| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
    |
Posted - 2004.07.23 12:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/07/2004 12:59:56
Okay, a few nights ago I had a crash with Eve in a strange bugged system (x7o) and got the whole infinate-range autoscanner and ship symbols bug (seeing targetted enemies at 60 AU and such). It killed my frame rate on the comp, and I ended up clearing the cache and then deciding to do a complete reinstall of game and drivers and such.
So, I made a clean partition, defragged the comp, and reinstalled Eve and patches. And launching the sparkly clean Eve client I find I get: a choppy 30-40 fps (frames per second) in the station environment and a choppier 26-28 fps in open space.
Now this is entirely independent of resolution, and graphic quality issue. I get the same fps at 1600x1200 with max rendering and silly graphics settings as I get at 1024x768 with 16bit colour and every option at minimum.
It also doesn't slow down around gates with enemy ships on screen etc.
The annoying thing is though its just not that good ... comparing to other modern games on my system ... UT4, Farcry, CoD etc ... where I generally get a good 70-80 fps and silky smoothness.
My system is:
3GHZ Pentium 4.
1 gig main memory.
ATI 9800 Pro graphics card. (running 4.7 catalyst compatible - omega drivers)
Windows XP professional.
The environment is clean (for windows) and has no ridiculous programs sucking processing power and such.
In task manager the comp is generally about 60% idle while running eve with about 2/3rds of the system memory unused.
And yet I get sucky frame rates in Eve in open space.
So the question is?
How well is Eve performing for other people? Can I have some examples and system details please?
As far as I was concerned, I thought I had a pretty good system loadout for the Eve Client, is there some silly thing I have forgotten or overlooked?
Any help for optimising (resolving this issue) gladly accepted.
Lots of love.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.07.23 12:45:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/07/2004 12:59:56
Okay, a few nights ago I had a crash with Eve in a strange bugged system (x7o) and got the whole infinate-range autoscanner and ship symbols bug (seeing targetted enemies at 60 AU and such). It killed my frame rate on the comp, and I ended up clearing the cache and then deciding to do a complete reinstall of game and drivers and such.
So, I made a clean partition, defragged the comp, and reinstalled Eve and patches. And launching the sparkly clean Eve client I find I get: a choppy 30-40 fps (frames per second) in the station environment and a choppier 26-28 fps in open space.
Now this is entirely independent of resolution, and graphic quality issue. I get the same fps at 1600x1200 with max rendering and silly graphics settings as I get at 1024x768 with 16bit colour and every option at minimum.
It also doesn't slow down around gates with enemy ships on screen etc.
The annoying thing is though its just not that good ... comparing to other modern games on my system ... UT4, Farcry, CoD etc ... where I generally get a good 70-80 fps and silky smoothness.
My system is:
3GHZ Pentium 4.
1 gig main memory.
ATI 9800 Pro graphics card. (running 4.7 catalyst compatible - omega drivers)
Windows XP professional.
The environment is clean (for windows) and has no ridiculous programs sucking processing power and such.
In task manager the comp is generally about 60% idle while running eve with about 2/3rds of the system memory unused.
And yet I get sucky frame rates in Eve in open space.
So the question is?
How well is Eve performing for other people? Can I have some examples and system details please?
As far as I was concerned, I thought I had a pretty good system loadout for the Eve Client, is there some silly thing I have forgotten or overlooked?
Any help for optimising (resolving this issue) gladly accepted.
Lots of love.
JF Public Forum |
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.07.23 18:36:00 -
[3]
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
Join the IC! |
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.07.23 18:36:00 -
[4]
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
Join the IC! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.07.24 16:22:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Orestes
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
Well when its working well it manages a pretty smooth 30-40 in space with fluid animation (with all the options turned up)
I am pretty much convinced there is a non graphic card bottleneck in play somewhere, but where I am somewhat at a loss to guess.
The problem with this poor framerate and such is that it also manifests a sluggish response to icons and modules and such. Clicking on warp scramblers and having to wait a while before they active lets victims escape ;) When my system was working perfectly it was a joy to fight in space combat, when its jerky its something of a pain.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.07.24 16:22:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Orestes
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
Well when its working well it manages a pretty smooth 30-40 in space with fluid animation (with all the options turned up)
I am pretty much convinced there is a non graphic card bottleneck in play somewhere, but where I am somewhat at a loss to guess.
The problem with this poor framerate and such is that it also manifests a sluggish response to icons and modules and such. Clicking on warp scramblers and having to wait a while before they active lets victims escape ;) When my system was working perfectly it was a joy to fight in space combat, when its jerky its something of a pain.
