Search
Search
Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
Forums › PlanetSide 2 Forum › Frame Rates WAAAY to LOW

Frame Rates WAAAY to LOW

« prev
Page:
Forum Actions
New Message
  • mrtoilet
     
    Nov 6, 2012 11:15 pm GMT

    Im at around 50 fps in open areas. 25-35 fps in bases and large battles. My in game settings are on HIGH. I've noticed no difference in fps when I go down to MEDUIM or LOW settings which I find rather strange.. Before I tried the widely known Rendering Distance tweak it was nearly unplayable with my frames dropping to as low as 20 fps in battles. If you're not aware, by changes the rendering distance in the UserOptions file to (RenderDistance=1000) it limits your draw distance and increases the Frame Rates. I have also tried lowering to 700 and it was slightly better.

    Look, I completely understand that making an First Person Shooter of this massive scale has to be a huge challange. But Frame Rates HAVE,,, HAVE to be there! I can sacrifice a slight lack of eye candy and bling for a smooth and playable game and I believe most avid gamers would agree.

    My Specs:

    :AMD 1090T (6 core cpu)

    :8Gb PC1600 DDR3 RAM

    :ATI HD 6970 GPU

    I spent my $39.99 now lets get this fixed Sony!!

    Im at around 50 fps in open areas. 25-35 fps in bases and large battles. My in game settings are on HIGH. I've noticed no difference in fps when I go down to MEDUIM or LOW settings which I find rather strange.. Before I tried the widely known Rendering Distance tweak it was nearly unplayable with my frames dropping to as low as 20 fps in battles. If you're not aware, by changes the rendering distance in the UserOptions file to (RenderDistance=1000) it limits your draw distance and increases the Frame Rates. I have also tried lowering to 700 and it was slightly better.

    Look, I completely understand that making an First Person Shooter of this massive scale has to be a huge challange. But Frame Rates HAVE,,, HAVE to be there! I can sacrifice a slight lack of eye candy and bling for a smooth and playable game and I believe most avid gamers would agree.

    My Specs:

    :AMD 1090T (6 core cpu)

    :8Gb PC1600 DDR3 RAM

    :ATI HD 6970 GPU

    I spent my $39.99 now lets get this fixed Sony!!

    Report Abuse
  • Baselerd
     
    Nov 21, 2012 8:20 am GMT

    Runs butter smooth for me, but you should be getting higher performance by the sound of it. Why did you spend $40, the game's free...

    --------------

    Runs butter smooth for me, but you should be getting higher performance by the sound of it. Why did you spend $40, the game's free...

    Report Abuse
  • Thrustwyn
     
    Nov 21, 2012 12:39 pm GMT

    Baselerd wrote:

    Runs butter smooth for me, but you should be getting higher performance by the sound of it. Why did you spend $40, the game's free...

    Exactly - free to play!

    Also, I wouldn't call 20 fps necessarily game-stopping... as you acknowledge, the game out-scales any other FPS out there. Original Planetside, on Pentiums, sometimes dipped to like 5 fps on the biggest battles... that was a legit problem. Looks like might you have something going on there with your setup - might want to shut down your other apps like FB, etc. before playing the game.

    Don't see any problem.

    Edited on Nov 21, 2012 12:40 pm GMT

    [QUOTE="Baselerd"]

    Runs butter smooth for me, but you should be getting higher performance by the sound of it. Why did you spend $40, the game's free...

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly - free to play!

    Also, I wouldn't call 20 fps necessarily game-stopping... as you acknowledge, the game out-scales any other FPS out there. Original Planetside, on Pentiums, sometimes dipped to like 5 fps on the biggest battles... that was a legit problem. Looks like might you have something going on there with your setup - might want to shut down your other apps like FB, etc. before playing the game.

    Don't see any problem.

    Report Abuse
  • youngzen69
     
    Nov 21, 2012 9:16 pm GMT

    Bought a PC gaming rig recently and so I seem to be up to date as far as recommended settings are concerned. That said even on recommended settings, not the min settings. Famerates are still up and down.

    Edited on Nov 21, 2012 9:24 pm GMT

    Bought a PC gaming rig recently and so I seem to be up to date as far as recommended settings are concerned. That said even on recommended settings, not the min settings. Famerates are still up and down.

    Report Abuse
  • q-bert39
     
    Nov 22, 2012 7:11 am GMT

    youngzen69 wrote:

    Bought a PC gaming rig recently and so I seem to be up to date as far as recommended settings are concerned. That said even on recommended settings, not the min settings. Famerates are still up and down.

