Please reduce number of polygons in WZs by at least 40%

[MuNieK]

...let some pros take controll over warzones development.

 

We dont need WZ to look ultra beutifull and all this unneccesary CPU draining stuff that is present there (what looks good on screenshots), while we cant have smooth gameplay... You overdosed polygons like some madmans... Just like the people creating Warzones were racing each other who will plant more polygons on the Warzones before there is no room for anything else ot be added :/

 

I could expect such amateur aproach by amateur developers creating custom maps in starcraft's map editor, not highly payed empoyees of huge company.

 

The thing is that you cant immerse and get a feeling of a game (let alone having competetive pvp) when game is hammering CPU and dropping frames like crazy. Performance first -> visuals seond. And no, ultra low shaders wont count for totally NOTHING when the number of polygons stays the same and are sweating our CPUs.

 

Do the magic people expect from rich companies developers: use textures tricks insetad of polygons, cause now it looks like amateurs work... Like people without any knowledge about game making were allowed to add stuff to warzones' levels and they felt creative adding tones and tones of stuff without having performance in mind.

 

Do research, check how many polygons can i5 2500K run on 60fps and set it as limit, count your polygons on your maps, summarize it with allowed players on the map and median polygon count of a player character and fix those zones. How hard can it be if you have proffesional team at yoru disposal?

 

Warzones in current shape are very not entertaining. Even the boring old memory of WoWs BGs with dynamic, smooth gameplay seems interesting in comparision of swtor's laggy warzones... laggy on high end PCs... I woudlnt have any issues if that would be my PC fault - being outdated... but i have upgraded PC recently just for swtor and bf3. BF3 worksl ike a charm and swtor atm is just misunderstunding.

 

You cant even think that players gonna treat swtor's pvp seriously if insetad of pvp competition they are strugglig with FPS.

 

edit:

Sample of quick sketch what could be removed and having little impact of the "feel" and huge impact of performance is marked on this screen with red marker:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6235/polygons.jpg

- cant count it, but the huge amount of polygon used for this unneccesary models, if removed equals huge relief for our PCs, so they can perform at smooth fps.

 

On yellow is marked 1 of 2 capital ships (but it aplies to both) - that could be optimised from polygon point of view - remove all polygons that could be replaced by transparent textures, make sure there are nopolygons on the rear of the ships that are never seen by players anyway etc...

 

Please for force sake, optimize your game! And tell your developers that they are not creating levels for pre-rendered movie, but for game (that should run smooth on high-end PCs).

 

edit:

I have created this topic on suggestion forums, but noone really care about performance of WZs there, so im moving here.

 

edit2:

Please restrain from replying to this thread if you dont have idea what is the problem. If you define "fine performance" as ~25fps your reply will also be awkward cause you dont even know what is the thing people who expects real high performance find missing in current gameplay. Thank you for understunding.

 

edit3:

Please also restrain from posting comments like "lololol your pc is old lololol trolololo - mine is awezum and runs 500000 fps in ilum" cause they are not only far from true, but also points how ignorant poster is.

Edited March 8, 2012 by MuNieK

[Niaoru]

I like you. Bioware should hire you.

[Absit]

Am I the only person that can actually run this game? Is everyone else on an single core with onboard video? I'm genuinely concerned with the computers people are gaming with today. Edited March 8, 2012 by Absit

[beyou]

They could simply put you in a deploying soldier Point of view with a helmet, and some very reduced views on the battlefield.

[martenJ]

Am I the only person that can actually run this game? Is everyone else on an single core with onboard video? I'm genuinely concerned with the computers people are gaming with today.

 

i agree with this.

 

My PC is 1.5 years old i play with a 2560x1600 resolution and i have no fps issues.

 

I dont think developers can get away with crappy looking games these days, and ppl just have to buy new PCs every ~2 years to play the latest games.

[Numerii]

i agree with this.

 

My PC is 1.5 years old i play with a 2560x1600 resolution and i have no fps issues.

 

I dont think developers can get away with crappy looking games these days, and ppl just have to buy new PCs every ~2 years to play the latest games.

 

Seriously, takes about a grand these days to build a decent comp. That's not hard to save up for every couple years.

[Delease]

Am I the only person that can actually run this game? Is everyone else on an single core with onboard video? I'm genuinely concerned with the computers people are gaming with today.

 

You are not alone. I run this game fine. Only hiccups I get is on fleet when 150+ people & ilum

[MuNieK]

What do you mean by fine? For competetive pvp you need smooth 60-50 (when you already know how big difference it makes - if you never played on high fps you may not be bothered). And thats not what you get on alderaan civil war with i5 2500K. If you are not bothered with fps drops good for you. Some people play games on 8fps and are fine with that. The tolerance for fps drops is not the point of this thread.

