I play on a mid-range desktop and get 50fps on Fleet. I paid $1300 to build it... last year. If you can't pull off similar results with a "monster gaming" box, then I suggest you look for a different manufacturer next time you shop.

Yes!!! Put those artists to work fixing network code! They're being too lazy with their pencils and drawing tablets. Tell them to stop wasting their time with models and textures and start figuring out why network routing occasionally experiences high latency, or at the very least force them to write code to be able to recover from multiple dropped packets. And the writers, too. Really, what's the difference between writing dialogue and writing code. They're both 'writing'. You use a keyboard for both of them. Tell them to stop working on writing up new storylines until they've optimized the texture streaming code to handle high-resolution textures. I don't know how you do things at Bioware, but in my experience, the one thing that really helps a team work faster is flooding them with a bunch of untrained, unqualified and unmotivated "helpers". So, figure it out, and reassign all of your UI designers to fix server bugs. That'll ensure that the code quality drastically increases. [/sarcasm]

Er... no, not really. It should be close to Tatooine. Canon says there were never any significant tensions between humans and Gungans, and that tensions between factions of humans were far more common and severe.... and yet, they still weren't that severe. Face it... Naboo is a mostly peaceful (boring) planet. Pretty, sure, but not terribly exciting. I'd say Dantooine is likely at some point, but really, how many destoryed-by-the-empire planets do you want in your game right now? I'm good with where we're at now. I'd still support Dantooine later, but I can see why they held off.

Except that he's actually voiced by Anthony Daniels. You know... the guy who voiced C3-P0 in all the Star Wars movies. I thought it was mind-bashingly obvious.

Yeah... Please, Bioware, tell all the 3D modelers and texture makers and voice actors to drop what they are doing and start fixing the pixel shaders and 3D rendering pipelines. We really need better performance on the graphics engine core code, so why are you not telling the network coding team to get right on that? I mean, really, what is the difference between optimizing vertex rendering paths and optimizing network performance. They both use code don't they? So, they're exactly the same and the exact same people should be the very best people to fix the problem. In fact, why is your web team still not helping? HTML is code, so they should get right on those issues and fix them right up. Maybe they can get some help from the UI designers, because, after all, the FPS issue is part of the UI and they supposedly "design" UIs so they should be the ones to design a fix for the FPS issues. And since the FPS issues are seen in animations, crack the whip on those Animators, since obviously they're not doing their jobs. Get them on those FPS optimizations right now! Pardon me, I'm off to have a welder bake me some bread, because... you know... both use heat to get work done.

To further help the OP, please note that the GTX 560 is not the same as the GTX 560 Ti. The 560 is cheaper, and (thankfully) a little less capable. However, it still outperforms the 550 Ti, which, as people have already noted cannot handle larger textures nearly as well. I'd really suggest the 560 Ti as the best ability/cost card, but the 560 would be the next option, if you really can't swing the extra $40 for the Ti version.

I've been running with the FPS meter in the corner for the last couple days. Even in Fleet (120 players) I was only getting dips to 40fps, with one drop to 35fps. The odd part is my hardware: CPU: i7 2600K @ 4.5GHz GPU: GTX 560 Ti @ 900 RAM: 16 GB DDR3 HDD: 5400rpm HDD (outer 10% of sectors) + 120G SSD (system & cache) Settings: High (medium...) detail, AA, shadows, bloom, etc If we're using the same code, why is mine smooth while yours is not? I even have Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrome, a couple SSH terminals, and Eclipse running while I play. Clearly its not the video card. Realistically, the only difference between your CPU and mine is about $40 in price. So... Memory? How is your memory usage? Are you relying on a pagefile? Be careful that you don't blame code when the real conclusion you should make is: "I don't know enough to figure out what might be causing the problem."

The answer is: No.

Actually, you're the one who isn't fully informed. The term "hyperthreading" has about three different technical definitions. The "hyperthreading" done by Pentium 4's is not the same as the "hyperthreading" done by Core i7's. In the previous version, single-threaded processes had their performance dropped (slightly) because they still had to pay the overhead cost of setting up and maintaining the registers for SMT. In the i7 implementation, this doesn't happen, as the register maintenance is included in the chip design so there is no "cost" at execution time to setting it up. So, the only detriment to hyperthreading in an i7 is the chance of thrashing the Level 1 or Level 2 cache. While this is not impossible, the practical chances of it happening are pretty small, especially in normal usage, and even more so in tightly-looped applications.... for instance: games. It's almost as if Intel tested these things when they made it. So... end of the story is this: Yeah, hyperthreading was a trade-off in the Pentium 4 days, but those days are long, long, past and in the world of computers, you need to update your information on a yearly basis. The i7's hyperthreading has no discernible drawbacks (perhaps 1-3% loss on benchmarks in very specific apps) and some mild advantages (5-10% improvements) in a decent chunk of applications. In the end, however, hyperthreading really only shines in high-throughput CPU-driven tasks.... that is: audio and video decoding and image transformations. Should you actually pay more money to get a CPU with hyperthreading? No, not unless you're encoding. Should you disable hyperthreading if you have it because its slowing you down? No, that's silly, too.

Er... Yeah. Thanks for taking your time to point out the obvious. To further serve the community: Don't waste your time trying to play the game on a USB mini-monitor. The resolution is just not sufficient to allow for enjoyable gaming. Also: it's not worth subscribing to the game if you're spending the next 18 weeks on the International Space Station. The latency to the game servers is just too high. Don't waste your time.

Seriously? Is YouTube the best way of sharing this information? While the advice might be good, I don't feel like taking 20 minutes to wait as some guy rambles out a description of what to do. Type it up and be done with it. Seems like an attempt to feel popular.

A week or so ago, my wife and I went to go do Black Talon for speeder cash (items...sold for cash, in the end). We were drastically over-leveled (20) and outfitted with semi-flashy level-appropriate gear. My wife waited at the FP start while I went to go pick up some crafting recipes. While she was there, apparently three or four different people /whispered to her to ask if she wanted to group with them for the FP. She wasn't offended. She actually felt a bit flattered, but the number of people approaching her (a few just stood nearby jumping or waving) was daunting. When I arrived, a couple tried the same with me, but I think they quickly figured out that the two Lvl20's were a group and they didn't have much chance. While it was overwhelming at first, the whole process seemed both more organic and less annoying-to-the-world than spamming LFGs in chat. Neither of us were offended, and I didn't see any sign that the other people were pissed that we didn't join with them. In the end, it was a failure for the suggested tip, but only because we were already grouped (and let's be honest, two lvl20's are already overkill for BT). If someone actually flips out on you an /ignores you because of this strategy, then the system is working: you wouldn't want to group with a jerk anyway and now you don't have to worry about it happening by accident.

Actually, your understanding of software is being called into question. Whenever I see comments like "This is a simple bug, if its not fixed the developers must be idiots who can't do their job!" I just roll my eyes and and remind myself that most people's capability to understand software peaked in about 1988. Clearly you don't know how to write software and have never worked on a truly huge codebase with multiple teams of developers. I have. Last week I reported a bug in our code. It still hasn't been addressed. I know this, because I'm the developer who coordinates those changes. It's a "simple" one/two line fix. However, while it might take only ten minutes to write the changes, it will take an hour to test it in the Dev environment, a day to coordinate putting it into DIT, a few more hours testing in DIT, after waiting for DIT to be cleared for testing, then another couple hours to commit changes to source control and put in a request for the release engineering group to build the new version for QA. Then it may take a day or two for QA to run through all the regression tests.... after waiting for the QA environments to be synced up, which can take a few days to a week. It will likely take me a week just to make that simple fix. I won't spend every hour of that week working on it, but it will probably consume a decent amount of my attention. So, why aren't I doing this right now? Because small bug fixes have a huge amount of overhead for relatively small payout and I have much more important things to fix than a bug that has effected 0.0002% of our customer base in the last four years. Summary: The fact that this bug hasn't been fixed doesn't suggest that the devs are bad at their jobs, it suggests that they are good at their jobs, that they are prioritizing, and that you have very little idea how software is made.

Er... I don't know what you mean by "hard bound". That's the key I have bound to "Sheathe/Unsheathe Weapon", so obviously the binding isn't as "hard" as you say. Just bind the key to some other action that you don't care about, like a slot on a quickbar that you never use.

And there it is, the 'If you disagree with me you're a fanboy/hater'. Whenever you lack the logic, maturity, or substance to back up your own argument, just insist that anyone who opposes you is an extremist seeking to suppress your opinion. Wait... you're not a politician, are you? You know what? I am wearing my Founder title. You know why? Because it makes immature children like you rage. "I got something I didn't ask for, that wasn't promised to me, and is completely optional, for free.... and its not good enough. Waaaaaaaaaaaagghhhhhh." Life's only going to get harder for you. Buckle up.

What luxury? I have an 2600K at 4.5GHz, 16GB of memory, and the same video card. I paid $1350 for it. How much did you pay?

Well, here's a great comparison: i7 2600K @ 4.5GHz nVidia GTX 560 Ti 16GB RAM (DDR3-1600 : Note speed just doesn't matter on DDR3, guys) Asus P67 motherboard 128GB SSD (System drive) 2TB WD-Green @ 5400rpm, short-stroke-partition (Game files) Windows 7 The poster above gets 30fps in Fleet. I get 45fps. So what's different between our systems? Not the graphics card, and the RAM doesn't matter, as I never use more than 8GB (while playing....). The SSD and fast-partition drive probably account for the fact that I load planets in 15 seconds instead of 30, but the biggest thing I see is the extra CPU power. Not that I'd say everyone out there should buy a 2600K/2500K and overclock it, but the conclusion seems clear: FPS is improved by increasing CPU power. This shouldn't be shocking. People have classified MMOs as CPU-bound games for years.

I'd never advise Crossfire to someone looking for a stable gaming experience. Yeah, Crossfire/SLI can get you higher than any single card, but you'll have more problems, more heat, more wasted electricity, more noise and less space than if you just bought a higher-end single card. If you're buying two higher-end cards for Crossfire/SLI than you're already in the "I'm bragging about my computer stage" and you should feel free to dump as much money as you want for that 85fps to 92fps improvement. I run the game at 40-60fps (vsync enabled), and yes, even at the fleet it only drops to 40fps (averaged over 3s) with AA, and other details at max. I do that with a single card that I bought for $235. I also wouldn't suggest RAID-0. There's just not much point. If you want speed, use a SSD. Otherwise, just get a good quality drive with a large buffer. If you want to feel special, partition the drive so that the system/game files are on the outermost sectors. I run SWTOR from a Western Digital Green drive spinning at 5400rpm. The game loads in a minute and planet loads are about 15-20 seconds at most. RAID-0 is pointless. It doesn't add a significant level of speed for game play, and it doubles (actually, more than doubles) your chance of drive corruption. Serious system builders only use it to show off, now. There was a time when it was popular, but that time has passed. SSDs and 32MB caches killed it.

I made a mistake! Someone else should fix it for me so that I don't have to take responsibility like an adult!

I guess the point here is this: Using ma'am in this situation is not appropriate... or correct ... one sort of implies the other. While I understand that "old Southerners" do this as a gesture of .... civility or something, the truth of the matter is that using it in a military/government/authoritative setting --even if its done with a kind heart-- creates bias, prejudice, and implicit separation between genders. That's the main reason the military doesn't use it. Everyone who outranks you is 'sir' to you, and it doesn't matter if they are male, female, muskrat or slime mold. The moment you start creating a separation between "male superior" and "female superior" you create the opportunity to judge one as more important than the other. Remember: Separate is not Equal. Figured a Southerner would know that.

Well, I must say, it's refreshing to hear a logical argument on the topic. Silver star, to you, sir. Yes, I'll admit that. There are a log of cues given at the bottom of the screen just because... a lot of cues are given at the bottom of the screen. Adding another one isn't really that outside-the-norm. It could definitely fit in and serve a purpose. That said, I'm still not convinced that we need it. I still have far more complex information to sort out from the middle of the screen (spatial relationships of other mobs, what mobs/players are stunned, incoming effects)... at least, assuming we haven't fallen into the fully mindless Holy Trinity setup (one tank with all mobs surrounding him, medic healing tank, everyone else mindlessly tapping out their pre-arranged works-for-everything rotations). The day I spend the majority of a fight staring at the bottom of my screen, is the day I unsubscribe. I want a video game --and an RPG-- not a $15-a-month game of Simon. I can see some usefulness, just not enough to warrant the amount of whining it receives. It still feels like whining for a crutch instead of using your brain to adapt to complex situations. Yeah, its going to affect your "score". If your happiness is lowered by the fact that you can't get a high enough "score" in this game, then you need to step away from the keyboard and seek professional counseling. And again, if you can't figure it out for yourself as it is now, then consider that part of the game rules. I also don't have time-to-intercept stats on course tracks either. I have to do that by eye, too. I don't know how long I have to wait before a party members ability is available again. I have to either guess or ask them. Failing to have Target-of-Target is just another limitation in the same family. If you have a brain, you can deal with it. Otherwise, an inability to assess battle just became another one of your characters special abilities. Roleplay it.

Point remains: You're asking for a crutch that makes the game easier to play and less realistic. The same ability that real-world soldier need to use their brains to do... is too much for you and you want the UI to do that for you. I totally expected someone to say that. Yet again: this is the biggest argument that I have against ToT, macros, addons, recount, etc: A minority of the "hardcore" players use them to define the pinnacle of the gaming experience and then declare that anyone who doesn't use them are "bads". And if you ever criticize them, they whip out the "I pay for the game so I should be able to play how I want" and "Your play style isn't any more valid than mine" cards. Argue too strongly and you get the "You're just complaining about a minority of players..." Yeah, I know, and the rest of you passively support them, making you no better. It's a game. Try to show a little mental flexibility. The fact that the games are single player is pointless: the game mechanics and situation remain identical: A group of mobs are attacking me and one or more other friendly entities. Why do I need Target-of-Target in SWTOR so much more than in Dragon Age? If I show a random non-gamer footage of SWTOR (no nameplates) and Dragon Age and ask them to tell me which is the MMO, do you honestly think it would be obvious? Why does it matter if my tank is Sten or PnzUrMomm? Why does it matter if I'm tanking for DarthEemo or Morrigan? From my point of view, they are the same. My job is the same. The task presented to me is the same. Except, of course, in Dragon Age, battles were often more complex, with a larger range and more complex battle. But Dragon Age is single-player, and SWTOR is an MMO, and apparently MMO players can't handle managing battles with four things at the same time without a UI widget to help them. And, somehow, the more "hardcore" you are, the more you need it. Using your brain makes you "bad". Noted. It's been very educational.

I've heard this Target-of-Target whining for months, but until this thread, no one really managed to put it into perspective so clearly. We need the UI to tell us who a particular opponent is attacking because if we're far away from battle, or if there is a big crowd, or if the enemy is shaped weird so that it doesn't have a distinct (enough) front, it's very hard to figure it out for ourselves. That sounds... ...realistic. Holy crap. It's a revelation. We need Target-of-Target because the game was actually mimicking real battle situations and trying to react to a realistic situation by using our brains or just dealing with the occasional mistake or bad luck is just far too much for our brittle egos to handle. Therefore, we need our crutch to make the game easier for us. I mean, the idea that the confusion of battle actually be included as a game mechanic... well, that's just obviously stupid since I don't have a column for that on my spreadsheet and I'd need so many macros to cover the different situations that I'd never be able to memorize which one of them is bound to which button. Obviously Bioware hates its hardcore players because it makes players use their brain, take risks, and react to more complex stimuli than "see monster" and "see monster die". [/sarcasm] Yes, I know: "I enjoy it better that way and who are you to criticize someone for liking another play style". I'm just a guy... with a different play style. You're the ones demanding a change to the game. I'm playing the game as designed by the developers. I'm not going to quit if they add target-of-target, but your opinion that it is needed is no more important than my opinion that it is a pointless feature that should be prioritized below a hundred other things. There are loads of other games --the majority of them which are faster-paced and more complex than SWTOR-- that don't have target-of-target. It only really gained popularity in WoW, as one of the games "helping the game play for you" features, which turned the player into more of a manager than an actual character in a game. Neither Dragon Age nor Mass Effect have ToT. Neither does Team Fortress 2 or CoD. Its not in Diablo II or Torchlight, or Starcraft, or Witcher. You don't need Target-of-Target. It's a crutch that you got accustomed to. I see no reason why we need to keep perpetuating crutches from one game to another. TL;DR: Use your brain. If your brain can't figure it out, consider it a game feature or handicap of your character.

I remember when I was first looking at this game, I announced that I wouldn't be interested if it forced PvP play on everyone. I had enough trouble with its MMO nature, due to the known history of MMOs to be a magnet for immature people who got their chuckles by griefing, and I expressed concern that PvP would further entice and legitimize their actions (in their minds at least). I was shouted down by a host of people claiming that griefers were rare and that there was no connection between the PvP community and griefers. Threads like this illustrate my point. It's not that PvP is the problem. I know this is just a minority of PvP players (or quasi-PvP players in this case), but looking at the reactions in here just reinforces my desire to stay away from PvP servers. I want to play on the PvP servers, but it's just not worth it. The community as a whole just isn't mature enough to police itself. Until it is, I'll stick to the PvE servers where I can submit bug requests to stop the sort of behavior that a community of people who actually cared about the game would at least properly condemn. Sure, I know its biased and somewhat unfair, but issues like this just continue to show me that the "hardcore" players just aren't mature.

I kinda want a unicorn with a lightsaber horn. Looking forward to that mount in 1.3.