JF Public Forum |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.25 21:54:00 -
[7]
AthlonXP 3200+ (2.19Ghz), 1 gig of dual-channel 400mhz DDR RAM, Win XP SP2 RC2, ATI Radeon Pro 9800, and ATI Cat 4.7 drivers (all associated updates).
I've spent a long time trawling the net for good advice re: tweaking memory settings etc and I've mercilessly turned off all uneeded services (in fact, I run 2 diff. hardare configurations depending on what I wish to do - gaming or net use) so I think my Win XP environment is as streamlined as possible.
I run my gfx card at balanced (between performance and quality) and run Eve at 85mhz @ 1152x865.
I cannot get a better FPs than 46.
Like you said, Jade, running at full graphics or barebones makes little differences.
In fact, it's hard to even judge Eve at the moment because there's more network lag than video lag.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.25 21:54:00 -
[8]
AthlonXP 3200+ (2.19Ghz), 1 gig of dual-channel 400mhz DDR RAM, Win XP SP2 RC2, ATI Radeon Pro 9800, and ATI Cat 4.7 drivers (all associated updates).
I've spent a long time trawling the net for good advice re: tweaking memory settings etc and I've mercilessly turned off all uneeded services (in fact, I run 2 diff. hardare configurations depending on what I wish to do - gaming or net use) so I think my Win XP environment is as streamlined as possible.
I run my gfx card at balanced (between performance and quality) and run Eve at 85mhz @ 1152x865.
I cannot get a better FPs than 46.
Like you said, Jade, running at full graphics or barebones makes little differences.
In fact, it's hard to even judge Eve at the moment because there's more network lag than video lag.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Nilit
|
Posted - 2004.07.27 09:46:00 -
[9]
I think the game is designed to be playable with low fps ( compare to lets say what you get playing first person shooters ). While it works miracles for dial-up and low bandwidth users , large events such as fleet battles suffer from horrible amount of lag for the same reason.
Arguing with EVE customer support is like chatting up stewardess on the plane - you know you're not gonna get any , but it's still hella fun trying |
Nilit
|
Posted - 2004.07.27 09:46:00 -
[10]
I think the game is designed to be playable with low fps ( compare to lets say what you get playing first person shooters ). While it works miracles for dial-up and low bandwidth users , large events such as fleet battles suffer from horrible amount of lag for the same reason.
Arguing with EVE customer support is like chatting up stewardess on the plane - you know you're not gonna get any , but it's still hella fun trying |
|
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 23:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Orestes
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
got about the same thing except for having an Athlon 1.8ghz...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 23:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Orestes
I'm using a 2.2Ghz Athlon, K7N8x Deluxe motherboard, 512MB RAM Ti4600 128MB RAM PC, which nets me around 28-30 Fps in-flight.
Truth is, Eve doesn't need more then that, to play. Games like Ut4 and CoD -need- high framerates, because they depend on 'twitch'. Eve doesn't.
If you want more 'tweaking' options, there's a whole load of tools out there that can help you, from TweakXP to RivaTuner.
What kind of FPS did you use to get?
got about the same thing except for having an Athlon 1.8ghz...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
StarLite
|
Posted - 2004.07.30 14:08:00 -
[13]
Im getting around 40FPS on an Athlon 64 3000+ [2GHz], 512MB PC 3200 and a Radeon 9800.
I noticed I am doing around 40FPS regardless of video-options, wether it's 1024x768x16, all low or 1600x1200x32 6X FSaa, 16X Anisotropic and all spifffeeehh options turned on.
Eve is generally really CPU and connection dependant, I don't know about large fleet battles tho, a hefty and fast PC might help your FPS I guess, but I doubt it will be much
___________________________________________________
 |
StarLite
|
Posted - 2004.07.30 14:08:00 -
[14]
Im getting around 40FPS on an Athlon 64 3000+ [2GHz], 512MB PC 3200 and a Radeon 9800.
I noticed I am doing around 40FPS regardless of video-options, wether it's 1024x768x16, all low or 1600x1200x32 6X FSaa, 16X Anisotropic and all spifffeeehh options turned on.
Eve is generally really CPU and connection dependant, I don't know about large fleet battles tho, a hefty and fast PC might help your FPS I guess, but I doubt it will be much
___________________________________________________
|
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.07.30 15:28:00 -
[15]
Disabling sound (shift-ctrl-alt-f12) does wonders for my FPS.
Everything gets much smoother, just put something on Winamp and bob's your uncle.
<)<
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.07.30 15:28:00 -
[16]
Disabling sound (shift-ctrl-alt-f12) does wonders for my FPS.
