Rendering distance of players is a BIG JOKE !

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by PlayerOneSVK, Nov 22, 2012.

  1. Doing same thing but with AIR...
  2. Yep, i just avoid.... Well, its mainly the tech plants this happens in, as they are a ***** to take and a joy to defend.

    I just avoid Tech plants until its sorted.
    • Up x 1
  3. It's not your RAM amount (RAM amount doesn't matter beyond 4GB at the moment). It's the resolution. I can only guess, but you've probably got one of the cards with 1024MB VRAM, which was a concept from when resolutions of textures combined with render resolutions weren't that high. Try 1600x900 or even 1366x768 (doesn't matter on little Monitors anyway as you don't see much of a difference), the 1024MB should be enough for rendering that.
    Just so you know: I'm using a 32" SANG 1080p TV as my main display and find that everything still looks very much OK at 1366x768, so when using smaler displays with less space between the pixels you should be OK with 1280x720. You can't snipe anyway, so the extra resolution is unneeded, especially considering you play only on low details like me.

    Woodland stil seems to be pretty overrun, try Mallory out at some point. It lags a lot less than the other European servers.

    EDIT: Just saw your video... That's your normal lag there, seems like nothing to worry about.
  4. No but Battlefield 3 has servers that handle the maximum they can.
    If SOE want us to have battles with 2000 people at once then they need to have the Hardware to back it up.

    Imagine if you will, that all the players on Miller, from all 3 factions all decided to be at The Crown at once, the server would crash. there is nothing stopping this from happening, but the server cannont handle it. As it stands now I dont think we have even had a quarter of the server population in one area at the same time yet, but we get the limitation, so imagine.
    • Up x 1
  5. This would increase your fps, but it won't make infantry appear beyond 50m when there is a large battle going on, as I said I could put mine to 800x600 low settings, I would probably get 300 fps but I still won't see that enemy past 50m,if that was really the case, I would be in sniper heaven instead of sniper hell right now.
  6. I have this:
    ASUS ENGTX560 Ti DCII
    http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/NVIDIA_Series/ENGTX560_Ti_DCII2DI1GD5/
  7. I was replying to his issue with having low FPS, not to the general lag and limitations everybody's having.

    @PlayerOneSVK: Quite a good graphics card. But it only has 1GB GDDR5, so there's your limitation on the resolution and texture size.
    • Up x 1
  8. Fair Play,

    I will just say that, this game is very CPU intensive if you reduce the load on your GPU by decreasing screen res, you will put alot more load on your CPU.
  9. Hey Everyone,
    I told myself that I wasn't going to be one of those folks posting up system specs and asking, hey, wtf are my FPS supposed to be, why are things so bad on my end? But, after reading so much on these forums for the last several days and tinkering with the settings in frustration, I'd like to post my specs and ask how far off the mark am I here? Why do I dip into the 20 - 30's FPS in a big fight. I even put everything on freaking Low settings and I'm still getting this (yes, I'm aware that if you put things on medium settings it forces the GPU's to work a bit more but still tend to get better performance on Low I think). Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

    BTW, I can run Crysis 2 on Ultra and using FRAPS I can see that my FPS ALMOST NEVER go under 60 and when it does, it's at 59 for about 1/100 of a second. I don't own any game (and I have a great deal) that I can't run flawlessly on my expensive rig.

    Intel 8-Core 3.7GHZ
    GPU: 2x 7970 SLI
    RAM: 12 GB DDR3
    SSD 220 GB / HDD 1TB (game put on the SSD)
    Windows 7

    Help? What's my FPS supposed to be on this thing?
  10. From my understanding your problem could well be your GPU's this game is an Nvidai *****. It doesn't like AMD
  11. Oh crap..... I thought since even Crysis was designed with Nvidia in mind and I still wreck that game performance wise, that I would be OK here. That's just...that's just really bad news for me.
  12. Turn off Crossfire, put shadows to low and no shadows through fog. Crossfire is still iffy, at best, with new software.

    Should run fine, then, except in big battles. I get ~100 fps outside battles, 40-50 in larger battles and 30-35 in big battles (where we start seeing reduced drawing).
  13. Turn off Crossfire (yeah, giving my specs I put SLI instead of Crossfire)? Huh, OK, worth a shot, thanks.

    As said 1,000 times before me, the render issue is game breaking. Getting killed by invisible folks that you render for but don't render for you have made me rage quit several times. There are some good game titles coming up in the next couple of days. Maybe I'll take a break from PS2 until they figure their **** out.
  14. If there are certain unoptimized code bottlenecks in the game then getting faster hardware isn't going to do a whole lot I believe, sometimes there are simply overlooked issues in the code that need to be resorted.

    If an algorithm is very inefficient on a low end PC it's going to be inefficient on a high-end PC too.
  15. Would be nice if you could ask them when they have time to pop in on the forums or relay the message addressing the communities concerns maybe a small blog of sorts?
  16. If you're having sub-par fps with that kind of rig, I'd bet a neat sum that 9 times out of 10, it's gonna be because of Crossfire incompatibility, as the TRC from AMD is a blood-riddled pool of pus and until they get their collective thumbs out of their sphincters, it's ALWAYS a good idea to turn off Crossfire/SLI (depending on setup, obviously) until full support has been patched in ;)
  17. Well, yes and no; if you can get more frames per second through having a badass graphics card (for example), which can also handles physics calculations and whatnot, you do get more calculations per second, so you get better precision. It doesn't matter if that algorithm is "efficient" or not at that level, because the cost of it is still included in every frame (unless you do some hyperthreading, dividing the calculations into separate frames ... but that sounds like a back-end netcode nightmare tbh) :)
  18. Great advice Skaz. This would be the first time Crossfire has ever let me down as far as compatibility goes. Running games from Crysis, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Diablo 3, SC 2, and so on without ever so much as a flinch, I never even considered Crossfire to be an issue. Anyone reading this tried turning XFire off? Any improvements?
  19. RadarX Community Relations

    When they can absolutely but honestly? I think we'd prefer everyone was fixing the issues versus talking about them. I can assure you no one is sitting around scratching their head and trying to figure out what to do next. They are actively addressing issues as quickly as possible.
    • Up x 1
  20. Thanks for the updates RadarX. I've been waiting to hear something official on this particular problem, which has been the #1 annoying thing about the game for me since beta. We all appreciate the communication.

Share This Page