Tweet hints at FPS numbers

[Oryon22]

https://twitter.com/tomslick42/status/195941733933121538

Granted, we don't know the hardware specs or graphics settings... but still...

[headcrab13]

I'll buy whatever hardware it takes :D

[lolroflroflcake]

Well its an MMO so I would imagine it was designed to run on a wide array of machines, I don't know about triple digits but I would imagine most people would be able to run the game at a rate that is unnoticeable to the eye. Of course this is all assuming you don't have some crazy Ghost in the Shell cyborg eyes that can watch a humming bird's wings flap in slow motion and see into the ultra-violet and infrared spectrums, and I'm sure you weren't intentionally discriminated against if you do.

[RadioFIN]

Uh oh, another PS2 dev to follow. Thanks :D

[CrystalViolet]

I'd be happy with 30fps without any dropped frames. I've heard this is the limit of the human eye, but there are other factors at play with games.

[Coreldan]

It isnt as simple as 30 FPS. Perhaps the secret is in the "dropped frames" or something, but I've yet to see a game where I wouldnt be able to tell a world apart in 30 fps and 60 fps. Beyond 50 I dont really see a difference personally.

[bjorntju1]

I'd be happy with 30fps without any dropped frames. I've heard this is the limit of the human eye, but there are other factors at play with games.

More than 60FPS and I don't see the difference. But I can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.

Anyways sounds great. However I am curious what specs he has and on with settings.

[CrystalViolet]

I can see the difference as well. Interestingly though. I can't really see any choppiness in movies that were recorded at 24fps (the old standard). My guess is that since video game fame rates are never constant, it causes a conflict with your monitors refresh rate and thus drops a frame here and there.

Interestingly, nvidia's new cards advertise the ability to slow down frame rates when the hardware is overkill for rendering certain games. I wonder if this would make for a smoother looking 30fps if all frames were delivered at precisely that rate?

[Shogun]

three digits framerate...

sounds like they are getting things done and the optimization is going well!
remember the very first agn exclusive gameplay sneak preview?
with higby walking through an empty base without any action?
didn´t he mention a framerate of 30 or something?

now think about how much the game has changed from then and how much graphical stress has been added! and now a coder states that three digits fps rates make him smile...
black magic!

[CyclesMcHurtz]

I will say it wasn't your daddy's 486DX50, that's for sure. ;)

[headcrab13]

Well its an MMO so I would imagine it was designed to run on a wide array of machines, I don't know about triple digits but I would imagine most people would be able to run the game at a rate that is unnoticeable to the eye.

You're definitely right that they'll be trying to bring Planetside 2 to the largest number of machines possible, but I guarantee you it's going to take some SERIOUS hardware to run this baby on max settings at 60+ fps.

[KiddParK]

I will say it wasn't your daddy's 486DX50, that's for sure. ;)

i am that dad, and it had a 540 meg .... MEG hard drive that ran Tie Fighter in all it's glory on it's 512k of video ram...

kp

[Grognard]

I will say it wasn't your daddy's 486DX50, that's for sure. ;)

Ill be damned... I am another "daddy", I had very similar to that back in the day... except it was an SX25, if memory serves... Commodore 64 was my intro to computer gaming... :)

[CyclesMcHurtz]

i am that dad, and it had a 540 meg .... MEG hard drive that ran Tie Fighter in all it's glory on it's 512k of video ram...

kp

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

[Malorn]

i am that dad, and it had a 540 meg .... MEG hard drive that ran Tie Fighter in all it's glory on it's 512k of video ram...

kp

Tie Fighter remains one of my best games of all-time (behind Planetside of course). For 1994 that was such a great game.

[CrystalViolet]

I had a I had a Packard Bell 80286 system, and remember thinking the 386's were hot shit when they came out. :( I also remember me and my friend gawking at a PC magazine article about the very first ever consumer 1gb hard drive. His comment was "That's all the memory you would ever need."

[SurgeonX]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

Hehe, me too.
My first PC was a 286.
Technically my Dad's work laptop, in B&W FFS, but I just hijacked it to play games all the time.
You got some serious ghosting playing Wing Commander like :)

Ah those were the days.
Where you had to manually juggle memory between XMS and HMA just to get a game to run :D

[Shogun]

i can top (or bottom?) this ;)
my first pc only had cga graphics! 4 colors, yeah! it was a 8086 ;)
man was i proud, when i got an ega graphics card and could play indiana jones in 32 colors !

[CrystalViolet]

Hehe, me too.
My first PC was a 286.
Technically my Dad's work laptop, in B&W FFS, but I just hijacked it to play games all the time.
You got some serious ghosting playing Wing Commander like :)

Ah those were the days.
Where you had to manually juggle memory between XMS and HMA just to get a game to run :D

God, don't remind me. I think I probably got 25% of the games I bought to actually run on that overpriced POS. It was my first introduction to the notion that hitting a computer doesn't fix the problem.

[Grognard]

C64 glory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleTech:_The_Crescent_Hawk%27s_Inception


..and one of my all time favorite nostalgia titles (+ sequel)... doubt anyone will remember it... such a good game for its time...

http://boardgamegeek.com/videogame/103005/rules-of-engagement
http://boardgamegeek.com/videogame/80634/rules-of-engagement-2


...and for us mech-lovers:
http://videogamegeek.com/videogame/78503/mechwarrior

[Stardouser]

I wonder what GPUs and CPUs they are developing under/using while devving?

[Shogun]

yep c64 rocked. still got mine, now equipped with a sd card reader with a chip that has way more memory than the computer ;)

if video games count, i started on pong and atari 2600 ;)
there were very little problems with games not running in this era.

