Starjammer
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Quote:Um, not that I'm unsympathetic to frustration with moving cheese...Originally Posted by Another_Fan
I can't count the number of people I know that put serious effort into making something superior and then left after it was dumbed down to sub mediocrity.
The devs seem to have an ongoing quest to nerf skill in playing the game and its very detrimental to the health of the game. Most people will only chase after the wallet on the string for so long then they find something else to do that is actually fun
BUT...
I don't know if I'm going to count creating purpled-out FOTM builds as either "making something superior" or as "skill in playing the game." -
Quote:You did say that you were parking the character just looking at a wall or something, correct? When the game goes to the background, the graphical engine is just rendering the same static frame over and over. Yeah, it does that a lot faster, especially when the game "knows" that it's not going to get any meaningful updates, because the app is in the background. It's still keeping track of the data the game server is sending it but it's not displaying it because it knows you're not paying attention to it.Originally Posted by Eldrath
Not hard to understand? So let me get this right. I set CoX to Minumum now as a test. With focus, 16fps. Without focus, 74fps. So what you're implying is that tracking my input and playing the sound cost 58fps? Wow. That's a lot of overhead.
Don't get me wrong, I saw your post in the other thread. I've no desire to start a QQ fest at the devs either. No nerd raging. But if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck then it's a duck. And this is a bug, just no two ways around it.
Just to give some more observations setting to "performance" on the slider. With focus 15fps, 60% cpu utilization. Without focus, 60fps, 90% cpu utilization. "Recommended", with focus, 13fps, 70% CPU utilization, without focus, 37fps & 85% cpu utilization. "Quality" evens out the score on FPS at 13. Here's the kicker though, with focus CPU utilization @95+. Without.... 70%. So it changes over when I switch it to quality and acts like I expect it would. Note though, there's not a big drop in FPS with this lower CPU. In fact it still goes up +1 or +2. Very very odd behavior, I'd say. I've never played the game at Quality before, Recommended was always enough for me, but in all the lower end cases, it uses more cpu when out of focus than in. That just doesn't jive with the less to keep track of theory.
And yes, the more graphics features you enable or the higher you tune them, the more resources the graphics engine is going to consume, when it can. However, when the game comes back to the foreground, all the other game functions cap how much the graphics engine can hog for itself.
If you need an analogy, the behavior you're seeing with Performance is like a motionless car on a flat road idling higher when it's out of gear than when it's in gear and creeping forward. Conversely, the higher settings are like putting the car on a hill, it has to rev higher to climb the grade.
All that being said, however, I do basically agree with you. I think the graphics engine is over-consuming resources. I differ on classifying it as a "bug" because it's actually working. It's just inefficient in its current state. Hopefully it will be made more efficient. If not, then the game's minimum requirements have just grown. -
It's not hard to understand. When the game is in the background, even if the graphics are still rendering, it stops processing sound, stops reading the inputs, stops doing anything that basically isn't essential to playing the game in real time. This reduces the load on the CPU and frees up more cycles to process the graphics.
And yes, the CPU is involved in processing the graphics, not just the GPU on the graphics card.
I'm also of the opinion that the new graphics engine is consuming more CPU power, even without UM features running. There have just been too many complaints of degraded performance that seem to tie back in to CPU utilization. -
Quote:Assuming west coast, that gives half a working day to finish the patch, then half a working day to get it onto the test server and make sure it's not fatal. Then a weekend for people to test it.Originally Posted by Kheldarn
I find it interesting that it's going up so late in the day.
-
"Best" is subjective to your play-style.
I like Invuln because it's easy to get both Def and Res to decent levels and to resist one-trick debuffers. It's easy to slot IO sets to plug the Psi and Toxic holes. Add in +Rchg and it's easy to hit max HP with perma-Dull Pain, not to mention being able to self-Heal a huge pile of HP. Add +Regen to that and whoa-momma.