Everything gets much smoother, just put something on Winamp and bob's your uncle.
<)<
a history |
foster
|
Posted - 2004.08.03 20:16:00 -
[17]
i got
dual 2.66gig (533mhz) xeons.
dual channel 1 gig (333mhz) ram (2 gig in a week )
ge-force 5900 ultra 256ddr
sound blaster audugy 2
sata 10k spin 8mega cashe 74.6gig. (will be 3 on a raid in 3 week )
i get around 50fps in a station and around 30-40 fps depending what else i'm doing. i ran 6 accounts (all in space) and i was getting about 29 fps on the account i checked. running 1 account eve uses about 11-13% cpu. on the 6 it went as high as 68%.
i think because i got a sound blaster audgy 2 card in my system it doesn't make any difference if i switch sound on and off. and i think anything over 15fps for eve is more than playable
but i haven't checked when there is a large number of people around or in a big battle.
|
foster
|
Posted - 2004.08.03 20:16:00 -
[18]
i got
dual 2.66gig (533mhz) xeons.
dual channel 1 gig (333mhz) ram (2 gig in a week)
ge-force 5900 ultra 256ddr
sound blaster audugy 2
sata 10k spin 8mega cashe 74.6gig. (will be 3 on a raid in 3 week )
i get around 50fps in a station and around 30-40 fps depending what else i'm doing. i ran 6 accounts (all in space) and i was getting about 29 fps on the account i checked. running 1 account eve uses about 11-13% cpu. on the 6 it went as high as 68%.
i think because i got a sound blaster audgy 2 card in my system it doesn't make any difference if i switch sound on and off. and i think anything over 15fps for eve is more than playable
but i haven't checked when there is a large number of people around or in a big battle.
|
Teutobod
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 08:44:00 -
[19]
Best advice for smooth performance is at least 1 GiG of RAM and try some very fast HD in a RAID setup.
Some 10,000 RPM SATA disks in RAID should work small wonders.
This baby should do nicely,
Model:
WD360GD - Raptor
Interface:
Serial ATA - 150
Size:
36GB
Rpm:
10,000RPM
Cache:
8MB
Access time:
4,5ms
While 36 GB might not sound like a lot it's enough for me as I don't need loads and loads of storage I need speed. I am not using them myself atm, but, considering it.
Two of those and a RAID 0 and you are rocking performance wise.
Remember occanisonal backups if you have valuable data :D
|
Teutobod
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 08:44:00 -
[20]
Best advice for smooth performance is at least 1 GiG of RAM and try some very fast HD in a RAID setup.
Some 10,000 RPM SATA disks in RAID should work small wonders.
This baby should do nicely,
Model:
WD360GD - Raptor
Interface:
Serial ATA - 150
Size:
36GB
Rpm:
10,000RPM
Cache:
8MB
Access time:
4,5ms
While 36 GB might not sound like a lot it's enough for me as I don't need loads and loads of storage I need speed. I am not using them myself atm, but, considering it.
Two of those and a RAID 0 and you are rocking performance wise.
Remember occanisonal backups if you have valuable data :D
|
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 09:31:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Teutobod
Best advice for smooth performance is at least 1 GiG of RAM and try some very fast HD in a RAID setup.
Some 10,000 RPM SATA disks in RAID should work small wonders.
This baby should do nicely,
Model:
WD360GD - Raptor
Interface:
Serial ATA - 150
Size:
36GB
Rpm:
10,000RPM
Cache:
8MB
Access time:
4,5ms
While 36 GB might not sound like a lot it's enough for me as I don't need loads and loads of storage I need speed. I am not using them myself atm, but, considering it.
Two of those and a RAID 0 and you are rocking performance wise.
Remember occanisonal backups if you have valuable data :D
I was going to buy 2 of these but they run incredibly hot. Not good for AMD
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 09:31:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Teutobod
Best advice for smooth performance is at least 1 GiG of RAM and try some very fast HD in a RAID setup.
Some 10,000 RPM SATA disks in RAID should work small wonders.
This baby should do nicely,
Model:
WD360GD - Raptor
Interface:
Serial ATA - 150
Size:
36GB
Rpm:
10,000RPM
Cache:
8MB
Access time:
4,5ms
While 36 GB might not sound like a lot it's enough for me as I don't need loads and loads of storage I need speed. I am not using them myself atm, but, considering it.
Two of those and a RAID 0 and you are rocking performance wise.
