50 replies to this topic

[krOnicLTD]

@Shathron:

the problem is just that age of conan came with an awesome engine and graphics on release therefore it ran really bad because the graphics were just tooo good for mmorpgs back then pcs weren't able to handly these graphics within mmos because of the typical mmo problems like many players at once and so on.

guld wars 2 doesn't have awesome graphics nor an awsome engine as far as i see it on videos/streams and pics.

gw2 has good graphic, but nothing as jawbreaking as aoc back then

[davadude]

Naqaj, on 10 July 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Mind giving us a quote where you saw that? Don't remember seeing any statement even remotely like that.

It was on the beta forums a long time ago.  I would link it, but the topics are delete a lot.  I have an Ivy Bridge i7, and that was the statement given to me by one of their engineers.

[Shathron]

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

It was on the beta forums a long time ago.  I would link it, but the topics are delete a lot.  I have an Ivy Bridge i7, and that was the statement given to me by one of their engineers.

Sure that was an engine programmer that knew what he was talking about and not someone else (like a community manager) taking a wild guess?

[Direblade]

i'm running a 5.6 ghz 2600k 16gb ddr3 SSD gaming with smaller SSD windows drive and 2x gtx 690(only using one for gw2)

it doesnt amuse me to have the game run like crap on this system when i could prolly render shriek the movie in real time on his system.


if this new version is not optimized it will peeve alot of people off.

[zafoddy]

Sans, on 10 July 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

in the new gamespot video, they said they improved performance for this BWE.

I don't have the time to go through the entire duration of the video to listen where this is stated but I believe you, therefore my question is answered.

Stop raging about the client and your super duper pc. You will be fine as soon as the game is out, Arenanet has stated many times that the client is not optimized so maybe ultra or high settings couldn't run well at all or whatever.

[TheBandicoot]

Given the fact that my friend with his high-end gaming laptop can play the game butter smooth like it is meant to be played - and his laptop sports a 3870m (mobile version of the i7 3870k) - i dont think the reason could be non existing support of Ivy Bridge. No way.

[davadude]

Shathron, on 10 July 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Sure that was an engine programmer that knew what he was talking about and not someone else (like a community manager) taking a wild guess?

The poster had the red Arenanet icon next to their name and as a background.

[Shathron]

@mOnzun

Sure they had good graphics. Wasn't a good engine though, was waaaay more demanding than what those graphics should require. The overall fps of the game was not my point though, it was the difference between ordinary questing and massive sieges. I had a mid-range PC at the time and could quest at a playable ~30 fps but if i even got close to a siege i'd get a 1 fps slideshow (no exaggerations, it really was 1 fps).

Many players is always a huge problem, even in a game like Unreal tournament 2004 it's single-player against bots = 200 fps while multiplayer = 40 fps. In WoW alterac valley when everyone was at the same place (40v40) you'd also get framerates in the <10 fps area even if the game looks like it was made in the 90s. (both cases using a computer from around games release ofc). The fact that massive dynamic events and WvW actually has a playable framerate in beta is quite impressive in my opinion.

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

The poster had the red Arenanet icon next to their name and as a background.

Community managers have that, and they rarely know anything about the programming behind the game.

TheBandicoot, on 10 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Given the fact that my friend with his high-end gaming laptop can play the game butter smooth like it is meant to be played - and his laptop sports a 3870m (mobile version of the i7 3870k) - i dont think the reason could be non existing support of Ivy Bridge. No way.

Did both of you have the same Shadows setting?

