Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
genxs

Performance going downhill ?

29 posts in this topic

I cant seem to do INF battle no more. Anything nearby seems to render after it shoots or never and anything further is hardly visible. I been in here for about 5 years and still play other high FPS games having no problem spotting enemies or avoiding them in there.

Here its turning into a f frenzy way to much.. its getting to the point again where i am forced to spawn tanks only to avoid a no play-game. I cannot guard crap as ei just pops me from distance or runs up to me while i cant see/notice them .. i seem to have no more control over my characters health.

Why would my rig that worked fine for years and still plays COD4/BF2/ARMA2/Specops/RO today without real problems. Its not the visual limit cause even if i log into the quiet TZs with low ews on towns i run into single eis that just outplay me like nothing else i seen. Beeing up close and murdering me repeatedly sometimes while i'm looking in their direction of a dead end corner or wall. Very odd as in the other much faster games i do not have this 'blind f effect'.

Is the game rigged up to require 1.5 to 2x the performance of the former rigs (4 years ago) to properly show targets moving or firing ? As currently my 4 year old rig (4GB, 32bits 2.4GHz Q6600 Quad CPU with the Radeaon HD 2600 XT graphcard is getting pretty much useless for this game just like y old rig was 6 years ago.

Sadly enough if i cant find a solution then this game turns into a sloppy version of chess wich i really dont enjoy. May as well watch paint dry.

Performance tips anyone ? Did the game actually require so much more ? Did prediction code change ? Did rendering change ? Are there special settings that fix this ? Do i need a 1 year old high performance rig to keep up again ?

Raah.. bummer that i am ranting rather then gaming but its no game anymore till its fixed for me. Its a 15 fps animation with long breaks atm :-/

S!

Genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread got moved so won't have much feedback on performance differences. Bummer, tried to find out what causes the difference compared to older versions. Feels like the last year INF gameplay really hit the bottom for me while the rig is performing fine with other software.

From CTDs, to freezes to the feeling of total lag (see some warping not much) playing as INF has become comparable to playing on a slow connection while the other game/stream connections do not show this problem.

Is there perhaps a performence test or a benchmark tool for wwiiol to diagnose what my rigg can't do good no more with the new versions ? My card only supports the shadowengine v2. Is that perhaps the thing that causes alot of these problems ? Would a replacement card with shadowengine v3 fix a significant part of these ?

S!

Genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thread got moved so won't have much feedback on performance differences. Bummer, tried to find out what causes the difference compared to older versions. Feels like the last year INF gameplay really hit the bottom for me while the rig is performing fine with other software.

From CTDs, to freezes to the feeling of total lag (see some warping not much) playing as INF has become comparable to playing on a slow connection while the other game/stream connections do not show this problem.

Is there perhaps a performence test or a benchmark tool for wwiiol to diagnose what my rigg can't do good no more with the new versions ? My card only supports the shadowengine v2. Is that perhaps the thing that causes alot of these problems ? Would a replacement card with shadowengine v3 fix a significant part of these ?

S!

Genxs

in offline mode you can use /benchremagen, /benchantwerp, /benchinfantry, and /benchvehicles to compare performance between different versions and hardware setups.

Simply enter the bench command in the chat buffer and then spawn in. Note, doing /benchvehicles or /benchinfantry more than 3-4 times during the same spawn session will crash WWIIOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The offline tests are all you can do to test the rig.

I'm a generation ahead of you with a core I5-750. The difference is I'm running at 3.8GHz. I also shut down most of the win7 stuff that effects performance. In 1.34 I get ~100fps when things are slow, 60-80fps is average, and I do drop to 30fps in heavy fights. I suffer all the ctd's, invisible players, etc that everyone else is seeing. Some may be from 1.34 bugs, some may be internet related.

best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if your squad Has tools for training new players?

Do you know how has it in ur squad?

Find out about said tools for training new player !!

CAREER OF EVIL

Edited by careerevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant train for lower FPS ;)

Do you know if your squad Has tools for training new players?

Do you know how has it in ur squad?

Find out about said tools for training new player !!

CAREER OF EVIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in offline mode you can use /benchremagen, /benchantwerp, /benchinfantry, and /benchvehicles to compare performance between different versions and hardware setups.

Simply enter the bench command in the chat buffer and then spawn in. Note, doing /benchvehicles or /benchinfantry more than 3-4 times during the same spawn session will crash WWIIOL.

Nice one.. i will be checking on the numbers there thanks !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure its the prediction code being flakey...