Remember occanisonal backups if you have valuable data :D
I was going to buy 2 of these but they run incredibly hot. Not good for AMD
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
iqplayer
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 16:01:00 -
[23]
Edited by: iqplayer on 05/08/2004 16:04:33
Just out of curiosity Joshua, are you saying that based on personal experience, or someone else said that? I've personally got the 36GB Raptor, and think that it runs cooler than any 7200RPM drive I've ever had. In fact, atm, when I touch it, it feels no more than room temperature (I've got the side off of my case). And I don't have a fan on that HD either.
As a side note, I'm not even sure a RAID array would make as much difference as single 10k would over a 7200RPM. I say that, because it seems that Eve benefits more from fast seek times more so than incredibly high transfer rates. And RAID arrays, if anything, tend to lower access times (unless you've got a controller with large ram caches of it's own) ***Edit: lower access times meaning worse, or higher latency***. Not saying it would hurt ;) But if you're going to run RAID 5, make sure that it's on a hardware accelerated RAID adapter, or you may actually hurt your performance.
Just my experiences ;) Individual results may vary......
|
iqplayer
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 16:01:00 -
[24]
Edited by: iqplayer on 05/08/2004 16:04:33
Just out of curiosity Joshua, are you saying that based on personal experience, or someone else said that? I've personally got the 36GB Raptor, and think that it runs cooler than any 7200RPM drive I've ever had. In fact, atm, when I touch it, it feels no more than room temperature (I've got the side off of my case). And I don't have a fan on that HD either.
As a side note, I'm not even sure a RAID array would make as much difference as single 10k would over a 7200RPM. I say that, because it seems that Eve benefits more from fast seek times more so than incredibly high transfer rates. And RAID arrays, if anything, tend to lower access times (unless you've got a controller with large ram caches of it's own) ***Edit: lower access times meaning worse, or higher latency***. Not saying it would hurt ;) But if you're going to run RAID 5, make sure that it's on a hardware accelerated RAID adapter, or you may actually hurt your performance.
Just my experiences ;) Individual results may vary......
|
Nomeshta
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 17:15:00 -
[25]
I read a couple of reviews on the latest SATA drives and while the Raptor always performed brilliantly, every reviewer mentioned it ran a lot hotter than other drives.
- Caution: Ninja Fingers
WTB: Implants
|
Nomeshta
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 17:15:00 -
[26]
I read a couple of reviews on the latest SATA drives and while the Raptor always performed brilliantly, every reviewer mentioned it ran a lot hotter than other drives.
- Caution: Ninja Fingers
WTB: Implants
|
fuze
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 23:01:00 -
[27]
Just close all chatwindows and your performance will increase significantly.
I can go up to 65fps with all windows closed in 3D space. Open just one of them and bang back to 35 fps.
So there's something strange going on with the code.
___________________________
Favorite bumpersticker of the month:
My head hurts! |
fuze
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 23:01:00 -
[28]
Just close all chatwindows and your performance will increase significantly.
I can go up to 65fps with all windows closed in 3D space. Open just one of them and bang back to 35 fps.
So there's something strange going on with the code.
___________________________
Favorite bumpersticker of the month:
My head hurts! |
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 12:20:00 -
[29]
I'm running eve on what could be considered a low spec machine these days. Athlon XP 1800+ running at 1473Mhz, only 256Mb PC2700DDR (It's all I really need most of the time), Geforce 4 MX 440 (cheap as hell ^^) and it's running on an MSI KT333 motherboard. I will say that MSI make damn good motherboards and I will stick with them from now on, definately.
I run eve in 1600*1200 at 75Hz with 32bit colour and I can get down to 4-10 FPS in space. It's very much playable at that low FPS. I tried using a lower resolution and colour depth and although the FPS increased a lot, it didn't make much of a difference. The resolution I run in is, to me, a greater effect on playability than FPS.
I should upgrade some time, but it works fine for me right now.
|
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2004.08.06 12:20:00 -
[30]
I'm running eve on what could be considered a low spec machine these days. Athlon XP 1800+ running at 1473Mhz, only 256Mb PC2700DDR (It's all I really need most of the time), Geforce 4 MX 440 (cheap as hell ^^) and it's running on an MSI KT333 motherboard. I will say that MSI make damn good motherboards and I will stick with them from now on, definately.
I run eve in 1600*1200 at 75Hz with 32bit colour and I can get down to 4-10 FPS in space. It's very much playable at that low FPS. I tried using a lower resolution and colour depth and although the FPS increased a lot, it didn't make much of a difference. The resolution I run in is, to me, a greater effect on playability than FPS.
I should upgrade some time, but it works fine for me right now.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |