UI killing FPS: This should be priority #1 to fix

[Ghisallo]

Bump to keep this issue alive. My frame rate jumps from around 80FPS to 30FPS just in open world. Ops and WZ it can drop down to 15 or lower. So the problem is not resolved yet, at least not in my spectrum.

 

I kinda already answered your issue here and in the other thread. A lot of this stuff has to due with CPU architecture. Post you Computer's specs or a simple "this sucks" really isn't worth anything because with MMORPGs architecture means A LOT.

 

Since you cite up to 80 fps (which is useless beyond "headroom" you do realize your display likely can't tell the difference between 60 and 1000 fps right?) I would guess you went all in on video cards and do not have an CPU that handles single threads all that well.

 

If you post your PC specs AND look at the singlethreaded benchmark website I noted...you might see the cause for your issue... and thus realize your issue really can't be practically fixed on Bioware's end.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Ghisallo]

Once I had swtor about a pixel wide once...that was interesting.

 

LOL I would like to see 1 pixel wide game anywhere just once for humor value.

[Zebul]

I kinda already answered your issue here and in the other thread. A lot of this stuff has to due with CPU architecture. Post you Computer's specs or a simple "this sucks" really isn't worth anything because with MMORPGs architecture means A LOT.

 

Since you cite up to 80 fps (which is useless beyond "headroom" you do realize your display likely can't tell the difference between 60 and 1000 fps right?) I would guess you went all in on video cards and do not have an CPU that handles single threads all that well.

 

If you post your PC specs AND look at the singlethreaded benchmark website I noted...you might see the cause for your issue... and thus realize your issue really can't be practically fixed on Bioware's end.

 

Mobo: Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0

CPU: AMD FX-9590 Black Edition. 8-core 5 gigs, 16MB cache, liquid cooled

GPU: Asus R9 290X OC

Ram: 16 gigs G.Skill Ripjaw F3-12800 7-8-8-24

HDD: Intel SSD 730 series 240GBS

 

Please don't tell me its my system. No matter what the case this should be able to eat up any MMO on the market.

[frtommy]

Ghisallo why u so ridiculous ?

 

I am playing almost from day 1.I started one month later.

I have this computer since i start to play.

 

Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Generation 3

Intel i5 2500k @ 4,4 ghz

2x4gb ddr3 g.skill F3-14900cl-4gbsr

psu enermax nanx 850watt

1 ssd sata3 120gb for windows 7 64 bit

1 ssd sata 3 120gb for swtor

2x Ati HD6870 crossfire

 

The game run perfect till the patch 1.4 when i stop play.

I was a pve player in the beginning but after 2 months i did only pvp. I love PvP.

 

Now i am back to play from 3.0,until my subscription will end in 140 days.

 

I have the same computer but i have a better GPU.

Geforce gtx 780 3gb.

 

CPU liquid cooled ofc, and gpu cooled with msi afterburner for improve the rpm of the cooling fan. Maximum degrees are 65° for the gpu and 45° for the cpu.

 

Tell me why now i have 10-15fps in warzone with low details and ofc the game is unplayable for me.

This is after 3.1

Coz when i come back to play ( fresh install from DVD and patch from internet ) i was going as usual on 80-90 fps with all high details.

 

What's happen to my computer ?

In 2012-2013 and January 2015 my computer was going perfect, now in the last 2 months he become crap ?

Or SWTOR is worst than ever ?

 

p.s.= Yes , i try to optimize my windows service etc.., format the windows's ssd, updated gpu driver and good settings etc....

Edited April 7, 2015 by frtommy

[Ghisallo]

Mobo: Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0

CPU: AMD FX-9590 Black Edition. 8-core 5 gigs, 16MB cache, liquid cooled

GPU: Asus R9 290X OC

Ram: 16 gigs G.Skill Ripjaw F3-12800 7-8-8-24

HDD: Intel SSD 730 series 240GBS

 

Please don't tell me its my system. No matter what the case this should be able to eat up any MMO on the market.

 

Look at where your CPU ranks on the single threaded bench mark...

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

Each and every system posted that is having problems that I do not see is low on this list. In your case you are outside of the top 200... I am in the top 10. Hence why I get an average of 59+ fps with max settings outside of OPS and PvP and only see, comparatively, small drops in them AND see NO difference under any circumstance regardless of whether I have the UI enabled or not, with the exception of a spiked drop in FPS when I OPEN a UI window.

 

So we have a game whose engine has poor multithreading optimization. It also does a fair bit of rendering on the CPU in a big singlethread with other non-graphics related stuff. SO if you have bad singlethread performance you will have some issues with the game. So yeah I can say it is your system because EVERY GAME, with a different engine, uses your computers hardware differently

 

Now your PC would kick my PC's butt in terms of games with better multithreading optimization. I purposefully built my system on my budget to do well with MMOs (SWTOR, RIFT etc) because that is all I play and I know how their engines ten to operate.