It gets old having stuff just seem to 'warp' from nowhere...

scan...scan...scan....scan some more....

finding those ant trails is HARD when everyone just warps into view at some random range/interval

at some points in the games history...you were able to actually see players come into view at great range and work there way in...

Edited by Vampress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your Graphic card seems like it uses a very old GPU.

Also this is a single core game so always aim for a 3Ghz CPU Cores or keep asking CRS for multi core thread support for the entire game.

Edited by fxmkorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has always been hard to run even with a great machine. The reality is that you shouldn't have to overclock a new processor to run a game that is 11 years old. Anyone with a decent machine should be able to achieve great FPS. What I don't understand is how this game has always been the same as far as performance. When it came out 11 years ago, the best machines then could barely stay over the 30 fps mark, and today it is the same thing. From what I understand the game is VERY processor intensive, but what has been added in the last 11 years that gives a 2500k a run for its money? I mean back in 2000 wasn't the Athlon processor all the rage? I would be willing to bet the 2500k is 3-4x times faster than that, so what has been added that eats up so much processor power?

Edited by vecchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt there a change to the packets? 1.34?

Larger packets of info relaced with more packets carrying less info?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant seem to do INF battle no more.
There are times in towns I'll drop to 4fps. Bombing has become impossible, I've lost a boatload of bombers sitting in #2 hammering the 1 key trying to get back into the chickenpit. If a fighter drags me over the town, I'll lag out and crash.

What confuses me is that it wasn't always like this in 1.34, and since we haven't had a client update, it has gotten worse, so one can only guess that changes in the hosts are causing more lag. I'm really hoping that 1.35 will be out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This game has always been hard to run even with a great machine. The reality is that you shouldn't have to overclock a new processor to run a game that is 11 years old. Anyone with a decent machine should be able to achieve great FPS. What I don't understand is how this game has always been the same as far as performance. When it came out 11 years ago' date=' the best machines then could barely stay over the 30 fps mark, and today it is the same thing. From what I understand the game is VERY processor intensive, but what has been added in the last 11 years that gives a 2500k a run for its money? I mean back in 2000 wasn't the Athlon processor all the rage? I would be willing to bet the 2500k is 3-4x times faster than that, so what has been added that eats up so much processor power?[/quote']

most likely many more lines of code was added...

the code wasn't optimized for mult-threaded operation which is why the majority runs in 1 core...

I also think that many off the shelf or modified 'libraries' of code are being used in the game also....stuff like speed trees etc. Which is also why it will run on a wide variety of systems(including some laptops with integrated graphics) since libraries typically will be coded for the highest compatibility.

the goal most likely has been for the game to run on as WIDE a variety of systems EVEN IF there is a speed penalty then to optimize it for the fastest speed and risk incompatibilities.

also...

when the code received 'speed enhancements' it was generally followed by 'new features' that used up those freed CPU cycles

only TRUE MULTI-THREADING to enable multi-core operation can probably signifcantly enhance performance...and that supposedly will require an significant game engine rewrite. ITs not like the player base didn't start begging for multi-core support when the first mainstream dual core processors came out ...in maybe 2004/2005 so they have had basically 7 or 8 years to implement some of this stuff

Edited by Vampress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ITs not like the player base didn't start begging for multi-core support when the first mainstream dual core processors came out ...in maybe 2004/2005 so they have had basically 7 or 8 years to implement some of this stuff

You answered your own question. Multi-core or muli-threading isn't just some switch or compiler setting, you have to embed it throughout the code so that as the code executes it knows where and when to expect different calculations to occur. They have been slowly offloading non-essential threads to secondary cores/cpus if available for a few years now. Things like audio processes, map updates, etc, fall into this category. However, it's a limited return on investment so they aren't really pursuing doing it with the entire current code base but rather as they create the next gen of the game building it in from the start (note, I do not know, but do not suspect, that CRS is currently working on building an entirely new game engine or client)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You answered your own question. Multi-core or muli-threading isn't just some switch or compiler setting' date=' you have to embed it throughout the code so that as the code executes it knows where and when to expect different calculations to occur. They have been slowly offloading non-essential threads to secondary cores/cpus if available for a few years now. Things like audio processes, map updates, etc, fall into this category. However, it's a limited return on investment so they aren't really pursuing doing it with the entire current code base but rather as they create the next gen of the game building it in from the start (note, I do not know, but do not suspect, that CRS is currently working on building an entirely new game engine or client)[/quote']

oh...

and any NEW ENGINE that isn't NATIVE 64 BIT is FAIL

32bit programs and OS's will soon be scattered to the 4 winds...as they are technologically OBSOLETE

R/A should have been done using 64 bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh...

and any NEW ENGINE that isn't NATIVE 64 BIT is FAIL

32bit programs and OS's will soon be scattered to the 4 winds...as they are technologically OBSOLETE

R/A should have been done using 64 bit

32bits will stay here for at least more 5 years :) , XP is still better in many aspects than Win7.

