Project Reality Forums

I notice on full servers on, let's say, dovre. if all the players are bunched up my fps drops to 12 frames a second.

if i turn to my left, i'll get a more reasonable 24 fps.

my argument is, seeing as there is no back face culling (back face culling: things behind things don't render) I argue that an old game should run well on old hardware, so why not decrease the intensity of LOD 3 and LOD 2

Level of detail (LOD) is a scale of quality in the geometry and textures at range, as well as the complexity of the skeleton, so if it is at all possible, I beg you to consider reducing the quality at range. im pretty sure on LOD 3 the skeleton doesnt need to have fingers for example.

yes, i intend to upgrade my hardware, and yes its a bit controversial, but the game only runs on one core, and optimization is both fair and practical. so even when i upgrade my hardware its still going to run poorly for that quality of hardware. why get 60fps when i can get 500 some day.

If you are wondering why i didnt submit this as a suggestion, it's becuase i wanted the community to read it and discuss it.

Trust me, im tired of the moaning too, but i'd love to not be alone in this. Change means work, work means giving up time, but what if this idea saves time?

Dude its like you can play pr on a 300 bucks computer xd

Whats your spec?

Look, I often hear people saying "it's a poorly optimized mod" you'd think there would be more willingness to iron out those wrinkles.

Psyko wrote: my argument is, seeing as there is no back face culling (back face culling: things behind things don't render)

It's called occlusion and yes there is

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f189-m ... tatic.html

To me, it looks like any lower would be impossible.


And if I understood correctly most of the issues aren't caused by rendering the mesh itself but by rendering several meshes, in other words it costs more to render 2 low poly meshes than 1 high poly.

The conclusion is to get a normal PC.

I actually thought about trying the opposite: Forcing lod0 on everything until it gets culled. My assumption is that lod switching is done on CPU while rendering on GPU. Since GPU is bored most of time in PR giving him only lod0s to render wouldnt cause issue while removing stress of lod switching from CPU.
Dunno yet to try it out.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote: Since GPU is bored most of time in PR giving him only lod0s to render wouldnt cause issue while removing stress of lod switching from CPU.

It would if GPU couldn't handle all the tris? There's probably an engine limitation to how many tris can be displayed as well.

I remember you said you had a 970, what CPU have you got? I played this game for years on a 2008 gaming laptop. My wives old C2D runs it very well too.

I am keen if a solution could be found to the large amount of new guys who get problems creating the profiles, I've seen it many many times and still don't know what causes it and how-to repair it.

C2D does not run it very well. Pls dont spread misinformation.

Sorry to upset you dude but runs fine on low on a 2.4 laptop, the other is a 3.16 C2D, runs better on a 2500k of course.

Asking me to stop spreading misinformation I find a little rude. I base MY opinion on the fact I have PR on four PCs as my kid plays LAN PR with his mates so I feel in a fairly good position to compare performance if that's OK with you.

But whatever just keen to see what CPU pysko has.

I always thought the problem with PR was drawing all the stuff on the map in the direction you are looking with big maps which in alot of cases are quite full. All this is compounded by smoke, the new 1.0 fire effects and of course up to 100 players.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Outlawz7;2136915']It's called occlusion and yes there is

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f189-m ... tatic.html[/quote]

From my observation there is a rendering at infinite range of players, and maybe i am one of the few that can see it, due to my old equipment! (cpu = intel quad core 9450, GTX 970)

'[R-CON wrote:UTurista;2136920']To me, it looks like any lower would be impossible.


And if I understood correctly most of the issues aren't caused by rendering the mesh itself but by rendering several meshes, in other words it costs more to render 2 low poly meshes than 1 high poly.

The conclusion is to get a normal PC.

It's not the statics from what i can tell, its the players. When the DEV team was testing the server load for over 126 players of fallujah prior to the 100+ player servers, the defining factor was the player count near the archway static, i remember because i was part of the stress test using the same CPU.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:I actually thought about trying the opposite: Forcing lod0 on everything until it gets culled. My assumption is that lod switching is done on CPU while rendering on GPU. Since GPU is bored most of time in PR giving him only lod0s to render wouldn't cause issue while removing stress of lod switching from CPU.
Dunno yet to try it out.

First, I get a cpu hit due to textures if that helps. I'm running my settings on everything low, and i really feel like the GPU is doing nothing to relieve the stress. Want proof, look at my boring youtube videos. This is not a localized incident, it's the game. I don't know what exactly is going on in the editor or the game with lod0, but in 3dsmax lod0 has the highest amount of bones (example: finger bones afaik). besides i'm complaining about lod2 and lod3 (mostly lod3), which render at range, and im's getting clear indications of player data rendering through statics at range. for example, if i'm hundreds of meters away from a highly populated flag, my fps drops significantly. that sounds like a game problem, not a client side hardware problem. not something i can solve myself.

[quote="PLODDITHANLEY""]I remember you said you had a 970, what CPU have you got? I played this game for years on a 2008 gaming laptop. My wives old C2D runs it very well too.

I am keen if a solution could be found to the large amount of new guys who get problems creating the profiles, I've seen it many many times and still don't know what causes it and how-to repair it.[/quote]

I have a Q9450 (intel quad core) and yes i respect the bottleneck, but i don't think this a personal hardware issue, i think this is a player rendering issue that has not been addressed. battlefield is a 2005 game and should take full advantage of my CPU's overclocked capacity. It appears the Graphics card doesn't alleviate any stress whatsoever.

For many years i thought the problem was on my end, however after reading your recent threads relating to PR only utilizing a single core, the game on my end seems to render statics fine, but render far away players more heavily. Rendering a map's statics is one thing, but rendering the players "through" trees, ground geometry and above ground statics, needs to be talked about.

[quote=""'[GER"]Birnd;2136941']C2D does not run it very well. Pls don't spread misinformation.[/quote]
it's a quad core, not core to duo, and i'm aware PR only utilizes one core.

[quote="PLODDITHANLEY""]Sorry to upset you dude but runs fine on low on a 2.4 laptop, the other is a 3.16 C2D, runs better on a 2500k of course.

But whatever just keen to see what CPU pysko has.

I always thought the problem with PR was drawing all the stuff on the map in the direction you are looking with big maps which in a lot of cases are quite full. All this is compounded by smoke, the new 1.0 fire effects and of course up to 100 players.[/quote]

how many fps do you get on 2.4?

My guess is the majority of the performance hit comes from players being rendered in your direction, but invisible because they are behind the terrain and statics, if the terrain had back face culling (or occlusion) they might not render the players, resulting in a performance boost for everyone.

I'm looking forward to any advice or workaround for this issue, and i thoroughly respect your advice on the matter, I am as always, all ears for trouble shooting, however, I am approaching the community with a specific issue which is, i am reporting evidence that players rendering through objects at distance have a major performance hit. Because, regardless if you have good up to date hardware or old hardware, the issue should be investigated. Yes, I would love better performance, but as a loyal fan of the mod, i want to improve everyone's performance as a whole and not just selfishly, my own.

On the 2.4 (9600M GT GPU) pretty shit to be honest - I used it for years. I used to play at 1920 X 1080 on low everything except textures on Med IIRC. It was always playable (IMO) in intense firefights with lots of smoke and people I think it would bottom out at 15fps as the lowest shown. My wifes E8500 3.16 /6870 but 32bit OS so 3.5 RAM is much better.

How OC'ed are you what speed are you running at standard is 2.66

I haven't played deployment for years (Pacific) but on out little COOP below with no more than 30 players I see HUGE FPS variation depending on where I am looking even on a empty server.

But the bargain basement Acer laptopI repaired 2.2 + GMA 4500 MHD is unplayable so I do think there is a minimum graphics card level.....

I just bought a 3.33 E8600 from ebay a guy in south Korea to throw together a rig for my kid - is that worth trying I would have thought you'd get a boost for peanuts (he even gave two sachets of thermal paste too).

Plug n play for lols....

U could try looking through the shader files, if u know what ur doing.
\Project Reality\mods\pr\content\shaders_client.zip



PS:
(1)Q9450 has to low Single Thread Performance.

Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz 1,137 Points
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

My C2D overclocked(same Single Thread Performance as C2Q) at 3.6 GHz still had drops to 20 fps at 1080p.
All gone since i upgraded.

Sorry to upset you dude but runs fine on low on a 2.4 laptop, the other is a 3.16 C2D, runs better on a 2500k of course.

Thats simply not true. U get dips to 14 fps in firefights on a 100p server on a C2D at 3 GHz.

As I said above in heavy action with lots of particles, smoke it.s bad with dips to less than 15fps but for me it was playable from 2008 until last August. I didn't want to spend 1000 to improve my experience as I didn't play any other games atall then.

In Psykos position we are trying to squeeze the best PR performance for the lowest price, he is happy with how other games perform, and not prepared to spend 300 on an 6500 and a B150 mobo just for PR.

In theory with a 3.33 E8600 with single core of 1366 which is 20% more than his present. Seemingly the most cost effective for PR would be an i3 6320 but it would fall down on multi core optimised games.

I bought a secondhand 2500k which is a super deal bearing in mind that the latest CPU is only 10 to 20% faster the problem is that 1155 Z motherboards are very very rare new so when the mobo dies......

The problem however is why is PR so bad on CPUs and can anyone do anything about improving it? As much as the v1.0 smoke and other effects I think they've made the game a lot harder to run?

ploddit to be honest i never tried overclocking it becuase the motherboard came with a kind of gear stick that allowed more performance.

So i tried OC today, basically, at standard setting, its 1.10V and the highest i could go that was stable was 1.34. 1.38V crashed the computer. but mainly its beucase i havnt changed out the thermal compound or cleaned the heat sync for a long time, so it was over heating 50 - 75C at 1.34V

baring in mind, i really didnt know what I was doing. Just adjusting the power supply and weighing that against how unstable the computer was. But in the end even at 1.38V the highest FPS i got in PR was about 35fps, which was over 50% improvement.

This guy was at 1.36V for 3.7 that is enough but even 3.4 would be cool 65 isn't too hot.

3.2GHz on 1.175 volts was a promising start for this chip. Having a VID of 1.0625v was another plus in the quest to wring some additional performance from the newest from Intel. With the promising start I was very optimistic that the 9450 would be a great clocking chip. 450 x 8 came easily with 1.30 volts on the core and a tweak to the northbridge and FSB voltages to add some stability. Booting at 475 x 8 was possible but did not offer any stability, even with up to 1.75 on the chipset and 1.425v on the CPU core. That was kind of dissapointing, but nevertheless it gave a point to work down from. Lowering the clockspeed a bit at a time, I reached stability at 463 x 8 with 1.360 volts to the core and 1.6 volts to the northbridge. Not too shabby for a day's work! The temperatures did not seem to scale with the voltage like the QX9770 and Q6600s do, but the 9450 still gets a little warm. With 1.37 volts, I saw 64C with the less than optimum heatsink I used.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews ... 9450/3.htm

The clockspeed increase was also done with a relatively low 1.36 volts to the processor. Much less than I have needed with both my Q6600 and QX9770s to gain the maximum core speed. Temperatures were, for the most part, kept in check throughout the testing. 64 degrees Celsius under load was the highest temperature I saw on air cooling during my stability testing with Prime 95. With better cooling, could the max overclock be increased? Probably, but the vast majority of users will be on air, so that's where I spent my time testing.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Review ? Page 16 - Conclusion: - Overclockers Club
nice guide here

sound mate, thanks very much!

I don't know how FH2 has done it, but that runs very very smooth, also on older pc's. They have high quality models, plenty of objects clustered in the same area, also 100 players and lots and lots of vehicles, gunfire and effects.

Don't mention mapsize, as most of their maps are 2km, like PR. If anything, PR has the game more spread out where in FH2 everything is much closer together (which you'd think would stress your pc more, but it doesn't).

They managed to optimize the game so well that hardly anyone has a hard time playing it.

If only PR could have the same optimization...

[R-DEV]AfterDune wrote:I don't know how FH2 has done it, but that runs very very smooth, also on older pc's. They have high quality models, plenty of objects clustered in the same area, also 100 players and lots and lots of vehicles, gunfire and effects.

Don't mention mapsize, as most of their maps are 2km, like PR. If anything, PR has the game more spread out where in FH2 everything is much closer together (which you'd think would stress your pc more, but it doesn't).

They managed to optimize the game so well that hardly anyone has a hard time playing it.

If only PR could have the same optimization...

One things they do differently to us is splitting the archives into a lot more smaller zips instead of a couple of big ones. No idea if that does anything.