 

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying whether havin an engine like this is right or wrong BUT this is definitely par for the course with MMORPGs. Don't ask me why but I have yet to come across an MMO with good multithread optimization. I suspect it has something to do with all the miscellaneous crap that they need to send that non-MMOs do not have to deal with combined with the fact that coding GOOD multithreading is a PITA even with less bloated data streams.

 

The fact it is all based on how the engine itself works though there are only minor tweeks they can make and these tweeks will not "fix" the issue to the satisfaction of many because in the end the engine will keep getting in the way. Recoding the engine for better multithreaded optimization would border on the amount of time and effort needed for a new game.

 

I have actually known people to "upgrade" their CPU and get better performance on say Assassins Creed BUT then get WORSE performance in their MMO of choice because the hardware they went to was worse in terms of handling single threads.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Ghisallo]

Ghisallo why u so ridiculous ?

 

I am playing almost from day 1.I started one month later.

I have this computer since i start to play.

 

Asrock Z68 Extreme4 Generation 3

Intel i5 2500k @ 4,4 ghz

2x4gb ddr3 g.skill F3-14900cl-4gbsr

psu enermax nanx 850watt

1 ssd sata3 120gb for windows 7 64 bit

1 ssd sata 3 120gb for swtor

2x Ati HD6870 crossfire

 

...

 

Please read my post above. You are outside the top 100 in terms of singlethreaded processing. SWTOR also sends more than a few of the graphics libraries and even does some rendering on the CPU and not GPU... so running crossfire or SLI is not as big a boost with a game like SWTOR vs games that do all the rendering on the GPU and pair down the graphics libraries going to the CPU. (this is actually one of the reasons going to DX12 makes no sense for SWTOR... they would have to change the engine to get it to stop sending libraries to the CPU... DX12 sends ALL libraries to the GPU.

 

Don't know what your system was then (maybe it is the same) but as they add more features to the game, it requires more data to be shipped to your PC. More data when you have meh Multithread optimization means that the one thread with a lot of data will eventually hurt your performance even if before the addition of the new stuff it did not.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ghisallo

[DurdensWrath]

Read two posts above and see the performance of what is basically a budget system. It seems to be, at least in part, an issue with CPU architecture and how the game engine interacts with it. My CPU is rated 161 handling multi threaded processes...but number 10 in terms of single threaded benchmarks. Some rendering is also done on the CPU before the hand off to the GPU. SWTOR does do some multithreading BUT it is not well optimized and the fact the CPU handles some rendering duty via what appears to be a rather "dense" single thread compinds the issue.

 

So my system that would not handle a game that does all rendering on the GPU and/or is multithreaded as well as many others handles SWTOR, UI and all, quite well.

 

This is simply something that has NO easy fix. Beyond tweaking (such as moving some few processes into the other thread(s) to really "fix" the issue they would have to overhaul the engine which means overhauling virtually the entire game. This is essentially the equivalent amount of effort to making a new game.

 

Hence why EA has stated that all future Star Wars games will use the Frostbite 3 engine.

 

When I read threads like this I actually wonder how many of the people with issues have an extensive history in other MMOs or if they largely just play SP, FPS and CO-OP games...because the issues that SWTOR suffers from aren't that different than the complaints in just about every active MMO atm...with the possible exception of WoW but WoW was designed to be played on a toaster.

 

This game came out what? In 2011? Giving 2 years grace that's 2009. Multi core processors were not just a thing, they were highly prevalent and becoming ubiquitous. And GPU's have been a thing since the first GeForce series. Not doing the bulk of graphics processing on the GPU is not only bad programming, it's short sighted.

 

Nothing you've said absolves this group of developers or the prior ones from poor coding and poor engine choices given the technology and the direction it was likely to go.

[frtommy]

Please read my post above. You are outside the top 100 in terms of singlethreaded processing. SWTOR also sends more than a few of the graphics libraries and even does some rendering on the CPU and not GPU... so running crossfire or SLI is not as big a boost with a game like SWTOR vs games that do all the rendering on the GPU and pair down the graphics libraries going to the CPU. (this is actually one of the reasons going to DX12 makes no sense for SWTOR... they would have to change the engine to get it to stop sending libraries to the CPU... DX12 sends ALL libraries to the GPU.

 

Don't know what your system was then (maybe it is the same) but as they add more features to the game, it requires more data to be shipped to your PC. More data when you have meh Multithread optimization means that the one thread with a lot of data will eventually hurt your performance even if before the addition of the new stuff it did not.

 

So are u try to say, i should and all the people who wrote here, spend , 350 € or more coz i will need a MB too.

Buy a top 1-2 in that cpu's chart.

For play at LOW Detail Swtor, when my computer, until February 2015, could run SWTOR without problems at 80-90 fps.

Because they add 3 buff icons on UI.

Wow.

U should work for them.

Edited April 7, 2015 by frtommy

[Ghisallo]

This game came out what? In 2011? Giving 2 years grace that's 2009. Multi core processors were not just a thing, they were highly prevalent and becoming ubiquitous. And GPU's have been a thing since the first GeForce series. Not doing the bulk of graphics processing on the GPU is not only bad programming, it's short sighted.

