Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Performance, give me your honest opinion!
eccoton
Member UncommonPosts: 1,340
Ok here is my take on Vanguard. I was in the beta. I lasted 2 days for only one reason performance! Performance is everything. The reason WoW is so popular is not the gameplay it is performance. It plays well on most systems. I prefer 1280x1024 as my res. in games. My system can handle 1600x1200 but i pefer 1280x1024. I play with that res with all graphic maxed in EQ2 and get over 30fps. I went to system lab do do the test for vanguard I maxed every requirement. I run amd 4600 duel core, ati crossfire 2 x1600 videos cards (each 512), system ram is 2 gigs so this is a pretty good gaming box. Yet in beta Vanguards performance was terrible even at balanced. This box should be able to handle Vanguard with most graphic maxed.
I want honest assesment of games performance now that it has gone live. I really wanted to play this game. I really want to like it. I am not trashing it in anyway. So fanbois no flames here. With a box that cost well over 2k I should be able to play Vanguard at high setting with good performance at the lower res of 1280x1024. I play many system heavy games with graphic maxed with no problems. EQ2 looks fantastic and performs extremely well. I will not settle for low graphic setting to play Vanguard. That is my problem I want to play but in beta it look horrible at low settings and great at high settings but performance was terrible. Has performance improved now that it is live? So you know I will not play with settings low so do not bother suggesting that road. Sigil has a potential great game but with poor performance on a box like mine they will not realize the games population possiblities. I have read other threads here and at other sites and performance seems to be a big issue with Vanguard. Really is to bad a game with so much potential fall short do to performance issues even on a good machine.
Comments
anyway I´m running the game in a 3.5ghz, 1gb ram and X1900GT 256mb, using:
1280x1024 resolution
very high details
and the ini and options a bit tweaked(low shadows, view distance a bit lowered...)
and I´m playing usually at 30-38fps and when in town with lots of people and details around 10-15fps
my perfomance has increased quite a bit in release, but you should try some .ini and options tweaking(there is pinned thread in this forum I believe), and you will get better graphics with better perfomance
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13 Ghz
2 Gb Ram
Nvidia Geforce 7600 GS 256 Mb
Avarage fps 25-30 out in the wild, around 18-20 in town. This is on balanced.
I'm not pleased with the performance. It's better than in beta, but not good enough.
I have been very impressed with performance thus far. Forget Beta Experiences - The prerelease and the first day of commercial were very smooth for me.
The only game I ever saw with such a clean release was City of heroes, which has about 1/10th the geographic area and 1/4 the features.
I'm playing it on my alternate rig for the moment which is a pretter average computer IMO.: Amd 3800 2 gigs ram ati x700. The ram seems to be key for this game. I run this modest system on balanced and the game is comparable to EQ2 in graphics quality and performance.
There are certainly hiccups, when entering densely populated areas, but nothing I don't see on any other game, and the quality of content combined with sheer scope of the no instanced, non-zone-world are truly impressive.
I think I've found my new mmo home
My honest opinion.
I hated beta. It was a performance disaster on my computer (and i have a AMD 4800+ with SLI 7900 and 2 gig ram).
I wasn't able to put the game on higher resolutions. My widescreen has a resolution of 1080 by 1650 and if i tried to set it at that resolution my game would crash.
My game would also either crash or not run if i put the graphics settings onto anything but balanced. It completely ruined my mood that my expensive top of the line system was supposedly already outdated now, and that despite having spend over 2k on a PC just little over a year ago, i would have to spend a same amount again soon if i wanted to play this game on highest settings.
Aside from that there was a huge amount of general lag and loading. I couldnt play for 2 minutes without the game loading all sort of stuff, and everytime you walked 30 feet the game would load the new area, completely ruining the idea that your in a "seamless" world.
Now the game has been released and i just went for it and blindly trusted sony, hoping that the rumors of the performance increase where true.
Well, they where true.
Suddenly I can set the game to highest settings, with 1050 vs 1680 resolution, 16 AA and many other settings on highest. Now finally, i can enjoy the game as its supposed to be enjoyed on my expensive system. And now that i see it in its wonderful intended resolution on my screen, and on high settings i finally "get" the beauty of vangaurd, and my it is beautiful, many areas come close to oblivion in terms of atmosphere and detail.
Suddenly the lag and loading has dissapeared completely. And im a european playing on a US RP server. There is no more loading every two minutes. The lag is also down to a minimum, you experience it sometimes, but its hardly bad enough to ruin your game experience, i would say that lag is about the same as in WoW now.
So yes, in my opinion there is a huge performance increase compared to beta. And im definatly enjoying the game now that the major issues have dissapeared.
I also had very poor performance during the first few days of beta 5. I was running on an x2 4400, 2gb ram and an 8800GTX (768mb) but I was getting really bad performance. It was probably my fault for insisting on trying to run the game at 1920x1200 and High quality settings. I had to knock it down to balanced to play properly.
The difference from the start of beta to now is unbelievable, I can now run at the setting I wanted i.e. 1920x1200 and High Quality and the framerates have doubled from what I was getting in Beta. It is perfectly playable for me now. It would be nice if they can make it run a bit better in the cities as the framerate still drops quite low there, but not so bad now.
All I can say is that I was a bit unsure about Vanguard after a couple of days of Beta. Since I've been playing for the last few days I am completely addicted. I've been playing until 03:00 the last few morning even though I've got to be up at 07:00 for work. It's sad I know, but this game is that good
My specs: PIV 2,4, 2 GB ram, Geforce 6600 GT.
