Throughout the entirety of them saying they've done performance tweaks, I've yet to see any affect me. If they are honestly only trying to improve performance for low end machines, they have their priorities wrong. It's mostly all the high end PC's that are getting horrible performance decreases like mine and have yet any solution.
Getting about 5 more fps, still garbage. Glad its good for you though OP.
Edit: I'm convinced their optimization problems are area specific. I enter a zone, go from 60 fps straight to 30. Take 5 steps back into other zone, get 60 again. Still rendering the same distance etc.
If you look at this picture here, note it has nothing but a rock texture and the sky visible in it but the fps still drop to 15. My guess is that there is alot of addtitional stuff being rendered that is not actually on screen.
I remember when Vanguard was released and people had single digit fps standing inside a house looking at the wall. Someone found out that despite looking at the wall, the game rendered the whole scenery behind it and stuff going on around the house.
There is no way the skybox and a rock-texture drags my pc down to 15fps and my bet is that there is perhaps water underneath the rock beign rendered or half of the lightreach-mission outpost behind whats actually visible on my screen.
Yea something is wrong, both of our situations don't make any sense. Carbine needs to take care of it because I'd honestly pre order right now if this wasn't happening. Though the lack of real anti-aliasing also displeases me.
Originally posted by Tsuru Everyone needs to stop comparing what your running other games at as far as fps goes. Your comparing apples to oranges cause they have different games engines. Wildstar uses its own engine built by carbine. There will be issues, as its a work in progress. You will see improvements and declines with each patch they produce. All we know for sure is they are attempting different tweaks each beta, and will continue to do so till its adaquate for everyone. Now that said, i can say im seeing a 5 fps increase in towns and citys from 15 to 20. And a 10-15 increase outside of towns and citys, 30-35 frames. vs the 20 i got last week.
Why shouldn't we compare engines that run poorly with bad graphics to engines that run well with good graphics? What exactly would be the incentive? LagStar is launching in 10 days and I don't think people will be pleased to see it crawling along at a measly 30 frames per second when they're used to smooth framerates in high fidelity games.
Wow a brand new engine for a new mmo. Yeah they are going to have alot of problems at launch. If any game screams wait 2 or 3 months after release this one does. In 10 days it launches and the same beta problems its had since the begining.
Performance decreased for me since last beta weekend I was in.
I was getting above 40 with not that much stuff around now I get below 30 with hardly anything around. Oh well, not incredibly interested in the game anyways even if it did perform better.
Hm. It looks like results are mixed. I know without a doubt my FPS increased from previous weekends. I hope you guys will eventually get the same pleasant surprise.
Everyone needs to stop comparing what your running other games at as far as fps goes. Your comparing apples to oranges cause they have different games engines. Wildstar uses its own engine built by carbine. There will be issues, as its a work in progress. You will see improvements and declines with each patch they produce. All we know for sure is they are attempting different tweaks each beta, and will continue to do so till its adaquate for everyone.
Now that said, i can say im seeing a 5 fps increase in towns and citys from 15 to 20. And a 10-15 increase outside of towns and citys, 30-35 frames. vs the 20 i got last week.
Right, we shouldn't compare the frosting on cakes from Boulangerie Du Merde to that of other leading bakeries because BDM made their frosting themselves from scratch, using poop as the secret ingredient.
The performance of different graphics engines is exactly what we're supposed to be comparing. Comparisons are only useful between things that are different. If every game was using the same engine, there would be nothing to compare.
When are people going to learn that if you want to play new up-to-date games then you need an up-to-date system? Or at least learn how to stop clogging up your computer with background crap and crappy maintenance.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
WildStar has dated graphics. Skyrim performs better with far superior graphics. And that game released three years ago. People with serious hardware are having these issues. Multiple threads about this crop up daily on the official forum, not just here. Elder Scrolls Online just released and has better graphics than WildStar, yet doesn't suffer these issues. Clearly WildStar has problems.
Not to mention some users experience improvement despite using the same hardware as before. So probably Carbine tweaking the client, which is a good sign.
When are people going to learn that if you want to play new up-to-date games then you need an up-to-date system? Or at least learn how to stop clogging up your computer with background crap and crappy maintenance.
I don't think you grasp the problem at hand.
Neither of what you say are the causes for bad performance in this game. Try again.
No difference in performance for me between 25 - 40 when solo. I haven't grouped and can't imagine how bad it will be in that case. It is just not good enough for a game with gfx like these to be running in the 20's - 30's. I was considering this for my group PvE fix, things will need to change significantly before release.
I will add my 2 cents here. I'm getting between 15 to 35fps no matter what settings I use. The only setting that helps some is the view distance which gets me about 5fps. I find it strange that I can max the settings then set to the lowest and nothing really changes.
9550 3.2 GHZ
AMD 7850
8 GIG Ram
I know its not the best system in the world but much better than 15 to 35 FPS.
Originally posted by TheHavok Hm. It looks like results are mixed. I know without a doubt my FPS increased from previous weekends. I hope you guys will eventually get the same pleasant surprise.
I'm in the same boat as you. During closed beta I ran 30-40 FPS. Since open beta launched, I have seen 45-60 FPS. I hope more people get this type of improvement. I think it will still improve some for launch.
Lol and what is the poInt Of complaining about it when we all know how optimisation proceeds, wors case scenario is you love the game and you have to wait a bit until they sort out performance. If you don't like the game it doesn't actually matter a hoot. former needs patience from a player group that want to play long term, the latter will bash away in gaming forums waiting for the next game.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Developers confirming on fps and performance optimizations, especially for SLI systems (for some weird reason, there are some people who thinks they are acting suspicious about this):
Stages of a new mmo: 1) It's just beta. It still has plenty of time before release. 2) It just launched. Give it time. WoW wasn't built in a day. 3) We don't need you anyway. 4) F2P announced. 5)Huge influx of players. 6) Look how much has changed. 7) Cash shop is the only thing developed lately. 8) It has been a long journey and we thank everyone who was part of it. Shutting down in 3 months. (Courtesy of Robokapp.)
Comments
Yea something is wrong, both of our situations don't make any sense. Carbine needs to take care of it because I'd honestly pre order right now if this wasn't happening. Though the lack of real anti-aliasing also displeases me.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Performance decreased for me since last beta weekend I was in.
I was getting above 40 with not that much stuff around now I get below 30 with hardly anything around. Oh well, not incredibly interested in the game anyways even if it did perform better.
Did some Quick tests to satisfy my curiosity.
1920x1200: 17-27fps (dx9,dx11,catalyst profile on/off)
5760x1200: 13-27fps (dx9,dx11, catalyst profile on/off)
i7 920 @ 4ghz
Amd R9 280X (Crossfire disabled)
16gig Ram
Windows 7
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Right, we shouldn't compare the frosting on cakes from Boulangerie Du Merde to that of other leading bakeries because BDM made their frosting themselves from scratch, using poop as the secret ingredient.
The performance of different graphics engines is exactly what we're supposed to be comparing. Comparisons are only useful between things that are different. If every game was using the same engine, there would be nothing to compare.
I didn't have a problem in the first place..
When are people going to learn that if you want to play new up-to-date games then you need an up-to-date system? Or at least learn how to stop clogging up your computer with background crap and crappy maintenance.
WildStar has dated graphics. Skyrim performs better with far superior graphics. And that game released three years ago. People with serious hardware are having these issues. Multiple threads about this crop up daily on the official forum, not just here. Elder Scrolls Online just released and has better graphics than WildStar, yet doesn't suffer these issues. Clearly WildStar has problems.
Not to mention some users experience improvement despite using the same hardware as before. So probably Carbine tweaking the client, which is a good sign.
Might be fixed before launch, so fingers crossed.
I don't think you grasp the problem at hand.
Neither of what you say are the causes for bad performance in this game. Try again.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
I will add my 2 cents here. I'm getting between 15 to 35fps no matter what settings I use. The only setting that helps some is the view distance which gets me about 5fps. I find it strange that I can max the settings then set to the lowest and nothing really changes.
9550 3.2 GHZ
AMD 7850
8 GIG Ram
I know its not the best system in the world but much better than 15 to 35 FPS.
I'm in the same boat as you. During closed beta I ran 30-40 FPS. Since open beta launched, I have seen 45-60 FPS. I hope more people get this type of improvement. I think it will still improve some for launch.
Oh I am sure they are "working on it" but ....the game launches when?
They clearly need more time and, imo, if anyone is in any doubt they should give them more time. The game will still be on sale after launch day.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Interesting way of improving your framerates:
http://www.reddit.com/r/WildStar/comments/256719/got_major_perfomance_boost_and_stable_5060_fps/
Developers confirming on fps and performance optimizations, especially for SLI systems (for some weird reason, there are some people who thinks they are acting suspicious about this):
http://www.reddit.com/r/WildStar/comments/255p92/reposting_the_ama_answer_of_executive_producer_of/
Stages of a new mmo: 1) It's just beta. It still has plenty of time before release. 2) It just launched. Give it time. WoW wasn't built in a day. 3) We don't need you anyway. 4) F2P announced. 5)Huge influx of players. 6) Look how much has changed. 7) Cash shop is the only thing developed lately. 8) It has been a long journey and we thank everyone who was part of it. Shutting down in 3 months. (Courtesy of Robokapp.)