 

Nothing you've said absolves this group of developers or the prior ones from poor coding and poor engine choices given the technology and the direction it was likely to go.

 

multicore and multithreading are two different concepts/issues. The game is indeed muticore compatible. All that means is the data stream does not lock in on a single core. You can see it is multicore compatible if you simply watch the % of core usage via task manager or a third party program. All multicore means is that your computer can concurrently process multi streams of data.

 

The issue with SWTOR is that, while there is multithreading, there is still a single big thread that needs to be processed. It can hop between all of your cores, but it is still a single thread. It could well be that the nature of the data simply does not lend itself easily to being broken up into multiple threads. Getting GOOD multthreading is a PITA with even simpler games.

 

As for your last bit regarding graphics rendering.... most games actually do send graphics libraries to the CPU... this is not unique to SWTOR in the least. One of the changes with DX12, as I noted, is to off load all of this to the GPU. The way it is seeing an fps gain is because by doing this it has created more headroom on the CPU. You don't notice the issues on most of these other games. Why don't you notice the issue? Because an MMORPG is throwing a metric butt ton more data at your CPU than just about every other game out there.

 

The more I have thought about the issue the more I think the issue, to an extent, is we the player. We want our MMO's to look pretty, hopefully as pretty as our SP and Co-Op games. If they don't we say "it looks cartoony" or "dated" whatever. So they want to give us what we want there. Add in the extra data the MMORPG has to throw at us then you end up with the issue.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Ghisallo]

So are u try to say, i should and all the people who wrote here, spend , 350 € or more coz i will need a MB too.

Buy a top 1-2 in that cpu's chart.

For play at LOW Detail Swtor, when my computer, until February 2015, could run SWTOR without problems at 80-90 fps.

Because they add 3 buff icons on UI.

Wow.

U should work for them.

 

No I am not saying what you are claiming above at all. If you read everything I wrote you would see I was not saying "hey guys this is great what's your problem." All I am saying is "my computer does not have these issues and this is why my computer is not having the issues. In essence because you do not like the answer you are getting you are going to get your back up. That is so adult of you

 

And btw my CPU cost me 250 bucks US. I am also confused because first you said your issues started in 1.4 now they started in 3.0?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

Please read my post above. You are outside the top 100 in terms of singlethreaded processing. SWTOR also sends more than a few of the graphics libraries and even does some rendering on the CPU and not GPU... so running crossfire or SLI is not as big a boost with a game like SWTOR vs games that do all the rendering on the GPU and pair down the graphics libraries going to the CPU. (this is actually one of the reasons going to DX12 makes no sense for SWTOR... they would have to change the engine to get it to stop sending libraries to the CPU... DX12 sends ALL libraries to the GPU.

 

Don't know what your system was then (maybe it is the same) but as they add more features to the game, it requires more data to be shipped to your PC. More data when you have meh Multithread optimization means that the one thread with a lot of data will eventually hurt your performance even if before the addition of the new stuff it did not.

 

A stock 2500k is outside that top 100, and that might have an effect. However, according to frtommys post he has a solid 700mhz overclock on his 2500k, bringing it from its stock 3700mhz to 4400mhz. If you compare his overclocked 2500k to the stock models, he will be well up in the Top100 if not Top5.

 

I got the Core i5 3570k @4400mhz at the moment and it scores ~2450 in the Single Threaded test in Passmark. That'd make for #2 on that list you linked to, and about 420 more points than the stock 3570k @ 3800mhz.

As his 2500k is overclocked more (700mhz vs my 600mhz overclock), the difference between stock 2500k and 4400mhz 2500k might even be more than 420 points.

 

This game came out what? In 2011? Giving 2 years grace that's 2009. Multi core processors were not just a thing, they were highly prevalent and becoming ubiquitous. And GPU's have been a thing since the first GeForce series. Not doing the bulk of graphics processing on the GPU is not only bad programming, it's short sighted.

 

Nothing you've said absolves this group of developers or the prior ones from poor coding and poor engine choices given the technology and the direction it was likely to go.

 

Why are you giving it "2 years grace"?

Edited April 7, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

A stock 2500k is outside that top 100, and that might have an effect. However, according to frtommys post he has a solid 700mhz overclock on his 2500k, bringing it from its stock 3700mhz to 4400mhz. If you compare his overclocked 2500k to the stock models, he will be well up in the Top100 if not Top5.

 

I got the Core i5 3570k @4400mhz at the moment and it scores ~2450 in the Single Threaded test in Passmark. That'd make for #2 on that list you linked to, and about 420 more points than the stock 3570k @ 3800mhz.

As his 2500k is overclocked more (700mhz vs my 600mhz overclock), the difference between stock 2500k and 4400mhz 2500k might even be more than 420 points.

 

 

 

Why are you giving it "2 years grace"?

