EVE Search - New Blog: The EVE Client -- A Love Story

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Blog: The EVE Client -- A Love Story

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2008.12.08 11:47:00 - [1] The release of Quantum Rise, EVE OnlineÆs newest expansion, has been an historic one. Never before has a massively multiplayer had a slew of hardware and technological breakthroughs that allow players to participate in fleet fights on a massive scale. There was only one problem: the game client. Many of you have reported a number of issues related to the client and how it performs on your myriad systems, and we have responded with a two patches to help alleviate the problems you have been experiencing. But thereÆs more. This week we will release a third patch, Quantum Rise 1.0.3, which contains a ton of new fixes bringing even more performance enhancements directly to your desktop. This newest patch is, in part, due to player fleet fight testing efforts on Singularity and your feedback. Your efforts have helped us improve EVE Online, and in his latest blog, "The EVE Client û A Love Story," CCP Atlas gives the ins and outs of the efforts that have been made to kick the issues in their asteroids. You may read all the blog goodness here. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.08 12:47:00 - [2] Originally by: Hoshi Explosion effects, are that ship explosions or missile explosions or both? Explosion effects refer only to ship (destruction) explosions. Missile effects disable the missile-hit explosions.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.08 14:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Kayosoni You know what would be nice? Graphics effects and options Profiles. So you can just choose one as you need, cause I know a lot of us like to play with full effects for small gangs and roaming then having to turn all that stuff off for fleet fights is annoying. Yes, that's something that we'd like to see and will probably be done (along with exporting and importing of overview/bracket settings) soonish.


CCP Fallout	Posted - 2008.12.08 14:39:00 - [4] On a related note, we're doing additional testing and would love your participation :) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=937868 Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.08 16:48:00 - [5] Originally by: Alz Shado Edited by: Alz Shado on 08/12/2008 16:30:53 Not bad, CCP. There is still one unappreciated area where Lag still hits me the hardest, and it's without ever seeing a single NPC. It's when I have the market view and the wallet view open simultaneously, and am updating a large number of orders (300+) After working my way about halfway through my list, the time it takes to open an order takes increasingly longer for the client to respond to basic UI commands. We're talking 30+ seconds between right-click and the context menu to appear. I know I've complained about this previously (2006-ish) and with recent improvements such as disabling the autorefresh I thought you'd had it licked. Except, it's not. I got to thinking it might be a system-wide memory leak because the issues seem to get much worse the further from DT you get (comparing times with similar system populations) but only the guys with the tools can really check that for sure. Being able to update my orders without having to wait 30 seconds for the system to respond to UI commands: that's my Need for Speed initiative. (and yes, this issue has persisted across several system configurations and many, many Windows reinstalls. It's not my box, or my cable connection, or anything else in my control) I will be very interested in hearing from you after QR 1.0.3 is released. Please let us know through a bug report if you're still having these problems next week.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.08 18:53:00 - [6] Originally by: Ishina Fel Just to doublecheck if I got this right... Even if I DON'T turn off turret effects, I will see improvements on the freeze time at warpin, because all those turrets will only ask my client to load them after it has received notification that they're actually firing (which may take up to 10 seconds from the warpin time)? That is correct. No turrets are loaded up into the scene until you see them firing. With this change the premium client should load up most scenes faster than the classic client on modern hardware.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.08 20:28:00 - [7] Originally by: Lake Why not start loading the destination grid while still in-warp? Is is already being done to some extent. We do preload some of the models and textures up to an extent that we can without giving away tactical information (we don't want people to know what they're up against while they're still a billion km's away). This asynchronous loading of resources is much more advanced in the Premium graphics codepath. It is partly because of this that the Premium client loads a grid quicker. We will be making more advances in preloading in subsequent patches. In order to take advantage of this you must have your resource cache size set above 0. Basically, I would recommend having your resource cache size set as high as your computer can manage; having resources ready for the graphics card in memory is always faster than loading and constucting them from scratch.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.09 00:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Irongut Great devblog with oodles of technical dev info. You mention differences in heap performance between XP and Vista. Did you test any of this on 2k for those of us still using that old reliable workhorse? Never had any problems with heap fragmentation myself but I have profiled and used alternate memory managers before so I know how tricky this stuff can be. I look forward to seeing a huge performance improvement later this week. I'm afraid we don't officially support Windows 2000 any more. However, LFH is supported on Windows 2000 SP 4. We should see similar effects there as on Windows XP.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.09 00:12:00 - [9] Originally by: Flamewave Quote: So, we are replicating the lazy turret loading from Classic into Premium. This means that turrets will now only be shown for ships that satisfy one of the two following conditions: * You are doing 'look at' on the ship. * The ship is shooting its turrets and Turret Effects are enabled (default). What this means is that ships will not show their turret models until the point when they are fired. This kinda gives us moviemakers the shaft. Would you consider giving us the option to enable all turrets without having to do a 'look at'? It'd work well as a drop-down box... That is something we can consider. Perhaps with something like a prefs.ini flag at a later date. However, if you are making a movie and you need to see the turrets it's pretty easy just to do quick 'look at' at the more prominent ships in your frame and their turrets will be loaded for the remainder of the scene.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.09 11:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Hugh Ruka MOAR FPS !!! good Actualy a nice blog. Did you consider 3 levels of resource loading for turrets, drones and effects: 1. all loaded 2. loaded when affecting player ship (missile/turret hit, player ship firing, web effect etc.) 3. all off Option 2 would not impact visuals much (you still get effects when your own ship is either source or target) and would get good performance still. That is a very good point and something we will look into. Originally by: Hugh Ruka If drone models are not loaded, will they still be represented by brackets ? Yes, disabling drone models will not affect brackets.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.09 11:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Glengrant Originally by: Jason Edwards So devs dont play the game NOR watch eve vids? If they play the game they are accused of cheating, if they don't play it they get accused of not understanding what's going on. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Besides, it's hard to beat being there when it happens with all the tools ready to analyze - not nearly the same as just playing (and being distracted :-) ). I'm not an avid gamer and didn't play EVE before working at CCP Games. I do play now as much as I can in high-sec fluffy-bunny world so that I understand the mechanics of the game but the only fleet fight action I get is when I monitor these things to profile client/server performance.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.09 16:50:00 - [12] Originally by: Lord EmBra Edited by: Lord EmBra on 09/12/2008 13:19:29 Will fighter models also be disabled if drone models are disabled? Yes. This affects fighters and (lighter) drones the same.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.10 13:13:00 - [13] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Siena Petrucis Quote: "Disable audio (this does not include EVE Voice, there should not be a performance impact there)." àspeaking of which, have you managed to squash the bug that made EVE Voice kill performance (or at least keyboard and mouse input) on the Mac client? I see no mention of it in the blog or the patch note. As someone who have been incapable of turning voice on unless I wanted to make the game so unreponsive that you can't even quit out of it, I find that particular line hillarious, you seeà Ehem.. Touche... That particular bug is being worked on by our Transgaming partners who wrap the Mac client. I don't have an ETA sadly but it's at the top of their list.


