| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joshua Calvert
   |
Posted - 2004.07.06 19:51:00 -
[1]
FPS
Eve fullscreen @ 1152 x 864 screen resolution with 3 channels open, scanner open, no radar and moderate graphical settings (ingame and card): 40 fps avg at the Yulai->Kemerk stargate when it's busy.
Eve fullscreen @ 1152 x 864 screen resolution with no GUI (pressing CTRl + F9): 60 fps at the Yulai-> Kemerk stargate when it's busy.
CPU
Eve windowed @ 1024 x 768 screen resolution with channels open, scanner, no radar and moderate graphics settings: CPU usage averaging 55% but peaking at over 90% when session changes (docking/jumping into new system).
Eve windowed @ 1024 x 768 screen resolution with no GUI (Ctrl + F9): CPU usage averages around 11-20% and peaking at 28% when session changes (docking/jumping into new system).
FPS measured by FRAPs and ingame feature.
CPU %age measured by Task Manager.
Quite clearly the GUI is a massive reosurce hog and has a serious impact on the performance of the game.
Will the new Shiva GUI improve things both in looks aswell as performance?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 19:51:00 -
[2]
FPS
Eve fullscreen @ 1152 x 864 screen resolution with 3 channels open, scanner open, no radar and moderate graphical settings (ingame and card): 40 fps avg at the Yulai->Kemerk stargate when it's busy.
Eve fullscreen @ 1152 x 864 screen resolution with no GUI (pressing CTRl + F9): 60 fps at the Yulai-> Kemerk stargate when it's busy.
CPU
Eve windowed @ 1024 x 768 screen resolution with channels open, scanner, no radar and moderate graphics settings: CPU usage averaging 55% but peaking at over 90% when session changes (docking/jumping into new system).
Eve windowed @ 1024 x 768 screen resolution with no GUI (Ctrl + F9): CPU usage averages around 11-20% and peaking at 28% when session changes (docking/jumping into new system).
FPS measured by FRAPs and ingame feature.
CPU %age measured by Task Manager.
Quite clearly the GUI is a massive reosurce hog and has a serious impact on the performance of the game.
Will the new Shiva GUI improve things both in looks aswell as performance?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:08:00 -
[3]
Um.
Those numbers look pretty damn good to me. 40fps is about 20 more than you need for Eve.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:08:00 -
[4]
Um.
Those numbers look pretty damn good to me. 40fps is about 20 more than you need for Eve.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Eugene Spencer
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:11:00 -
[5]
yeah, why would u need more that 25fps? 
www.gumpcom.com |
Eugene Spencer
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:11:00 -
[6]
yeah, why would u need more that 25fps?
www.gumpcom.com |
Harmonic
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:20:00 -
[7]
On my 15" flat panel i am lucky to get 20fps... goes down to less than 5 when in combat or NPC'ing....
Me thinks i should go back to my previous monitor :(
|
Harmonic
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:20:00 -
[8]
On my 15" flat panel i am lucky to get 20fps... goes down to less than 5 when in combat or NPC'ing....
Me thinks i should go back to my previous monitor :(
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:22:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Wandarah
Um.
Those numbers look pretty damn good to me. 40fps is about 20 more than you need for Eve.
Yes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.
--------------
 Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 | 
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Wandarah
Um.
Those numbers look pretty damn good to me. 40fps is about 20 more than you need for Eve.
Yes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Valrandir
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:23:00 -
[11]
The point is that the GUI use way to much ressources for what it does. I am sure that this can be dramatically optimised.
EVE is a 3d game, the fact that the 2d GUI use this much ressources compared to the rest of the graphics part of the game show that there is a problem.
You say that 40FPS is more then enought, I agree. But this does not justify to let the GUI waste so much CPU and memory.
Think when you play Unreal Tournament, does the gui takes ~33% of the cpu/memory ressources? It sure don't. This part of code need to be rewritten from scratch and optimised.
--------------------------------
|
Valrandir
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:23:00 -
[12]
The point is that the GUI use way to much ressources for what it does. I am sure that this can be dramatically optimised.
EVE is a 3d game, the fact that the 2d GUI use this much ressources compared to the rest of the graphics part of the game show that there is a problem.
You say that 40FPS is more then enought, I agree. But this does not justify to let the GUI waste so much CPU and memory.
