*** Official Planetside 2 Thread ***
- Thread starter Swifty55
- Start date
Saw a couple of Nvidia skinned (TR) lastnight and they looked pretty good (for evil facists), has anyone seen the VS versions of this camo?
I was thinking about a new graphics card till I got the bill for a new cambelt on my car, guess ill have to search for someone selling off their codes online.
I was thinking about a new graphics card till I got the bill for a new cambelt on my car, guess ill have to search for someone selling off their codes online.
If you weren't on Miller when the render distance test was live then you will see a huge difference. You can see enemy a massive ranges now. It makes the battlefield a much more dangerous place.
Has it had much of a performance impact? They're say that they've done some more optimisations, but the last time they said that fps went down for me!
Hopefully I'll get chance to try it out tonight.
It makes sense to deny one empire the infantry bonus.
Has it had much of a performance impact? They're say that they've done some more optimisations, but the last time they said that fps went down for me!
Hopefully I'll get chance to try it out tonight.
Oddly, when playing last night for a few hours my performance appeared to have got better! I heard other people saying that performance had improved as well.
We .. ie TR took Esamir ourselves and locked both the VS and NC at the warpgates
and we the VS took it straight back and what is happening right now? TR and NC are double teaming VS again on Esamir lol.
My dad's faction could beat your dad's faction any day
What sleeper said, me and my dad weren't playing when you won... wait till later
I think I'm going to knock this on the head, at least until they can make a worthwhile improvement to performance. Each of the last two updates has reduced performance and it is now consistently down to a point, under 20 fps, where it's unplayable. It's a shame because it really is a whole heap of fun, but there's lots of other games that are just as much fun and give a consistently playable level of fps.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 177
I feel the same as you about the game wolvers.
I've been considering upgrading my rig (AMD 965 @ present), but not sure if it's worth doing atm, with Haswell close to launch.
I really love what the game is trying to do but unless you have a really modern\high end rig, the performance is shocking.
Been getting in to Far Cry 3 and Legend of Grimrock atm.
I've been considering upgrading my rig (AMD 965 @ present), but not sure if it's worth doing atm, with Haswell close to launch.
I really love what the game is trying to do but unless you have a really modern\high end rig, the performance is shocking.
Been getting in to Far Cry 3 and Legend of Grimrock atm.
I'd swap to an Ivybridge if I thought it was worth it, but I'm not convinced that what people are reporting is actually true. There's people on the official forum with slower CPUs than my 8350 reporting better fps with higher settings! Some fibs being told I think there.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 177
Yeah, I agree.
I think the game runs better on Intel\Nvidia rigs but I worry that if I upgrade to a 3770k, I still won't get great performance. Some people with really good Intel rigs are still having issues.
They seriously rushed getting this game out, which is why there's so many performance issues.
I've had far worse performance in game then when I'm playing BF3 with more players visible on screen. The coding\optimization is really poor, despite some people 'just' blaming it on people trying to run it on older hardware.
What kind of FPS were you getting in large battles?
This is my concern too. While it does seem to run better in SB/IB rigs it's still not what I would call acceptable, and definitely not enough to warrant a switch.
GPU wise, it's not an issue although with an Nvidia card you'll get the extra fizzx effects. Meh. TBH my gut instinct is telling me that it's so poorly optimised on the CPU side because they are using fizzx for the core gameplay physics (and maybe because it's not DX10/11). It probably seemed a good idea at the time taking Nvidias money to use fizzx, but I bet they're regretting it now!
Totally agree there, and BF3 has much more CPU heavy stuff going on with it's environmental physics AND has much better graphics. It's the correct yardstick for PS2 performance.
Before GU2 it wouldn't drop below 30fps, after GU2 I had to lower all the CPU heavy settings to stop it dropping below 25fps. Now after GU3 it's dropping below 20fps and I don't really have any CPU heavy settings that I can reduce an more, even if I wanted to as I already feel like I'm making too many concessions in settings to get it playable.
They keep saying that their stats are showing that average fps is going up, but I suspect that's because only people with certain hardware are playing it now. There's no doubt that the player base has dwindled. That and the fact that everyone has lowered all their settings to get it running a little better.
I feel a bit for them, they've obviously cocked up somewhere and are struggling to rectify it.