 

Simple overclocking doesn't necessarily give a linear increase in performance though. It will do better... absolutely but there is no way to know how much better unless you benchmark it. This is on top of just how twitchy some of these games can be in terms of CPU architecture

 

Regardless... the issue has to be something that goes beyond something solely on the game's end otherwise people like me would not be seeing the performance we do when other people are seeing quite the opposite. My thing with the benchmarks is more or less a "starting point".

[WaffleQwop]

What's a good GPU to run the game with? I have been running on a R7 250X for a while, and it gets to about 20 fps in ops. I've also wondered if an 8-core CPU, such as an FX 8350 would help in performance?

[DurdensWrath]

A stock 2500k is outside that top 100, and that might have an effect. However, according to frtommys post he has a solid 700mhz overclock on his 2500k, bringing it from its stock 3700mhz to 4400mhz. If you compare his overclocked 2500k to the stock models, he will be well up in the Top100 if not Top5.

 

I got the Core i5 3570k @4400mhz at the moment and it scores ~2450 in the Single Threaded test in Passmark. That'd make for #2 on that list you linked to, and about 420 more points than the stock 3570k @ 3800mhz.

As his 2500k is overclocked more (700mhz vs my 600mhz overclock), the difference between stock 2500k and 4400mhz 2500k might even be more than 420 points.

 

 

 

Why are you giving it "2 years grace"?

 

2 years for development, since it came out in 2011.

[Elracor]

Simple overclocking doesn't necessarily give a linear increase in performance though. It will do better... absolutely but there is no way to know how much better unless you benchmark it. This is on top of just how twitchy some of these games can be in terms of CPU architecture

 

I never said the increase was linear. The difference is pretty damn significant though and moreso for the 2500k. That CPU is a beast of a overclocker.

 

Regardless... the issue has to be something that goes beyond something solely on the game's end otherwise people like me would not be seeing the performance we do when other people are seeing quite the opposite. My thing with the benchmarks is more or less a "starting point".

 

You can't compare performance like that. I've yet to see where (as in your in-game location) you are getting your 59-60 fps with max settings. It's not difficult to get 60 fps with a strong computer in most locations but 8v8 warzones and 16m operations @ max settings will kill FPS on any computer I've seen so far.

 

2 years for development, since it came out in 2011.

 

2 years? Dude...

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/21/heroengine-is-the-unsung-platform-behind-star-wars-the-old-republic/

They showed the game at E3 in 2005. Gordon Walton, who was one of the original leaders on the Star Wars game at BioWare, had worked on Star Wars Galaxies and other big online games. He saw the Hero’s Journey demo and told the team, “I need this” for a special project that was still secret at the time. He said he wanted to license the engine. Walton didn’t want to wait until after hero’s Journey shipped, since he was in a rush. He would take the unfinished engine and have his own engineers modify it. Walton licensed the engine for his BioWare team in Austin, Texas, and it onlysine became apparent later that they were using it for the Star Wars MMO. Were it not for Walton’s enthusiasm, the technology might have stayed in-house, rather than helping the entire game development community. Meanwhile, the Hero’s Journey was never fully finished.

 

SWTOR picked up the Hero Engine (which was in a alpha-like stage back then) back in 2005-2006. AFAIK Quad core for consumers weren't even out back then as the first intel quad core (QX6700) wasn't released until the very end of 2006, so there was no reason for Hero Engine to support quad core when SWTOR picked it up.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

I never said the increase was linear. The difference is pretty damn significant though and moreso for the 2500k. That CPU is a beast of a overclocker.

 

 

 

You can't compare performance like that. I've yet to see where (as in your in-game location) you are getting your 59-60 fps with max settings. It's not difficult to get 60 fps with a strong computer in most locations but 8v8 warzones and 16m operations @ max settings will kill FPS on any computer I've seen so far.

 

Oh I thought it made it clear... I am not getting that in a 16 man OP. There I do drop, depending on what is going on I can find myself in the 40's if on max settings. That 59 is basically everywhere else...including some FPs encounters even (it all depends with how "crazy" they get). This is not "bad" at all for an MMO... with the exception of WoW, that even with the updates is designed to be efficient first, look pretty 2nd..maybe even 3rd.

 

I used the static fps because of the topic of this thread. I see NO CHANGE when the UI is disabled. I will see a brief BIG drop when I say open the GTN or my vaults, when those extra windows open but then it stabilizes. I was giving the fps without location based on the topic of this thread... UI killing FPS. A lot of people were saying "I disable my UI and see a big jump in fps" my FPS doesn't change regardless of whether the UI is active or not, with the exception of the "blip" when I open windows by going to a vault etc., of course.

 

The other interesting thing is what happens to my choke point. When I am standing there doing nothing the choke point is my budget GPU. When stuff starts happening my choke point swaps to my CPU.

 

I see people showing like 17 FPS in WF and OPs. That is simply crazy. These same people also usually say they can't get over 30 just sitting on their bum on fleet while I am seeing 59.

