Jump to content
Forums

64bit client with Silverfrost?


Taemek

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Luucy said:

Is this person really accusing the whole players having IPS troubles of just lying ??? (It's not like this game hadn't enough problems yet to create some more :D)

 

And is he contradicting himself 15 minutes later ? 

 

 

No, I'm not accusing anyone of lying, I'm simply stating that there are people with higher end systems than mine by far that are having this issue which leads me to believe that there's probably something they're missing, or they're just expecting an old game to run at over 100 fps on a new system just because it's more powerful which isn't always the case.

My saying that the fps spikes are due to plays on screen was in reference to the individuals that are complaining that in highly populated areas fps drops.
Well, that's a given.  ANY time you're surrounded by players in any game your fps is going to drop significantly, further on that note due to the negligence of showing players effects but not the player when you hide players it doesn't really help.

I'm not saying the game is perfect, so please don't even bother acting like I have.  I'm simply stating that what you get in this game isn't terrible.  I've played games that were mainstream, and operated far worse than this one does due to an older engine, and non-optimized code structure.  For me to get what I do on such an "industry aged system" I'd say it's holding up fairly well (the game) but yes, it DOES have areas it can improve upon.  It would be a lot different if your fps were dropping from 60 to 5 while looking at the sky, but such is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ok thank you for the precisions :)

 

As for me, I do have FPS drops every 5 seconds when i'm simply using my sprint with no one around or even just walking around in desertic areas :/ that go from 60 to 40 or even 20 and it causes little freezes and i can't understand where it comes from ! (I've got a i7 proc, 8 Go Ram and Nvidia GTX765M)

 

As you told here,

2 hours ago, Dracconus said:

If they would have went with a static terrain then people would have complained about the linearity of the gameplay, but if they would convert the game objects that are calculated as terrain which would be VERY simple to do in the database (if they coded the game properly) then it would alleviate a lot of the stress the gpu and cpu have to use on irrelevant things.

maybe this could explain my IPS drops and freezes ?

 

Also, I noticed that when my character is moving, the textures of the terrain is weirdly moving, it's kinda ugly and I couldn't manage to fix that by changing any graphics parameters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dracconus said:

My saying that the fps spikes are due to plays on screen was in reference to the individuals that are complaining that in highly populated areas fps drops.
Well, that's a given.  ANY time you're surrounded by players in any game your fps is going to drop significantly, further on that note due to the negligence of showing players effects but not the player when you hide players it doesn't really help.

Now, see, your rig actually has good single-core performance. What I - and many people - are complaining about is how the game completely under-utilizes CPU resources. With client's load being single-threaded as it is, the game only ever uses 25% of my CPU - that one little core is strained to the max while the game is struggling to get 20-30fps on high populated areas. It could have access to at least 4 times the processing power it has, but it doesn't.

The other gripe I have is under-utilization of my GPU. The game almost disregards its existence. I'm fairly sure I'll have same result and performance if I unplug my GPU and just use the integrated graphics. When playing the game my GPU often stays at 0% usage, sometimes jumps to 100 then back down again. Many of the constantly ongoing calculations that this game is dropping onto CPU can most likely be done on the GPU - if it acknowledged that I even have one.


And yes, just like you, I'm not saying the game is bad. It runs OK for me. I get 60 fps in most non-populated areas, I get bearable fps in crowded faction areas, even the blackwyrm - it's not too bad. But it's frustrating to know that it could be way more smooth, it could never dip under 60fps, it could be way more faster in loading, way more seamless in drawing objects entering my FOV, and that my PC has the power to do it, but the game doesn't wanna.

And when/if that happens, then I wouldn't say the game just runs OK, I would say it runs *cricket*ing beautiful. Which is why I hope it does, eventually, happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Now, see, your rig actually has good single-core performance. What I - and many people - are complaining about is how the game completely under-utilizes CPU resources. With client's load being single-threaded as it is, the game only ever uses 25% of my CPU - that one little core is strained to the max while the game is struggling to get 20-30fps on high populated areas. It could have access to at least 4 times the processing power it has, but it doesn't.

