Let's talk performance

(Kroad) #1

It’s no secret that this game’s performance is awful. I would say that about 90% of the potential playerbase won’t be able to run it, and I honestly think that this game’s performance could very well kill the game.

Not only are the game’s low settings not anywhere close to what low should be, (most players will not search for an fps config and I believe you should choose one to implement as an actual low setting - I talked to MissMurder about this a month ago and she said it was a great idea, havent heard back since)

Problem is also map specific, bridge for example has much better fps than trainyard yet. In fact, bridge is the highest fps map and trainyard the lowest fps, and I don’t see what makes trainyard harder to run than bridge when both are big maps (while underground, a small map, gives me much lower fps than bridge)

My fps problems mainly stem from cpu related stuff since I have a gtx970 gpu and amd fx4170 cpu (still better than what most players have), it pains me to be able to enter a private server with 3 other people and get 350fps on every map, while i struggle to maintain 150fps in 5v5. I feel like the game simply isn’t using my cpu to its full extent, possibly related to it being quadcore.

Game is also dx9 32 bit, can’t imagine this is helping performance. I’m not even going to mention the memory leaks that they attempted to solve and then havent said anything about.

Now, what worries me is simply that this is not being talked about by devs. You have most players using fps configs, players that have great PCs. If players with great PCs struggle to run the game, I can’t imagine how the average player will be able to run it (in fact, i have 2 irl friends that tried DB and both stopped because they couldnt even get a stable 60fps with an fps config). I really think that this is the game’s biggest problem at the moment, and it’s simply not being mentioned.

(Szakalot) #2

No offense, but if you talk about ‘struggle with 150fps’ I’m not gonna listen.

(PixelTwitch) #3

Actually Kroad has a valid point here…

The problem is not actually directly related to the number of frames per second, it’s to do with the inconsistency between each frames timing. Getting 120FPS (I have mine capped) in Dirty Bomb feels like its sub 60 in other games. The inconsistent timing gives almost the effect of microstutter and makes the game feel sloppy due to each frame showing different amounts of view movement even with a consistent turn speed.

Even with a FPS config this is not solved and high peak stutters are seemingly around every single corner.
I would go as far to say that the performance in Dirty Bomb is the one thing I also believe will hold the game back.
At this point, I hate the feeling of Dirty Bomb so much that I will likely end up moving over to a worse game that feels nicer if we do not see vast improvements and fairly soonish. I still love the concept of the game but playing the game feels like pulling teeth at times.

Maybe this is more a problem for people like myself that are running 120hz and Gsync, honestly, I don’t know.

(Kroad) #4

when used to 200+fps in other games on a 144hz monitor, 100fps (what i get on 8v8 trainyard) definitely feels bad.

like I said, i have a top tier pc, I can run most games at 200+fps on low settings without needing any sort of config, yet even using an fps config i get 100fps on 8v8 trainyard. The average player is going to have awful fps.

What pixeltwitch said about the inconsistency between frames timing is also very noticeable, at least on higher refresh rates (didnt notice it on my 60hz monitor), makes mouse movements sometimes feel imprecise

you then also add the problem of memory leak, by the end of a 30 min stopwatch game it feels like I am playing at 30fps, completely gamebreaking (in cups and scrims i will just rejoin halfway through to reset memory leak, still makes the last 5 mins of each half feel like I’m at a massive disadvantage)

(Szakalot) #5

I definitely agree that the FPS inconsistency and memory leaks are big performance issues.

But as far as getting 150+ FPS, this is low priority compared to poor rigs not getting stable 60.

Imo its much more important to bring the poor rigs up, rather than focus on squeezing the most out of your monster pets.

In 10 years people will complain that they can’t get stable 1000 fps, on their lazer-like frequency monitors.

(Protekt1) #6

Yeah, I chuckled a bit at your loss to maintain 150fps.

(Kroad) #7

[QUOTE=Szakalot;531152]I definitely agree that the FPS inconsistency and memory leaks are big performance issues.

But as far as getting 150+ FPS, this is low priority compared to poor rigs not getting stable 60.

Imo its much more important to bring the poor rigs up, rather than focus on squeezing the most out of your monster pets.

In 10 years people will complain that they can’t get stable 1000 fps, on their lazer-like frequency monitors.[/QUOTE]

allowing bad PCs to get 60fps requires the same changes as allowing good pcs to get 150fps, improving performance affects everyone

(Szakalot) #8

I suppose if CPU is the bottleneck, then yeah; that sounds true.