[krOnicLTD]

Shathron, on 10 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

but if i even got close to a siege i'd get a 1 fps slideshow (no exaggerations, it really was 1 fps).

wow really ?? 1 fps.. xD not bad lol.. o_O on my rig it played a bit better, although i also had massive framedrops e.g. in the first city after tortuga or how the island was named.. there i had only about 15-20fps which was unplayable for me o_O

Quote

Many players is always a huge problem, even in a game like Unreal tournament 2004 it's single-player against bots = 200 fps while multiplayer = 40 fps. In WoW alterac valley when everyone was at the same place (40v40) you'd also get framerates in the <10 fps area even if the game looks like it was made in the 90s. (both cases using a computer from around games release ofc). The fact that massive dynamic events and WvW actually has a playable framerate in beta is quite impressive in my opinion.

yeah regarding this you are absolutely right.. this is the biggest problem of mmos and nearly every mmo has failed delivering a playable framerate with many players visible on the screen (e.g. 50+ at once)

[AiponGkooja]

TheBandicoot, on 10 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Given the fact that my friend with his high-end gaming laptop can play the game butter smooth like it is meant to be played - and his laptop sports a 3870m (mobile version of the i7 3870k) - i dont think the reason could be non existing support of Ivy Bridge. No way.

Shathron, on 10 July 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Sure that was an engine programmer that knew what he was talking about and not someone else (like a community manager) taking a wild guess?

Or a random forum poster who has no inside experience with their engine, and either doesn't know the differences between desktop and mobile processors, or doesn't understand that Ivy Bridge was not a normal "Tick" cycle by any stretch?

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

It was on the beta forums a long time ago.  I would link it, but the topics are delete a lot.  I have an Ivy Bridge i7, and that was the statement given to me by one of their engineers.

I'm going to go ahead and put more weight on this statement for now.  We'll see how Anet does for the next BWE.  I don't think anyone is arguing against them having to make some major changes before release.

Edited by AiponGkooja, 10 July 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[Shathron]

Btw, from experience with GW1, Anet makes very polished engines that provide great fps and good graphics. Can only hope this hasn't changed. I wasn't in the GW1 beta but i've heard there were huge engine updates all the way up to release so i think we shouldn't freak out just yet.

[Harleh]

Direblade, on 10 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

i'm running a 5.6 ghz 2600k 16gb ddr3 SSD gaming with smaller SSD windows drive and 2x gtx 690(only using one for gw2)

it doesnt amuse me to have the game run like crap on this system when i could prolly render shriek the movie in real time on his system.


if this new version is not optimized it will peeve alot of people off.

I would seem the Guild Wars 2 engine is extremely bipolar at the moment. Just out of curiosity, what framerates were you getting with that beast of a machine!

[TheBandicoot]

Quote

Did both of you have the same Shadows setting?

Not only that, we used the exact same overall settings, everything on max, high-res char-textures and 3D-rendering (not sure if the latter two options did even have any kind of effect because i noticed no framerate changes with or without them).

Quote

Or a random forum poster who has no inside experience with their engine, and either doesn't know the differences between desktop and mobile processors

There is not so much difference as one could think. they are both the same architecture even if the mobile version is a completely different CPU. It simply bothers me that he could run the game almost perfectly to my standards while i couldn´t. Or does ArenaNet optimization first for laptops and then for desktops? Would be a pity.

[Direblade]

Harleh, on 10 July 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

I would seem the Guild Wars 2 engine is extremely bipolar at the moment. Just out of curiosity, what framerates were you getting with that beast of a machine!

ok, my fps with all maxed was around 26 to 60 fps running around the gaming area (not the starting area, running two gtx 690s didnt effect the frame rate so it was not worth the cost of running them both at the same time)

Pvp Battlegrounds were a rock solid 80+
The lions gate city where a horried 20 fps.
WvWvW were random, 50>70 roaming > mass siege 20 to 30.

I did have some micro stutter at some points, along with some other issues.

Sli is not working well with the game atm, the nvidia drivers for this card do not work well with this game atm and the game it self is about as optimized as a fat man running for the olympics.

[Elan]

Funny, I have an i7 2600k as well, and a 550 ti GPU.  My 8 gigs of RAM is a bit on the slow side, and I'm on windows 7, but it ran incredibly well and only started to slow down when there were 30 people in a zerg, and even then it was still pretty damn good considering.  I didn't even mess with the shadows, either.  I don't have numbers, but the human eye functions at around 32 images per second, so when I say something is running smooth, I mean it was running at the bare minimum of 33 fps.  Everything worked when I wanted it to, nothing stuttered, it was perfect outside of zerging, and then it was probably closer to around 25 FPS.

