| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
   |
Posted - 2011.06.19 09:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Zora''e on 19/06/2011 09:25:54
Just got back from SISI. New build. Lets see where to start...
A: Esc menu audio & chat tab produces a blank wall of nothing.
B: 1 client on sisi uses the same CPU as three currently on TQ
C: 1 client on sisi uses 5-6 times as much GPU resources as one client on TQ (I.E. I can run 3 clients on TQ and still not use as much CPU/GPU resources as ONE client running CQ).
D: Non-Intuitive UI interface while in CQ (i.e. it's even worse than what is currently on TQ)
E: Option to turn off CQ leaves you with a static picture.
F: Docking times for a single client is 3 times longer than on TQ.
G: Docking times for three clients takes 1.5 minutes ( -vs- 15 seconds on TQ for three clients)
H: Overall UI functionality is... while not reduced... greatly more troublesome to access with CQ controls
I: Glitchy and missing gun animations
J: Spastic (sometimes there, sometimes not) warp animations.
K: Spastic module animations (i.e. Nos/Neut etc)
L: (Good Point) New Maller Hull design looks tight as hell.
My Prediction for Incarna's success: Not a snow balls chance in hell CCP isn't going to have to do damage control and undo 3/4 of the garbage they are doing before all is said and done or face losing quite probably 1/4 or more of their subscription base due to the ultimate fiasco Incarna is shaping up to be. This is a shame because I was looking forward to the possibilities Incarna could bring.
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 09:39:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zora''e on 19/06/2011 09:46:49
 Originally by: Hyperforce99
Mind if I take this and quote you somewhere else ?
Not at all. Feel free.
Originally by: Digital Messiah
Originally by: Zora'e
Just got back from SISI. New build. Lets see where to start...
A: Esc menu audio & chat tab produces a blank wall of nothing.
B: 1 client on sisi uses the same CPU as three currently on TQ
C: 1 client on sisi uses 5-6 times as much GPU resources as one client on TQ (I.E. I can run 3 clients on TQ and still not use as much CPU/GPU resources as ONE client running CQ).
D: Non-Intuitive UI interface while in CQ (i.e. it's even worse than what is currently on TQ)
E: Option to turn off CQ leaves you with a static picture.
F: Docking times for a single client is 3 times longer than on TQ.
G: Docking times for three clients takes 1.5 minutes ( -vs- 15 seconds on TQ for three clients)
H: Overall UI functionality is... while not reduced... greatly more troublesome to access with CQ controls
My Prediction for Incarna's success: Not a snow balls chance in hell CCP isn't going to have to do damage control and undo 3/4 of the garbage they are doing before all is said and done or face losing quite probably 1/4 or more of their subscription base due to the ultimate fiasco Incarna is shaping up to be. This is a shame because I was looking forward to the possibilities Incarna could bring.
Please post system specs and difference with drivers if any. Also, how are you monitoring this?
I'm monitoring this using CoreTemp, EVGA Precision, Windows Performance (task manager), and by running one, two and three accounts on sisi, and then doing the same on tq to get performance comparisons. Docked, and in space.
My testing system isn't uber. AMD dual core 2.6 Ghtz, Windows 7 x64, 8 gigs ram, 1 gig Nvidia GT430.
I use this machine for baseline testing. It isn't 'Uber' and is probably roughly middle of the road as computers go. Drivers are current as of 2 days ago (I check for updates every Thurs/Fri).
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 09:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
What? Beta builds on a TEST server aren't working properly?
I hope you are reporting these issues to CCP instead of being an attention woman providing sexual services for money.
TQ beta build on a test server less than 3 days from deployment. By now one would 'think' the build on the test server would be ready for deployment, however, that isn't what is being seen. At best the current build should be a month away from deployment, not 2-3 days.
As for the other part of your post, I learned by watching the best. PL members.
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:01:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nuhm DeAra
Originally by: Zora'e
Edited by: Zora''e on 19/06/2011 09:25:54
My computer is a pile of crap and the end is nigh.
TL;DR
What part of my statement that my testing computer is 'middle of the road' did you misunderstand, or is it you just choose to ignore what you don't want to see?
I won't bother mentioning that it exceeds CCP's stated minimum for Incarna by a fairly decent factor. Oh wait, I just did. In fact, it sits just above the MIDDLE of CCP's stated minimum and their stated optimum machine specs to run Incarna, that put's it as about an average machine. Hmm.. so an average machine is a pile of crap to you, well... I guess not everybody can afford the newest and greatest over priced piece of hardware.
Me? I'm just a regular working stiff. I'd rather pay my bills and put some RL isk away for the future, than blow it on a $5000.00 high end gaming machine. My comp works well for everything I do, including the current build of EVE on TQ. It has absolutely no trouble running the number of clients I normally run (3). In fact it doesn't even struggle to do that.
However the build on SISI for Incarna more than triples the CPU and GPU requirements for a single client. And running three clients pushes the hardware a bit, docked or in space (though my comp still handles it fairly well except when docking three clients at once.. then it takes forever to load CQ).