I like Invincibility for being, IMO, the best tanker taunt aura. It taunts, buffs your Def, buffs your ToHit and doesn't count as an offensive toggle unlike WP's Rise to the Challenge (which has -ToHit). It will hold Defense sets but you can also pretty well max it with just three HO Cytos.
WP has the advantages of built-in Psi resist/defense and not needing the Fitness pool. The main weakness is basically a lack of burst-healing, which contributes to a weakness against burst damage/alpha strikes.
Shield Defense I honestly prefer for a Scrapper set. However, as stated already, it is easy to soft-cap Defense and it has a huge resistance to Defense debuffs. -
Quote:Just to clarify, I'm not accusing the programming team of introducing new bugs, per se. I'm perfectly sure that many problems are due to new coding vs. old drivers.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
Or... it seems that it is more GPU related especially with users with Intel graphics who try to play the game when the Intel GPU is below minimum specs, never meant for 3D gaming, includes horrendous bugs, not maintained with current drivers by Intel, further hampered by 3rd party laptop manufactures who force users to use their own version of those poorly maintain drivers and don't bother to update their own proprietary versions themselves. This is the situation of a good chunk of those who've come to the boards looking for help. The rest mostly needed to update their drivers. And then there's a small percentage with perniciously difficult-to-track-down problems.
We've already been told by The Television that the CoH graphics engine got some wide-ranging overhauling to accommodate Ultra Mode, and that overhaul included tweaks to help low-end machines. That kind of work will produce bugs on their end. But it doesn't help when Intel and the 3rd party manufacturers that use Intel don't keep up the drivers on their end.
If CoH introduced major bugs to the graphics engine, we'd all be seeing it. But the numbers that have come to the boards for help is way lower than what we saw after CoV was introduced. The overwhelming majority of users aren't having problems, else they'd be here swamping the boards. That would indicate the majority of problems are not at the CoH end, but at the end of systems with outdated or unusual configurations.
There are memory leaks for sure, but they existed before UM was introduced.
I'm just pointing out that a lot of I17 complaints are things that seem to be related to CPU-utilization and that a lot of folks who aren't complaining of outright bugs are complaining of reduced performance even without enabling UM or using bugged drivers. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to look at whether or not the new graphics engine is using more CPU ticks than the previous model.
And even if it does, that's not an indictment of the programming team. It uses what it uses and if that's as good as can be got, then it needs what it needs. But I don't think it's a bad thing to suggest looking in that direction after doing the driver update boogie.
I've got a lot of experience with IT from both the Tech Support and back-end departments. You look for end-user problems first because 99% of the time, that's what it is. That's given. But I've also seen the times when the tap-dance is done to buy time for the engineers to fix the real problem on the provider side.
I don't think it's a good thing to ignore a possibility that has a lot of weight behind it because we don't like it when the game looks the worse for it. If the new coding needs better optimization, say so. If the game's minimum system requirements have grown, say so. If you're still trying to work out which it is, say so.
If some people can get better results by reducing background processes and services or tweaking CPU prioritization, then let's get that happening sooner rather than later. Looks better all around.
Some will nerdrage because some always do. I'm not, because I'm a grown-up who lives in a world where sometimes things don't work perfectly. I'm hoping that further optimization will fix the problems. If not, well, I've been looking for upgrade reasons anyway. I'd just like the heads-up on which it is going to be.
And yeah, I realize that I'm stringing together a conclusion from a lot of second-hand anecdotes. But I've been well-paid and highly commended for that particular skill-set in the past and I'm pretty good at it. I'm not afraid to be proven wrong. It's often for the better if I am. Let's wait and see. -
Off the cuff, some people have been reporting problems with wireless networking in conjunction with I17. Are you on a wireless network adapter?
-
Quote:You forgot the part where they've been progressively selling off unused pieces of the server farm to mask the losses from declining subscription fees, so that now "high load" constitutes ten people swapping their favorite hentai URLs.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
But isn't the game is dying, and aren't the servers ghost towns? Now I'm confused.