Think when you play Unreal Tournament, does the gui takes ~33% of the cpu/memory ressources? It sure don't. This part of code need to be rewritten from scratch and optimised.
--------------------------------
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:35:00 -
[13]
the bigger chunk of the cpu and graphics power goes in the damn overlay that puts those nice boxes over the ships, transfering that to the 3d engine would speed things up
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:35:00 -
[14]
the bigger chunk of the cpu and graphics power goes in the damn overlay that puts those nice boxes over the ships, transfering that to the 3d engine would speed things up
|
0verkill
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:50:00 -
[15]
I agree with josh for once OMG. Fix this devs
0verkill
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we aren't out to get you.
|
0verkill
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 20:50:00 -
[16]
I agree with josh for once OMG. Fix this devs
0verkill
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we aren't out to get you.
|
Riffix
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:04:00 -
[17]
Valrandir pretty much said it, the problem is the waste. What annoys me most is just that there is such a huge diffence. Without using a frame-rate counter I know that on my system with the GUI on I see a bit of jerkiness even when a small amount of ships, roids, or drones get in the area but if I turn the GUI off the frame-rate is as smooth as silk even with LARGE numbers of objects and the like. It borks my mind to think that this game really is very l33t in terms of how it handles graphics but no one gets to feel it unless they are taking screenshots :/
"Lead, follow, or get the #@$@#$ out of the way" |
Riffix
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:04:00 -
[18]
Valrandir pretty much said it, the problem is the waste. What annoys me most is just that there is such a huge diffence. Without using a frame-rate counter I know that on my system with the GUI on I see a bit of jerkiness even when a small amount of ships, roids, or drones get in the area but if I turn the GUI off the frame-rate is as smooth as silk even with LARGE numbers of objects and the like. It borks my mind to think that this game really is very l33t in terms of how it handles graphics but no one gets to feel it unless they are taking screenshots :/
"Lead, follow, or get the #@$@#$ out of the way" |
Bobby Wilson
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:09:00 -
[19]
The people posting "gee that looks like enough FPS to me" need to get in a large fleet battle some time. With 100 drones and more cruise missiles in the air that you can count, FPS goes WAY down compared to an empire space gate. Unplayble is a nice way of describing it.
Nice numbers Josh. Hope somebody listens.
BW
Originally by: Selim
Cool, congrats.
Oh, stupid idea by the way.
|
Bobby Wilson
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:09:00 -
[20]
The people posting "gee that looks like enough FPS to me" need to get in a large fleet battle some time. With 100 drones and more cruise missiles in the air that you can count, FPS goes WAY down compared to an empire space gate. Unplayble is a nice way of describing it.
Nice numbers Josh. Hope somebody listens.
BW
Originally by: Selim
Cool, congrats.
Oh, stupid idea by the way.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:27:00 -
[21]
I run 1600x1200 full screen and windowed, with a 2.4ghz 1gig ram, radeon 9700 pro and everything is smooth. Lucky me.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:27:00 -
[22]
I run 1600x1200 full screen and windowed, with a 2.4ghz 1gig ram, radeon 9700 pro and everything is smooth. Lucky me.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:44:00 -
[23]
Have you tried to turn the transparency to 0% on all the different GUI you can then take a fps reading?
|
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:44:00 -
[24]
Have you tried to turn the transparency to 0% on all the different GUI you can then take a fps reading?
|
NAFnist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:47:00 -
[25]
Edited by: NAFnist on 06/07/2004 21:55:01
Try reading some articels on anand
They test grafic-cards with alot of games including EVE. Good read.
EDIT:
Look see goodies :D
Quote:
CCP have previously stated that they are working on adding benchmark functionality to EVE in order to help make our lives easier. Currently we have to log on to the EVE servers and hide in lonely areas of space to do our testing in this game. But such is the difficulty of benchmarking a persistant world MMORPG
_____________
|
NAFnist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:47:00 -
[26]
Edited by: NAFnist on 06/07/2004 21:55:01
Try reading some articels on anand
They test grafic-cards with alot of games including EVE. Good read.