(Glottis-3D) #9
  1. Guy gets to the SD forums to talk about performance.
  2. He gets bullied about his PC
(chickenNwaffles) #10

Micro stutters are what plague this game. Playing at my monitor’s refresh rate (144hz) feels like I’m playing at 90 fps. Why even bother with configs?

(Protekt1) #11

[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;531158]1. Guy gets to the SD forums to talk about performance.
2. He gets bullied about his PC[/QUOTE]

“bullied”… lol

(Bloodbite) #12

how much of the micro-stutters are actually the game engine and not the lag impact of hackers forcing everyone’s system to correct itself to the odd change in physics and handling that the engine is saying “I have to acknowledge this, even though it feels so wrong”.

ANTI-CHEAT needs some serious beefing up. It’s becoming impossible to tell the difference in certain circumstances what is a net-code, game-code or cheat-code issue.

(kenpokiller) #13

With potatoconfig game ran superb, I had mad skill.

After cfg restrictions, RIP smoothness

(Protekt1) #14

[QUOTE=kenpokiller;531183]With potatoconfig game ran superb, I had mad skill.

After cfg restrictions, RIP smoothness[/QUOTE]

There are still configs you can use that are within the cfg mod limitations and run pretty well.

I’m not saying the game doesn’t need optimization, I think that was already made clear well, well, well before this thread was ever made. But yeah, you can still mod your config file to run better than the lower settings.

(Rémy Cabresin) #15

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;531148]Actually Kroad has a valid point here…

The problem is not actually directly related to the number of frames per second, it’s to do with the inconsistency between each frames timing. Getting 120FPS (I have mine capped) in Dirty Bomb feels like its sub 60 in other games. The inconsistent timing gives almost the effect of microstutter and makes the game feel sloppy due to each frame showing different amounts of view movement even with a consistent turn speed.

Even with a FPS config this is not solved and high peak stutters are seemingly around every single corner.
I would go as far to say that the performance in Dirty Bomb is the one thing I also believe will hold the game back.
At this point, I hate the feeling of Dirty Bomb so much that I will likely end up moving over to a worse game that feels nicer if we do not see vast improvements and fairly soonish. I still love the concept of the game but playing the game feels like pulling teeth at times.

Maybe this is more a problem for people like myself that are running 120hz and Gsync, honestly, I don’t know.[/QUOTE]

Turn of GSync, it has nothing to do with FPS performance… If anything GSync makes DB’s problem worse as it compensates the monitor Hz for FPS but if it’s stutters the Hz will stutter just as much.

I ran 120 and 240 fps capped stable on 120Hz monitor and I have yet to experience the stutters people seem to be having :confused: the extremities you and some others talk about have yet to be experienced by anyone within my group of friends as far as I know. :confused:

That said I agree that the ‘minimum required specs’ for DB are horrible for it to be playable and you need a considerably new tech system for it to run at a reasonable level (you pretty much need Intel i3/5/7 2XXX or higher and AMD equivalant to run it 100+ fps)

(Humbugsen) #16

[QUOTE=adeto;531192]
That said I agree that the ‘minimum required specs’ for DB are horrible for it to be playable and you need a considerably new tech system for it to run at a reasonable level (you pretty much need Intel i3/5/7 2XXX or higher and AMD equivalant to run it 100+ fps)[/QUOTE]

It’s not even playable with those specs.
Many are suffering from fps drops + audio stutter after some minutes
just take a look at this, he shouldn’t have ANY problems with those specs:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/333930/discussions/0/598198173696358482/

(Kroad) #17

[QUOTE=Bloodbite;531178]how much of the micro-stutters are actually the game engine and not the lag impact of hackers forcing everyone’s system to correct itself to the odd change in physics and handling that the engine is saying “I have to acknowledge this, even though it feels so wrong”.

ANTI-CHEAT needs some serious beefing up. It’s becoming impossible to tell the difference in certain circumstances what is a net-code, game-code or cheat-code issue.[/QUOTE]

this has nothing to do with it

(Ashog) #18

OP, it’s not your 150 fps that feels bad, it’s microstutters and lag spikes. Don’t let shear numbers confuse you.

(jazevec) #19

My old computer has GeForce 750 TI, Core 2 Duo E6750 overclocked 2.66GHz->3.2GHz, and 6GB RAM. I reduced all detail I could find to minimum, and it runs like crap, I guess something like 20-30 frames. I’m excited if my K/D ratio is 1, because usually I have the lowest (xp) score on my team.

By the way, what’s the command to display fps in game ? I couldn’t find it in the menu.

(Volcano) #20

statfps
10char