Been playing since Beta3 and the improvement since then is remarckable.
Nowadays the game is perfectly playable it doesnt matter if I am in city or open field.
I was planning in buying a new PC on february ( not because of Vanguard) but considering the performance increment in VG I think I will hold a few more months and let the new tech settle down and prices drop abit.
Incorrect, Crossfire works for everything, its not as good as if its specifically programmed for the advanced chopping up techniques, buts it crosshatching capabilities work on everythgn and will give you a FPS boost. It does for me.It has gotten better, but marginally so. Realistically it needs a good bit of further optimization to achieve a reasonable level of performance.
That being said, I don't see why you wouldn't get >30fps out in the wild, but I wouldn't expect to much near other people... your fps is going to drop to poor levels.
Shadus
AMD Athlon FX57
2GB RAM
2 x Geforce 7800 GTX (in SLI)
10k RPM Raptor drives (75GB x 2)
After I patched, I noticed a substantial improvement in performance. I was able to even crank up some settings that I previously turned off (Grass, Volumetric Clouds, Clipping Distance, etc) After fiddling, I got what I wanted and I did a litmus test with my wife. I called her in the room and said "look". She goes "Wow, that's so smooth and pretty". Ding! It's a winner. Given where we were in the beta, i was extremely surprised to be playing the way I was.
With that said, we still have a ways to go. I think I have a fairly powerful system and most users out there probably don't. Lots of optimization is still needed and it is nowhere near the system requirements of WoW, if you wish to use that comparison. I was very reluctant to buy this game given my impressions from the beta, but now I'm happy I did. I haven't experienced any major issues yet and I thought I would.
Performance problems I have had are in initial loading of cities (takes a good 3-5 seconds) and chunk zones. But it wasn't enough to take away from the gameplay experience because I was completely into it. To me, that's the most important thing. I'm going to try the other two spheres tonight (last night I only did adventuring) and see how stable they are, but for now. I'm a happy camper.
You should spend more time reading the forums. If you had you would realize the, fanbois, as you so childishly put it need not flame, but in reality it's the people who do not like the game that post much of the hate threads not the other way around.
What I believe or don't believe will mean little to nothing to you I'm sure, and that's ok, but I find it hard to believe that with a system such as you posted you would have such a bad time running the game even in beta. During the open beta I was getting on average about 25 FPS in the highest settings with the exception of having the occulsion clouds off. Towards the end of open beta I was getting about 30 FPS with the clouds on. All this on a Pent 4 3.6, 2 gigs of ran, and a single 7800GTX.
Post release I'm still running with the same great proformance, but will drop FPS when starting new characters simply due to the sheer number of other players standing near me.
Laugh if you want, but I upgraded my rig for this game
Dual core 2.4 (clocked to 2.9), EVGA motherboard, and 8800 GTX video card, and 2mb ram.
At 1920, with max clip plane, and most settings on high rating, I get 60 to 100 FPS. The graphic detail is stellar, the viewing range is vast, and the framerate is smooth as glass. This will only get better when Vista comes out (Direct X 10 removes significant graphics bottlenecks present in Direct X 9).
My buddy rocks about 15fps, but I don't hear him complaining; and he plays lots, so it must be ok. He has a rig about two to three years old (1gb ram, 2.0 gb amd processor, and an ATI all-in-wonder bought two or three years ago).
The "zoneless" zones will be annoying if you only have one gb ram. I "zone" in about 2 seconds. For him it takes about 45 secs and it's all hard drive time
Performance for me has been awesome. Vanguard FTW!
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Well it did not take long! Valorus you might want to read! The reason I said fanbois (in a childish way as you rudely put it) is that this is not a hate vanguard post. I did not want them to come here and say I was trashing Vanguards performance because I hated it. Haters would not flame a hate thread they would support it! Fanbois on the other hand would flame because they would feel I was trashing Vanguard. It would have been nice if you had just answered the question or ignore the post. I said that in the original post because I did not want people to view this as a vanguard bashing. I realized some zealous fans would think that. I wanted an honest answer to an honest question. If you read you would see I want to play the game and want to see if it improved when it went live. You on the other hand did what I had hoped no one would feel the need to do, Insults and name calling. Also notice I did not feel the need to insult you. If your thoughts did not matter to me then why would I have started this thread. Also, indeed with a system like mine I had real performance problem hence the post. If you have read any of my posts or reviews you would see I am not a game trasher in anyway and am very experienced in forums with almost 10 years of mmorpg experience. This was a honest question that insulted no one.
Tonyshad079 here is the site I mentioned for testing system requirements for games www.systemrequirementslab.com you can test your system requirements for many game there including Vanguard and when I did the test I maxed all the requirments but I still got poor preformance in the beta. I realize games can improve when they go live so I wanted others input without the name calling or flames you tend to get in game forums when you even hint a game may not be perfect.
Performance is very good for me.
My computer is a 3.2 P4 Processor, 1 gig ram, and Radeon X800 graphics card. The game defaulted to Balanced and the only setting I changed was view distance which I doubled (it was very low to start with... so it's still not very high), and the game ran very well. After giving it a minute to load I had very few slowdowns/freezees, and the game never crashed or become "unplayable" for more than a second or two. Performance GREATLY increased after beta... Sigil definately put in their hours
.