[Grognard]

yep c64 rocked. still got mine, now equipped with a sd card reader with a chip that has way more memory than the computer ;)

if video games count, i started on pong and atari 2400 ;)
there were very little problems with games not running in this era.

You still have it?! Thats pretty damn cool :)

[Goku]

More than 60FPS and I don't see the difference. But I can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.

Anyways sounds great. However I am curious what specs he has and on with settings.

Get a 120Hz monitor and you may then. 60Hz won't let you notice anything above 60 FPS.

[CutterJohn]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

Was that a Packard Bell? My parents got us one.. a 286DX2 12mhz with the turbo button that flipped it to 8mhz. Nobody knew why you'd turn the turbo off.

I was so jealous of my friend with a 486. He could play Doom without shrinking the screen to the size of a postage stamp!

[NCLynx]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

I miss the turbo button.

http://techbuket.net/images/2IE9e.jpg

[cryosin]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but how well do you think my comp could handle PS2?

Its an HP Envy:
Core i5 Dual Core w/ HT
4GB Ram
Radeon 5650 1GB(Dedicated/2GB Shared)

I can handle most new games on low-med settings, but i know PS2 is going to require a lot.

And does quad core vs Dual Core matter?

[kaffis]

I can see the difference as well. Interestingly though. I can't really see any choppiness in movies that were recorded at 24fps (the old standard). My guess is that since video game fame rates are never constant, it causes a conflict with your monitors refresh rate and thus drops a frame here and there.

Interestingly, nvidia's new cards advertise the ability to slow down frame rates when the hardware is overkill for rendering certain games. I wonder if this would make for a smoother looking 30fps if all frames were delivered at precisely that rate?
It's very simple. Video games don't motion blur. The camera movies are recorded with captures motion blur naturally. Motion without the appropriate amount of blur looks "choppy" to the human eye.

This is because your eye continuously accepts input, but doesn't process it continually. Instead, the brain perceives small slices of time, and it expects objects in motion to have made an impression on the nerves in the retina at all points between the start end end of that slice of time.

When a game renders crisp still images and puts them up on the screen one at a time, objects in "motion" don't move through the intervening space between their position in one frame and the next, no matter how fast the framerate is. Instead, what we do is try to speed up the framerate so you can cram multiple frames into each slice of time the brain actually processes, creating the illusion of motion.

Shot footage, on the other hand is recorded in such a way that each frame of a movie or video (whether it's digital or film) has that 1/24th (1/30th if it's designed for TV) of a second captured in the same frame. This is why pausing TV or movies, even on DVD, looks blurry if it's an action shot or a fast pan. It actually IS blurry, it's just blurry in a way that your brain expects when it's being shown one frame after another.


So, yeah. If game engines were written with shaders or something that could apply motion blur to individual frames, the quest for maximum framerate would be a lot less of a problem, and we could get away with movie/TV-level framerates (and lower! individuals who get bothered/notice even 20 fps when properly motion blurred are *rare* -- most people's perception limits are in the 15-17 range). The exciting thing is, I think GPU hardware is catching up to the processing requirements to make that a practical engine feature for real-time rendering, so we may actually see engines do this in the near future.

[Machine]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

Heh. I learned to program on an 8086 with a high density floppy.. no double hdd yet with a 5.25 working drive. You need a minigame that will run on that!

[Eyeklops]

Heh. I learned to program on an 8086 with a high density floppy.. no double hdd yet with a 5.25 working drive. You need a minigame that will run on that!

I remember playing with BASIC on my Ti-99-4A and having to store the code on a tape recorder. This was no ordinary computer tape drive, it was in fact, an ordinary tape recorder. You could actually "hear" the damn code streaming off. Was slow as hell, took like 30 seconds for 50 lines of code.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZZxs_RfY9JkgP7wel5weHHtVuY2HAO onfZPT1BlbrZSWWvbCkaw

[Vancha]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but how well do you think my comp could handle PS2?

Its an HP Envy:
Core i5 Dual Core w/ HT
4GB Ram
Radeon 5650 1GB(Dedicated/2GB Shared)

I can handle most new games on low-med settings, but i know PS2 is going to require a lot.

And does quad core vs Dual Core matter?
I'd guess low/med settings for PS2. The GPU might need an upgrade, but maybe not.

Best place for this conversation would probably be the tech forum.

[Arius]

I'll buy whatever hardware it takes :D

Not me. If Sony wants alot of people to play it, they better make mid range computers run it smoothly aswell.

[Goku]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but how well do you think my comp could handle PS2?

Its an HP Envy:
Core i5 Dual Core w/ HT
4GB Ram
Radeon 5650 1GB(Dedicated/2GB Shared)

I can handle most new games on low-med settings, but i know PS2 is going to require a lot.

And does quad core vs Dual Core matter?

Probably lower settings it can. Still don't have the specs yet is all.

[SniperSteve]

FPS games need to be above 60FPS at all times to ensure smoothness. Ideally you want 120 for the fastest feeling response, but 60 is normally okay for most people. If a game goes below 60 I can certainly feel the difference. (I don't know if I see the difference so much as feel it)

[Figment]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

Hercules graphics to play Jumpjet! :D


I remember our old MSX: keyboard, floppy drive and pc in one! :x

http://www.nikbull.co.uk/Angeldust/MSX_files/Philips_MSX_V6_8235_Large.jpg

[Baneblade]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

I still have my amber monochrome 12 inch monitor somewheres.

