To the kind attention of developers # Re: Performance issue

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

[good will and fun mode always ON]
By the way, here you mention that this is a 2013 game. Now you're saying it is a 2015 game. Does this mean that for every developer's failure we'll move the game's date to a few years later?

No! I just found out recently that the game has much more potential - for 2 more years at least

[W0ef]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

Of course I did try the recent patch and still it is unplayable over cities.
FYI the system is i-2500k, ati hd6850, 6gb ram, win7 64bit and I play on a combination of high and low settings. Haven't turned SSAO off, but I don't expect to play on lowest settings with a brand new pc.
It has to be playable perfectly well in such a system.

PS. With this system I can play on highest video settings any other modern game without a simple problem.

With your system you should have little problems running the game at max settings, I would definetely check out if your system runs optimal..Only bottleneck might be your graphics card.

My system is a 2500k at stock, 8 gb ddr3, HD6970 on Win7 64 bit and I have no problems running everything fully maxed out. Only above a major city it has to load in a little.

Are you sure you have the most up to date drivers for everything? How much VRAM does your gfx card have? Lot of useless processes in the background? etc etc.

[kgwanchos]

They did a wonderful job in RoF and Ive no doubt CoD will get there too....

They both had similarly difficult births and RoF has certainly turned out to be a thing of beauty ....

So what Ive done is taken a chill pill ... got myself a copy of RoF and I will come back to CoD in 6 months or so when it too will have blossomed...

If you dont want to pay money to be a beta tester you do have a choice you know ....

[Decker_runner65]

hello all
well 8 year later and were here,this last patch seem to of done me,in that after 10 -15 mins it crashs to desktop maybe a ram problem or map with way to many buildings,was okish to last patch,shudders are less but now the lag comes in which bring my flps way way down to 1 and it stop playing.

why if i change the screen rev to low say 1028x768 that my desk top changes to that too,needs to be looked at. and that been like it from the start of the game in all patchs, ammo needs to be doubled,really ? we all see what your doing and the realism but it has to be fun to,dont want to spend half hour getting there and 34 sec fireing and im careful 4 sec burst?

flps use to be 12-24 over london but in the air 34-60-to even 100 and over?
i know use are working on all these things and doing your best to a comadate all players pc. hope the next patch come qiuck as i cant play it at all now.

now to the crew and bob , look at what uses have done, it fantastic a wow game i surport use in all that you do even if after all patch im still not able to play it smothly, you done a real serves to all flyers of the game, i ~s use all for your work, plus ty for the lancaster even if we cant fly it ??

my sep is vista 32, 4 gb ram. intel core 2 duo at 2,66 Ghz and 1gb nvida sonic gfx card. last word keep on keeping on ~s

[Decker_runner65]

hello all
well 8 year later and were here,this last patch seem to of done me,in that after 10 -15 mins it crashs to desktop maybe a ram problem or map with way to many buildings,was okish to last patch,shudders are less but now the lag comes in which bring my flps way way down to 1 and it stop playing.

why if i change the screen rev to low say 1028x768 that my desk top changes to that too,needs to be looked at. and that been like it from the start of the game in all patchs, ammo needs to be doubled,really ? we all see what your doing and the realism but it has to be fun to,dont want to spend half hour getting there and 34 sec fireing and im careful 4 sec burst?

flps use to be 12-24 over london but in the air 34-60-to even 100 and over?
i know use are working on all these things and doing your best to a comadate all players pc. hope the next patch come qiuck as i cant play it at all now.

now to the crew and bob , look at what uses have done, it fantastic a wow game i surport use in all that you do even if after all patch im still not able to play it smothly, you done a real serves to all flyers of the game, i ~s use all for your work, plus ty for the lancaster even if we cant fly it ??

my spec is vista 32, 4 gb ram. intel core 2 duo at 2,66 Ghz and 1gb nvida sonic gfx card. last word keep on keeping on ~s

[samich]

The whole arguement that this game has so much more depth then other games which is why it runs worse is ridiculous.

The flight model isn't drastically more complex then some other flight sims around at the moment and while it may be better/more accurate, it is horribly coded.

And arguing that map size and draw distance is a valid reason for it lagging is equally ridiculous. Yes there are games with as large a map, B17 II had as big a map and its like 10 years old, its not a new thing and graphically the game has nothing on shooters like Crysis II that run much more complex lighting solutions or the physics in the frostbite engine (used in the bad company series). Hell even wings of prey looks a lot better.