Confusion abated.
-
I'm starting to get the feeling that I17 has CPU utilization issues related to the new UM code. Even for folks who may not be running UM features. This would be behind the issues with ATI hotkey, Vent, Skype, sound loops, various crashes and the like.
I'm particularly struck by one poster who said that his drop-out problem with either Vent or Skype went away after he raised the priority of the process, and The Television's response to this pronouncement.
Just throwing this out there for consideration. Not all graphics processing happens in the GPU. CPU, RAM and the video bus all play their roles as well.
Update: The conversation referenced above occurred in this thread. -
Running an Intel P4 dual-core 3 GHz with 3 GB RAM and nVidia 9800 GT video card. Single display 1920x1080.
I tested using both application-controlled settings and settings hard-coded in the nVidia control panel. I examined both with graphfps 7 enabled. I'd show screenshots but even with screenshotui set to 1, graphfps doesn't show up.
When the control panel is set to app-controlled, swap, cpu and gpu are sync'ed.
When the control panel is hard-coded, overall performance is slightly better, but swap runs much higher than cpu and gpu.
So, yes, from my perspective, hard-coding the graphics settings seems to improve overall performance.
EDIT: Update: I was running AO on Ultra. As I changed the AO slider, it directly affected the swap values. CPU/GPU remained unaffected. This was while running with hard-coded settings. -
Then that's the ballgame. Sorry. Bug it and hope for a future patch.
-
Didn't quote because I didn't want to dupe the images needlessly.
It's probably the edge detection from AO, then. I would try setting for customizable AO settings and cycling through the settings. -
Quote:One thing that I noticed is that the aliasing of shadows is determined by the shadow quality slider regardless of AA settings. While I get better performance when I lower the slider, the jagglies from the shading can have a deleterious effect on other textures.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
This is kind of what I was thinking. AO seems to be interfering with AA in such a way that AA works close up, but doesn't really work farther away. I'm not really familiar with how AA actually works on a mechanical level, nor what AO actually does, mathematically, but this is what I'm seeing as the end result. Objects close enough to display strong Occlusion shadows also see very strong AA effects and are very smooth. Objects far into the distance beyond the draw range of Occlusion shadows receive almost no antilailisng whatsoever. I don't know if it's some kind of stencil effect that only works where Occlusion shadows exist or if the AA option is somehow suppressed where shadows aren't present, but the result is not pretty, especially since I'm running medium occlusion settings anyway.
And, yeah, I'm running a low-ish resolution, myself. 1280x1024 (I don't know what DPI this is, but my screen is 17''), so I really do NOT want to play without AA turned on to at least x4. I can see the pixels from a mile away.
So I'm wondering if maybe the lowered AA you're experiencing is an artifact of sub-par shading performance? -
Quote:In their defense, let's remember that there was the whole Aeon/Television thing over whether to release UM or some new content in I17. The people chose. I just don't think the people expected UM to be "Not Ready For Prime Time."Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
I'd say they probably broke out Ultra Mode out now to get any issues out of the way before GR and Praetoria hit, so that release will be more smooth. So hopefully things will be smoothed over a bit in the upcoming month or so.
-
Quote:I am fully convinced -- and have argued elsewhere -- that the faculty of the Paragon University schools of Architecture and Civil Engineering are in fact secret adherents to the Evo Shandor cult. I furthermore believe that the building design and civic planning of Paragon are based on inhuman patterns of logic and are... INTENDED TO BRING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD!Originally Posted by Katie V
Who designed this mess, and has his engineering license been revoked yet?
-
Quote:That would be okay. Really when you mentioned it, I thought immediately of the CoT prison room. I cannot count the number of times that the magical barriers on the cell doors have screwed me up in there.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Vault doors already solve one of these problems. Despite being attackable targets, vault doors are not auto-selectable in any of the default ways. Tab-targeting will skip over them and pressing an attack with no target selected will ignore them. The same ought to be applied to walls. Of course, it means we'll have to have SOME visual cue to let players know they can break a wall, but the old Duke Nukem 3D "cracks means breakable" ought to suffice.