 

and yeah... you are dead on about the HeroEngine. They actually started development on that in that late 1990's and it was winning awards at trade shows. You could argue this engine is as old as old school EQ and it is definitely older than WoW. The fact they got it multicoe compaitable shows how much work Bioware did because the stock 1st gen HeroEngine is NOT multicore compatible. That came along with their latest version... which I think they code name sapphire.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

Oh I thought it made it clear... I am not getting that in a 16 man OP. There I do drop, depending on what is going on I can find myself in the 40's if on max settings. That 59 is basically everywhere else...including some FPs encounters even (it all depends with how "crazy" they get). This is not "bad" at all for an MMO... with the exception of WoW, that even with the updates is designed to be efficient first, look pretty 2nd..maybe even 3rd.

 

Even Corruptor Zero 16 man? I highly doubt that.

 

I used the static fps because of the topic of this thread. I see NO CHANGE when the UI is disabled. I will see a brief BIG drop when I say open the GTN or my vaults, when those extra windows open but then it stabilizes. I was giving the fps without location based on the topic of this thread... UI killing FPS. A lot of people were saying "I disable my UI and see a big jump in fps" my FPS doesn't change regardless of whether the UI is active or not, with the exception of the "blip" when I open windows by going to a vault etc., of course.

 

Just because this is a thread about UI doesn't mean it should be static. In the end the problem is that SWTOR needs too much CPU power to just run on one core, disabling some of the tasks will make it easier for that one CPU core to run the other tasks and thus increase FPS.

 

The other interesting thing is what happens to my choke point. When I am standing there doing nothing the choke point is my budget GPU. When stuff starts happening my choke point swaps to my CPU.

 

I see people showing like 17 FPS in WF and OPs. That is simply crazy. These same people also usually say they can't get over 30 just sitting on their bum on fleet while I am seeing 59.

 

Well, the Fleet is a very random benchmark point as it can vary from close-to-zero people near you with you looking into a wall/GTN module or dozens of people while you're looking at fairly large areas (e.g. the center with Cantina + VIP area visible).

 

What if you go to this area, settings maxed? http://imgur.com/hnGSSxN

It's fairly important that you are mounted (any mount) and look in the same direction when you compare FPS, as some parts of Rishi are much easier on FPS than others.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

Just because this is a thread about UI doesn't mean it should be static. In the end the problem is that SWTOR needs too much CPU power to just run on one core, disabling some of the tasks will make it easier for that one CPU core to run the other tasks and thus increase FPS.

 

I will admit... I am anal retentive so when someone says "it's the UI" I test for the UI and only respond regarding the UI. If they want to talk in general then I would address that separately. really my FPS total wasn't the relevant bit in my head. The relevant bit was "do I see an improvement when I have the UI off?" whether its an average of 25 or an average of 75.

 

As for the DF encounter you noted I can't tell ya tbh. I haven't looked at my performance on each and every encounter and noted it specifically. That is why I was speaking in generalities.

 

I also agree with you on the solution but I think they are limited on how much stuff they can "ship off" to other threads. I could well be wrong, I am not a software engineer, but I think they can tweek things sure, but to get the return that people REALLY want to see I think would require modifications to the Engine and that is a project they likely don't see as financially viable since they are under the gun to just get new content done. WoW has a dedicated team that just does engine work.... most games can't afford that.

 

What if you go to this area, settings maxed? http://imgur.com/hnGSSxN

It's fairly important that you are mounted (any mount) and look in the same direction when you compare FPS, as some parts of Rishi are much easier on FPS than others.

 

Thanks for the location to check out. That does push the static FPS down much more than anywhere else in the game. Now maybe it's because my max resolution is only 1920x1080 even tagged on "Ultra" I do not have "very high" as an option for shadow map cascades. High is as far as I can go. That area costs me ~20 fps?! I don't think I have ever seen an area where the bloom and shadows interact so forcefully.

 

In the end... and maybe I am just jaded after basically playing nothing but MMOs for over 15 years but... this is just how just about every MMO has ever been. I have never seen the performance in an MMO that I see in a "regular" video game. Some do a little better (some Asian games that use the "Anime" look which means fewer realistic textures and such), some even do worse that SWTOR (Rift comes immediately to mind there. I can't break past 40 there for the life of me). It just seems t be they all have just ONE damn thread carrying too much data. Since almost every MMO has the issue, to one degree or another, I would think logic dictates its something to do with the requirements of the game itself...otherwise someone would have "fixed" it in any of the other MMOs I have played. (I would have hoped at least). /shrug.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

I will admit... I am anal retentive so when someone says "it's the UI" I test for the UI and only respond regarding the UI. If they want to talk in general then I would address that separately. really my FPS total wasn't the relevant bit in my head. The relevant bit was "do I see an improvement when I have the UI off?" whether its an average of 25 or an average of 75.

 

Do you ever go above 60 fps?

 

As for the DF encounter you noted I can't tell ya tbh. I haven't looked at my performance on each and every encounter and noted it specifically. That is why I was speaking in generalities.

 

Well, that specific DF encounter (with settings maxed) turns most computers into a slideshow when the little red circles start exploding. It's the kind of FPS drops you'll very much notice

 

I also agree with you on the solution but I think they are limited on how much stuff they can "ship off" to other threads. I could well be wrong, I am not a software engineer, but I think they can tweek things sure, but to get the return that people REALLY want to see I think would require modifications to the Engine and that is a project they likely don't see as financially viable since they are under the gun to just get new content done. WoW has a dedicated team that just does engine work.... most games can't afford that.

 

Much rather think might be time to simplify. From 2.x to 3.0 we've had bigger effects (I'm looking at you Vigilant Thrust) and a ton of new buffs/debuffs ("This also applies a debuff on the target that increases all "X" damage dealt to the target by "Y"%) and we now have that "Proc effect" that lights around skills as they proc. The mounts are getting bigger and bigger (walkers, rancors, voranticus, cutters etc).

It looks good and all, but it's probably adding more work to do on a game that seems poorly optimized to begin with.

 

Thanks for the location to check out. That does push the static FPS down much more than anywhere else in the game. Now maybe it's because my max resolution is only 1920x1080 even tagged on "Ultra" I do not have "very high" as an option for shadow map cascades. High is as far as I can go. That area costs me almost 20 fps?! I don't think I have ever seen an area where the bloom and shadows interact so forcefully.

 

Yeah that exact spot is pretty rough on the FPS if you max settings. Once I drop Shadow Quality it's 60 fps no problem.

 

In the end... and maybe I am just jaded after basically playing nothing but MMOs for over 15 years but... this is just how just about every MMO has ever been. I have never seen the performance in an MMO that I see in a "regular" video game. Some do a little better (some Asian games that use the "Anime" look which means fewer realistic textures and such), some even do worse that SWTOR (Rift comes immediately to mind there. I can't break past 40 there for the life of me). It just seems t be they all have just ONE damn thread carrying too much data. Since almost every MMO has the issue, to one degree or another, I would think logic dictates its something to do with the requirements of the game itself...otherwise someone would have "fixed" it. /shrug.

 

True. Guild Wars 2 seems to run extremely well on my computer though. Granted, the graphics don't look good when you zoom in on textures etc, but in WvWvW with 40+ people on the battlefield fighting I'm not experiencing stuttering or anything like when I play 8v8 or 16m Ops in SWTOR. Then again, I'm generally really impressed by how GW2 has managed to make those massive structures and areas run so well for an MMO, they seem to capture the "Massively" in MMORPG really well.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

Do you ever go above 60 fps?

 

Well, that specific DF encounter (with settings maxed) turns most computers into a slideshow when the little red circles start exploding. It's the kind of FPS drops you'll very much notice

 

I might... I just have an old habit... unless I am running an "experiment" like I have been lately... I turn shadow quality to low and turn off bloom "just in case." I remember the first computer I had when I started EQ2 back in the day. When I stepped into a raid zone it was time to turn everything down so I was playing in what we called "LEGO mode"

 

And no I never get above 60 as an average. If I put shadows on low and turn off say bloom I will see it jump up into the 60.x range but that 59.X is pretty much my max for an average fps. The 75 thing was just hyperbole to illustrate my point. If I had that kinda head room I would be a happy clam.

 

Much rather think might be time to simplify. From 2.x to 3.0 we've had bigger effects (I'm looking at you Vigilant Thrust) and a ton of new buffs/debuffs ("This also applies a debuff on the target that increases all "X" damage dealt to the target by "Y"%) and we now have that "Proc effect" that lights around skills as they proc. The mounts are getting bigger and bigger (walkers, rancors, voranticus, cutters etc).

 

that would work too BUT people want all that pretty stuff. Example... some of the stuff in the UI was to avoid the reason some people had for releasing the API for add-ons for proc triggers and the like. Why they are so stubborn on that I don't know. Additionally people practically demand the flashy stuff because they don't understand the potential costs it seems.

 

It looks good and all, but it's probably adding more work to do on a game that seems poorly optimized to begin with.

And this is an endemic problem with MMOs in general. If you make it pretty it has issues. Don't know why as I never made one before but it is practically an "industry standard."

 

Yeah that exact spot is pretty rough on the FPS if you max settings. Once I drop Shadow Quality it's 60 fps no problem.

 

yepper noticed that myself.

 

 

True. Guild Wars 2 seems to run extremely well on my computer though. Granted, the graphics don't look good when you zoom in on textures etc, but in WvWvW with 40+ people on the battlefield fighting I'm not experiencing stuttering or anything like when I play 8v8 or 16m Ops in SWTOR. Then again, I'm generally really impressed by how GW2 has managed to make those massive structures and areas run so well for an MMO, they seem to capture the "Massively" in MMORPG really well.