Don't get me wrong i like the game and im as hopeful as everyone else that things will be fixed but people really need to stop blinding making excuses for obvious failures in its development.

also: no company has ever or will ever release a game in 2011 that is only supposed to work in 2015. It doesn't happen.

[squidgyb]

There are so many entirely polar opinions here, I feel I need to fill some of the middle ground with some nice grey...

In response to "no games are released for the future" and/or "I can play any game on my PC" - there are plenty of games which are released with very high settings which eclipse what the PCs of the time are capable of. Crysis. GTA IV. FSX. Metro 2033. IL2. All these titles had settings, which (at the time of release) when set to the maximum, would cause severe performance issues. Some still do. I'd love to see someone play Metro 2033 at 1920x1200 with max settings on a single card system. Maybe a GTX 590 would scrape through... 2015 is hyperbole; he's just making a point.

I'm not excusing the performance issues on lower end machines - and it's true that the mid-range set will be the largest demographic, and they are working on, and have been working on performance issues and fixes. The game will continue improving as they work through bugfixes - I do think that a lot of development time has been spent on historical accuracy/modelling, and that more time could be spent on performance - but to a certain extent we've got to remember that the dev team's hand may well have been forced by powers higher up than themselves.

It's not like they've been doing "nothing" for the last 5 years, far from it. But for one reason or another, the devs have been given a shorter time frame and a reduced deadline which has resulted in them not being able to finish all the work they intended to do - we can wait, we can play the game as it is, or, erm, we can moan about it on the internet.

I just wish I wasn't drawn into these conversations quite so easily.

Damn my fence sitting, reasonable argument producing mind.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by samich

Hell even wings of prey looks a lot better.

Because it has veeeeeery low visibility range and simplified physics.

RoF has good visibility range but it does not have as complex engine physics calculation, radiators, heaters, etc and ground units AI, as many instruments on very detailed panel, etc, etc.

I did not try DCS personally but iirc it does not model many planes, ground units and landscape with the detail of CoD.

ArmA2 can be compared to CoD as a very complex milsim and it is extremely demanding even lacking detailed instrument panels and visibility limit of 10 km (however playable with decent fps only at 2 to 5 km visibility settings). Visibility distance has huge impact on performance. You can check it for yourself in ArmA2.

I do hope the game will be further optimized though.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by HFC_Dolphin

After playing a few hours with the game, it is obvious that buildings produce the huge problem in the game's performance.

I don't know if you do have a solution to make the game playable with current buildings, but if not, I think it's time to discuss alternatives.
I don't know what these may be, but I'm even ready to accept much-much smaller cities if this makes the game playable.

I understand that you want to offer everything, but please keep in mind that combat flying experience is above all and if we can't get this because 1.000.000 static buildings load and produce performance issues, then it's time to choose performance over beauty.

I believe that for the next couple of years (until new hardware's ever increasing rough power solves programming or other issues) we could all live by flying a game with smaller cities. What can't we live with, is a game where we'll be experiencing stutters all the time.
I know that things are getting better and I even managed a dogfight of 6vs6 over sea without stutters, but that is not what I want. I think that all of us want more. We want to be able to simulate huge raid attacks. We want to experience 50 or 60 planes in the air, fighting like there's no tomorrow. And in the end, we don't care whether Big Ben is in London if every time we aim to an enemy he disappears in a crescendo of video hick-ups.

Solutions might be many, you know better, please consider them and don't forget that if someone with a brand new pc can't play the game as it should, then you're already out of the market.

PS. Needless to say that if solution of current problems with current status is really near, then we'll all wait. But please don't make us wait another couple of years - it will be a nightmare.

ABsolutely nothing to do with hardware - its to do with horrible programming/optimization. Buildings should not be an issue (neither should tree hitboxes).

[W0ef]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

ABsolutely nothing to do with hardware - its to do with horrible programming/optimization. Buildings should not be an issue (neither should tree hitboxes).

While I agree there can still be progress made on optimization, especially of the houses, I do not agree this has nothing to do at all with hardware and the way you set your system up. People with very similar specs (like me) have the game running smooth with everything maxed out.

As stated many times by now this game eats VRAM for breakfast. I think the bottleneck in your system therefore might be your HD6850 which is a fine card but probably just not good enough for running this game on max, running with everything maxed out requires over 1gb VRAM. I think the biggest optimizations are to be made in this department (VRAM usage of the engine).