[Yutty]

if i can get the game to not drop below 40fps in huge battles with lots of particle effects, lights, and explosions, with shadows on i'll be satisfied.

[BlazingSun]

i can top (or bottom?) this ;)
my first pc only had cga graphics! 4 colors, yeah! it was a 8086 ;)
man was i proud, when i got an ega graphics card and could play indiana jones in 32 colors !

One of the first PC games that I played was Indiana Jones: The last crusade .. played it on a 286 with a black and white 12" monitor or something. That game was really tough as you couldn't see shit on that monitor :p

[Lokster]

I'll throw some updates on my BEAST (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40189) if necessary to ensure I'm seeing these numbers.

120fps on a new gen engine with the quality of atmosphere I am seeing in those screens is quite frankly AMAZING.

I absolutely cannot wait!

[headcrab13]

Not me. If Sony wants alot of people to play it, they better make mid range computers run it smoothly aswell.

Oh yeah, you'll definitely be able to play on a mid-range. As I said in my second post, this is an MMO and they need to appeal to the masses, hardware-wise.

The reason I'm building a machine specifically for PS2 is that I want to see what we're seeing in these max-settings screenshots, all the time and in fluid motion. I'm also going to take HD gameplay footage and put out fan videos to get even more people in on the action.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

... If game engines were written with shaders or something that could apply motion blur to individual frames, the quest for maximum framerate would be a lot less of a problem, and we could get away with movie/TV-level framerates (and lower! individuals who get bothered/notice even 20 fps when properly motion blurred are *rare* -- most people's perception limits are in the 15-17 range). The exciting thing is, I think GPU hardware is catching up to the processing requirements to make that a practical engine feature for real-time rendering, so we may actually see engines do this in the near future.

You should be even more excited - Motion Blur is not new technology for video games. It started appearing in around 2005 and has been in some games and not others. Gears of War, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Mirrors Edge are just a few of the better done ones (not referring to game-play, just motion blur).

[ Warning - technical content below ]

As for the quest for maximum frame rate ... it's really a matter of responsiveness. At 20fps the game is taking 50ms to display a frame. On your typical console (most are different in PC's in a key way, noted below) this results in about 100ms-110ms lag time between user input and action on screen. This is very noticeable.

[shoot] -> [ CPU work (50ms) ] -> [ GPU work (50ms) ] -> [ Display! ]

The reason I singled out consoles is because the typical PC these days has additional latency and measuring it for individual games is difficult. Most DirectX devices can queue up to 3 frames of graphics, resulting in 150ms (again, referencing 20fps only here) for just rendering lag, an additional 50ms for the game to figure out what to draw, resulting in a worst case of 200ms (substantially more). You can see this in your graphics control panel for your video card under something like "Manage your 3D settings --> pre-rendered frames". Most of the time this is set to 3. This can (doesn't always) turn into:

[shoot] -> [ CPU work (50ms) ] -> [ GPU queue 1 (50ms) ] -> [ GPU queue 2 (50ms) ]-> [ GPU queue 3 (50ms) ]-> [ Display! ]

This queue is designed to 'absorb' spikes in CPU time - the CPU is usually not the bottleneck and can quickly recover. High-quality coders know how to manage this latency well and can control it on the PC. The additional benefit to multi-GPU systems is you can reduce this time by half (if the CPU can keep up) because each video card can do work on a different frame which allows them to stagger over time. You can get up to about 90% increase in frame rate with these systems. Note 50ms was cut out, but the same number of frames were rendered below which means the FRAME RATE increased, but the LATENCY didnt' change:

[shoot] -> [ CPU work (50ms) ] -> [ GPU queue 1 (50ms) ]
-> [ GPU queue 2 (50ms) ]
-> [ GPU queue 3 (50ms) ]-> [ Display! ]

You can also have strange effects due to poor multi-CPU usage. If a theoretical n00b coder puts the game code into four distinct functions, each around the same time and runs them on four different CPU's, the frame rate may be fast but since each function depends upon the result of the previous function - and that's going to take four whole frames to process. The result is that if this theoretical system was running at our 20fps, then with the 3 pre-rendered frames queued up and the four-frame latency in place you are looking at (4 cpu + 3 GPU + 1 display)*50ms latency - almost a HALF SECOND from when you clicked fire to when the shot happens on screen. The frame rate is STILL 20fps, however.

[Input (cpu 1)]
-> [Game Logic (cpu 2)]
-> [Physics (cpu 3)]
-> [Render Magic (cpu 4)]
-> [GPU Queue 1]
-> [GPU Queue 2]
-> [GPU Queue 3] -> [Display!]

Even a game running at 60fps would feel laggy with this (worst case) coding (4 cpu + 3 GPU + 1 display)*16ms = 128ms latency - looks like 60fps, feels like 8fps.

Fortunately, I haven't met any coders on FPS games who think this would be acceptable.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled troll... er, forum reading. :)

[SniperSteve]

Nice Post :D

[cryosin]

I'd guess low/med settings for PS2. The GPU might need an upgrade, but maybe not.

Best place for this conversation would probably be the tech forum.

Its a laptop so i can't upgrade =\.

I have an old desktop with an 8800gt but it needs a mobo/cpu/ram upgrade(and probably a PSU along that).

I dont have $700+ to spend on a new comp but i really wanna lag free PS2 experience =(

[Chefkoch]

I also remember me and my friend gawking at a PC magazine article about the very first ever consumer 1gb hard drive. His comment was "That's all the memory you would ever need."

Thats exactly what i thought when i bought my first 1gb drive ages ago !!

Or watching Rebel Assault Cutscenes for the first time....wow that CD-1x Drive was well worth it :D

[NCLynx]

Speaking of numbers, my Station Cash is increasing in numbers and I'd like to spend it. On planetside 2 stuff. Now. Please.

:D

[Stew]

Yeah thats a great news ad some 200 to 600 people in there and the game will run at 60 FpS just fine :D

[Snipefrag]

You can also have strange effects due to poor multi-CPU usage. If a theoretical n00b coder puts the game code into four distinct functions, each around the same time and runs them on four different CPU's, the frame rate may be fast but since each function depends upon the result of the previous function - and that's going to take four whole frames to process. The result is that if this theoretical system was running at our 20fps, then with the 3 pre-rendered frames queued up and the four-frame latency in place you are looking at (4 cpu + 3 GPU + 1 display)*50ms latency - almost a HALF SECOND from when you clicked fire to when the shot happens on screen. The frame rate is STILL 20fps, however.:)

It adds a completely new level to coding when your working in a real time environment, I work in the broadcast industry on the software that controls tv channels (including some big ones over in America which i wont name) where the standard is 25fps, (40ms timeslices to process each frame or tick). A lot of time is spent making sure that we don't break through that 40 ms timeslice... If we do schedules for that station can slip, and it generally makes everyones jobs a bit harder. Some of our systems have upwards of 15 tv channels and all of their real time devices (think video playout, logos, graphics, up/down scaling, audio processing) running on a single server, so it can be a challenge at times.

I guess making a game is similar in that respect, intelligent use of threading (and not just threading for the sake of it) must play a vital role.

One question i have is with regards to frame rate, in my job i KNOW that i'm going to be afforded 40ms for all the framework, drivers and components to process everything for that frame. We have a purpose built scheduler tailored around this fact, in a game engine such as forgelight my guess is that your client side scheduler will try and be as greedy as possible with regards to framerate like a normal FPS game, taking as much CPU as possible to give the highest framerate you can.. Is this scheduling solely a reactive thing client side, or is the data received from the server (such as when you are just about to fly over a base with 300 troops in) used to project and smooth out these spikes that might cause things to slow down?

[headcrab13]

You should be even more excited - Motion Blur is not new technology for video games. It started appearing in around 2005 and has been in some games and not others. Gears of War, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Mirrors Edge are just a few of the better done ones (not referring to game-play, just motion blur).

[ Warning - technical content below ]

Awesome explanation; it's so badass to see you guys sharing something almost every day, whether it be coding examples or gameplay concepts or screenshots or 3D models. Very cool stuff!

[headcrab13]

Its a laptop so i can't upgrade =.

I have an old desktop with an 8800gt but it needs a mobo/cpu/ram upgrade(and probably a PSU along that).

I dont have $700+ to spend on a new comp but i really wanna lag free PS2 experience =(

No worries, you've got plenty of time to save up, and you probably won't even have to spend $700. Most people suspect that PS2 will launch in 2013, so that gives you at least 7 months to save.

Mow a few lawns, deliver a few pizzas, and you'll be good to go by next year.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

... One question i have is with regards to frame rate, in my job i KNOW that i'm going to be afforded 40ms for all the framework, drivers and components to process everything for that frame. ...

The big difference is that you can predict the hardware you will be running on with greater certainty than a PC game developer. Console developers have the same advantage - the platform is fixed. PC developers, not so much. There are some tricks we could do that would be awesome on the extreme monster 6 core/12 thread processors that would definitely make the lesser processors struggle.

The goal is to have CONSISTENT frame rate on a VARIABLE platform. It is far easier to play a game at a CONSISTENT fps and input lag than at a variable fps with also variable input lag. Nothing sucks worse than trying to fire your weapon right when a huge CPU/GPU workload spike hits. This level of optimization is not done at the last minute, it has to be designed in from the start.

With that in mind, scheduling work on the CPU's is done by knowing what's important and what isn't. I'm sorry, but we're not going to animate the tank treads for the guy half-way across the map. It just doesn't matter. It DOES matter than when you shoot at him, you HIT him (or miss him) correctly. If that means we're not animating all the fingers for the people on the other side of the wall, we might be forgiven.

For fun, you should find a buddy to play any of the current hot titles at medium settings and watch over their shoulder for:
- People popping in and out
- guns firing at strange angles
- people "ice skating" as they run around
but I warn you, once you start looking it cannot be unseen ... just like the famous bit in Star Wars (the original) when Luke returns from blowing up the death star
[ LEA ] "Luke!"
[ LUKE ] "Carrie!"

And (to get back to the original topic here) while me flying around the map at max settings and getting super frame rate in a little window (yes, it was a LITTLE window - this was purely a CPU test with very low player counts) is great the key is to get everyone the ability to set up the system for a CONSISTENT frame rate with LOW input latency.

<begin personal note>
and on a PERSONAL note - I think we would all be very interested to hear what you folks think of as a mid-level machine :)
and NO, I won't be commenting on system specs until AFTER SOE announces the requirements
<end personal note>

[Aaron]

Phenom II x4 940 3.00 GHz
Radeon HD 6770
4 GB RAM

On BF3, it recommends high settings for me. Is that something like mid-level? Am I in PS2 range?

[Coreldan]

Phenom II x4 940 3.00 GHz
Radeon HD 6770
4 GB RAM

On BF3, it recommends high settings for me. Is that something like mid-level? Am I in PS2 range?

This would sound like fairly mid-level for PS2 in my head overall.

I only have a bit better rig (I recall comparing 5770 and 6770, difference is minimal), considering about getting a new GPU for PS2 so I can keep on recording gameplay.