What gets me is it runs extremely well for some people, and for others with similar systems it runs terrible.  I wonder what the reason is for that.

[TheBandicoot]

One reason  thought of last week it could have something to do with a multi monitor setup, COULD be. I know several games which don´t like to be run when you have two or more active monitors, some of these games even refused to launch when there was more than one monitor plugged in. Maybe it would also hinder GW2 from performing well, but i don´t hope so. I often use my second monitor next to my LCD-TV for Teamspeak, Tutorials and stuff like that, would be a pity if i actually have to turn it off.

[Athlonpv]

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

It was on the beta forums a long time ago.  I would link it, but the topics are delete a lot.  I have an Ivy Bridge i7, and that was the statement given to me by one of their engineers.

The thing is IB is fast enough if there is any optimizations going for the cpu part it is not in this space and time. The video part however is totally hopeless to optimize for because Intel doesn't know itself what they want with their videodrivers. If you are ever bored google Intel HD3000/4000 problems.

zafoddy, on 10 July 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

I don't have the time to go through the entire duration of the video to listen where this is stated but I believe you, therefore my question is answered.

Stop raging about the client and your super duper pc. You will be fine as soon as the game is out, Arenanet has stated many times that the client is not optimized so maybe ultra or high settings couldn't run well at all or whatever.

Basically Mike Z. said it but we don't know where it will swing and how much performance they will be able to manage from optimizing any further lets say make it run 3 times faster on the CPU is out of the question so they have their list of goals which are on the todo list but we don't know exactly how much headroom there is for the cpu or gpu.

And coming BWE3 the forums will be open again and we can ask what Areneanet will be able to optimize further.

And I agree that Arenanet will (not on purpose) cripple their own game for people with high end components because that would be the weirdest thing todo .

Edited by Athlonpv, 10 July 2012 - 01:47 PM.

[Enforcer]

You guys should realize this game had been made for the past 5 years. That time they were using old stuff, so now they are having a slight problem with optimization. Give em some time, but I'm sure it will be fully optimize when the game is launch.

[splincir]

I've got an Ivybridge i7. The 3770k to be exact. Running it on an asus z77 sabertooth. 16gb ddr3 corsair dominator ram. SLI gtx 560ti 448 core gphx cards. (i didnt feel the need to upgrade these atm). Samsung 830 SSD with win 7 64bit and GW2 installed on it.

Ive got my processor clocked at 4.5ghz, and my ram at 1600mhz with  8 8 8 20 cas timings.

I used this in BWE2 and had no issues playing the game. My gphx cards maybe had 30-40% load so they werent being used much. Even with that my processor never hit 100% either. I ran between 40-50 in zergs with maybe at lowest dip to around 35ish. Max fps around 85 when not around zergs. (playing on 24" monitor at 1920x1200)

As far as Ivybridge being an issue I just cant see that being the case. If the game is CPU dependent at the moment and Ivybridge was an issue you would think the game would have ran like balls on my system. But it didnt. I had all settings on max except shadows. I had them on medium. Shadows seemed to cause the most performance shift and medium setting seemed to provide a happy balance of looks vs playability.

[Itharius]

All of the asura/sylvari previews I've seen had very smooth framerates, so I'm hoping the game will be optimized.

In BWE1, I had 15 to 20 fps in the crowded Charr starter area, 15 fps in WvW, and around 40 fps in sPvP. In BWE2, I had 25 to 30 fps in crowded PvE areas, 20 to 25 fps in WvW, and about 60 fps in sPvP, a clear improvement.

Specs:
Geforce 560 ti
8 gigs DDR3 ram
Phenom II x4 @ 3.4 ghz

Edited by Itharius, 17 July 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Ultrametroid]

So far GPUs haven't really had much use in the game as they have been very processor focused so, for those with high end cards it wouldnt have made much difference if your cpu was a ball of turd.