Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53
  1. #1
    Young 00Dan's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 16 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    18

    Are there any plans to optimize graphics performanace?

    As it stands the kind of requirements to run EU are quite high for the rather crappy graphics in comparison. CE2 is capable of a huge amount more, and while I know MA may have chosen to turn it down to minimum so low end PCs can run it, for the kind of requirements we have we should have a "high res" version of the EU client that actually uses CE2, as well as further optimization in general.

  2. Sponsored Links
  3. #2
    Old Alpha Nor Alien's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Location
    Constant state of flux!!
    Posts
    856
    To add to this, MA are not even using direct X 10 or 11 atm. Plus my dual gpu card is not using both gpu's so it is lacking in the usefull department reguarding this game.

    If the optimization of both these parts where added, I think it might make older comps run EU better...

  4. #3
    Planet Calypso Official Kim|Calypso's Avatar
    Joined
    May 12 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    318
    This is mostly a problem with the way many of the areas were designed. Whenever we make new areas we try to make sure to use the terrain occlusion because a high view distance is the real performance killer since seeing alot of terrain generates a massive amount of draw calls.

    Draw calls is the real issue since we use DX9 and its really not designed to handle a high amount of those, this will be less of a problem when we upgrade to a newer DX version.
    Mr Kim H.R. Welter
    Game Designer, MindArk PE AB

  5. #4
    Old Faye's Avatar
    Joined
    May 13 2011
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim|MindArk View Post
    this will be less of a problem when we upgrade to a newer DX version.
    Euh .... so why dont we upgrade then ? Not like many DX9 only players still tagging along

  6. #5
    Planet Calypso Official Kim|Calypso's Avatar
    Joined
    May 12 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye View Post
    Euh .... so why dont we upgrade then ? Not like many DX9 only players still tagging along
    Because it would be a very time consuming process and it would mean that we would cut support for windows XP.
    Mr Kim H.R. Welter
    Game Designer, MindArk PE AB

  7. #6
    Old
    Joined
    May 13 2011
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim|MindArk View Post
    Because it would be a very time consuming process and it would mean that we would cut support for windows XP.
    Meh.... It's gonna take 3 years after all is done to get missing mobs, beacons, systems back... so WTF is time consuming? Secondly.... MindArk cuts everything else out of this universe so what the hell is a little XP support?

    It's nice to get some answers Kim but the company you work for is dog f'king big time. Systems, mobs, beacons, none of which have been brought back. Graphics.... total CRAP for CE2 because your programmers have a problem working with a real gfx engine. The customer is suffering right across the board and the new players are playing with mid level graphics which given the returns lately aren't enough to keep them around and depositing.

    Oh.... but we got space.... wooohooo! Seriosly. Go into the office and start kicking people in the ass because this entire "project" is getting ridiculous.

    Menace

  8. #7
    Mature
    Joined
    May 20 2011
    Posts
    41
    Ahh... the XP users who deposit 1000s every month! So f'ing important to keep supporting those ancient rigs!

  9. #8
    Mature
    Joined
    Jul 20 2011
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Menace View Post
    Secondly.... MindArk cuts everything else out of this universe so what the hell is a little XP support?
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowLeopard View Post
    Ahh... the XP users who deposit 1000s every month! So f'ing important to keep supporting those ancient rigs!
    It would be seriously odd if at least half of present EU players were not still using Windows XP, but the percentage is probably even higher.

  10. #9
    Old wisdom's Avatar
    Joined
    May 14 2011
    Posts
    63
    Maybe maintain multiple versions of the client?
    Example:
    1) XP / DirectX9
    2) Widows7 64 bit/DirectX10.

  11. #10
    Dominant
    Joined
    Nov 15 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    475
    The main performance killer on my old computer (which still is my backup computer in case of failure) is, oddly enough, rendering of avatars, mobs and items in storage.

    On my old computer, rendering *one* avatar could take 30 seconds. Rendering one item in storage, 15 seconds (now multilply that by, say, 300...). Rendering screen icons, 10 seconds each or so.

    For that system, rendering screen icons and inventory icons could be rendered once and for all, and then stored on harddrive, only re-rendering those if they are explicitly redesigned or a specific "empty icon cache" button is pressed.

    In case there *is* a cache system already: Make sure it works with an ample number of objects. I got say 150 items in carried inventory, nearly 500 in storage, and then loads of items in boxes. If there is a limit such as 500, there is a risk that the current cache doesn't hold that many items but (expecially if the cache algorithm isn't that smart) by time it throws out all items. Or if the logic behind the cache is tied to some server state that gets invalidated each time a server is restarted, or even if client is restarted.
    In other words, make sure the cache has *plenty* of space (say 2000 objects), and that the handle used to access the cache is somewhat stable.

    As for rendering of avatars, dunno why it's so slow, it's slow even if you use the lowest setting (=all avatars grey).

    When it comes to distance there is another problem: One thing is the main distance setting that's pretty obvious. Except - it's for items like mountains only.
    For objects like avatars and buildings it appears to instead be tied to the "object quality" option. This means, that if you want to see another avatar more than 50m away you have to increase the object quality, but as you do it, you get worse performance because now computer will start rendering grass and things like that.

    I'd like the rendering distance of objects tied to viewing distance, not object quality.

    Another option that could be good for performance, or at least GPU/CPU heat limiting, would be a way to define *max* FPS. For instance, most computerscreens today that aren't CRT screens have a update frequence of 60 Hz. Now if you can lock that so it doesn't go *higher* (which I guess the current option does), or if you have a low-end system and you want to see if you can lesser the CPU load a bit, if you can force the max FPS down to say 30 FPS or even 10 FPS, even in cases where it's easy rendering. For instance, the new login screen, it would be interesting how many FPS it pushes threw the GPU.
    Last edited by aia; 07-25-2011 at 17:51.
    WoF team Sweden
    World of Firepower is coming - We're always looking for good Swedes to represent Sweden, and all support is welcome!

    - Sakura, Koufuku 2c - http://web.comhem.se/~u77771572/aia/ -

 

 
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •