was sitting around 40-50. This is on the default high settings, by the way.
Decided to take it online and give it a whirl on a 64 man server. I sat around 50 FPS in wide open space. 30-40 with about 10 soldiers around me, but in close quarters and arty going off I've seen it hit as low as 10.
I tried setting the graphics to medium to see if I could get better performance. It was about the same. So I went back to high, turned shadows off, AA off, framerate smoothing off, that other option at the bottom as well (forgot what it was lol). Also tried depthoffield to false like others have. No real difference.
While it's playable. It at least seems impossible to tweak with my setup. I pretty much gave up. Maybe I should try playing a 32 man server instead?
I see people with way better rigs having worse issues.
Really? I've got a 460 GTX, and running at 65 fps on medium, 50+ on ultra. Granted, I don't know you personally. I'm curious what the percentage of people are who are having problems.
Damn you. I have a 6850, and am getting about 15-25 fps on relatively low settings.
The game "default" settings - what it itself thinks I should be able to run at 40-50fps - is almost all settings on high. But instead I have to run on practically minimum settings and even then I'm barely able to play.
And all of them are older, have less detailed graphics and/or much smaller, much less complex and much easier to cull levels.
Ramm is right, RO2 is pushing a lot more detail than most other games and it shows in the performance.
Because even at the lowest setting the game is pushing around a multitude of the polygons of the previous game.
Just because you can reduce texture detail so much that everything looks almost uniformly colored doesn't mean that the inherent detailed-ness of the game can be turned down completely. Sure, it'll look like crap because textures are a huge factor in how you perceive the game, but if you'd turn on wire-frame-view you'd see how damn complex it still is.
Unfortunately, of course! In a perfect world games would be much more scalable than they are now (and I'm sure there would be a lot of room for improvement in RO2 in this regard), but "lowest settings looking and running worse than the predecessor" really isn't something that is unique to RO2 or even surprising. Unfortunate as it may be.
I'm sorry about the situation though. I'm lucky enough to get very acceptable performance on high-to-ultra settings but the game clearly eats more performance than is good for it.
Bugs aside, even assuming every bit of processing power was perfectly well spent - which is far from the truth, as it seems - the requirements of the game are way too high!
You just can't expect that many people to have bought monster machines to play the game on an acceptable (not even perfect, just acceptable!) level.
It's a game for a niche crowd anyway and you're further reducing your potential audience with these hardware requirements. Streamlining the experience for mass appeal is well and good, but to me it seems like lower hardware requirements would have netted you a lot more customers.
Furthermore, if you had kept the hardware requirements reasonable people wouldn't have to ask questions. The game would run and that would be it.
Now an excessive amount of people start to compare what game runs how fast and looks how good and RO2 is pretty much always going to lose since a great deal of its complexity simply doesn't show in screenshots. Negative points in reviews, bad word-of-mouth.
Can't be good for sales. I wouldn't know though. I don't know the numbers.
I know that being condescending about it now isn't right though:
[quote=Rammj
Last edited:
To be honest performance with my HD5770, AMD 555 Black Edition and 4GB of RAM isn't too bad. I'm getting more than 30fps anyway with everything on mostly high, for sure.
RO2 is a good looking game and there's some big numbers involved, but the performance should be better really. I think fixing the crashes should be the main thing, then performance, then all the gameplay stuff (but mods will probably fix that, that is if ranking doesn't ruin the mod scene, still don't know how it's going to work out)
RO2 is a good looking game and there's some big numbers involved, but the performance should be better really. I think fixing the crashes should be the main thing, then performance, then all the gameplay stuff (but mods will probably fix that, that is if ranking doesn't ruin the mod scene, still don't know how it's going to work out)
Last edited:
I think people who claim 15 fps with those juiced systems are quite frankly lieing and telling their worst case when playing on a loaded server while holding the sniper scope while looking at pavlov's house from a distance.
Thats why they want your perflog because getting a steady 15 fps with a jacked system defies logic and physics.
Dont confuse HITCHING with fps drops they arent remotely the same thing
Thats why they want your perflog because getting a steady 15 fps with a jacked system defies logic and physics.
Dont confuse HITCHING with fps drops they arent remotely the same thing
Last edited:
And all of them are older, have less detailed graphics and/or much smaller, much less complex and much easier to cull levels.
Ramm is right, RO2 is pushing a lot more detail than most other games and it shows in the performance.
Because even at the lowest setting the game is pushing around a multitude of the polygons of the previous game.
Just because you can reduce texture detail so much that everything looks almost uniformly colored doesn't mean that the inherent detailed-ness of the game can be turned down completely. Sure, it'll look like crap because textures are a huge factor in how you perceive the game, but if you'd turn on wire-frame-view you'd see how damn complex it still is.
Unfortunately, of course! In a perfect world games would be much more scalable than they are now (and I'm sure there would be a lot of room for improvement in RO2 in this regard), but "lowest settings looking and running worse than the predecessor" really isn't something that is unique to RO2 or even surprising. Unfortunate as it may be.
I'm sorry about the situation though. I'm lucky enough to get very acceptable performance on high-to-ultra settings but the game clearly eats more performance than is good for it.
Bugs aside, even assuming every bit of processing power was perfectly well spent - which is far from the truth, as it seems - the requirements of the game are way too high!
You just can't expect that many people to have bought monster machines to play the game on an acceptable (not even perfect, just acceptable!) level.
Thank you for stepping up and making a game that doesn't run nearly as well as console ports, lol!
you. you make sense and i understand that this game is rendering individual bricks and all that, but i am sticking to my guns on this one and regardless of cited examples and their shortcomings, this game should have, at the very least, a more stable fps than what i'm getting on the game's default settings. sorry if i sound like a dick or anything in previous [psts, but the game isn't up to snuff (performance-wise) in my opinion, and a lot of people are having a similar experience.
it's not like i signed up on the forums today and this is my first post. i've been reporting my findings almost daily since final phase of the beta.
Last edited:
Thanks for the update, and as long as the "map optimizations" don't noticeably decrease the visual detail of the game, I'm all for it!
I always find myself asking in these cases whether the people who are complaining and yelling with pitchforks "FIX NOW, you incompetents" ever optimize rendering engines in their spare time. Or hell, even if they optimize as a part of their job. Optimizing code is very complex, and takes not only time, but usually a great deal of intelligence and sometimes straight-up genius. John Carmack is a good example of the later. Often people who have spent little time developing software do not realize the vast complexity of optimization, and thus do not understand why game X is "not properly optimized". Different games take different approaches to what they do, and so do different hardware vendors. This further compounds the complexity of optimizing code. I'm a tad disappointed in the performance of the game, and particularly that at least one of my friends is having performance issues, but having some background and education in software development, I am, perhaps, more patient than some.
I guess that's where my little discourse ends for now. I guess what I really mean to say is:
TL;DR: Making games run fast is hard. Have patience, I'm sure Tripwire will do their best!
I always find myself asking in these cases whether the people who are complaining and yelling with pitchforks "FIX NOW, you incompetents" ever optimize rendering engines in their spare time. Or hell, even if they optimize as a part of their job. Optimizing code is very complex, and takes not only time, but usually a great deal of intelligence and sometimes straight-up genius. John Carmack is a good example of the later. Often people who have spent little time developing software do not realize the vast complexity of optimization, and thus do not understand why game X is "not properly optimized". Different games take different approaches to what they do, and so do different hardware vendors. This further compounds the complexity of optimizing code. I'm a tad disappointed in the performance of the game, and particularly that at least one of my friends is having performance issues, but having some background and education in software development, I am, perhaps, more patient than some.
I guess that's where my little discourse ends for now. I guess what I really mean to say is:
TL;DR: Making games run fast is hard. Have patience, I'm sure Tripwire will do their best!
