| 82 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
11/17/12 3:08:37 PM#61
One of the funner aspects of the ToR engine is it stutters when displaying text on screen. So... No chat bubbles for you. (Which were in Beta) I guess the FTP purchase title display unlock helps underperformance as well. Many people are right though, this is not news. You could argue that lack of news on optimization improvement is news, but at this point why bother?
Dallas Dickinson a few days ago- "We have a few systems that are ridiculously heavy in terms of their performance both on the server side actually but also on the client which you guys are playing. And we are doing active optimization. We try to knock down the highest nail all the time and we’ve just run up against one of the highest nails in our game being actively worked on and it’s a significant improvement. I cannot give you a date because the work is not done and it’s very complex work..."
Don't hold your breath on optimization or Ilum 2 "Electric Boogaloo". |
|
|
11/17/12 3:24:58 PM#62
Originally posted by ajax7 Blah blah blah. So what u saying is to run swtor i have to
and on top of that i have to pay a sub fee for single-player game?  |
|
|
Betaguy
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 12/31/04
The king and the pawn go back to the same box at the end of the day. |
11/17/12 3:31:49 PM#63
I say this with confidence, there will never be another SW MMO again. It is truely cursed, it's the voodoo son.
|
Originally posted by Betaguy Ahhh .. but there will be. Though, next time, it will be an NGE squared. Disney owns the license when SWTOR dies, and they would love a piece of the action. The new MMO, however, won't be the Star Wars That You Used to Know (tm).
Though I imagine Disney will not go with Electronic Arts. Ever. Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/17/12 4:05:40 PM#65
Originally posted by Quizzical Yah, SWTOR runs the same no matter the settings. Idiots who turn up while they cant play are idiots. People with newest hardware getting crappy FPS are not idiots but annoyed - they dont have to be tech savvy to check performace and looks of SWTOR to see something is wrong. Shadows have their owm maps and resoution, and SWTOR is very very low in that field compared to other games (MMOs). Thats what people mean when they say "it looks crappy and runs crappy too" It doesnt have any of dx10 and dx11 bells and whistles, its all DX9 and 2007, it should run on any newer hardware. THATS what makes a bad engine. Originally posted by RavingRabbid FRAPS 20vs20 pvp outdoors with good FPS, then come back. Otherwise youre full of it. What do you think other people have, pentiums 4 with S3 Virge? |
|
|
11/17/12 7:41:12 PM#66
Originally posted by mikahr If it were DirectX 11, would that make poor performance more acceptable? New APIs don't make any effects possible that weren't possible before. Rather, new APIs give you more efficient ways to do things that you could have done before but with a larger performance hit. That dosen't make new effects possible, but it does make new effects practical. Something you could have done before at 2 frames per second, you can now do at 40 frames per second, so you can finally implement it into your game. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical You should write a research document and submit it to a popular programming group, or maybe even Popular Science, they handle all kinds of stuff. Explain how to make a 2 fps computer into a 40 fps monster just by upgrading DirectX.
You will go down in history books, as the person who performed the impossible! .. can I have your autograph? Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/17/12 7:56:31 PM#68
Originally posted by Karteli You don't understand what I said. For example, DirectX 11 offers hardware tessellation. You could use exactly the same tessellation algorithm in DirectX 9, but it won't be able to run on the video card. Instead, you'd have to do it in software on the processor. That makes it vastly slower, which is why games didn't do software tessellation in DirectX 9. If you could have done something with tessellation and gotten 40 frames per second using DirectX 11, then you could have done exactly the same thing in DirectX 9, but not being able to offload the work to the video card might have meant you were stuck at 2 frames per second. DirectX 11 didn't make tessellation possible; it made it practical, by allowing you to offload the work from the processor onto the video card, which is vastly better at it. The same is true of any other new graphics feature that newer APIs add. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical If those features were offered by SWTOR, then EA would have done an auto update, like SOE does whenever required for optimal performance. SWTOR doesn't offer any of the stuff you mentioned. EA wrote their own stuff, which is likely incompatible with higher versions of DirectX. Is that what you are getting at? If so, my apologies.
My reasoning: People with the latest, high-end graphics cards still have issues. Even with the latest DirectX. It's not peoples computers, but the software that is running. There are some Youtube fraps videos of people with state of the art $5-6 k machines still running like crap. They run fine .. until they get a popular hub like the GTN or the mailbox and the computers go sluggish on fps.
Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/17/12 8:49:35 PM#70
I haven't played SWTOR, so I really don't know how well the game engine is coded. I also haven't tried doing animations with large numbers of characters on the screen at once, so I don't have a good feel for how hard it is to make that work. But if that only happens in cities where performance doesn't matter much, is it really such a problem? It's pretty easy to sort players by who is nearest to you and cap how many it draws to maintain higher frame rates. Would it be better if they did that, rather than letting you see more players? The clearest case of a badly-coded game engine is when you have a processor bottleneck in a game that doesn't scale to very many processor cores. SWTOR doesn't have that. It might still be badly-coded, but it's not an obvious case like, say, EverQuest II. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical Red: Oh, OK, Thank you for your input. If you never played the game, then what exactly qualifies you to compare it to anything? You will compare it to EQ2?
in purple: I'm amazed at how you know the underworkings of this game, yet you never played it. Explain it to us. Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/17/12 9:37:50 PM#72
I guess I don't know how some are trying to defend this game. I found it ok as I soloed or duoed to max on one toon. I get the distinct feeling that people that think the game is fine are just soloing/duoing and not in areas with a high amount of people.