EDIT:
Look see goodies :D
Quote:
CCP have previously stated that they are working on adding benchmark functionality to EVE in order to help make our lives easier. Currently we have to log on to the EVE servers and hide in lonely areas of space to do our testing in this game. But such is the difficulty of benchmarking a persistant world MMORPG
_____________
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:54:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Doppleganger
Have you tried to turn the transparency to 0% on all the different GUI you can then take a fps reading?
I'm quite sure that setting transparency to 0 doesn't actually turn the transparency thingy off... It's still processing it even though it's completely opaque. 
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 21:54:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Doppleganger
Have you tried to turn the transparency to 0% on all the different GUI you can then take a fps reading?
I'm quite sure that setting transparency to 0 doesn't actually turn the transparency thingy off... It's still processing it even though it's completely opaque.
|
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jarjar
I'm quite sure that setting transparency to 0 doesn't actually turn the transparency thingy off... It's still processing it even though it's completely opaque.
Well thats why I was asking if things like that were tested.
|
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:01:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Jarjar
I'm quite sure that setting transparency to 0 doesn't actually turn the transparency thingy off... It's still processing it even though it's completely opaque.
Well thats why I was asking if things like that were tested.
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:45:00 -
[31]
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz! 
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:45:00 -
[32]
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Righteous Fury
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:53:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
|
Righteous Fury
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:53:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:58:00 -
[35]
Originally by: ErrorS
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
I guess you have never been into a fleet battle and have never discussed framerates with people who know what they are talking about 
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:58:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ErrorS
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
I guess you have never been into a fleet battle and have never discussed framerates with people who know what they are talking about
|
NAFnist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: ErrorS
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
It can't, but higher fps/hz gives a more clear picture. That why 100hz TV's is better. It has nothing to do with how many picture/sec your eye can see.
_____________
|
NAFnist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:58:00 -
[38]
Originally by: ErrorS
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
It can't, but higher fps/hz gives a more clear picture. That why 100hz TV's is better. It has nothing to do with how many picture/sec your eye can see.
_____________
|
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:01:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
Actually I'm kinda happy if Eve only uses 333 megs, at one time it had such a bad memory leak I can remember it using 450-520 megs on my machine. 
|
Doppleganger
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
Actually I'm kinda happy if Eve only uses 333 megs, at one time it had such a bad memory leak I can remember it using 450-520 megs on my machine.
|
Synex
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:07:00 -
[41]
Originally by: ErrorS
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
Actually.. you'll find the human eye doesn't refresh in the same way that a computer monitor etc. does.
A few examples:
A monitor set @ 60Hz will produce a noticeable flicker in your peripheral vision, which updates more often then the center of your field of view. Also, 60Hz will produce a noticeable flicker for some people, and will give most people a headache.
A monitor set @ 85Hz upwards will remove all of these problems for most people - indicating the eye 'refreshes' itself somewhere between these two values.
Cinema is recorded at 24fps, however, because the refresh is instant and complete (unlike the 'scan' of a computer monitor) and also the image is motion-blurred, the brain compensates for this and so 24fps is acceptable.
Computer games however, aren't motion blurred and therefore suffer from problems. Therefore, framerates of 30fps and upwards are required for perfectly smooth motion.
|
Synex
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: ErrorS
you don't *need* 40fps, or even 60fps.. but it looks damn nice.
60hz would most definitely improve the gameplay for me.. thats just how i am, looks + functionality .. instead of only functionality.
and i dare someone to tell me the human eye can't see over 30hz!
Actually.. you'll find the human eye doesn't refresh in the same way that a computer monitor etc. does.
A few examples:
A monitor set @ 60Hz will produce a noticeable flicker in your peripheral vision, which updates more often then the center of your field of view. Also, 60Hz will produce a noticeable flicker for some people, and will give most people a headache.
A monitor set @ 85Hz upwards will remove all of these problems for most people - indicating the eye 'refreshes' itself somewhere between these two values.
Cinema is recorded at 24fps, however, because the refresh is instant and complete (unlike the 'scan' of a computer monitor) and also the image is motion-blurred, the brain compensates for this and so 24fps is acceptable.
Computer games however, aren't motion blurred and therefore suffer from problems. Therefore, framerates of 30fps and upwards are required for perfectly smooth motion.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:15:00 -
[43]
Right but I think you pulled that out your you know what.
It varies from game to game.