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.10 17:16:00 - [14] Originally by: FugginNutz Ok...I appreciate all CCP is doing to improve framerates and client/server performance but it sounds like you are doing so by making everyone turn off all the bells and whistles the game has to offer that makes the game so enjoyable to play. Instead of (nerfing) brackets, graphics options, etc....why not spend more time optimizing the code/hardware/whatever to handle the brackets, explosions, shaking, etc.... (although camera shaking is annoying...tyvm for allowing us to turn that off at least). Not at all. Turning off options is just part of it. We're doing a lot of work in improving performance of EVE in all its high-detail glossiness as I talked about at-length in the blog. Of course we would like to be able to run 1000 person fleet fights with awe-inspiring graphics on a 1 GHz machine with 512MB of RAM but at some point the hardware is simply incapable. To allow people to participate we're giving them more graphics switches so that more people can play even if EVE isn't gorgeous for all.


CCP Explorer	Posted - 2008.12.11 20:24:00 - [15] Originally by: Irongut Originally by: CCP Atlas I'm afraid we don't officially support Windows 2000 any more. However, LFH is supported on Windows 2000 SP4. We should see similar effects there as on Windows XP. Urg, when did that happen? 13 March 2008. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games


CCP Atlas	Posted - 2008.12.12 18:30:00 - [16] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg In the article and a post afterwards, you make mention of 'modern' hardware not having issues with xyz. What is modern hardware to you guys? 1, 2, 3 years old gfx card? Dual core processor? 1 gig + ram? What are you shooting for when you drop 'modern'? Something like a dual core machine with 2GB of RAM and a 128+MB graphics card. Maybe I should have used the phrase "modern gaming platform" since my home computer isn't that good though. ;-)

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.