Thought lag was bad before? Wait till the first fleet fight after Incarna goes live. When people start realizing that their GPU's are now doing 3-5 times the work they used to do... People used to lag in fleet fights before... now... I predict those fleet fights are going to be a massive stop-motion experience in pure frustration for a lot more players.
Anyway, I am glad you have such an uber machine that you consider the average machine a pile of crap. Must be nice to be able to afford toys like that. If you ever want to hand down your 'old' gaming rigs let me know. LOL.
~Z
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 03:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Vertex
Zora'e, I would appreciate it if you could reply to this thread when you have filed a bug report. I would also like to know what graphic settings you have enabled (a screenshot would be great) and your DxDiag just attach it to the bug report.
Thanks :)
I'll go you one better. I'll Fraps it for you.
Oh and new problem has cropped up. When you change graphics settings while in game the client stops responding all together and gives you a solid black screen. Only fix is to restart the client.
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Zora''e on 20/06/2011 04:30:45
Originally by: Madcow
What everyone seems to dont know or doesnt wanna mention is you have full access to the neocom while you load so if loading goes slow you can edit your ship and undock before the full screen is loaded.
Not quite. While loading CQ the neocom reacts sluggishly. Yes you can use it once the buttons appear, but until then you get no reaction. Once the CQ is fully loaded everything reacts smoothly again. Disabling the CQ and docking etc is actually faster than TQ. TQ takes me anywhere from 5-10 seconds to load a single client after docking with station environment enabled. On CQ with it disabled it takes me about 3-5 seconds. I think my docking times on TQ with station environments disabled are roughly the same... 3-5 seconds.
The biggest problem is the clients GPU and CPU footprint has increased by a factor of 3 or more both docked or in space (and docked with environment enabled it is a resource hog). This isn't so bad running one client. But running 2 or more you start running out of resources on the GPU and CPU. Basically what this means is that non graphics intensive environments won't severely tax most peoples machines while running one client, moderate graphics situations (small gang fleet fights) will likely cause the older machine sets to begin to function horridly and high graphics environments (large fleet battles) is going to cause even high end machines to start choking much sooner than before.
Get into multiple client use and the problems start increasing even more. Two clients buries my CPU to 100% utilization and my graphics card starts being pushed. Three clients and my graphics card is running nearly full out and that is in a docking/station area environment w/o anybody else around me. Start bringing in ships (say Jita 4-4 as an example) and the systems requirements starts shooting through the roof. Add into that combat and you start seeing graphics needs pushing even gaming systems.
Overall, things look great yes. Can't deny that but CCP's stated minimum requirements is much to low for anything but say mining. The good side to this is the newer graphics environment may very well reduce some macro users to being unable to play.
That would be a good thing in my mind.
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:20:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Zora''e on 20/06/2011 09:38:03
I thought I would post this screen shot of my character in the current Incarna build on SISI. This is with a SINGLE client running with all graphics settings turned to max. Take careful note of the Blue text in the upper left corner. That is EVGA Precision reporting on my graphics card. The Card is an NVidia GT430 with 1 gig of DDR3 Ram onboard.
GPU: Temp, GPU Usage, Core Clock, Shader Clock
MEM: Memory Clock, Memory Usage
Full Graphics
and....
Minimum Graphics
And so a comparison can be made:
TQ Max Graphics
and....
TQ Min Graphics
-
|
Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 14:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Zora''e on 20/06/2011 14:21:37
Originally by: CCP Vertex
Zore'e, I've taken a look at your bug report alongside your comments/videos in this thread. I am trying to get a reproduction in-house with the same GPU, the one thing I would like to note is that the 430 GT is the low-end of the 400 range and as such it is not expected to run with high-settings.
It really helps when we have concise bug reports dealing with 1 issue that includes all the details we need, the following link goes over this in detail. http://www.eve-bh.net/howtobr.php
Yup I figured as much re the settings. If you look at the post above yours it shows the GPU data from EVGA Precision with comparisons for High and low graphics settings on both TQ and SISI. I usually run low settings on TQ myself as I tend to run multiple clients. However with the new graphics changes even the low settings currently on SISI are going to end up causing a lot of people problems when they go to run multiple clients. You guys need to brace yourself, and buffer the forums for the storm of hate that is gonna hit the forums come patch day (I however DO like the new graphics, in particular, the Maller Hull upgrade.. it's Awesomesauce. I also have a better GPU in mind for my system as soon as I can sc**** the $200.00 together to get it  ).
As for the bug report, thanks for the link (Bookmarked), I'll use it in the future. Biggest issue with the bugs I've mentioned though is they are intermittent. I can't seem to find any EXACT method of reproducing them. They are just more likely to happen the longer the client is running, and the more activity I do while it is running (i.e. warping, shooting rats, jumping through gates, docking/undocking repeatedly etc). With luck you'll be able to reproduce the problems I was showing. Oh, before I go, the vanishing Audio page in the escape menu seems to have corrected itself and is now no longer vanishing.
Thanks for taking the time to help me become a better bug hunter. 
~Z
-
|
| |
|