AGN: What one optimization item would you like SOE to focus on? - ReachCast Episode 49 CQ

ReachCast · 2013-08-27, 01:43 PM

This weeks question is ...

“If you had to pick one performance issue to be fixed before SOE began spending time on new content, what would you want it to be?”

as always if you would like to call or email in your answer below is that info

Email us at [email protected]
Call us at (415)787-3224

kubacheski · 2013-08-27, 01:52 PM

Run speed is a little lacking. My infil just can't keep up with the vehicles

But seriously. The rate at which optimizations take place is a little lacking. I find it odd that this hasn't occurred 15 times or so with all of the GU's they've put out. I would suspect that Smed could increase his performance in properly developing an MMOFPS, by having his team actually work to improve the game performance instead of simply adding new content to satisy the playerbase.

So i would suggest that SOE increase their performance in getting the development and QA teams to perform the proper performance optimizations before (and after) any new content goes in.

Ruffdog · 2013-08-27, 02:23 PM

I'd like to turn on PhysX and run the game for more than 5 minutes before a slideshow breaks out

bpostal · 2013-08-27, 02:28 PM

Straight FPS increases will work just fine for me. I'm hoping for these increases with the multicore improvements coming with the PS4.

Hirvox · 2013-08-27, 02:50 PM

Multicore support. Pretty much every CPU made in the last few years has multiple cores, and no game should claim to be CPU-bound while it's using less than 20% of the CPU's power. That's like making 32-bit applications when the average consumer-grade PC has more than 4 gigabytes of RAM. Oh, wait..

RANDOMpercent · 2013-08-27, 03:28 PM

My computer is only lacking in it's GPU, so some help there would be nice. Other than that I only have problems running higher settings when I'm fighting at facilities.

Tatwi · 2013-08-27, 03:29 PM

After not playing since early March, after giving up on the game due to how hopelessly bugged it had become (it was literally unplayable, with the world flashing, people flying around, and de-sync issue), I decided to give it a whirl again this past week. I did not have the world flashing issue, nor did I have the issue where everyone was completely messed up, jumping all over, but I did experience a de-sync issue where I couldn't interact with the world, but others could kill me (my grenades/mines did not explode and my hits did not register, but I was there in the world to be shot).

I have read a lot of posts on the official forums dating back in most cases to release regarding the world flashing issue and the de-sync issue, so I would say that both of those should be the top priority for "optimization" as they make it impossible to play the game.

Performance wise, the game played pretty much the same on my computer as it did last September. which is alright I suppose, but could be better. My issues, in order of importance are:

1. Massive "hitching" when flying anywhere near a battle and when taking damage. I go from 70 FPS to 0 FPS and usually end up slamming into something, due to losing control of the game.

2. 5-20 FPS in modest battles (24-48 people) stinks. Frankly, I can play other shooters with more players and have more consistent, playable FPS (40 - 60). Why does PS2 dog it so much with so few players, yet it's supposed to offer "massive battles on an epic scale" or some similar nonsense?

3. Hit registration stinks. Sometimes I have these amazing moments where I take out 3 guys at once and I can't help but think it's because their hits aren't registering, just as mine some times fail to register. Reliable, consistent hit detection in a FPS is very important.

Graphically, the game is great and runs great. It always has. I get 70-80 FPS flying around alone on Indar with my ancient Core2 Q8200 / GTS450 / 8GB DDR2. However, like I said in beta: PS2 is a shooter game, not a terrain generator and we more consistent frame rates when fighting.

The FPS meter in PS2 is also inaccurate. While it may say 20 FPS, often there is so much hitching/stuttering in fights that whole seconds go by without any frame changes at all. That's BIG issue performance right there, because it makes it extraordinarily hard to mouse-look/aim.

Timithos · 2013-08-27, 04:35 PM

#1) Who's quitting the most, and what are their CPUs and GPUs? You guys should have the data. That's what I would focus on. Which players with what CPUs & GPUs are quitting this game the most. Which i7's, which AMDs, etc.

I want to see optimization linked with player retention and to stop the bleeding.

#2) Read and watch all the guides on improving FPS, and see what are the top things that players unfortunately have to turn off: shadows, Phyx, etc. Whatever the top things players have to turn off, then work on optimizing that. Again, you guys should have the data.

Ghoest9 · 2013-08-27, 04:40 PM

I would like to see changes in the server code so it doesnt favor running so much.

Sirisian · 2013-08-27, 05:17 PM

Hard to name one, but I'd say drop DX9 would be the single biggest optimization angle for Planetside 2.

Switch to DX11 (or OpenGL 4.3) and drop DX9 support (skipping DX10) as no one plays the game with those outdated cards. Use a multithreaded renderer and reimplement all the post-processing using the modern compute shader passes. (Much faster than the pixel shader using proper thread groups assuming a modern deferred renderer).

Implement particles from scratch solely on the GPU using geometry shaders and compute shaders. Reimplement your shadows using rectilinear shadow mapping and don't allow it to be turned off.

Essentially DX11 has optimal algorithms designed for it that are not being utilized right now and would take a lot of stress off the CPU. Not using those features is holding the game back drastically. (The PS4 version will be OpenGL 4.3 I hope and won't suffer from these inane backwards compatibility decisions).

Sunrock · 2013-08-27, 05:19 PM

How about making the game stop crashing every time I tab out?

PinetreeRoad · 2013-08-27, 05:20 PM

Its probably a lot of work, but making the game 64-bit aware would be nice. The current recommended RAM requirements are unrealistic since this game is 32-bit. Being able to access more than 4 GB of RAM would probably help.

Proper multithreading.

DirectX 11 support, i know this is not an easy addition but it is more efficient than DirectX 9 in many ways.

Improvements to the netcode, so that we get shot around corners less. Battlefield has this same issue, its extremely frustrating.

As an afterthought:
When we get performance improvements i hope they can raise the resolution of the ground textures. The ground looks terrible.

Ghoest9 · 2013-08-27, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

How about making the game stop crashing every time I tab out?

This is a lame bug. For over 6 months you could log out of the game just fine - then they broke it and never fixed it.

camycamera · 2013-08-27, 05:49 PM

multicore hands down. it would DOUBLE the performance of everyone here. getting 30fps in a biolab when only using 1 and a half cores sucks, but using 3 or 4.... double that number.

camycamera · 2013-08-27, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

I get 70-80 FPS flying around alone on Indar with my ancient Core2 Q8200 / GTS450 / 8GB DDR2.

that CPU is 5 years old, with only 2.33GHZ (my CPU is an i5 3570 @ 3.40ghz, and i get about 30-40 FPS on average in large battles) on and you have DDR2 RAM.

honestly i don't think you should be complaining, that PC like you said IS ancient, it may have been good back then, but now.... nope.

I think you are going to have to visit Goku