Intangibility currently allows you to walk through cell doors. I don't know if it works on vault doors, but I would assume so. As I envision breakable walls working the same way as breakable doors, it ought to. -
Quote:I like the idea in principle but I shudder at the practical consequence of sections of wall grabbing my target reticule when I'm beating my way through a horde of opponents. Or getting unintentionally blown away by AoEs so that adds can come and overwhelm me.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
On that note, here's something that I've wanted to see for a while - breakable walls inside instanced missions. We already have the technology in the form of breakable doors, like the ones that keep us inside jail cells on maps with jails. What I'm suggesting is to make a part of the wall act like "a door" that is fitted into a corresponding hole in the wall that's not breakable. That way, we can attack the breakable section of wall and punch through. Even if the technology is not ideal, I'm sure the concept would fire up many people's imaginations.
I'd be happy if intangibility powers would just actually let me walk through walls. But then, that would require contiguous maps... -
Quote:Yeah, because unlike EVERY OTHER ATTEMPT EVER at a planned economy, this one will work.
Positron: We are looking at the problems in the markets very carefully and want a good, working, feasable, not exploitive, not still broken somewhere, fun, easy to understand, logical, solution. -
Quote:There's a setting in the nVidia control panel that allows you to change the number of frames the CPU pre-renders before passing them to the GPU. If this number is set high it can cause input delays as the pre-rendering lags the CPU.Originally Posted by Dunkelzahn_NA
An interesting thing for me was that the issue went away going from test to live. I have an older AMD rig with 2 NVidia 7800 GTs and I was getting horrible input delay in closed and later open beta. I couldn't find any solution for it. On the same machine with everything running the same way the life servers are fine. Maybe that might help track some issues down.
On a general note, graphics isn't just about the graphics card. The greater demands of UM can put a strain on GPU, CPU, memory, bus and so forth. You have to look at the whole system to locate potential problems. -
The problem I see here -- which I frequently see in the whole CoV concept, unfortunately -- is that "evil" just isn't a goal for most folks.
Villainy frequently comes down to one of three things: misguided morality, amorality and psychological disturbance.
We can discard misguided morality for purposes of CoV. It occasionally makes an appearance in CoH.
Of amorality and psychosis, they're hard to convey in a motivating manner. Especially given that most of CoV's motivation comes from outside the character.
But "evil for evil's sake"? It's like Satanic cults, you hear about it but it's rarely real and usually juvenile.
Which is why really good villain plots are hard to come by, I guess.
Now I'm sad. Dang it.
-
Quote:Heck, I was grinding radio missions earlier this evening and got two in one fight.Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
Noticed it on test as well.
Ran the Posi taskforce (parts 1 and 2) on live on Wednesday and managed to get the Backup Radio and the Plasma taser power, before temp powers were as rare as costume pieces, you saw them occasionally but you weren't getting one every couple of hours. -
Quote:Well, since you asked...Originally Posted by David Nakayama
As for the larger point, all I can promise for now is that we'll continue to look into it. If there turns out to be a manageable compromise, and the player base continues to show interest, of course we'd consider it.
Being relatively new to the Art Lead post, though, I'm still in the process of getting an overall read on costume/character requests. I get PMs all the time asking for one thing or another, and the requests are all over the map as you might expect. GOING ROGUE and the next Super Booster will fill at least two major categories, but after that we'll just have to see.
A long while back I requested auras that match the major costume patterns. For example, if you had a Circuitry pattern on your costume, then you could give it a glow.
I saw the image of an NPC in GR that had a similar effect, but I understand that's baked in to the character model. I understand that doing it would probably take lots of work over lots of time. But hey, if you don't ask... -
Okay, since nobody had anything to offer, I made my own. I can't promise he's an exact duplicate since I was eyeballing it, but he's close enough for MA purposes...