Many windows vista are also 32bit and even some version of Win7 were 32bit ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

use to be get the best performance outta your system play infantry, now for me it's airplanes... the new inf skins made playing infantry the most resource hogging personal ingame now (don't forget the ****ton of bugs that came with it) pretty funny imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Asus G74SX shows that with 2 monitors and running WWIIOL in a town with 30+ ppl visible GPU (not CPU, but GPU) never went above 37%. I have an NVIDIA 560M with 2Gb graphics ram and its NOT the GPU, or the CPU (I have 8 cores, and none of them went over 60%. Most were idle).

WWIIOL is in no position to take advantage of the new GPUs. When 1.3x came out they spec'd a system with an i5, 4Gb and and a GPU with 1Gb RAM.

HOGWASH

ITS NOT OUR COMPUTERS.

The game needs a COMPLETE REWRITE (remember what KFS1 was supposed to do?).

After the horrible 1.33->1.34 and continuing issues even GIVING WWIIOL away is merely a game in its death throws..... build up *some* sort of base and hopes you can sell the IP to another company.

I started AUG 2001, I come back every 2-3 years to see whats up. Every time I was told its my PC.... so I but what was, at the the time, the #2 gaming laptop on the planet and guess what? WWIIOL STILL IS CHESS ON LINE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You answered your own question. Multi-core or muli-threading isn't just some switch or compiler setting' date=' you have to embed it throughout the code so that as the code executes it knows where and when to expect different calculations to occur. They have been slowly offloading non-essential threads to secondary cores/cpus if available for a few years now. Things like audio processes, map updates, etc, fall into this category. However, it's a limited return on investment so they aren't really pursuing doing it with the entire current code base but rather as they create the next gen of the game building it in from the start (note, I do not know, but do not suspect, that CRS is currently working on building an entirely new game engine or client)[/quote']

Why wasn't speetree put on its own thread? Why wasn't the new weather put in it own thread? Why weren't the new buildings rendered in their own thread?

The game is still based largely on late 1990s tech. It was launched in 2001 and 12 years later its STILL based on 1990s tech.

This is as good as it will get. Has there been any RECENT talk of threading or an updated render engine? NO.

CRS is milking the teat till its dry. The last 3-6 months was fixing the LAST horrible update.

Keep paying $18 a month for 12 year old software... I'll be back in 1-2 years and see if its still around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am running it just fine. All settings to max and I still get 30FPS in a town with 200+ players in it. And my laptop isn't even meant for gaming.

the code base is old and largely outdated, but they tweak what they can when they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spent hours.. and hours.. using various hardware configurations, drivers, game settings, and even some bizarre software tweaking to figure out what makes this game tick, and what it needs to run. I have managed to finally find a configuration that is able to run in most conditions at a constant 60FPS with everything maxed out. (I'm using adaptive vsync since setting it off will let my gpu run at it's highest oc'ed boost clock, and 140+fps tends to heat things up a bit.)

My current rig consists of parts that I would say MOST people wouldn't consider spending the money on. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but with my schedule I pretty much only have time to use my computer and go to work, so dropping some $$$ on my computer makes sense. Flat out, it's around 4k in parts for the tower and its contents alone. Throw in peripherals and a few decent monitors and its just under $5,000 (rough guess).

As far as how I usually have it configured, see here:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2459433

Still pushing it, but its a long drawn out process.

I highly doubt the average person (or Rat) spends the time or has the desire to push their hardware to the limits of stability.

That being said, if you are running the game with maxed settings, and you don't have a setup similar to mine, don't expect similar results.

Why is the game performance now less than what it was before? Now, if anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me, but I imagine that much of the code which powered the game back when I built my first rig solely to play ww2ol in 2002, is still in the engine today. I know some of the 3d models are :P

The game has attempted to scale visually, add more features, more models, all while retaining the basic functionality of the game. It has done so while essentially being on the same engine for most of its life. There is only so much that you can do to an older engine (or a newer engine with older code) before it starts to crap its pants.