 

And if you think that game should be smooth only at top top overclocked latest i7 processors or two of them onboard then you are nto only wrong but you are shooting your own feet, cause you cant enjoy mmorpg without other players, and my friend majority of players cant afford computers with 2 latest overclocked i7s

Edited March 8, 2012 by MuNieK

[Praelium]

My computer is nowhere near top of the line, it is a midgrade computer with a video card that is a couple generations behind and still DDR2 RAM (just showing that it's 'old').

 

I run this game fine, I run it fine while using FRAPS in warzones, I run at low settings when recording, but without FRAPS I can run the game at mid to high settings without any actual issues with framerate. Now I am not getting 60fps, it is more like ~25 average, THIS IS FINE.

 

I'm not some loaded person either. I am a college student who works an average job and has an average income. I saved up and bought a computer a while ago and am currently saving to get a new one. You don't need to save that much to get a computer.

 

Not even 1,000$ (including monitor) can get you a decent rig.

 

 

 

Don't blame Bioware. Give your computer some love.

[OGsam]

Sigh, apparently being a "Gamer" now means you've got some crappy laptop that's designed to have an 18 month life cycle and run microsoft word.

 

Games now days are designed for relatively cheap low-mid range computers, perhaps think about buying a new one.

 

FYI the biggest "bottle-neck" in my system is server side engine failure, why should I get punished and condemned to play a bland game because YOU can't afford a new GPU?

[MuNieK]

like ~25fps average, THIS IS FINE.

 

You see... this is the problem. Our definition of "fine" is totally different. For me fine is 60-50 smooth fps when i pvp. And thats definition of any competetive pvper. You can call ~25fps "fine" only if you are casuall "sunday player". Now accusing dedicated gamers with high-end gaming rigs of having poor PCs just becouse they dont call 25fps "fine" is either arrogance or ignorance.

[AetherMcLoud]

My PC is 3 years old and I have absolutely no problem running the game in Full HD with everything set to high. I don't know what the OPs problem is.

[MuNieK]

My PC is 3 years old and I have absolutely no problem running the game in Full HD with everything set to high. I don't know what the OPs problem is.

 

People using terms like "full hd" describing the graphic settings of the game doesnt sound like they have any decent knowledge of the topic they are talking about. Hence i dont expect you to understund what is the problem im talking about.

Edited March 8, 2012 by MuNieK

[finkelmana]

threads like this drive me crazy. people who have no idea how a pc works should not be telling game developers how to improve the game. You can have the fastest CPU in the world and you know what, your graphics will still suck, because the CPU has nothing to do with video. Its the GPU on your graphics card. The "glutton" of polygons you circles actually are quite insignificant.

[Derian]

Am I the only person that can actually run this game? Is everyone else on an single core with onboard video? I'm genuinely concerned with the computers people are gaming with today.

 

I have a very modest setup, and my FPS is acceptable. I have done things to improve it like install DX9 redistrubitable. I do agree the game is a bit polygon heavy in WZs. Some of the fluff needs to be removable.

[Ozzone]

Muniek, just out of curiosity, what FPS are you getting when you are just standing at the arrival point of the speeder and not actually engaging enemies?

 

I don't think removing some polygons is the real problem, at least it's not for me. The moment I notice any lag is when I get near a turret and enemies get within range of rendering.

 

Now if you want to talk polygons, look at the gear players are wearing. Polygon size isn't the issue, the number of them are.

[MuNieK]

threads like this drive me crazy. people who have no idea how a pc works should not be telling game developers how to improve the game. You can have the fastest CPU in the world and you know what, your graphics will still suck, because the CPU has nothing to do with video. Its the GPU on your graphics card. The "glutton" of polygons you circles actually are quite insignificant.

 

GPU is rendering what CPU must first calculate. Number of polygons increase CPU's load. See for yourself when you change from high shaders to very low and see no difference whatsoever - that simply means CPU is bottlenecking GPU. If i have no idea how PC works then how to call you now?

[Derian]

threads like this drive me crazy. people who have no idea how a pc works should not be telling game developers how to improve the game. You can have the fastest CPU in the world and you know what, your graphics will still suck, because the CPU has nothing to do with video. Its the GPU on your graphics card. The "glutton" of polygons you circles actually are quite insignificant.