Save the following to Percy Winkley.critter
{
Name "Percy Winkley"
Description " As one of the younger members of the Midnight Squad, Percy seems to get himself into a lot of trouble. Often acting before thinking through what he's doing or where he's going, he has a tendency to find himself strung up by one villain group or another. Thankfully, the Midnighters can spare a member or two for a rescue operation. Percy escapes the full wrath of the Midnight Club leaders because, while his risks seem rash, they often result in large windfalls of knowledge and lore for the Club."
VillainGroup "Midnight Squad"
PrimaryPower Brawl
SecondaryPower None
TravelPower None
Designation Contact
Costume
{
CostumeFilePrefix male
Scale -8.38
BoneScale -1
ShoulderScale -1
ChestScale -1
WaistScale -1
HipScale -1
LegScale -0.1
HeadScales -1, -1, -1
BrowScales 0, 0, 0
CheekScales -1, -1, -1
ChinScales -1, -1, -1
CraniumScales 0, 0, 0
JawScales 0, 0, 0
NoseScales 0, 0, 0
SkinColor 255, 195, 155
NumParts 27
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry Pants_Student
Texture1 Pants_Slacks_02
Texture2 None
DisplayName P887196332
RegionName "Lower Body"
BodySetName Pants
Color1 85, 56, 0
Color2 255, 103, 28
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry Baggy
Texture1 Tunic_02
Texture2 None
DisplayName P566009771
RegionName "Upper Body"
BodySetName Baggy
Color1 18, 31, 0
Color2 0, 0, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry V_MALE_HEAD.GEO/GEO_Head_V_Asym_Standard
Texture1 !v_face_skin_head_11
Texture2 None
DisplayName P687117166
RegionName Head
BodySetName Standard
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry Smooth
Texture1 skin_bare
Texture2 None
DisplayName P3937616722
RegionName "Upper Body"
BodySetName Baggy
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry V_MALE_BOOT.GEO/GEO_LLeg*_Chain_Leather_bare
Texture1 !X_V_Boot_Chain_leather
Texture2 None
DisplayName P2104750136
RegionName "Lower Body"
BodySetName Pants
Color1 0, 0, 0
Color2 0, 0, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P177456852
RegionName "Upper Body"
BodySetName Baggy
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry V_Male_Hair.GEO/GEO_Hair_Princeton_01
Texture1 !Hair_V_Princeton_01
Texture2 !Hair_V_Princeton_01_Mask
DisplayName P2681220175
RegionName Head
BodySetName Standard
Color1 85, 56, 0
Color2 255, 103, 28
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P2793026233
RegionName Head
BodySetName Standard
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P2281134661
RegionName "Upper Body"
BodySetName Baggy
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P772741860
RegionName "Upper Body"
BodySetName Baggy
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P2371314042
RegionName Head
BodySetName Standard
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
DisplayName P1848153390
RegionName Head
BodySetName Standard
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Fx None
Geometry None
Texture1 None
Texture2 None
Color1 61, 61, 0
Color2 127, 84, 0
Color3 61, 61, 0
Color4 127, 84, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Color1 0, 0, 0
Color2 0, 0, 0
Color3 0, 0, 0
Color4 0, 0, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Color1 0, 0, 0
Color2 0, 0, 0
Color3 0, 0, 0
Color4 0, 0, 0
}
CostumePart ""
{
Color1 0, 0, 0
Color2 0, 0, 0
Color3 0, 0, 0
Color4 0, 0, 0
}
}
} -
Got halfway through writing my story arc when I suddenly realized that Percy Winkley is only available as a contact, not as a capture/escort. Arg. Not to mention, WTF?
Does anybody out there in forum-land have a good Percy Winkley custom model they would be generous enough to share?
Or, if I am being completely obtuse, is he in there in some not-obvious place?
Thanks for any help... -
Elliot S! Maggin