I remember playing a game called Ghost Recon (FPS now owned by Ubisoft). back when windows XP first came out refresh rates were locked at 65mhz. I was getting exactly 65 fps and it was unnaceptable.
Then a refresh rate unlock was made for Win Xp where I could set my refresh rate to like 80mhz. My fps was 80FPS and it was now acceptable.
I think your 24fps number is false and the actual true fps to have without ever noticing any problems would be closer to 100.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:15:00 -
[44]
Right but I think you pulled that out your you know what.
It varies from game to game.
I remember playing a game called Ghost Recon (FPS now owned by Ubisoft). back when windows XP first came out refresh rates were locked at 65mhz. I was getting exactly 65 fps and it was unnaceptable.
Then a refresh rate unlock was made for Win Xp where I could set my refresh rate to like 80mhz. My fps was 80FPS and it was now acceptable.
I think your 24fps number is false and the actual true fps to have without ever noticing any problems would be closer to 100.
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:31:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Sinist
I think your 24fps number is false and the actual true fps to have without ever noticing any problems would be closer to 100.
Did you, uh, read his post?
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:31:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Sinist
I think your 24fps number is false and the actual true fps to have without ever noticing any problems would be closer to 100.
Did you, uh, read his post?
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:35:00 -
[47]
the 24fps is accurate, film works that it shows 24 actual frames per second but it also shows 24 black frames which fools the eye to think its smooth
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:35:00 -
[48]
the 24fps is accurate, film works that it shows 24 actual frames per second but it also shows 24 black frames which fools the eye to think its smooth
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:40:00 -
[49]
Well, I heard that the Covert Ops EvE reduces CPU usage by 92%-100%.. no wait..
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:40:00 -
[50]
Well, I heard that the Covert Ops EvE reduces CPU usage by 92%-100%.. no wait..
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:40:00 -
[51]
I think it has a lot to do with the way the light in the system influences the GUI. That and each GUI element has to be alpha blended with what's behind it. I'd say turn off the whole light-reflecting-off-GUI deal, or at least put in an option to do this on the fly. 2 FPS during a fleet battle is no fun, neither is flying without a UI during a fleet battle in an effort to speed up the FPS.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:40:00 -
[52]
I think it has a lot to do with the way the light in the system influences the GUI. That and each GUI element has to be alpha blended with what's behind it. I'd say turn off the whole light-reflecting-off-GUI deal, or at least put in an option to do this on the fly. 2 FPS during a fleet battle is no fun, neither is flying without a UI during a fleet battle in an effort to speed up the FPS.
|
Vladimir G'orkin
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 00:29:00 -
[53]
I suggest you read this article. I'd like to see improvement in performance, more frames per second can never be a bad thing. Especially if you have outdated hardware.
|
Vladimir G'orkin
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 00:29:00 -
[54]
I suggest you read this article. I'd like to see improvement in performance, more frames per second can never be a bad thing. Especially if you have outdated hardware.
|
Baleur
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 00:34:00 -
[55]
yyeaaaaahh 1152 x 864 is the way to go 
God i gotta change my sig..
|
Baleur
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 00:34:00 -
[56]
yyeaaaaahh 1152 x 864 is the way to go
God i gotta change my sig..
|
Fillmeup
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 01:22:00 -
[57]
Wow, 40-60fps ......
Until very recently, I played Eve for over 12 months on a P3-600 with 512mb and a Nvidia 440MXse. My max frame rate in normal times was sub-15fps, dropping to 1-2fps in fleet battle. Jumping stargates took up to 2mins and docking around 30-45secs.
I can tell you right now that, while playable, my experiece with Eve has completely changed since buying a new PC. For this alone i would heartily recommend running reasonably new H/W as it makes the game much more playable / enjoyable.
However, to those people that 'need' 40+ FPS, I think you need to realise that a large majority of EVE players and will never see this - you are already in the minority. It is true that I have lost 100's of millions of isk due to CPU lag, and that 1fps in fleet battles is not enuf to do jack (Oh look, I'm in a pod, when did that happen??), but realistically, anyone getting 40-60fps should be damm happy. I optimise my new pc so it sits at around 30fps with fraps and everything else sitting at high detail, and find the game performs without fault. I have also found that Eve servers are no-where near as laggy as I thought - most of my lag was PC based. (at least over the last 2 weeks or so of playing)
I generally find that people complaining about how slow Eve is generally have a butt-load of other crap running in the background, have inferior hardware, or are either too inexperienced with PC's to know or are simply asking too much from it. I was surprise how many people run Anti-virus programs while playing eve - this made it impossible to play on my p3.