If you've ever noticed how some big name companies use software that looks like it was created in the early 90's, like airline reservation systems for example, this is because the software probably was developed in the early 90's. The very nature of the constant need for the software to be in use, maintained, and updated prevents its ability to be easily replaced.

I imagine that this game is in a similar situation. For one, the game runs on Playnet's proprietary Unity 3D game engine- not to be confused with the Unity engine. AFAIK, this game has always ran on Unity 3D, with few upgrades to the engine itself. Take into consideration the tools used to develop different parts, such as Granny3D, the knowledge required to use these tools, and how the formats produced by said tools play into compatibility. I don't think the task of moving the entire game to a different engine, or updating the engine to something that would solve everyone's problems is something that CRS has the budget, staff, or time to accomplish. That's my speculation anyway.

Whether I'm wrong or right about those details, we are all for the most part in the same boat. The game doesn't run how we would expect.

The solution? Lower the in game settings. The visual difference is minimal, and in the long run, you are going to get more enjoyment out of the game with it running smoother than you will with it looking slightly better.

If you can't do that, overclock the living hell out of your processor. Even though this game never uses 100% of any single core, frame rate greatly benefits from higher CPU clocks more than anything.

As an example, tonight my friends and I were playing attacking Chevron. One of my friends was using my old rig with an i7 930 @ 4.0ghz with a Nvidia GTX 465 and was getting ~50 FPS. I was sitting right beside him on my new rig with my i7 3770k @ 3.7ghz (stock CPU clocks for now as I've been testing the max OC of my video cards and didn't want any CPU instability to play a factor) with a Nvidia GTX 670 FTW and was getting ~35fps.

The offline benchmarks like .benchinfantry and .benchvehicles are whack. For one, I don't think that it's using the infantry models that are currently used in game, the LOD setting doesnt change how these are drawn, and appears to be just stressing the game engine. This also doesnt factor in any online representation of the game. In fact, offline mode appears to act completely on its own when compared to online mode. Using global defaults in the Nvidia control panel for antialiasing set at 32xCSAA for example, will work in offline mode, however in online mode you actually have to set those specific settings for the game profile (which btw reads this game as World War II Fighters according to Nvidia) so that they work online.

I have pretty much given up the tweaking approach with this game, since only god knows what the game engine is doing at any given time, and how its communicating with modern hardware and drivers. All I do know is that by pure brute force, shoving higher processing speeds down this games pie hole lets it run nicely (and by that, I mean that it shows 60fps on the screen, even if it doesnt look fluid). But if I'm able to find any new tricks, I'll let you know.

P.S. My recent interest in DayZ has revealed to me that the ArmaII engine is complete horse ass, is extremely exploitable, and will likely carry over its problems to ArmaIII. So not all relevant games played today are leaps and bounds beyond ww2ol in terms of performance.

Edited by ness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why wasn't speetree put on its own thread? Why wasn't the new weather put in it own thread? Why weren't the new buildings rendered in their own thread?

The game is still based largely on late 1990s tech. It was launched in 2001 and 12 years later its STILL based on 1990s tech.

This is as good as it will get. Has there been any RECENT talk of threading or an updated render engine? NO.

CRS is milking the teat till its dry. The last 3-6 months was fixing the LAST horrible update.

Keep paying $18 a month for 12 year old software... I'll be back in 1-2 years and see if its still around.

What really gets me is that the player base has talked about putting bug fixes/game performance above the next new feature for a DECADE and it doesn't happen. I agree that what is happening right now is that they are trying to suck every penny out of this game as they possibly can before it folds. When a company that already charges its customers more than what is considered average starts asking that already overcharged player base for "donations" you know there are problems. The sad thing is that if these things were fixed long ago they would at least have a solid base to build on, but instead they are still using spit and glue to keep the game going. Eventually it will fall apart like it did last night with a massive amount of enemy soldiers being invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have spent hours.. and hours.. using various hardware configurations, drivers, game settings, and even some bizarre software tweaking to figure out what makes this game tick, and what it needs to run. I have managed to finally find a configuration that is able to run in most conditions at a constant 60FPS with everything maxed out. (I'm using adaptive vsync since setting it off will let my gpu run at it's highest oc'ed boost clock, and 140+fps tends to heat things up a bit.)

My current rig consists of parts that I would say MOST people wouldn't consider spending the money on. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but with my schedule I pretty much only have time to use my computer and go to work, so dropping some $$$ on my computer makes sense. Flat out, it's around 4k in parts for the tower and its contents alone. Throw in peripherals and a few decent monitors and its just under $5,000 (rough guess).

As far as how I usually have it configured, see here:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2459433

Still pushing it, but its a long drawn out process.

I highly doubt the average person (or Rat) spends the time or has the desire to push their hardware to the limits of stability.

That being said, if you are running the game with maxed settings, and you don't have a setup similar to mine, don't expect similar results.

Why is the game performance now less than what it was before? Now, if anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me, but I imagine that much of the code which powered the game back when I built my first rig solely to play ww2ol in 2002, is still in the engine today. I know some of the 3d models are :P

The game has attempted to scale visually, add more features, more models, all while retaining the basic functionality of the game. It has done so while essentially being on the same engine for most of its life. There is only so much that you can do to an older engine (or a newer engine with older code) before it starts to crap its pants.

If you've ever noticed how some big name companies use software that looks like it was created in the early 90's, like airline reservation systems for example, this is because the software probably was developed in the early 90's. The very nature of the constant need for the software to be in use, maintained, and updated prevents its ability to be easily replaced.

I imagine that this game is in a similar situation. For one, the game runs on Playnet's proprietary Unity 3D game engine- not to be confused with the Unity engine. AFAIK, this game has always ran on Unity 3D, with few upgrades to the engine itself. Take into consideration the tools used to develop different parts, such as Granny3D, the knowledge required to use these tools, and how the formats produced by said tools play into compatibility. I don't think the task of moving the entire game to a different engine, or updating the engine to something that would solve everyone's problems is something that CRS has the budget, staff, or time to accomplish. That's my speculation anyway.

Whether I'm wrong or right about those details, we are all for the most part in the same boat. The game doesn't run how we would expect.

The solution? Lower the in game settings. The visual difference is minimal, and in the long run, you are going to get more enjoyment out of the game with it running smoother than you will with it looking slightly better.

If you can't do that, overclock the living hell out of your processor. Even though this game never uses 100% of any single core, frame rate greatly benefits from higher CPU clocks more than anything.

As an example, tonight my friends and I were playing attacking Chevron. One of my friends was using my old rig with an i7 930 @ 4.0ghz with a Nvidia GTX 465 and was getting ~50 FPS. I was sitting right beside him on my new rig with my i7 3770k @ 3.7ghz (stock CPU clocks for now as I've been testing the max OC of my video cards and didn't want any CPU instability to play a factor) with a Nvidia GTX 670 FTW and was getting ~35fps.

The offline benchmarks like .benchinfantry and .benchvehicles are whack. For one, I don't think that it's using the infantry models that are currently used in game, the LOD setting doesnt change how these are drawn, and appears to be just stressing the game engine. This also doesnt factor in any online representation of the game. In fact, offline mode appears to act completely on its own when compared to online mode. Using global defaults in the Nvidia control panel for antialiasing set at 32xCSAA for example, will work in offline mode, however in online mode you actually have to set those specific settings for the game profile (which btw reads this game as World War II Fighters according to Nvidia) so that they work online.

I have pretty much given up the tweaking approach with this game, since only god knows what the game engine is doing at any given time, and how its communicating with modern hardware and drivers. All I do know is that by pure brute force, shoving higher processing speeds down this games pie hole lets it run nicely (and by that, I mean that it shows 60fps on the screen, even if it doesnt look fluid). But if I'm able to find any new tricks, I'll let you know.

P.S. My recent interest in DayZ has revealed to me that the ArmaII engine is complete horse ass, is extremely exploitable, and will likely carry over its problems to ArmaIII. So not all relevant games played today are leaps and bounds beyond ww2ol in terms of performance.

I am using an I5-2500k with a GTX 670 FTW and I was getting 10-13 FPS in the big battle last night. I am sure that I could jack my CPU up to gain a few more FPS, but that shouldn't be necessary, nor will I spend 5 grand on a video game. I am sure other people can play with 10 FPS but I can't. If 1.35 doesn't help, and I start getting these kind of frame rates consistently, I will just stop playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure that I could jack my CPU up to gain a few more FPS, but that shouldn't be necessary

It shouldnt be necessary, but unfortunately it is.

If you aren't OCing your k model CPU,then why'd you get it?

At the click of a mouse button in your BIOS you can run cool at 4.2 on a stock heatsink.

CPU speed is king in this game.

Always has,always will.

You could complain till you're blue in the face but it won't change things.

If you want to play this game you need to squeeze every bit of spoeed out of your CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.