Phenom II x6 1090T 3,5ghz
Radeon HD5770 1gb
8GB of DDR 1333mhz RAM

[basti]

The big difference is that you can predict the hardware you will be running on with greater certainty than a PC game developer. Console developers have the same advantage - the platform is fixed. PC developers, not so much. There are some tricks we could do that would be awesome on the extreme monster 6 core/12 thread processors that would definitely make the lesser processors struggle.

The goal is to have CONSISTENT frame rate on a VARIABLE platform. It is far easier to play a game at a CONSISTENT fps and input lag than at a variable fps with also variable input lag. Nothing sucks worse than trying to fire your weapon right when a huge CPU/GPU workload spike hits. This level of optimization is not done at the last minute, it has to be designed in from the start.

With that in mind, scheduling work on the CPU's is done by knowing what's important and what isn't. I'm sorry, but we're not going to animate the tank treads for the guy half-way across the map. It just doesn't matter. It DOES matter than when you shoot at him, you HIT him (or miss him) correctly. If that means we're not animating all the fingers for the people on the other side of the wall, we might be forgiven.

For fun, you should find a buddy to play any of the current hot titles at medium settings and watch over their shoulder for:
- People popping in and out
- guns firing at strange angles
- people "ice skating" as they run around
but I warn you, once you start looking it cannot be unseen ... just like the famous bit in Star Wars (the original) when Luke returns from blowing up the death star
[ LEA ] "Luke!"
[ LUKE ] "Carrie!"

And (to get back to the original topic here) while me flying around the map at max settings and getting super frame rate in a little window (yes, it was a LITTLE window - this was purely a CPU test with very low player counts) is great the key is to get everyone the ability to set up the system for a CONSISTENT frame rate with LOW input latency.

<begin personal note>
and on a PERSONAL note - I think we would all be very interested to hear what you folks think of as a mid-level machine :)
and NO, I won't be commenting on system specs until AFTER SOE announces the requirements
<end personal note>


Low end:
E8400
Gefore 9600 GT
2 GB Ram

Mid:
Q9550
GTX 280
4 GB Ram

High:
Some Fancy I7 or I5
GTX 480 and Above
8 GB Ram.





Got myself a Q9550, 4 GB of DDR2 Ram, and about to switch my GTX 280 for a GTX 570 (currently in shipping ;) ). Hope i can run the game with rather high settings. :/
Will add another 4 GB of ram at some point, but the CPU cant be changed without a new Main Board, and then i need new Ram as well. :/

[SniperSteve]

Mid level is really hard to define.
I would say it would be less than 8GB of memory, A pre-500 series Geforce card, And at best a lower end quad core.


You didn't ask for it, but:
High End System:
Upper end quad core, and any hex core I would consider a higher end system.
Anything above the basic 500 Geforce I would consider a higher end card.
8+GB would also be high end.

Low End system:
Dual core I would consider a low end (except a few really top-notch dual core CPUs that might be considered a mid-level CPU)
<4GB I would consider low end
Pre 400 series I would consider low end (except the high end 300's that might be considered a mid-level GPU)

[SpirosRonto]

Mid level should be good dual cores(also oc'ed)
like the E8400 3.6 i have now and quad cores
a gts 450 or an 6770
4gb ram recommended

[Goku]

Mid level should be good dual cores(also oc'ed)
like the E8400 3.6 i have now and quad cores
a gts 450 or an 6770
4gb ram recommended

I don't really consider C2D even overclocked to be midranged these days as you can get cheap quad cores now even with a midrange budget. Only dual core I consider midrange is the Core i3 2100.

Anything GTX 260/280, HD 4800, and 5770/6770/7700 I would consider lower midrange. You can get cheap 6800 cards/GTX 560 Ti cards these days is all and many see that as the current midrange cards.

[Snipefrag]

The big difference is that you can predict the hardware you will be running on with greater certainty than a PC game developer.

Thats for certain, we provide the hardware so its consistant. Sounds like a interesting technical challange for sure !

[Fenrys]

I think we would all be very interested to hear what you folks think of as a mid-level machine :)



Upper Low:
Pentium 4
2 GB DDR2 800
Radeon 9800 XT /// GeForece 6800 GS

Lower Mid:
Athlon II X2
3 GB DDR3 1066
GeForce 8800 GS /// Radeon HD 3850

Upper Mid:
C2D E8400
4GB DDR3 1333
GeForce 9800 GTX /// Radeon HD 4770

Lower High:
Phenom II X4 (OC'd) /// i3-540 (OC'd) /// i3-2100
4GB DDR3 1333
Radeon HD 5770 (maybe X-fire) /// GeForce GTX 260 (maybe SLI)

Upper High:
i5-2500k (OC'd)
8GB DDR3 1600
Radeon HD 6870 (OC'd, maybe X-fire) /// GeForce GTX 560 Ti (OC'd, maybe SLI)

Extreme:
i7-3960X (OC'd)
16GB DDR3 2666
GeForce GTX 680 (3-4x SLI) /// Radeon HD 7970 (3-4x X-fire)

[Immigrant]

I guess my machine is just somewhere between upper low and lower mid group atm. However I'm going to invest some money to upgrades components to meet at least upper mid category when PS2 comes out.

[Captain1nsaneo]

I've always thought of my rig as either mid range or slightly below... but I'm not the best with hardware.

Q8200
8GB Ram
GTX 570 and 9800 GT

I've got friends with crazy SLI rigs that make me feel emasculated but then again most of them only have 1 or 2 screens.

[Vancha]

I've always thought of my rig as either mid range or slightly below... but I'm not the best with hardware.

Q8200
8GB Ram
GTX 570 and 9800 GT

I've got friends with crazy SLI rigs that make me feel emasculated but then again most of them only have 1 or 2 screens.
Your CPU's slightly dated, but the vast majority of people aren't going to have anything better than 8GB RAM and a 570.

[headcrab13]

As others have mentioned, a mid-range machine isn't easy to define, but I generally consider mid-range as something that was state of the art two years ago.

Of course an excellent tool is Valve's hardware survey:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I don't have time to calculate it exactly, but it looks like the average gamer's hardware is between 2-3 years old. If we can run PS2 on "average" machines, I think it will be an incredible success.

[Red Beard]

I've got:

i7 950 3.07Ghz
6GB DDR3 2100 <--- If that number is the NB frequency...?
Radeon HD 5850

Nothing OCed...Any thoughts from someone more knowledgeable than me (probably anyone on the forum :lol:)?

[Jimmuc]

anyone with an quad core, 4 gigs ram, and an decent graphics card can play any game with decent fps. most games don't even use more than 2 cores and unless PS2 is programmed as an 64bit program than its not even gonna use more than 2-4 gigs ram. yarr

myself only have an AMD 64 x2 4200, 2 gigs ddr2, and an HD 5770 1gig. got new motherboard recently so only need is new ram and cpu :cool:

[Sabrak]

I consider my computer to be a low mid-end as it has some aging parts but still runs recent games:

Gigabyte P45-DS4 motherboard
Intel Core2Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
4Gb RAM DDR2
ATI Radeon HD5850 (more recent than the rest)


But I'm going to change it soon for some high-end stuff (except the graphic card, as it still has enough guts)

[Toppopia]

Intel Core i7 CPU q720 @ 1.60GHz, 4 cores, 8 logic processors.
RAM 4GB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M

Does this mean my latop is in the Lower-High region?
I think the only thing that lets me down is the graphics card because games like World in Conflict i can't run on highest detail which i a shame because i would like to see washing machines fly out of buildings when hit by artillery shells :(

[Stew]

I remember running my 286/12 (with a Turbo button!) off floppies as well. And then installing the 20Meg hard disk with DOS 3.2! I even had EGA graphics!

I remember myself playing on Monocrhome screen playing king quest 1 typing : open door etc... lolllllll

and the revolution of EGA and also my first adlib sound card and first VGA monitor with the great looking game call King quest V lol It was so revolutionarry for me to play and hear the sound of bees etc.. with my precious Adlib sound card it was the first time i was not playing on PC speakers hahaha !

We are now far from that !

[Stew]

I will say it wasn't your daddy's 486DX50, that's for sure. ;)

Serious question so Is the game is running at 100 fps + with Vsync ? and antialising ?

Also i would like to know if is there with many players on screen or just running around ?

[Stew]

Low end:
E8400
Gefore 9600 GT
2 GB Ram

Mid:
Q9550
GTX 280
4 GB Ram

High:
Some Fancy I7 or I5
GTX 480 and Above
8 GB Ram.





Got myself a Q9550, 4 GB of DDR2 Ram, and about to switch my GTX 280 for a GTX 570 (currently in shipping ;) ). Hope i can run the game with rather high settings. :/
Will add another 4 GB of ram at some point, but the CPU cant be changed without a new Main Board, and then i need new Ram as well. :/

Are we 3 years ago ?

I think the high setting will require at least gtx560 ti

and ultra GTX570 to GTX680

Resolution and antialiasing and vertical sync and tesselation ( if available ) will always eat some performance

But since Nvidia as release the (( adaptive vertical sync setting )) on Gtx 500 and 600 series It can help a lots with perfomance drop ! The vertical sync adaptive is Great !

[bjorntju1]

I got:

E8400 OC'd to 3.5 GHz
GTX 580
4GB ram
600 GB 7200rpm HDD

I recently upgraded my GPU from 2 HD4870's. Now I want to upgrade my CPU, ram and motherboard in the near future. I also want to add an SSD.

[Goku]

Intel Core i7 CPU q720 @ 1.60GHz, 4 cores, 8 logic processors.
RAM 4GB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M

Does this mean my latop is in the Lower-High region?
I think the only thing that lets me down is the graphics card because games like World in Conflict i can't run on highest detail which i a shame because i would like to see washing machines fly out of buildings when hit by artillery shells :(

You have a decent CPU, but the problem is the GPU. With that I would probably say the lower end region. GT 230 was already low end technically when it was released a few years ago.

[WellWisherELF]

- I think we would all be very interested to hear what you folks think of as a mid-level machine :)
<end personal note>

I upgraded my PC about 2 years ago, so I would assume my PC would qualify as "mid-level".

Phenom x4 945 3.0 GHz
GTX 460
4gb ram

High would probably be an i5 or i7, 8gb ram, and a 500 or 600 level card.

[Goku]

@CyclesMcHurtz

Has SOE ever collected hardware data from the Station Launcher/Game launchers to determine what their current playerbase has for PC configurations? Something similar to the Steam survey.

[CTheRain]

CPU: Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.38GHz
RAM: DDR2 8GB 800MHz
Video Card: GTX 570

Will I be able to run it?

[CyclesMcHurtz]

Has SOE ever collected hardware data from the Station Launcher/Game launchers to determine what their current playerbase has for PC configurations? Something similar to the Steam survey.

I'm not in a related department, so I don't know about any survey anything. I (and most gamers probably) have looked at several sources with info about what people have.

My question was different.