My point: if you are not happy running eve on more or less current hardware, there is a good chance you are doing something wrong. (fleet battles are excepted from this statement :-)
If you are unhappy with 40-60fps, then what would make you happy?
/end rant
|
Fillmeup
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 01:22:00 -
[58]
Wow, 40-60fps ......
Until very recently, I played Eve for over 12 months on a P3-600 with 512mb and a Nvidia 440MXse. My max frame rate in normal times was sub-15fps, dropping to 1-2fps in fleet battle. Jumping stargates took up to 2mins and docking around 30-45secs.
I can tell you right now that, while playable, my experiece with Eve has completely changed since buying a new PC. For this alone i would heartily recommend running reasonably new H/W as it makes the game much more playable / enjoyable.
However, to those people that 'need' 40+ FPS, I think you need to realise that a large majority of EVE players and will never see this - you are already in the minority. It is true that I have lost 100's of millions of isk due to CPU lag, and that 1fps in fleet battles is not enuf to do jack (Oh look, I'm in a pod, when did that happen??), but realistically, anyone getting 40-60fps should be damm happy. I optimise my new pc so it sits at around 30fps with fraps and everything else sitting at high detail, and find the game performs without fault. I have also found that Eve servers are no-where near as laggy as I thought - most of my lag was PC based. (at least over the last 2 weeks or so of playing)
I generally find that people complaining about how slow Eve is generally have a butt-load of other crap running in the background, have inferior hardware, or are either too inexperienced with PC's to know or are simply asking too much from it. I was surprise how many people run Anti-virus programs while playing eve - this made it impossible to play on my p3.
My point: if you are not happy running eve on more or less current hardware, there is a good chance you are doing something wrong. (fleet battles are excepted from this statement :-)
If you are unhappy with 40-60fps, then what would make you happy?
/end rant
|
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 12:47:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
Firstly that isn't neccessarily a memory leak. A memory leak is when memory that is no longer actually needed by an application is not handed back to the OS for reuse. The usual sign of a memory leak is memory usage climbing continuously until the application crashes.
Secondly 333Mb of memory in use doesn't sound excessive to me for an application like Eve. I write software and although it rarely exceeds 100MB at any one time it has been known to hit 700MB. I know from investigating such cases what can cause that kind of memory usage and it doesn't have to be anything unreasonable.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 12:47:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/07/2004 22:55:04
There's also a memory leak that needs to be looked at. Thought I'd post it here because it kind of goes. Atm i'm running one copy of eve with nothing else running:
eve.exe - 333,388k mem usage.
Thats insane. With 786mb of RAM, I'm down to about 10% left at any given time. When I close eve, that number rockets back up to 70% or 80%
Firstly that isn't neccessarily a memory leak. A memory leak is when memory that is no longer actually needed by an application is not handed back to the OS for reuse. The usual sign of a memory leak is memory usage climbing continuously until the application crashes.
Secondly 333Mb of memory in use doesn't sound excessive to me for an application like Eve. I write software and although it rarely exceeds 100MB at any one time it has been known to hit 700MB. I know from investigating such cases what can cause that kind of memory usage and it doesn't have to be anything unreasonable.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
spurious signal
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 12:59:00 -
[61]
People saying "40-60fps is enough" have, I think, entirely missed the point of JC's post...
Sure, that's a nice framerate but the point is why does the interface require such a huge chunk of processing power?
It's poor design - it looks great yeah but when you're pvping a snazzy-looking interface is pretty far down the list of desirable features in EVE whereas a high framerate is way up there at the top.
How about a "lite" version of the interface? One without the nice lighting effects, transparency etc. A plain "advanced/simple" checkbox in options to switch between the two would be ideal. Or, like Josh said, just recode the interface so it doesn't end up using 30-50% of the processor time.
|
spurious signal
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 12:59:00 -
[62]
People saying "40-60fps is enough" have, I think, entirely missed the point of JC's post...
Sure, that's a nice framerate but the point is why does the interface require such a huge chunk of processing power?
