Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patches are removing environmental details

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patches are removing environmental details

    Copied from another forum

    http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...91&postcount=5

    Quote:
    M55ikael
    Senior Member

    Join Date: Aug 2011
    Posts: 196


    Sorry for the spelling error in the topic, it's been corrected but the topic list won't update.

    Here's a comparison, before and after. Detail and textures on ultra, the rest a mix of high and ultra. As you can see the difference is massive. But I think it may be a bug that was a result of the last patch, which I'm looking to confirm with you here.

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14...9-12_00001.jpg

    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14...9-19_00002.jpg


    And TWI's response:
    http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...5&postcount=11
    Quote:
    [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
    Tripwire Interactive President

    Join Date: Oct 2005
    Posts: 1,457


    Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either we cut down detail in the levels and it runs better for a wider range of people, or we leave the detail and then everyone complains about "OMG this game doesn't run as good as every other game I play that just happens to be a console port with low detail." And unfortunately, another symptom of almost all recent shooters being console ports is everyone just cranks there graphics up to Ultra no matter what hardware they have, then come crying to us that the game doesn't run very good on their 3-5 year old hardware. This being due to the fact that games designed to run on 5 year old console hardware usually run awesome on 5 year old machines on the highest settings.

    Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes I have to
    I don't know what to say about this; on one hand they are trying their best to cut down the performance hit of the game, on the other hand they are also cutting out the feel of the game. Is there really nothing else they can do to optimize? Also can't they at least leave "environmental destruction details" as an option for those with high-end machines?

    [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
    Tripwire Interactive President

    Join Date: Oct 2005
    Posts: 1,457

    I fully stand by my statement, but I think there is some clarification needed here. There are generally two types of people complaining about performance with the game:

    1) Someone with older hardware that is struggling to run the game as fast as they do other FPS games released in the last couple of years.

    2) Someone with very high end hardware that isn't get the performance they fell they should from the game.

    Now for some reason there are a lot of number 2's (guys with high end hardware) complaining about my statement geared toward number 1's (guys with older hardware). The fact is though, when we asked for perfdumps from people having performance issues, the VAST majority of those submitted were people that either their CPU or their video card was pretty low end (far below the recommended settings) - yet they were running the game with everything on Ultra. I truly believe that this is due to the fact that most recent FPS games are console ports designed to run on 5 year old console hardware. So guys with 5 year old computers are used to cranking everything to the max and rocking and rolling. RO2 wasn't designed that way - it was created for the PC with Ultra requiring a very high end processor and a very vast video card. So in these situations people just need to set their settings to match their hardware. It isn't "blaming their hardware", its just helping people figure out the right settings for their machine.

    Regarding the guys with the high end machines, I would request that you guys step up to the plate and submit your perflogs here:
    http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...ad.php?t=61789

    There are a lot of guys complaining, but VERY few actually submitting their perflogs to help us dig into this issue (as a matter of fact as of a couple of days ago I don't think we got more than 1 submission from a person with a high end machine having these issues). We don't know what is causing the issue of low performance on very high end machine, and we can't reproduce it in our office, or on any of the home machines that developers working here have. So please help us help you by getting your data submitted.

    Finally, to help you all understand some of the optimizations that we are making. First off I'll start by saying the game runs well on all 30+ machines we have here in our offices, as well as on everyone's home machines. Yes I know this doesn't help those of you that are having problems. But it should help answer the question "how did they release the game performing like this" - well the answer is simple, it ran well on every machine we threw at it.

    Since the release however we've discovered that certain hardware is having performance issues with the game that we didn't experience. This isn't "blaming your hardware" or saying "your hardware is crap". But there are LOTS of different types of hardware out there, and they have different strengths and weaknesses. One thing that we discovered was that certain hardware really chokes when you push too many items to render at it (this is called draw calls). It doesn't have anything to do with polygons, it literally is just the number of items we're telling the video card to render. All the hardware we have can rock and roll on a high number of draw calls, but some cannot.

    So this is a large part of the optimization work we are doing. We're going through map by map reducing the number of draw calls. Most of the time this is a matter of modifying the way things are set up in the level. Some times it does mean removing objects, but that is only in the most extreme cases (like Pavlovs House). It is very time consuming though, which is why it is taking so long to do. But it should have a very good benefit for people who's hardware is suffering from this (and even a reasonable increase for people without this hardware). Once again some may ask "why didn't you do this before you shipped the game". To that all I can say is, we never saw this issue on our own hardware. The best we can do now is say we're sorry we missed it, and fix the issue as fast as we can.
    Last edited by Avs; 09-22-2011, 07:53 PM. Reason: Fixed Links

  • #2
    Re: Patches are removing environmental details

    Good read AVS. Personally, I'd rather see them just add all the detail in and take the backlash. But then, I'm running a very high end machine.