I've seen many people talk about different machines on these forums, and any survey will tell you what people HAVE, but these surveys never say how people FEEL about them. I was genuinely curious (on a personal note) what people consider a mid-level machine. At home, I have quite the spread from a somewhat old 1.8GHz single-core 64 bit machine with a 8600GT (it's a linux box for fun - Oolite!) through several machines up to my laptop (the best machine at home right now) with an i7/560M and a 1080p screen.

I know what these machines are capable of, and I know the performance from a serious coder/electronics geek level. I see my family discuss how their machines work, and then there's the developers - who often have phenomenal hardware for developing because compiling takes serious Storage and CPU power these days.

My laptop can handle some modern games pretty well at 720p resolutions and medium settings (which I personally am fine with) - and I play a few at full 1920x1080 at a moderate frame rate (~30fps). I'm fine with that at home right now.

I think the results so far point to a small variation on what people consider a "mid-level" machine. I know my view is fairly skewed based on the awesome hardware we have access to, but we also have many other machines to test with and I'd like to make sure my second machine here is a mid-level. I don't consider it fair to truly test performance in general on my dev box.

[kaffis]

Low end:
E8400
Gefore 9600 GT
2 GB Ram

Mid:
Q9550
GTX 280
4 GB Ram

High:
Some Fancy I7 or I5
GTX 480 and Above
8 GB Ram.
This is more or less what I would have quoted. I think mid-range 400 series nVidia GPUs (450's, 460's) are probably slipping back to mid-range, and will be solidly considered "nice" mid-range cards by the time PS2 ships -- they can already be had for ~$125, and more 600's will drive the prices on 500's down in the next 6 months.

Core 2's are aging, but probably a good target benchmark for right on the border between low-end and mid-grade due to a combination of age and their amazing performance for their age.

My only criticism is that it might not be outrageous to consider 4GB RAM "low", particularly if one isn't concerned with supporting XP systems (if the game is DX10 only, for instance). I rarely see systems built for Vista or 7 with less than 4GB.

One thing people have been omitting, though -- what do we consider low/mid/high for video RAM? Is it safe to call 512MB video RAM "low" now? High is probably >= 2GB.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

Serious question so Is the game is running at 100 fps + with Vsync ? and antialising ?

Also i would like to know if is there with many players on screen or just running around ?

This was a purely contrived test and I was just saying how nice it is to see three digits. I'm sure I could contrive a non-real-world test with amazing frame rate, but that wouldn't prove anything. If I shrink the window down to 32x32 ... turn off all magic ... render only the LEFT side of the players ... turn in a circle three times and click my heels ... infinity frame rate!

And whatever we do, I'm sure the intert00bs will find a way to break the servers at least once during testing. I have faith in that. :)

[Bags]

I feel mid ranged with a

460 GTX 1gb OC'd @ 850/4000
8gb ddr 3 @ 1600 11-11-11-24
2500k @ default clocks for now

Ws planning on SLIing 460 for PS2, but they are going out of stock, will ugprade to something in the $250 - 300 range if needed.

[Shogun]

i consider my system midrange.

it was a lower highclass gamer laptop when i bought it.

it´s a msi gt627
core 2 duo 2.53 ghz
4gb ram
nvidia gf 9800m gs

i hope i will get decent framerates on low settings for ps2.

[Fenrys]

i7 950 3.07Ghz
6GB DDR3 2100 <--- If that number is the NB frequency...?
Radeon HD 5850


The number is talking about the frequency of the RAM. Unlike earlier Intel CPUs, the memory controller is inside the i7 950, not on the NB.

I'd put that system somewhere between mid and upper High - faster than the system I'm planning to use when PS2 is released. With a good SSD, yours would be an ideal system for both work and play, while remaining reasonably priced.

[FIREk]

Even for low end 2GB just means the owner is a cheap shit. :P

[Shogun]

not all low end boards support more than 2gig.

my laptop is maxed out with 4 gig. would install more, but i can´t.
and my last laptop before this one (wasn´t very old as well. it´s about 4 years old now) wouldn´t let me install more than 2 gigs of ram.

[basti]

This was a purely contrived test and I was just saying how nice it is to see three digits. I'm sure I could contrive a non-real-world test with amazing frame rate, but that wouldn't prove anything. If I shrink the window down to 32x32 ... turn off all magic ... render only the LEFT side of the players ... turn in a circle three times and click my heels ... infinity frame rate!

And whatever we do, I'm sure the intert00bs will find a way to break the servers at least once during testing. I have faith in that. :)

Wont fail your faith man. Already got fancy stuff ready to stress the client, not to mention all the nasty stuff i will do to it :P

As for the servers, well, i do plan to gather a whole continent into one area... ;)

[NivexQ]

Except for my gpu bottleneck (i'll be upgrading before ps2 comes out) I consider myself on the low High end

radeon hd 5770 (i'll be getting a 7870)
amd fx-8120 3.1 oc'd to 4.2
16gb ddr3 1600 9-9-9-24

[SniperSteve]

yeah, you can expect that we will max out a server, do a cease fire, all gather in one place, and then kill eachother. That HAS to happen. And if your servers don't break, then we did our job well and you did your job well :D

[Toppopia]

You have a decent CPU, but the problem is the GPU. With that I would probably say the lower end region. GT 230 was already low end technically when it was released a few years ago.

So i will have to play on lowest graphic settings? I guess that isn't too bad, as long as i can play with a decent frame rate and stuff then i am content, i'm one of the people that don't care too much about a games graphics. :D

[Vancha]

One thing people have been omitting, though -- what do we consider low/mid/high for video RAM? Is it safe to call 512MB video RAM "low" now? High is probably >= 2GB.
Well 2-3GB is high, so mid would probably be 1GB and anything below that is low.

I think the problem is defining what low, mid and high are. Lets take the GTX460/HD6800-level of GPUs. If we're talking about gaming rigs specifically, they're pretty much low-end now. You certainly wouldn't recommend anyone building a rig get anything worse.

If however we're talking about computers in general, they're near the top of mid-range. The amount of gamers who've gotten a new PC since the 500/6000 series released are probably the minority.

[Fenrys]

The quantity of VRAM does not matter until you start using more than 1 GPU.

All graphics cards come with enough VRAM to max out the graphics processor. Adding more won't make it any faster.

If a card normally comes with 1GB, and you want to use 2 cards in SLI//X-fire, then you will want both of them to be the 2GB model. If you want to use 3 GPU's that normally come with 1GB VRAM, then you should get all 3 of them as the 3GB model (for a total of 9GB VRAM, but the same data will be copied 3 times, with the same 3GB of data present within each of your 3 graphics cards).

[CutterJohn]

If I shrink the window down to 32x32

Thats how I played Doom. :groovy:

[Vancha]

The quantity of VRAM does not matter until you start using more than 1 GPU.
:huh:

I know what you meant, but taken literally, that's so not right.

Edit: Though come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I remember reading people were maxing out the VRAM for BF3 and a couple of other games on the last generation's cards. People with 6950s/6970s reporting they had smoother experiences than with their 570s.

[kaffis]

Well 2-3GB is high, so mid would probably be 1GB and anything below that is low.

I think the problem is defining what low, mid and high are. Lets take the GTX460/HD6800-level of GPUs. If we're talking about gaming rigs specifically, they're pretty much low-end now. You certainly wouldn't recommend anyone building a rig get anything worse.

If however we're talking about computers in general, they're near the top of mid-range. The amount of gamers who've gotten a new PC since the 500/6000 series released are probably the minority.
This is probably fair to say. Which corresponds nicely with my earlier post, when I suggested that some 400 series cards are probably dipping into the mid-range department, but not all. So 400's are right on the line, depending on where in the generation your card falls, it's either on the high side of mid-range, or near the bottom of high-end.


The quantity of VRAM does not matter until you start using more than 1 GPU.

All graphics cards come with enough VRAM to max out the graphics processor. Adding more won't make it any faster.

If a card normally comes with 1GB, and you want to use 2 cards in SLI//X-fire, then you will want both of them to be the 2GB model. If you want to use 3 GPU's that normally come with 1GB VRAM, then you should get all 3 of them as the 3GB model (for a total of 9GB VRAM, but the same data will be copied 3 times, with the same 3GB of data present within each of your 3 graphics cards).
I think I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with how you've stated it.

Namely, if what you mean to say is "for single-card setups, the manufacturers of the graphics cards generally don't saddle a GPU with less RAM than it needs to keep up," I tend to agree.

However, that's not to say that getting a specific model of a given card with more video RAM than its peers doesn't benefit you. More video RAM means that, say, a mid-range card could use higher texture resolutions than an equally fast card with less RAM. Generally, though, more RAM alone won't allow you to run higher screen resolutions, as that requires horsepower (if you will), as well.

More often, as I understand it, low amounts of RAM will prevent you from running higher screen resolutions that the GPU could keep up with if it weren't swapping data through the PCI bus to keep enough working space for the larger frame buffers.



Also, since I neglected to mention it earlier, CMcHz, thanks for taking the time to explain some interesting under the hood stuff to us non-programmers. The 3 frame pre-render is a bit I didn't know.

[Toppopia]

My brother is defiantly prepared to play this on highest settings, since he custom built his roughly 4 months ago getting the best stuff he could (only the useful stuff) so he can play Crysis on highest settings with a consistent 60 frames i think. I wish i had that computer instead of this laptop :( But it cost him $3000 New Zealand dollars, so like $2500 US roughly??

[CyclesMcHurtz]

... since I neglected to mention it earlier, CMcHz, thanks for taking the time to explain some interesting under the hood stuff to us non-programmers ...

You are very welcome. If you spend enough time reading these forums, the users all deserve the same attention to detail from us as they give TO us. There are some INCREDIBLY detailed posts about issues and questions. I would be MORE than happy to give even more detailed technical posts about internal engine bits, but there are also MANY reasons that won't happen ;)

[CyclesMcHurtz]

Thats how I played Doom. :groovy:

Oh yeah?

THIS is hardcore pixel pushing :)

http://www.retrothing.com/2011/09/super-mario-bros-in-64-pixels.html

[Red Beard]

Oh yeah?

THIS is hardcore pixel pushing :)

http://www.retrothing.com/2011/09/super-mario-bros-in-64-pixels.html

As long as it still has the music I'm happy! ;)

[Fenrys]

Namely, if what you mean to say is "for single-card setups, the manufacturers of the graphics cards generally don't saddle a GPU with less RAM than it needs to keep up," I tend to agree.

Pretty much.

More video RAM means that, say, a mid-range card could use higher texture resolutions than an equally fast card with less RAM.But if the GPU does not have the horsepower to render those textures at a smooth 30+ fps, then loading them into RAM is a wasted effort.

[Brusi]

yeah, you can expect that we will max out a server, do a cease fire, all gather in one place, and then kill eachother. That HAS to happen. And if your servers don't break, then we did our job well and you did your job well :D

2000 PS2 beta testers gathered in the centre of Indar and then all /em fart at once...

The Bending 2