The other gripe I have is under-utilization of my GPU. The game almost disregards its existence. I'm fairly sure I'll have same result and performance if I unplug my GPU and just use the integrated graphics. When playing the game my GPU often stays at 0% usage, sometimes jumps to 100 then back down again. Many of the constantly ongoing calculations that this game is dropping onto CPU can most likely be done on the GPU - if it acknowledged that I even have one.


And yes, just like you, I'm not saying the game is bad. It runs OK for me. I get 60 fps in most non-populated areas, I get bearable fps in crowded faction areas, even the blackwyrm - it's not too bad. But it's frustrating to know that it could be way more smooth, it could never dip under 60fps, it could be way more faster in loading, way more seamless in drawing objects entering my FOV, and that my PC has the power to do it, but the game doesn't wanna.

And when/if that happens, then I wouldn't say the game just runs OK, I would say it runs *cricket*ing beautiful. Which is why I hope it does, eventually, happen.

Actually my CPU is surpassed be an i3 in single core performance.
Multi-Threaded is where mine kicks ass, and to prove that point at 3.3ghz I can barely even play this game whereas at 4.0Ghz I'm able to play fairly well.
The game is just poorly optimized to handle its threads.

Also worth noting, The reason that most of us are getting what some are calling "IPS Drops" (although I have no clue what the hell that means) I'm assuming it's Instructions Per Second?   The reason the FPS drops to low, and the game tends to stutter is BECAUSE it's a non-linear game.  It, in its entirety is designed to be a non-linear game.  Cutscenes, and certain dungeons are the only exception to this rule.  That is why if you stand outside of a portal for a few seconds before going through it you don't get a loading screen.  The portals are LITERALLY just there "in case" you need to load.
The only real exception to this rule besides the two examples listed is the phasing system which is what allows you to go onto a map that was populated by mobs and now isn't for a quest, or a dungeon that doesn't have all the mobs spawned because you're running the solo version.  When that happens you're in a "phased" version of that map.  That's why they're solo, because it's VERY difficult to have two players more more on a single phase due to how the system generates the information for it.

The main beneficiary factor a LOT of people have is a high performance SSD.  I haven't had the honor of hacking this game like I'd like to in order to see what all is going on with it.  Could I?  yes, but I won't, because I genuinely DO enjoy playing it, but it's my safe bet that the game is loading anywhere between 500-1000 models, and god only knows how many textures every second due to the sheer amount of pre-rendering that it does.  This is what's taking up a LOT of the system's resources, and unfortunately without editing the configuration files for the engine, and shaders, and lighting, and physics, there's NOT going to be a way to fix this, so we are ENTIRELY dependent on them to find a way to make this work.

Here's the problem with that.  I've done overhauls for games, such as Fallout 4, Fallout 3, Watchdogs, Skyrim, Oblivion, and many others that use VERY high end engines, and getting a game to look the way it does at max settings, but restricting settings is a REALLY big pain in the butt.

I stand by the fact that turning actual game objects into gameobject flags in the database, and setting them as static to load with the map will reduce a LARGE amount of the frame lag; but that's going to amount to longer load times for maps, and such.

If we were to compare this to wow...which I HATE to do...but for the sake of understanding I will.
Wow's maps are nearly twice as large in scale between loading times - It has FAR better frame rate stability, and the reason is because when you see a small boulder, or an herb that you can gather, it's set in the database as a gameobject.  The rock is a static gameobject that loads when the map does, so no matter HOW far away you go, it doesn't disappear from your system resources because it loads as part of the map.  This actually reduces server load by QUITE a lot as well.  

If you're interested in the specifics I will leave you with the words of: "Do a google search for Dracconus huge cities no lag" or "EmuGod huge cities no lag" (I'm not including links to outside websites because of content they host and I want no one to have the ability to say I caused people to discover undesireable elements available to this game.)  
I wrote out full guides on how to do this EXACT implementation with Wow private servers years ago when development for them was just kicking off.  We went from barely able to create custom areas, because they wouldn't load without crashing a clients game to making them as large as we wanted to with NO recourse to the player, frame rate, or server stability at all simply by changing the flag and the database the gameobjects were put into.