It's poor design - it looks great yeah but when you're pvping a snazzy-looking interface is pretty far down the list of desirable features in EVE whereas a high framerate is way up there at the top.
How about a "lite" version of the interface? One without the nice lighting effects, transparency etc. A plain "advanced/simple" checkbox in options to switch between the two would be ideal. Or, like Josh said, just recode the interface so it doesn't end up using 30-50% of the processor time.
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 13:08:00 -
[63]
Had a battle in Teonosude system (about 4 jumps from Pator) last night...
10 ships on one side - 6 on the other... system had around another 10 neutrals...
Battle started fine, drones were unleashed everything running smooth but gradually things began to slow - despite people losing ships or fleeing...
At the end nearly everyone left at the gate - 7/8 ships crashed simultaneously. My EVE simply froze up. In order to shut it I had to do Ctrl/Alt/Del and even that was moving stupidly slowly.
My whole computer had reached crawl speed. When EVE final shut down suddenly the speed returned to the computer. Was able to log back in to discover everyone else had gone down too... Luckily it had happened near the end of the fight rather than at the start...
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 13:08:00 -
[64]
Had a battle in Teonosude system (about 4 jumps from Pator) last night...
10 ships on one side - 6 on the other... system had around another 10 neutrals...
Battle started fine, drones were unleashed everything running smooth but gradually things began to slow - despite people losing ships or fleeing...
At the end nearly everyone left at the gate - 7/8 ships crashed simultaneously. My EVE simply froze up. In order to shut it I had to do Ctrl/Alt/Del and even that was moving stupidly slowly.
My whole computer had reached crawl speed. When EVE final shut down suddenly the speed returned to the computer. Was able to log back in to discover everyone else had gone down too... Luckily it had happened near the end of the fight rather than at the start...
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 13:27:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Hardin
Had a battle in Teonosude system (about 4 jumps from Pator) last night...
10 ships on one side - 6 on the other... system had around another 10 neutrals...
Battle started fine, drones were unleashed everything running smooth but gradually things began to slow - despite people losing ships or fleeing...
At the end nearly everyone left at the gate - 7/8 ships crashed simultaneously. My EVE simply froze up. In order to shut it I had to do Ctrl/Alt/Del and even that was moving stupidly slowly.
My whole computer had reached crawl speed. When EVE final shut down suddenly the speed returned to the computer. Was able to log back in to discover everyone else had gone down too... Luckily it had happened near the end of the fight rather than at the start...
same with when you are taking over a station, you have to warp out and in again every once in a while because everything started to slow down
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 13:27:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Hardin
Had a battle in Teonosude system (about 4 jumps from Pator) last night...
10 ships on one side - 6 on the other... system had around another 10 neutrals...
Battle started fine, drones were unleashed everything running smooth but gradually things began to slow - despite people losing ships or fleeing...
At the end nearly everyone left at the gate - 7/8 ships crashed simultaneously. My EVE simply froze up. In order to shut it I had to do Ctrl/Alt/Del and even that was moving stupidly slowly.
My whole computer had reached crawl speed. When EVE final shut down suddenly the speed returned to the computer. Was able to log back in to discover everyone else had gone down too... Luckily it had happened near the end of the fight rather than at the start...
same with when you are taking over a station, you have to warp out and in again every once in a while because everything started to slow down
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:00:00 -
[67]
Agreed Joshua , we need badly options wich would switch off all this pretty effects of GUI and switch one something basic utilizing as low resources as possible.
Its critical for bigger battles.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:00:00 -
[68]
Agreed Joshua , we need badly options wich would switch off all this pretty effects of GUI and switch one something basic utilizing as low resources as possible.
Its critical for bigger battles.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
DeathBunny
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:09:00 -
[69]
I just did some testing on this the other day, having 0-100% transparency on the GUI doesn't do diddly squat. Opening more windows drops frame rate though and does it pretty quick most of the time. These are unstacked windows. Tabbed windows makes no noticble difference.
Taken instation with games FPS counter
62fps with 1 window
50fps with 2 windows
43fps with 3 windows
35fps with 4 windows
Taken outside station with games FPS counter
40fps with 1 window
36fps with 2 windows
33fps with 3 windows
31fps with 4 windows
Now something seems a bit odd about this don't you think? You get steaper drops instation with less information on screen then you would in space. Odd huh. Memory usage was right around 130-200megs during the tests which was on Saturday when I played with it.