 

This is untrue, the CPU Certainly is responsible for certain things for what you see. In the absence of video power, GPU power, your CPU must compensate to the best of its' ability. The problem is, your CPU is also running billions of other calculations simultaneously. This is why we have GPUs. They don't run Graphics 100% on their own, they are there to assist. Your CPU still has to process certain amounts of information, that may or may not have to deal with graphics, but affect what the user sees on their monitor.

 

I'm not a graphics/animation guy I'm a computer technician/jr systems engineer but from what I know every polygon needs to be rendered through the engine, and each one takes processing power. Back in the day games used to utilized pre rendered graphics a lot for their backdrop, which is minimal on the CPU. (Resident Evil was notorious for this.)

 

IMO the biggest issue is this Engine they are using has weird optimization things going on. IT runs great on some systems, and a more modern system it churns. Who knows what causes this. It sounds like the OP has an amazing system and may be a victim of lack of optimization.

[MuNieK]

 

Now if you want to talk polygons, look at the gear players are wearing. Polygon size isn't the issue, the number of them are.

 

Of course the scale is nto important, but the number of polygons - i never said otherwise. The big objects i have marked on screenshot are just polygons-heavy - look at those destroyed pieces of walls... such a waste... i never seen it while playing the game before i seen this screenshot. But i did see horrible performance (25-50fps) on this warzone.

[RoyFokker]

Only place in this game that is an issue is Ilum. Everything else I get 45 at the worst with settings maxed and that's on station, I get better than that in warzones.

[AetherMcLoud]

People using terms like "full hd" describing the graphic settings of the game doesnt sound like they have any decent knowledge of the topic they are talking about. Hence i dont expect you to understund what is the problem im talking about.

 

I would suit you well not to judge people who are using well developed terms.

 

FYI, I'm an IT Manager, I know my ****. You know what Full HD means? 1920x1080, simple as that. It's a resolultion. And it's quicker to type than 1920x1080.

 

Buf of course I don't expect you to understand that.

Edited March 8, 2012 by AetherMcLoud

[MuNieK]

Only place in this game that is an issue is Ilum. Everything else I get 45 at the worst with settings maxed and that's on station, I get better than that in warzones.

 

No, the Ilum is totall diseaster from what i have seen on streams of proffesional streaming gamers (havent been there myself yet). That doesnt make Warzones "fine". It makes them bearable while in comparision - but still far from "fine". "Fine" is when you dont feel fps drops at all, when only thing that may slow you down are cooldowns and your own reflex - not fps.

[Jayrik]

Like others have said, it's probably not your CPU, much more likely it's your GPU.

 

I have an i5, gtx 580, 8gb ram, 2560x1920 resolution with everything set to max only experienced any choppiness when going by the pvp terminal on the fleet. I admit I haven't checked my fps, but like I said, I haven't noticed it so no reason to check.

 

Btw, full HD just means 1920x1080 resolution.

[finkelmana]

This is untrue, the CPU Certainly is responsible for certain things for what you see. In the absence of video power, GPU power, your CPU must compensate to the best of its' ability. The problem is, your CPU is also running billions of other calculations simultaneously. This is why we have GPUs. They don't run Graphics 100% on their own, they are there to assist. Your CPU still has to process certain amounts of information, that may or may not have to deal with graphics, but affect what the user sees on their monitor.

 

I'm not a graphics/animation guy I'm a computer technician/jr systems engineer but from what I know every polygon needs to be rendered through the engine, and each one takes processing power. Back in the day games used to utilized pre rendered graphics a lot for their backdrop, which is minimal on the CPU. (Resident Evil was notorious for this.)

 

IMO the biggest issue is this Engine they are using has weird optimization things going on. IT runs great on some systems, and a more modern system it churns. Who knows what causes this. It sounds like the OP has an amazing system and may be a victim of lack of optimization.

 

You are incorrect. Graphics take little to no CPU power at all. All modern graphics cards utilize direct memory access (DMA). When loading the warzone, the textures and wireframes are loaded by the CPU into RAM and the GPU accesses them directly. The only time the CPU takes a hit for graphics is if it has to page memory, meaning your computer or graphics card doesnt have enough memory.

[RoyFokker]

No, the Ilum is totall diseaster from what i have seen on streams of proffesional streaming gamers (havent been there myself yet). That doesnt make Warzones "fine". It makes them bearable while in comparision - but still far from "fine". "Fine" is when you dont feel fps drops at all, when only thing that may slow you down are cooldowns and your own reflex - not fps.

 

Yes, they are fine. The engine needs more optimization so that lesser machines or ones that don't have the magical combination of hardware and drivers can run it better. You either need to change your settings or get a better video card. I see no noticeable fps drop in warzones.