 

GW2 was one of the games I was referring to actually when it came to the texture thing. They also have a less "busy" environment as well. They make it look as pretty as they can, don't get me wrong but it seems to lack some "depth" if that is even the right word. A lot of people though still have issues there. If you watch core performance the same beast raises it's head there in terms of one thread being a tad bloated... it's simply not as big a beast as SWTOR lol.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

And no I never get above 60 as an average. If I put shadows on low and turn off say bloom I will see it jump up into the 60.x range but that 59.X is pretty much my max for an average fps. The 75 thing was just hyperbole to illustrate my point. If I had that kinda head room I would be a happy clam.

 

That might explain why you're not "experiencing" a FPS drop from UI. I guess you have Vsync on (the box for ticking Vsync is a bit bugged), meaning you won't go above 60.x fps. If your computer is able to run 120 fps without UI and 100 fps with UI there is a FPS drop, but you won't notice it because you're limiting yourself to 60.

 

that would work too BUT people want all that pretty stuff. Example... some of the stuff in the UI was to avoid the reason some people had for releasing the API for add-ons for proc triggers and the like. Why they are so stubborn on that I don't know. Additionally people practically demand the flashy stuff because they don't understand the potential costs it seems.

 

Yeah some of it had to make it into the game I guess, but I still think some of it could be optional or at least toned down a bit.

 

And this is an endemic problem with MMOs in general. If you make it pretty it has issues. Don't know why as I never made one before but it is practically an "industry standard."

 

GW2 was one of the games I was referring to actually when it came to the texture thing. They also have a less "busy" environment as well. They make it look as pretty as they can, don't get me wrong but it seems to lack some "depth" if that is even the right word. A lot of people though still have issues there. If you watch core performance the same beast raises it's head there in terms of one thread being a tad bloated... it's simply not as big a beast as SWTOR lol.

 

GW2 is definitely making some sacrifices, but in the end I'd say it's worth it. SWTOR still seems wholly unable to do battles in the scale GW2 does. If that means a bit worse graphics (SWTOR graphics isn't that great either), I really think it's worth it for an MMO.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

That might explain why you're not "experiencing" a FPS drop from UI. I guess you have Vsync on (the box for ticking Vsync is a bit bugged), meaning you won't go above 60.x fps. If your computer is able to run 120 fps without UI and 100 fps with UI there is a FPS drop, but you won't notice it because you're limiting yourself to 60.

 

actually I did have V-Sync on due to my monitor's refresh rate now that I think about it. I totally brain fried on that one. good looking out. I turned it off and I am now getting it spikey as ALL hell. never drops below 60 and will go as high as 100.x seemingly at random lol. Normal soloing the average is 79.x.

 

My GPU is VERY meh... a R7 250x. Since everytime something "happened" in game my CPU was the choke point on my old PC ( lower end i7) I went with a cheaper video card to silence the wife when I bought my new system (my original pick for the system pieced out to almost 2000 bucks... she stuck me on a 1k max budget... I came in under that so she didn't scream when I bought a $200 helmet for cycling lol). I went with good tower with lots of fans so she wouldn't notice when I upgraded over time later

 

That all said... even if there is a drop from 120 to 100 or even 120 to 60. Does it matter if your monitor's refresh rate doesn't care?

 

Yeah some of it had to make it into the game I guess, but I still think some of it could be optional or at least toned down a bit.

 

GW2 is definitely making some sacrifices, but in the end I'd say it's worth it. SWTOR still seems wholly unable to do battles in the scale GW2 does. If that means a bit worse graphics (SWTOR graphics isn't that great either), I really think it's worth it for an MMO.

 

Thing is though I think it is WAY too late for that. If they went to a less texture and environment intensive model people would complain about how the game doesn't look as good and even if it did rise to GW2 levels of performance in doing so they would say "this sucks" and rage.

 

I wonder if that is half the reason for some of the silence actually. Many of the fixes they could do would remove visual features people have become used to so in the end you would NOT be curtailing complaints, you would simply be replacing one complaint with another? The cardinal rule of MMOs is to cause as little emo as possible so if their data mining shows that this issue is NOT a big one for the majority of the players then they stay mum. If they said "nope not gonna/can't fix it" they they REALLY piss people off. If they do fix it then they piss off all the players who like looking t the "pretty stuff". They may feel like they are taking the Kobayashi Maru test.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

actually I did have V-Sync on due to my monitor's refresh rate now that I think about it. I totally brain fried on that one. good looking out. I turned it off and I am now getting it spikey as ALL hell. never drops below 60 and will go as high as 100.x seemingly at random lol. Normal soloing the average is 79.x.

 

My GPU is VERY meh... a R7 250x. Since everytime something "happened" in game my CPU was the choke point on my old PC ( lower end i7) I went with a cheaper video card to silence the wife when I bought my new system (my original pick for the system pieced out to almost 2000 bucks... she stuck me on a 1k max budget... I came in under that so she didn't scream when I bought a $200 helmet for cycling lol). I went with good tower with lots of fans so she wouldn't notice when I upgraded over time later

 

That all said... even if there is a drop from 120 to 100 or even 120 to 60. Does it matter if your monitor's refresh rate doesn't care?