Granted, this made load times longer on the server upon restart, but with three to four hour maintenance as a standard per week that additional ten minutes isn't really going to hurt us.

IF NCSoft codes the system properly what we will have is a game boosting performance by nearly 15% at minimum (estimated based off sheer amount of objects that are called "terrain"

If they set them all the non interactive gameobjects like cages, boulders, etc. to load with the map then we will have far less loading as we move from cell to cell in the non-linear environment.  We will also be able to fully utilize the "object distance fade" slider as it was intended, and probably be able to increase our performance gain even more.

Also would like to add one more suggestion to this in case the devs are actually paying attention:

Another way that we could increase frame rate stability in this game ESPECIALLY in areas like when we're fighting BlackWyrm, or huge world PvP fights is by lowering the quality of spell effects on other players rendered on the players screen.  In other words, if I'm fighting alongside 15 people, and we're fighting 16 people even the lowest "other players spells" settings doesn't do any justice.
What we need to do is have it set so that when you disable the viewing of other characters on your map you have the OPTION (because some people may not want this for PvP reasons) to hide their spell effects too.
I don't believe that it would be too hard.  A direct to read the configuration file, and get info from its value then change the boolean value of an argument should be all it would take if I'm thinking properly at this moment (which I might not be) so that would be damn helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dracconus said:

[snip]

I understand what you're saying (and thanks for a pretty insightful reply), and those are ways to improve the game's performance in the current situation, which is great.

The main pet peeve of mine, however, is that it still doesn't, and won't, use my PC.

My game's on SSD, my PC is pretty much standard "high-end gaming" with liquid cooling and all that jazz, but yeah - it renders crowds at Blackwyrm at 20fps, faction effect-heavy stuff at 45fps, etc. It could be optimized in many ways, but it's not bottlenecked by my hard drive, it's bottlenecked by my CPU usage - heck, I had blackwyrm on 10 fps on a crappy core 2 duo with DDR2 ram, integrated GPU and game on HDD. My current CPU might be more than 4 times powerful now, but it's being used half as much.

 

Now if we imagine, for a second, that without optimizing anything else, the game could use all 4 cores of my CPU and calculate/load four times the stuff it does now. It could load 4 times more frames, but with the frame limit in place I'll have my nice little unchanging 60fps that I so much long for.

Of course, it may be possible to reach via different means, but it just ticks me off that it doesn't do that at least by bruteforcing its unoptimized mess with my CPU that's more than capable of it.

I feel like it's just walking around with a super-comfortable luxury bicycle because it doesn't have a chain. Damn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Enhance said:

My game's on SSD, my PC is pretty much standard "high-end gaming" with liquid cooling and all that jazz, but yeah - it renders crowds at Blackwyrm at 20fps, faction effect-heavy stuff at 45fps, etc. It could be optimized in many ways, but it's not bottlenecked by my hard drive, it's bottlenecked by my CPU usage - heck, I had blackwyrm on 10 fps on a crappy core 2 duo with DDR2 ram, integrated GPU and game on HDD. My current CPU might be more than 4 times powerful now, but it's being used half as much.

 

Now if we imagine, for a second, that without optimizing anything else, the game could use all 4 cores of my CPU and calculate/load four times the stuff it does now. It could load 4 times more frames, but with the frame limit in place I'll have my nice little unchanging 60fps that I so much long for.

Of course, it may be possible to reach via different means, but it just ticks me off that it doesn't do that at least by bruteforcing its unoptimized mess with my CPU that's more than capable of it.

I feel like it's just walking around with a super-comfortable luxury bicycle because it doesn't have a chain. Damn it.

Well, to be fair, if you were using integrated graphics then the 10FPS was probably more likely due to that since it shares RAM, and CPU resources.  If you quadrupled your CPU and the game was truly multicore capable then yes you coud theorhetically quad your output of fps provided you had a gpu and ram size that was capable of handling it.  This is, of course not to say that you don't, just merely informative.
You could attempt to set the game to a higher process level, and as well remove any theme elements from your desktop, and running services you don't need.
People always nag about game optimizers, when in truth for situations such as this game they're actually VERY useful indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...