     

    if there is an option, turn off shadows, anti-aliasing (AA), any supersampling, physX etc.

    if you still get low fps, try lowering your resolution

    [QUOTE="youngzen69"]

    Bought a PC gaming rig recently and so I seem to be up to date as far as recommended settings are concerned. That said even on recommended settings, not the min settings. Famerates are still up and down.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    if there is an option, turn off shadows, anti-aliasing (AA), any supersampling, physX etc.

    if you still get low fps, try lowering your resolution

    Report Abuse
  • ShabbyOrange
     
    Nov 22, 2012 12:02 pm GMT

    Highly frustraited with this game. Running it lower settings just to keep avg frame rates good.
    Still, even when i put it to the lowest the FPS really puts off my aim, i believe i get 20-30fps in the higher combat area's.

    I would honestly love to purchase a few things for this game, but if it will never be buttery smooth i wont.
    Yes, it's free, but still the FPS just isn't acceptable to fully enjoy what a fantastic concept this game is.

    My Specs:

    :AMD FX 4170 Quad 4.2

    :8Gb 1333 DDR3 RAM

    :ATI HD 6670 GPU 2GB

    Highly frustraited with this game. Running it lower settings just to keep avg frame rates good.
    Still, even when i put it to the lowest the FPS really puts off my aim, i believe i get 20-30fps in the higher combat area's.

    I would honestly love to purchase a few things for this game, but if it will never be buttery smooth i wont.
    Yes, it's free, but still the FPS just isn't acceptable to fully enjoy what a fantastic concept this game is.

    My Specs:

    :AMD FX 4170 Quad 4.2

    :8Gb 1333 DDR3 RAM

    :ATI HD 6670 GPU 2GB

    Report Abuse
  • Mikes1992U
     
    Nov 23, 2012 3:08 pm GMT
    Your GPU is a little underpowered and I assume with it being 2gb you have the GDDR3 version but 20-30fps is pretty good and kind of backs up what i've heard about this game (that it's more CPU dependant)

    Your CPU is not bad
    the ram is fine

    Look here > http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2252&game=Planetside+2&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=FX-4170&gc_make=ATI&gc_deriv=Radeon+HD+6670+2GB+DDR3&ram=8&checkSubmit=#systemRequirements
    Your GPU is a little underpowered and I assume with it being 2gb you have the GDDR3 version but 20-30fps is pretty good and kind of backs up what i've heard about this game (that it's more CPU dependant) Your CPU is not bad the ram is fine Look here > http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2252&game=Planetside+2&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=FX-4170&gc_make=ATI&gc_deriv=Radeon+HD+6670+2GB+DDR3&ram=8&checkSubmit=#systemRequirements
    Report Abuse
  • swonlima
     
    Nov 24, 2012 9:58 am GMT
    well first of all it seams amd configurations have problems so go with intel+ geforce . But seriously why people buy amd processor, Intel is way better especially for gaming!!!! period !
    well first of all it seams amd configurations have problems so go with intel+ geforce ;) . But seriously why people buy amd processor, Intel is way better especially for gaming!!!! period !
    Report Abuse
  • Brendissimo35
     
    Nov 24, 2012 3:03 pm GMT

    Well a lot of that stems from how CPU-intensive the game is. One of the biggest problems right now is that the game doesn't really take advantage of multiple cores, is a Direct X 9 release, etc. A lot of this seems to have been done to allow people with lower end rigs to run the game, which is great, but I am hoping they will better take advantage of multiple cores, and add DX11 support. Also some tweaking, like maybe not rendering the entire map at once, would be good. I use a distance of 2500 myself, because when flying 1000 is just way too low (can't see over the next ridge). We certainly don't need to render the entire continent at once, however.

    Well a lot of that stems from how CPU-intensive the game is. One of the biggest problems right now is that the game doesn't really take advantage of multiple cores, is a Direct X 9 release, etc. A lot of this seems to have been done to allow people with lower end rigs to run the game, which is great, but I am hoping they will better take advantage of multiple cores, and add DX11 support. Also some tweaking, like maybe not rendering the entire map at once, would be good. I use a distance of 2500 myself, because when flying 1000 is just way too low (can't see over the next ridge). We certainly don't need to render the entire continent at once, however.

    Report Abuse
  • Grayhawk2
     
    Nov 25, 2012 7:27 am GMT

    The devs have stated that optimization is a one of their primary focuses at the moment. Trying to run the game right now with anything but a high end Intel processor like an i5-3570 is just gonna return bad framerates in heavy battles. OP's AMD processor isn't anything to scoff at, but its six cores are worthless in this game (in pretty much all games actually), and its single core performance pales in comparison to the high end Intel processors like the one I just mentioned. Frankly that CPU is holding back that nice video card.

    The devs have stated that optimization is a one of their primary focuses at the moment. Trying to run the game right now with anything but a high end Intel processor like an i5-3570 is just gonna return bad framerates in heavy battles. OP's AMD processor isn't anything to scoff at, but its six cores are worthless in this game (in pretty much all games actually), and its single core performance pales in comparison to the high end Intel processors like the one I just mentioned. Frankly that CPU is holding back that nice video card.

    Report Abuse
  • MaddenBowler10
     
    User is Online
    Nov 25, 2012 9:45 am GMT
    I have an Intel-Core i7- 2670QM @ 2.2ghz, Nvidia Geforce 555m GT, 6gb memory

    And this game does not run very smooth for me when there are people around. Is my laptop really unable to play this game or is it the game itself that is having issues? I really have no problems playing other games with higher spec requirements.

    Track me on GS|Addme on Facebook|Followme on Twitter

    I have an Intel-Core i7- 2670QM @ 2.2ghz, Nvidia Geforce 555m GT, 6gb memory And this game does not run very smooth for me when there are people around. Is my laptop really unable to play this game or is it the game itself that is having issues? I really have no problems playing other games with higher spec requirements.
    Report Abuse
  • JPokes
     
    Nov 25, 2012 10:27 am GMT

    Your laptop is pretty good but not amazing. That being said, I have read personal accounts AND official reviews saying the game needs to be optimized.

    I have a high end rig myself with an i7 920 @4ghz; 6gb of ram with extreme memory profiles, and an hd5970 black edition overclocked and I get down to like 35 fps on medium settings in 1080p during heavy fighting.

    Your laptop is pretty good but not amazing. That being said, I have read personal accounts AND official reviews saying the game needs to be optimized.

    I have a high end rig myself with an i7 920 @4ghz; 6gb of ram with extreme memory profiles, and an hd5970 black edition overclocked and I get down to like 35 fps on medium settings in 1080p during heavy fighting.

    Report Abuse
  • MaddenBowler10
     
    User is Online
    Nov 25, 2012 11:38 am GMT
    JPokes wrote:

    Your laptop is pretty good but not amazing. That being said, I have read personal accounts AND official reviews saying the game needs to be optimized.

    I have a high end rig myself with an i7 920 @4ghz; 6gb of ram with extreme memory profiles, and an hd5970 black edition overclocked and I get down to like 35 fps on medium settings in 1080p during heavy fighting.


    That's a better set up than mine for sure but they way you put, sounds like the game needs to be better optimized. How could they release it like this?

    Track me on GS|Addme on Facebook|Followme on Twitter

    [QUOTE="JPokes"]

    Your laptop is pretty good but not amazing. That being said, I have read personal accounts AND official reviews saying the game needs to be optimized.

    I have a high end rig myself with an i7 920 @4ghz; 6gb of ram with extreme memory profiles, and an hd5970 black edition overclocked and I get down to like 35 fps on medium settings in 1080p during heavy fighting.

    [/QUOTE] That's a better set up than mine for sure but they way you put, sounds like the game needs to be better optimized. How could they release it like this?
    Report Abuse
  • FamilyGuyFan507
     
    Nov 26, 2012 8:51 am GMT

    I wanted to get into this game but I don't my computer could keep up. Brand new laptop: you tell me.

     

     

    3rd Gen Intel i5 - 3210 3.1ghz

    6 GBs of DDR3 RAM 1600mhz

    1GB of NVIDIA GeForce GT650M with Optimus

    I wanted to get into this game but I don't my computer could keep up. Brand new laptop: you tell me.

     

     

    3rd Gen Intel i5 - 3210 3.1ghz

    6 GBs of DDR3 RAM 1600mhz

    1GB of NVIDIA GeForce GT650M with Optimus

    Report Abuse
  • Grayhawk2
     
    Nov 26, 2012 11:44 am GMT
    Like most of us at the moment, you're likely to see frame rates in the 20s during heavy fighting FamilyGuyFan. This is a game that, at the moment, is only realistically playable on a high end desktop computer. They still have a long way to go, but the game plays a lot better than it did for me than it did in beta, but i was seeing frames in the single digits then. Now I'm getting somewhere in the mid 20s.
    Like most of us at the moment, you're likely to see frame rates in the 20s during heavy fighting FamilyGuyFan. This is a game that, at the moment, is only realistically playable on a high end desktop computer. They still have a long way to go, but the game plays a lot better than it did for me than it did in beta, but i was seeing frames in the single digits then. Now I'm getting somewhere in the mid 20s.
    Report Abuse
  • TrueProphecy22
     
    Nov 28, 2012 10:01 pm GMT
    It's a bummer.. I wanted to enjoy this game. I dropped the graphics to low, but I'm still having frame rate issues. I could run The Witcher 2 on high, so I wasn't expecting Planetside to run so poorly.
    Hello, hello.
    It's a bummer.. I wanted to enjoy this game. I dropped the graphics to low, but I'm still having frame rate issues. I could run The Witcher 2 on high, so I wasn't expecting Planetside to run so poorly.
    Report Abuse
  • rykh
     
    User is Online
    Dec 1, 2012 8:54 am GMT

    I have an e8500 at 3.6, 4gb ram and a radeon 6850.  All above the minimum reqs, and I dip into the teens to single digit fps on big battles with EVERYTHING turned to low.  I have even dropped the screen res, doesnt really matter.  The funny thing is it is about the same FPS on medium settings. 

    I have an e8500 at 3.6, 4gb ram and a radeon 6850.  All above the minimum reqs, and I dip into the teens to single digit fps on big battles with EVERYTHING turned to low.  I have even dropped the screen res, doesnt really matter.  The funny thing is it is about the same FPS on medium settings. 

    Report Abuse
  • BovineDivine
     
    Dec 3, 2012 8:37 pm GMT

    I built my less than impressive rig for a thousand bucks and I get 35-45 frames per second with everything on high. Sure, there's some 20 frames per second moments, but for the most part I've not had these issues. For a game of this scope, especially considering it's not running on a garbage engine, optimization really has to be SoE's priority.

    I built my less than impressive rig for a thousand bucks and I get 35-45 frames per second with everything on high. Sure, there's some 20 frames per second moments, but for the most part I've not had these issues. For a game of this scope, especially considering it's not running on a garbage engine, optimization really has to be SoE's priority.

    Report Abuse
  • cooloutac
     
    Dec 17, 2012 9:52 am GMT
    Its the worst programmed game in history. It has nothing to do with your graphic card. its all about the cpu.

    and most people lie about their fps. the honest ones will tell you even with a top i7 processor their game is constantly dropping down to 30 fps in heavy battles. anyone else is lucky to get that on avg, no matter what gpu you have.


    the graphics are atrocious. They look like they came out in 1996. The problem is indie developers are not going to be able to make a game like this. You need lots of programmers. It would take a company like EA or Blizzard to do this.

    The whole concept is amazing i want to like the game. But its unplayable and not worth the money to me. Most programmers don't even wanna be bothered programming for the latest DX. They tell themselves cpus are still needed for remdedial tasks. You can guarantee the programmers for ps2 have the same philosphy. and thats why its a dx9 pile of **** that can't even run good on the latest high end cpu.


    BF3 is the game worth building a pc for. sure its only 64 players in a battle. But so what? Its no different then deploying into a "hotspot". Just imagine everytime your loading your bf3 game.....your deploying into a hotspot hahaha except the gameplay is 10 times faster and smoother....with the latest graphics on sounds on any gaming machine.
    Its the worst programmed game in history. It has nothing to do with your graphic card. its all about the cpu. and most people lie about their fps. the honest ones will tell you even with a top i7 processor their game is constantly dropping down to 30 fps in heavy battles. anyone else is lucky to get that on avg, no matter what gpu you have. the graphics are atrocious. They look like they came out in 1996. The problem is indie developers are not going to be able to make a game like this. You need lots of programmers. It would take a company like EA or Blizzard to do this. The whole concept is amazing i want to like the game. But its unplayable and not worth the money to me. Most programmers don't even wanna be bothered programming for the latest DX. They tell themselves cpus are still needed for remdedial tasks. You can guarantee the programmers for ps2 have the same philosphy. and thats why its a dx9 pile of **** that can't even run good on the latest high end cpu. BF3 is the game worth building a pc for. sure its only 64 players in a battle. But so what? Its no different then deploying into a "hotspot". Just imagine everytime your loading your bf3 game.....your deploying into a hotspot hahaha except the gameplay is 10 times faster and smoother....with the latest graphics on sounds on any gaming machine.
    Report Abuse
Forum Actions
New Message
« prev
Page:
Forums › PlanetSide 2 Forum › Frame Rates WAAAY to LOW

PlanetSide 2 Boxshot
Follow:
  1. Not Following
    PC: Follow
  2. Not Following
    PlayStation 4: Follow
Add to List
  1. PC
  2. PlayStation 4
    Platforms:
    PlanetSide 2 Navigation

    Games You May Like

    Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

    See More Similar Games