Can't play Really Pissed.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/quick-note-on-optimization.49152/

I think you will want to read this.

 

I'm more having issues with people I'm shooting at disappear. It varies from 100ish meters to about ten. I can certainly believe that they're still working on it, it is also a large portion of my difficulty in firefights.
Oddly, I have less of an issue when I'm in an aircraft, and primarily why I'm flying one a lot these days.

 

I think I might of fixed my problem.

I'll have to check, I was getting 60+ FPS at 3 am( not prime time). I reverted my drivers back to APPLE in a last ditch effort lol.

I am going to check to see if the stetting stuck as well as soon as I get off work and I will be happy if it did.

Crazy I'll get back to you on that it was a post in the Tech forums. I have the program and I'll be happy to share it with you, jsut have to get back into windows mode ( use mac mode for work).

 

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...-not-be-written-in-32-bits.49605/#post-632679


I FOUND IT. Crazy, this did make a difference in memory, you can see it in taskmgmr. Hoping it will give PS2 a dedicated 4G when I upgrade.


ALso crazy I am sure you probably know this. When at character select screen hit ctrl alt del. GO to process and select show all. Select planetside 2, right click and select high priority

 

Cool, I'll try it out!

 

No, it really wont. You could load the entire program into RAM and see no performance gains.

Yes, x64 gives access to additional registers, and wider ones too. I don't have first hand experience making games, but I'm inclined to think that variables would not stick around in registers long enough in games for it to matter. That is likely why games don't tend to see performance gains in 64bit, where as compute heavy ones do.

Not sure what you're really getting at. DX9 is prominent because of XP (or because Vista didn't do well), and until maybe 3 years ago, the 8000 NVIDIA series also contributed. Yeah, its inferior but due to the games release timing and its F2P model, market share has to be considered. If it was 2-3 years from now, I would expect it to be something besides DX9.

I feel like you guys are mostly living in the past. Yes, even today Intel and AMD processors are generally close to the same performance/$cost at stock with each having a couple standouts. Two problems though: 1 is that AMD's options end at Intels mainstream range ($220), and the other is that AMD is slower clock-for-clock. Clock-for-clock performance starts to matter significantly once you overclock. I'll use my CPU as an example. The two options in the price range were an i5 750 or a 1090T. They have similar performance stock (750 edges the 1090T out by like 5-8% or something), however, the 750 comes stock @2.66 and the 1090T comes @3.2. If you overclock (which you should, if you're not you're wasting performance), the i5 can hit 3.7-4.0 where as the 1090T can hit 4.0-4.2. At stock, the higher clock rate of the 1090T masks its slower clock-for-clock performance. After overclocking, the clock rate gap decreases or becomes equal and the i5 lead is actually substantial.

That was a couple generations ago. The previous generation was at an all-time low for AMD, but the current generation is much better. That said, AMDs best options (FX-8320/8350) still get absolutely smashed by the i5 2500k/3570k. That said, because most Intel CPUs are multiplier locked there are areas where AMD does well because it can still be overclocked (namely the FX-8320). But again, if you go with the $220 2500k/3570k and overclock you smash every AMD option by an enormous margin.

As for GPUs, AMD and NVIDIA have different architectures. While they might be on a similar on a macro level, they can perform quite differently because of the way games stress GPU resorces. Thats why it might its common to see games "favoring" one company. A fun example is bitcoin mining. While its not a game, it demonstrates the impact of architecture very well.

 

I have a moderately budget-minded system and I can play just fine -- albeit with the occasional framerate drop during intensive processing, but I wouldn't expect anything less from a game as demanding as PS2. There certainly isn't any other game worthy of comparison in terms of sheer amount of "stuff" going on at once in a FFS latency-demanding game.

I've found the secret to performance is with tinkering with the graphics settings. You can achieve a really nice look while toning down on the things you notice less in firefights like grass.

These are my magic settings:

1920x1200 V-sync On @ 100% Render Quality

Graphics, Textures, Effects, Terrain: High

Lighting, Shadows, Flora, Model, Particles: Low

Fog, Motion Blur, Ambient Occlusion: Off

I get a smooth 50 - 60 fps usually, with dips down to 20's and 30's in major action -- but I consider that playable.

i5-3470 / 8GB 1600 / 1GB 6850 / Win7 x64

 

1. 16gb will help me for sure. It will smooth out and reduce hic ups. If more can be loaded in volitale memory the better. Me not having a SSD drive I will notice smoothness even more. I wish I could load the enitre game into my 16gb it's no possable running 32 bit though. As for RAW FPS GAIN, no it will not happen, thats a big DUH. I am surprised you keep going back to that.

2. Dx9 is legacy pure and smiple.

3. You talk about clock for clock, the clock runs different ways, banwidhts, etc. You must mean how Fast it ticks as in mhz- GHz? You're forgetting that their are many other factors like Cache, register and bus widths as well as the pipelines running in. The anaology is you have a policeman directing traffic, the speed he moves, lanes of cars and how fast the cars move as well as what he can predict they will do are all major factors. They also have other implacations in the sub-routines as well that are manf specific other factors are motherboard bus limitations, etc,etc.





Actually I think I fixed my problem, I should see the same results as you pinion.

 

Clock-for-clock is a metric to compare who does more work each clock. Intel has better clock-for-clock performance which means a 3.0GHz from Intel will outperform a 3.0 from AMD at the same task.

 

Woot happy I can play!!!! I hope the enxt patch doesnt screw me up again!