Overclocking my video card helped a bit with the issue :). But people are correct 20fps is perfectly fine to run the game, I get sometimes around 10-15fps in belts on my higher end system which.
3.3ghz P4 (its overclocked), 1 gig of ram (dual channel), 9800pro 128mb (overclocked to XT speeds). Harddrive has no factor on speed for game tried that out between a 10k, 7.2k and a 5.4k harddrives.
Fear The Bunny
|
DeathBunny
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:09:00 -
[70]
I just did some testing on this the other day, having 0-100% transparency on the GUI doesn't do diddly squat. Opening more windows drops frame rate though and does it pretty quick most of the time. These are unstacked windows. Tabbed windows makes no noticble difference.
Taken instation with games FPS counter
62fps with 1 window
50fps with 2 windows
43fps with 3 windows
35fps with 4 windows
Taken outside station with games FPS counter
40fps with 1 window
36fps with 2 windows
33fps with 3 windows
31fps with 4 windows
Now something seems a bit odd about this don't you think? You get steaper drops instation with less information on screen then you would in space. Odd huh. Memory usage was right around 130-200megs during the tests which was on Saturday when I played with it.
Overclocking my video card helped a bit with the issue :). But people are correct 20fps is perfectly fine to run the game, I get sometimes around 10-15fps in belts on my higher end system which.
3.3ghz P4 (its overclocked), 1 gig of ram (dual channel), 9800pro 128mb (overclocked to XT speeds). Harddrive has no factor on speed for game tried that out between a 10k, 7.2k and a 5.4k harddrives.
Fear The Bunny
|
Cortex Reaver
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:18:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Cortex Reaver on 07/07/2004 14:21:03
Originally by: OrigimYes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.[/quote
The choppiness when there's a lot of ships in one area has *ZERO* to do with the efficiency of the GUI or the graphics engine. It's the network and database load of relaying what X number of ships are doing to X number of game clients and keeping it all in jive with the database.
If you wanna fix that, run a fiber pair from your house to where the server is co-located in London and convince CCP to plug your sorry a$$ in and have everyone you wanna have a fleet battle with do the same. Oh, and you're all gonna need your own exclusive server cluster. Maybe you'd be happier with Freelancer.
-CR
/*
Cortex Reaver
crtxreavr at trioptimum dot com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
*/ |
Cortex Reaver
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:18:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Cortex Reaver on 07/07/2004 14:21:03
Originally by: OrigimYes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.[/quote
The choppiness when there's a lot of ships in one area has *ZERO* to do with the efficiency of the GUI or the graphics engine. It's the network and database load of relaying what X number of ships are doing to X number of game clients and keeping it all in jive with the database.
If you wanna fix that, run a fiber pair from your house to where the server is co-located in London and convince CCP to plug your sorry a$$ in and have everyone you wanna have a fleet battle with do the same. Oh, and you're all gonna need your own exclusive server cluster. Maybe you'd be happier with Freelancer.
-CR
/*
Cortex Reaver
crtxreavr at trioptimum dot com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
*/ |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:28:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Earthan on 07/07/2004 14:30:32
Originally by: Cortex Reaver
Edited by: Cortex Reaver on 07/07/2004 14:21:03
Originally by: OrigimYes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.[/quote
The choppiness when there's a lot of ships in one area has *ZERO* to do with the efficiency of the GUI or the graphics engine. It's the network and database load of relaying what X number of ships are doing to X number of game clients and keeping it all in jive with the database.
If you wanna fix that, run a fiber pair from your house to where the server is co-located in London and convince CCP to plug your sorry a$$ in and have everyone you wanna have a fleet battle with do the same. Oh, and you're all gonna need your own exclusive server cluster. Maybe you'd be happier with Freelancer.
-CR
not true ( at least in big part) and go back to your kindergarten with your flames.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:28:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Earthan on 07/07/2004 14:30:32
Originally by: Cortex Reaver
Edited by: Cortex Reaver on 07/07/2004 14:21:03
Originally by: OrigimYes, but during big battles, the GUI isn't going to take any less resources.. therefore, instead of a nice 15 FPS during a fleet battle, you're going to have an unplayable 2-5 FPS.[/quote
The choppiness when there's a lot of ships in one area has *ZERO* to do with the efficiency of the GUI or the graphics engine. It's the network and database load of relaying what X number of ships are doing to X number of game clients and keeping it all in jive with the database.
If you wanna fix that, run a fiber pair from your house to where the server is co-located in London and convince CCP to plug your sorry a$$ in and have everyone you wanna have a fleet battle with do the same. Oh, and you're all gonna need your own exclusive server cluster. Maybe you'd be happier with Freelancer.
-CR
not true ( at least in big part) and go back to your kindergarten with your flames.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 02:49:00 -
[75]
Eves requirements seem pretty low to me eh. Including that of the GUI...Certainly less than most other games I play. Infact, it's in the bottom 3, in terms of resource use.
Could it be optimised? Probably. But it's already pretty good. Suspect people have ludicrous expectations.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 02:49:00 -
[76]
Eves requirements seem pretty low to me eh. Including that of the GUI...Certainly less than most other games I play. Infact, it's in the bottom 3, in terms of resource use.
Could it be optimised? Probably. But it's already pretty good. Suspect people have ludicrous expectations.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Kayosoni
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 03:56:00 -
[77]
Ok for those of you who are stupid idiot carebears, if you get 40 fps in normal space, you will get 5 or less fps in a normal fleet battle, 1 or 1 frame per minute in a larger fleet battle.
Compare:
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/EveFSFPS.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Kills/Jovin_Ketils/1.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/C9N-CC/Mar-21-2004/2.jpg
With Fraps:
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/U-QVWD/Jun-28-2004/1.jpg
-----------------------------------
Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server |
Kayosoni
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 03:56:00 -
[78]
Ok for those of you who are stupid idiot carebears, if you get 40 fps in normal space, you will get 5 or less fps in a normal fleet battle, 1 or 1 frame per minute in a larger fleet battle.
Compare:
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/EveFSFPS.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Kills/Jovin_Ketils/1.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/C9N-CC/Mar-21-2004/2.jpg
With Fraps:
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/U-QVWD/Jun-28-2004/1.jpg
-----------------------------------
Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 05:16:00 -
[79]
Well that doesnt show much, cheers!
How about:
A shot of a fleet battle with GUI on and FPS
A shot of a fleet battle without GUI on, and FPS
Most PC's are more than capable of rending plenty in the Eve universe. The decrease in performance shown here, has more to do with Lag.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Wandarah
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 05:16:00 -
[80]
Well that doesnt show much, cheers!
How about:
A shot of a fleet battle with GUI on and FPS
A shot of a fleet battle without GUI on, and FPS
Most PC's are more than capable of rending plenty in the Eve universe. The decrease in performance shown here, has more to do with Lag.
NZEA 4 Lyfe |
Kayosoni
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 06:42:00 -
[81]
k
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/HLW-HP/Jun-13-2004/7.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/HLW-HP/Jun-13-2004/1.jpg
-----------------------------------
Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server |
Kayosoni
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 06:42:00 -
[82]
k
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/HLW-HP/Jun-13-2004/7.jpg
http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/Battles/HLW-HP/Jun-13-2004/1.jpg
-----------------------------------
Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server |
Powerpuff Girl
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 09:36:00 -
[83]
My PC is a 1.4GHz AMD (1600+) with 1GB DDR-RAM on a (older) MSI mobo with a ATI 9600pro.
FPS in Station
FPS with full UI
FPS with 'half' UI
FPS without UI
The UI eats way too much resources - I dont know how it is in big battles but I guess it must be much worse.
(as you cant turn off the UI - how will you navigate/fight/whatever?)
"Sig makes me sick" |
Powerpuff Girl
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 09:36:00 -
[84]
My PC is a 1.4GHz AMD (1600+) with 1GB DDR-RAM on a (older) MSI mobo with a ATI 9600pro.
FPS in Station
FPS with full UI
FPS with 'half' UI
FPS without UI
The UI eats way too much resources - I dont know how it is in big battles but I guess it must be much worse.
(as you cant turn off the UI - how will you navigate/fight/whatever?)
"Sig makes me sick" |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 17:52:00 -
[85]
No Dev comment?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.08 17:52:00 -
[86]
No Dev comment?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |