Regarding performance

[Nequit]

I believe so, yeah. Actually I would be extremely surprised if you couldn't run it on low, doubt you'll be able to play on high-ultra unless you're still on 800x600 though.

For the last few weeks when I was reading ROHS support forum I came across of few posters which claim this game was unplayable for them on very similar computer.
And I am pretty damn close to 800x600. Still using 1280:1024, because I personally hate widescreen and can't afford for big EIZO or NEC

 

[j1yeon]

I have no problem with a game of this magnitude requiring a lot of power to run properly, but there are definitely some other issues going on that are causing severe performance problems.

Even when I set the game to LOWEST so it looks like Day of Defeat 1, I still get the same terrible framerate and choppiness in 64-player servers.

FWIW I noticed a massive performance difference when playing on 32-man servers. I raised the level of detail and the game was still running quite smooth.

I'll be happy as long as I can get this game running smooth on max player servers, regardless of graphic fidelity.

 

[Darkseed]

The beta ran just fine, the retail does not. Something must have gotten screwed up along the way.

 

[Maizel]

Well, maybe in 5 years, there will be some CPU's which make crossfire worthwhile for RO2.

 

[Derpus]

People are reporting on the support forums that deactivating the steam overlay helps increasing performance.

Interesting, I'll give that a shot when I play later. Have you tried it yet?

 

[vyyye]

For the last few weeks when I was reading ROHS support forum I came across of few posters which claim this game was unplayable for them on very similar computer.
And I am pretty damn close to 800x600. Still using 1280:1024, because I personally hate widescreen and can't afford for big EIZO or NEC

Were they running at similar resolutions? I've heard of several who ran the game fine on a HD5xxx series card on higher resolutions and your processor is hardly from 1999 either.

Don't know man, my guess is that it could run it. Else you simply have to find a way to try the game, like a free weekend.

 

[Char Aznable]

I find it rather humorous that instead of just admitting that the game was not as optimized as it should be on launch you guys start just calling other games out as being "console ports." Quite the mature attitude guys.

 

[clench]

I find it rather humorous that instead of just admitting that the game was not as optimized as it should be on launch you guys start just calling other games out as being "console ports." Quite the mature attitude guys.

Name one major release FPS game in the past 5 years that wasn't a console port

 

[Citzen_Snips]

The beta ran just fine, the retail does not. Something must have gotten screwed up along the way.

Word. I could get solid 50 and occasional 60 fps on most maps, until the release came out. The performance level started low, then high, and now it's back to low. This beta testing has gone public.

 

[Maizel]

Name one major release FPS game in the past 5 years that wasn't a console port

Crysis.

 

[atomMan]

So, let's lay this out a little bit. The game is CPU bound on almost all systems. The reason that people are not seeing any 1 core at 100% is because the CPU is thrashing itself trying to improve performance, but in this case it doesn't have the ability to do so. There are 2 main threads in the Unreal Engine, a Game Thread and a Rendering Thread. Right now, the Rendering Thread is generally the one maxing out on machines and it's getting tossed amongst the 3 cores that the Game Thread is not running on.

If you set ROGame.exe to have a 2 core processor affinity, you will probably see 1 core maxed out and the other core at 40-60%.

I LOVE when developers talk dirty.

Myself, I've come to conclusion RO2 LOVES high frequency CPU,
preferably Intel.

Please, I wanna hear more of this... stuff


PS

50fps on FX-60...........In what century was that RO2 build

 

[mestido]

Great read.

 

[vyyye]

Name one major release FPS game in the past 5 years that wasn't a console port

If we're talking RO2 numbers

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

 

[Josef Nader]

Great news guys. I look forward to being able to turn on some of the prettier effects in the coming weeks.

 

[Brozex]

Good post, thanks.

 

[Dumba [cro]]

(for example, I have a five year old AMD FX-60 dual core with an 8800 sitting next to me that runs the game at a solid 50 frames per second).

Somehow this doesn't sit very well here, I'm sorry. So because you developed the game on an old dual core, it's supposed to run bad on computers with 2 or even more times processing power (god know how much faster those shiny new i7s are...)? Really? Good thing you haven't developed it on Celerons then, we'd be having 5 fps now!

 

[Sunshine]

However I think people will be disappointed that their systems don't run the game as well as they'd like to...I've been building PC's and gaming for a long time and technology does get outdated rather fast. If you want your system to produce up to your expectations you'll likely need to upgrade every 2 years at least, no more than 3.

Actually, ever since Crysis (the first one) you didn't really have to update your PC unless you upgraded your screen size, since just about all games since then where targeted at the consoles (with some notable exceptions, like ArmAII). That is part of RammJaeger's point - PC gamers have become accustomed to new releases not pushing the envelope.

And to those claiming RO2 doesn't push the envelope graphically - show me any other game with these graphics on similarly large maps. Other games may look better, but they achieve this by limiting their level design so they don't have to draw nearly as much (see Crysis 2 for a prime example).

 

[atomMan]

And to those claiming RO2 doesn't push the envelope graphically - show me any other game with these graphics on similarly large maps.

ARMA 2, DCS:A-10

Much, much larger maps.
And with bigger rendering distance


Also some stunning graphics too.

 

[Vazzaroth]

Just wanted to say that RO2 has made me happy I bought 600$ of computer upgrades a month before it's launch to prepare. I've never dropped below 45ish and I'm normally around 60 frames, at least in the beta.
Ping is pretty spotty, and servers seem to be laggy more time than not though.

 

[Couac]

You probably are CPU limited. Your multiple core CPU doesn't help AT ALL if the game code can't be executed concurrently. And draw calls might just fall into that category. My point is that unless you know something about programming you don't understand why you're CPU bound

First thank you to look me down.
Then, well as a matter of fact, yes I do know a thing or two about programming but still, I really don't get your point.
Core 1 never reaches more than 50% usage, neither do other cores.
Are you trying to tell me that although only used up to 50% MAX on ONE CORE AT A TIME (it is not the processor that is used to 50% only ONE SINGLE CORE) 50% represents the limit from which my CPU is considered overflowed ?

So, let's lay this out a little bit. The game is CPU bound on almost all systems. The reason that people are not seeing any 1 core at 100% is because the CPU is thrashing itself trying to improve performance, but in this case it doesn't have the ability to do so. There are 2 main threads in the Unreal Engine, a Game Thread and a Rendering Thread. Right now, the Rendering Thread is generally the one maxing out on machines and it's getting tossed amongst the 3 cores that the Game Thread is not running on.

If you set ROGame.exe to have a 2 core processor affinity, you will probably see 1 core maxed out and the other core at 40-60%.

Oh that explains everything !
So my friend's E8400@3ghz is faster than my Q9550 at 3.8ghz ? I really wonder why I wasted 240€ on a Q9550 when I could have bought a 150€ E8400, silly me !

Do you realize that you just said I am CPU limited with a Q9550 running at 3.8ghz ?
THREE THOUSAND MEGAHERTZ.
That's 1500mhz more than the minimum System Requirements and 1200mhz more than the Recommanded System Requirements. I HAVE SLOW DOWNS AND PERMANENT STUTTER ON MEDIUM AND EVEN ON LOW.
Ok a Q9550 is not the top of the top but it is still WAAAAAAY more powerful than the minimum System Requirements or you may want to change the minimum CPU Required to an overclocked 2500K or something like that.

Oh ..and I did what you said, I deactivated the last two cores and as you can see my CPU is totaly overwhelmed by the stream of information it gets.