    "Everytime I read your posts I do it with Morgan Freeman's voice in my head as if he is narrating your life" - Aimed

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Patches are removing environmental details

      Links are broken
      |TG-12th|mantis

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Patches are removing environmental details

        Bummer, those screen shots are not working.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Patches are removing environmental details

          Links fixed, sorry about that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Patches are removing environmental details

            Originally posted by Damonte View Post
            Good read AVS. Personally, I'd rather see them just add all the detail in and take the backlash. But then, I'm running a very high end machine.
            Agreed. I have a high end machine set to Ultra everything and only issue I have is when the server packets drop.


            "Ok....smoke sometimes works."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Patches are removing environmental details

              Storm in a glass of water imo. Whatever they remove they can add back in later if they succeed in optimizing better.

              The devs have a point though. When I read the complaints, sooooo many people are running many options on ultra. It's called ultra because it is likely to cause bottlenecks to act up in your pc etc. To me, ultra is a setting that is experimental and that I can expect problems with.

              Even if you have a brand new pc with all bells and whistles, you cannot expect that all aspects of your hardware actually work optimally. Drivers aren't optimal, engines aren't optimal etc.


              *+ Another detail, who has released a 64 MP game with destructibles lately? People compare how this game runs with stuff like crysis. But to my knowledge recently all MP games have been 32 players to deal with these destructibles. Bah people are just very bad at judging the capabilities of their systems.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                I mentioned this before. Can't check your link as I am on a phone, but I imagine they have the huge negative feedback from the community. Personally I don't like it, they should not take out detail and punish those of us with decent rigs who run on ultra with no problems. I see it from their point of view, but try just succeeded in annoying a whole lot of people. I have seen this argument a lot recently due to PR ArmA, BF3 etc. My response is harsh, but fair. Get a better rig. I know it's not always practical etc, but if you intend to play this game get on with it. Also, I found the attitude and excuses from TWI quite annoying. In no way do I think this game is the nicest graphically. ArmA 2, BF3, Crysisn1, all much much better looking on max settings. I found their attitude on a post from one of them pretty poor, where he stated that this old unreal 3 engine was pushing more detail than any other game ever made pretty dumb.

                I just hope they add it back in. But fix the squad and VoIP issues first. I still have patience, but I know a lot who don't anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                  I think some people see the graphics, and think they should be out to max out the settings and get 60+ fps always. What some of those people fail to realize, is that its a large scale U3 engine game, with a lot of background things happening at one time. Things like, large scale maps, high player counts (64 players), the atmosphere, and the environment all together. This takes a lot to run.

                  I run mostly ultra settings, with the exception of shadows, I run on medium. I'm still getting pretty good fps, around 50-60.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                    Originally posted by Jeepo View Post
                    I found their attitude on a post from one of them pretty poor, where he stated that this old unreal 3 engine was pushing more detail than any other game ever made pretty dumb.
                    I thought they meant more detail than any other UE3 game, not more than any game ever. I might be thinking of a different quotation though.
                    |TG-Irr| westyfield

                    Sig pic by Sonic, avatar by Chalcas. Thanks!
                    Irregular since 2007.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                      @Jeepo, I similarly to Westy sort of disagree with your assesment. Well disagree isn't the best word here. Let me rephrase. I think you are comparing things that do not warrant comparison or only a very careful comparison.

                      When you compare a crysis scenery to this game, you are comparing (I assume) a multiplayer game to a single player game. I know there is a cryisis multiplayer, but then still how many people does it have? Does the MP or only SP have destructibles? Penetration? Ballistics?

                      Another element is how big are the worlds? Crysis is basically a hallway game where the world is quite confined even in the jungle areas. You are really just in one long corridor. RO2 has square maps, or wider rectangles. THen crysis loads parts of the map as you progress trough it...can't do that with a MP game.

                      NOw I can't compare with BF3 yet as I have not really seen or played it.

                      Still I do not think you can make valid comparisons of these games, at least not by just looking at a screeshot and saying "oh this treetrunk has more details, or this has more chickens running about etc.

                      To me this game looks quite beautiful, and I don't see any obvious points where it is inferior to other new games. The only thing I see that is clearly of lesser quality due to budget constraints, is animation. While the animations in RO2 are good, you can see they are not as true to life as motion captured animations are.

                      *One more thing, Jeepo, have a look at their forum. It is being flooded with all kinds of garbage by half the troll population of th einternet. Many of the trolls aren't even interested in the game as more than a time filler. Many think it is COD, many don't realize thier rigs are daft, many can't troubleshoot their pc's well, many have SLI or crossfire...a very specific setup that never has been as well supported as other hardware,....

                      In all that... that their response is not to your liking can be off course right, but I understand the utter impossibility of what they are trying to do; continuing this game and trying to make peace with as many of their customers as possible. In all their responses they have been more open, direct and helpful than any developer I have seen.

                      Personally I'm quite happy with this game with it flaws and I will stay with it quite a bit. I have been so let down by the utter crappyness thrown at us these last years. Catering to ritalin overdosed 0.5sec attention span little brats, that even their own parents hate so much that all they do is feed them new expensive games so for the love of god they might stop harassing their parents...

                      I'm playing this kind of game, built for a free pc community (free in hardware, mods, creativity) or frankly... I stop gaming, not because I want to, but because there are no good games being made anymore. I've had it with this crap being stuffed down or throats as if were a damn Justin Bieber fangirl club throwing their virgin panties at EA and Activision.

                      *Hmm somewhat off topic...damned attention span... quick, someone get me my ritalin*

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                        It seems to me that the game was released at least 4 weeks early but no doubt that's the price you pay when you have publishing deadlines to meet. Given the breadth of bug fixes that are still required I'm sure this was just a quick stop gap measure to settle the waters until it can be dealt with in a better manner later on when the devs have some time to breathe. ;)

                        Bernout

                        |TG-MD6|

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Al, jeepo didn't only mention crysis. He also mentioned arma, which supports many more players and WAY FREAKIN BIGGER environments, and looks better, although certainly at a lower frame rate on my machine.

                          I don't think RO2 is an attractive game. I certainly wouldn't use it to show off to a ps3 owner how awesome PCs are, and I got the same impression as jeepo from some of the developers' rhetoric about how we somehow shouldn't strive for greater quality because this is just superior to consoles and that's that.

                          - Sent via tapatalk. Please excuse the typos.


                          [Spartan 9]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                            I do find it somewhat silly that they are reducing the overall visual quality of the game because some people want to run the game maxed with a lower-end system.

                            I have a low end system, I run games on low, others have a high end system, they run the game on high. Why should developers move the overall standard of the game just because there are people that feel the need to have the word 'ultra' rendered at 1080p on their 5 year old system? That makes very little sense to me.


                            Am I missing something here, or is that what is happening? :/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Patches are removing environmental details

                              Originally posted by Balfa View Post
                              Al, jeepo didn't only mention crysis. He also mentioned arma, which supports many more players and WAY FREAKIN BIGGER environments, and looks better, although certainly at a lower frame rate on my machine.

                              I don't think RO2 is an attractive game. I certainly wouldn't use it to show off to a ps3 owner how awesome PCs are, and I got the same impression as jeepo from some of the developers' rhetoric about how we somehow shouldn't strive for greater quality because this is just superior to consoles and that's that.


                              - Sent via tapatalk. Please excuse the typos.
                              My argument that you cannot compare totally different things remains true though imo. Have you ever had good indoors fighting in ARMA2? ever kick around chairs on accident, or stepped on a matrass making the springs coil, giving away your position to enemies.

                              Arma has more players? Well when I played I never saw it working properly with those many players (voip problems etc.) and those players are not normally in the same area of the map, but on other sides of like a mountainrange. Again entirely different situations imo.

                              How many times have you found yourself in combat on an area the size of a footballfield with 64 non AI players in Arma?

                              Which is more pretty ArmA2 or Crysis? Well it only depends on how far from your character you look.

                              People have become used to judging a game's graphical quality by looking at one screenshot (small exagerration for clarity). I think that is just faulty. To make a valid comparison between graphics one must look at many different aspects of the game and compare all the points one by one. Then there are no easy straightforward conclusions.

                              Crysis has way more detail in the world I suppose than RO2. RO2 has way more detail than ARMA2. (detail not meaning how many identical houses do I see, or texture detail, but chairs, rubble, anything placed specifically in a level that does not recurr all over the level.



                              I'll grant you that RO2 isn't on the cutting graphics edge in pure IDSoftware style ('oh look these bricks have more depth because of our new technology). RO2 does have many features fully which are neglected by other game companies for cosmetic reasons, but are really cool and still too have to be calculated. You have to count these things if you want to make a fair assessment. (examples: bloody bulletholes, entry AND exit wounds on character models, severing of all limbs including head possible,...)

                              This whole 'oh look this screenshot looks better' type of reasoning is so bad for gaming. All it leads to is crappy games that only do one thing really well: look pretty on pre-release screenshots.

                              If you have to lure friends to PC gaming with pretty crappy games...why even bother. Superior gameplay trough an open approach and modding should be the hallmarks of a good pc game in my book. But I know, that kind of reasoning is going the way of the dinosaur it seems. Even on TG.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X