 

Well no, it doesn't matter for you, and probably not for anyone else with a CPU like that. However, if the FPS drop on a slower CPU+GFX gets you from 50-60 fps to 30-40 (or lower), it'll matter a whole lot more.

 

Thing is though I think it is WAY too late for that. If they went to a less texture and environment intensive model people would complain about how the game doesn't look as good and even if it did rise to GW2 levels of performance in doing so they would say "this sucks" and rage.

 

I wonder if that is half the reason for some of the silence actually. Many of the fixes they could do would remove visual features people have become used to so in the end you would NOT be curtailing complaints, you would simply be replacing one complaint with another? The cardinal rule of MMOs is to cause as little emo as possible so if their data mining shows that this issue is NOT a big one for the majority of the players then they stay mum. If they said "nope not gonna/can't fix it" they they REALLY piss people off. If they do fix it then they piss off all the players who like looking t the "pretty stuff". They may feel like they are taking the Kobayashi Maru test.

 

There is very much an issue there, taking away something people had will always cause troubles. It would create more problems than it would solve. The ones who would gain the most from FPS fix are already getting the stick bigtime anyway, a tad more FPS won't make them happy.

The FPS issue mattered most back when Ilum world PvP mattered. Ilum world PvP had tons of issues, but the issue of FPS/lag fest whenever 20+ people fought didn't exactly make it better.

 

However, that doesn't mean the future can't focus more on simplicity. Example: Make Operations with fewer and cleaner effects rather than the current red+blue+purple will-kill-you-circles everywhere and massive explosions that engulfs the entire screen in smoke (I'm especially thinking of Sword Squadron here...).

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin

[Ghisallo]

Well no, it doesn't matter for you, and probably not for anyone else with a CPU like that. However, if the FPS drop on a slower CPU+GFX gets you from 50-60 fps to 30-40 (or lower), it'll matter a whole lot more.

 

Oh absolutely.... sorry I was indeed speaking just for myself but like I have been saying I just don't see that threading issue being fixed nor them "toning the game down" to compensate. Thats why I keep talking about the CPU. Some of the better CPU's for single threading are relatively inexpensive (two in the top 10 as 'stock' are under $300.00) and with non-MMORPGs you can compensate A LOT with good GPU's SLI/crossfire etc.

 

I am just naturally a pragmatist. I HAVE to bang my head against at wall at work everyday due to my job so when I can I look at things... say "well it sucks but it is what is, what can I do on my end to moderate the headache."

 

 

There is very much an issue there, taking away something people had will always cause troubles. It would create more problems than it would solve. The ones who would gain the most from FPS fix are already getting the stick bigtime anyway, a tad more FPS won't make them happy.

The FPS issue mattered most back when Ilum world PvP mattered. Ilum world PvP had tons of issues, but the issue of FPS/lag fest whenever 20+ people fought didn't exactly make it better.

 

However, that doesn't mean the future can't focus more on simplicity. Example: Make Operations with fewer and cleaner effects rather than the current red+blue+purple will-kill-you-circles everywhere and massive explosions that engulfs the entire screen in smoke (I'm especially thinking of Sword Squadron here...).

 

Oh I HOPE TO GOODNESS they read your last bit there. There are many ways to have challenging encounters that don't simply rely on "not standing in telegraphed stupid" and I certainly do not need the quivilent of a nuclear blast in terms of graphics to tell me that I just lost 25% to 75% of my health bar.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Elracor]

Oh absolutely.... sorry I was indeed speaking just for myself but like I have been saying I just don't see that threading issue being fixed nor them "toning the game down" to compensate. Thats why I keep talking about the CPU. Some of the better CPU's for single threading are relatively inexpensive (two in the top 10 as 'stock' are under $300.00) and with non-MMORPGs you can compensate A LOT with good GPU's SLI/crossfire etc.

 

I am just naturally a pragmatist. I HAVE to bang my head against at wall at work everyday due to my job so when I can I look at things... say "well it sucks but it is what is, what can I do on my end to moderate the headache."

 

Nothing wrong with being a pragmatist. The issue just becomes money at this point. Not everyone can afford a new CPU + it might require a new motherboard and RAM depending on your current build.

 

I could upgrade my 3570k to something more powerful, but in the end I simply don't find it worth it to spend hundreds of dollars to improve the experience of SWTORs Warzones and Operations. Of course you'd be able to play other games with the upgraded computer, but SWTOR by itself IMO isn't worth spending hundreds of dollars on.

 

Oh I HOPE TO GOODNESS they read your last bit there. There are many ways to have challenging encounters that don't simply rely on "not standing in telegraphed stupid" and I certainly do not need the quivilent of a nuclear blast in terms of graphics to tell me that I just lost 25% to 75% of my health bar.

 

Indeed. The game calls for some explosions and circles are a fine way of warning players bad stuff will happen, but for some bosses it's gone a bit too far, and deadly circles are present in pretty much all the new fights.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MFollin