How do you argue with the people that created the engine, how do you know more about the engine than they do? They have said EA took a very early version of the engine and did whatever they did with it. Players have had issues since release with very high end systems down to very low end systems.
I believe the original devs of this game were a combination of ignorant and truth twisters...hence why 90% are no longer with the company...there's really no defending it.
Either way the design decisions are what I really find at fault (even more than them lying about engine performance) and the reason I quit. |
|
|
11/17/12 9:42:36 PM#73
Most of my statements on this thread have been general statements that would apply to any game, not specific to SWTOR. As for SWTOR core scaling, that's easy enough to look up: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-8.html Getting substantially better performance at six cores than four is not a case where the problem is not being able to use enough processor cores. Poor processor core scaling is far from the only thing that would qualify a game as badly-coded, but it is the easiest one to check. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical Red: Posts before this have proved otherwise (within the past 10).
You didn't really add anything to this discussion. Theoretical analysis is not the same as what players actually saw. The engine sucks. Nothing changes this. If you would like a theoretical analysis, create a new thread.
It's a crappy game as a result of the graphics enigne. Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/18/12 5:39:46 PM#75
Originally posted by Quizzical It's the horrible netcode. As has been discussed before, BW bought a Beta engine. IDK if Hero has bad netcode intrinsically since I can't say I've played any other Hero engine games, nor have I coded with it. Did anyone play Faxion? AFAIK that's the only other game that used it. TOR's netcode is awful. Hence the insane lag when more than 10-15 people are in the same place. |
|
|
11/19/12 3:13:40 AM#76
Originally posted by Quizzical I would BECAUSE IT WOULD AT LEAST LOOK GREAT AND RUN POOR, compared to now when it looks like crap and runs very poor. And yes, DX9 (2007) game SHOULD RUN PERFECTLY ON ANY COMPUTER TODAY even with only integrated video card. Did you even read and understand the thing you quoted? |
|
|
11/19/12 2:24:41 PM#77
Originally posted by bigron It would take extraordinarily bad networking code for its effect on frame rates to amount to anything more than a rounding error. The video card isn't aware of what is going on with networking code, or for that matter, whether there even is networking code as opposed to an offline, single-player game. Network activity does put a slight load on the processor and system memory, but for online games, it's very slight. It's also in its own thread(s), so other threads aren't tripping over it. We've had gigabit ethernet since 1999, and even that offers perhaps four orders of magnitude more bandwidth than games will use during normal gameplay. Internet bottlenecks that aren't on the client computer won't affect your frame rates. Whether network code is good or bad is not a property of a game engine. The game engine can have some placeholder network stuff, but the game designers will have to write their own networking code to a large extent. Making network code efficient depends very strongly on how fast characters move and accelerate, how long of range attacks have, how many characters are in the area at once, whether the characters are NPCs or players, and especially how much can be safely computed client-side as opposed to needing to be computed on the server. |
|
|
11/19/12 2:28:54 PM#78
Originally posted by mikahr The API version is just a tool. If you upgrade from a toolbox with 10 tools in it to one with 15 tools in it, but don't use any of the new tools that weren't also in the old toolbox, would you expect things you build with it to suddenly be better? To the contrary, if you're not going to use the new tools, you might as well just stay with the old toolbox. That also gives you broader compatibility, and no chance for new bugs to crop up in the process of trying to port things back from DirectX 11 to DirectX 9.0c. There's nothing intrinsic to DirectX 11 that makes it look better than DirectX 9.0c. The newer version does make some new things practical, but how good the graphics look is still up to the game developers. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical Which comes back to compatibility. Hero does not support SWTOR's version of it's graphics engine, as part of their deal with EA, since EA bought what was available and would "fill in the rest" later (ie alpha versions of Hero).
I would encourage you to try out SWTOR's "F2P" Freemium model , since you are very interested in this subject. At first it will seem very nice, or at least when nobody else is near you, but you will notice the major defects people are talking about once you get to the fleet, level 10'ish.
EA did do a major workaround somewhere between patch 1.1 and 1.2, called "sectioning", in which a map (specifically the fleet) is broken up into smaller regions, each instanced, or in some way separate from adjacent sections. It isn't clear if this was done anywhere else other than the fleet. You can see this feature if you lose connection with the server (forcibly or via game bugs). You will be able to move around while not connected (everyone else stays still of course), and you will observe you are trapped in a square type area with invisible walls. Another workaround EA had was to limit the players on-screen at one time, according to your graphics settings. This is a more recent "fix". There might be 50 people at the mailbox, but a player will see far less.
EA came out with these ideas to make the game more playable, but it's really just tucking all the internal graphics engine issues under the rug. World PVP, for instance, still won't be very enjoyable (low fps) with this engine. If EA could fix the issues, they would have. It's likely they can't because it's way over their head, and/or the people who knew how to make miracles happen have been layed off / forced into retirement / or fired.
But still, if you are interested in furthering your studies and analysis, download and play it. Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History" |
|
|
11/20/12 2:17:02 AM#80
Originally posted by Quizzical I give up, yeah yeah, youre right, thers absolutely no difference between dx9 and dx11, its all just fluff and some general conspiracy by MS. |
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 19, 2013 4:00 PM
- Page Created in 1.997 seconds -
