So I've been upgrading a few parts on my machine and while some parts were being resold it was at the shop (for easier access to better tools, testing hardware software and parts) and in the meantime I used an old backup machine.
But its really pathetic when the game doesn't really scale up in performance. The game runs reasonable well on an old machine with just a Geforce4200 Card and then I go to this machine and it only performs slightly better (Still not smooth or particularly impressive) and thats despite this machine being able to run Crysis pretty well at 1920x1200 resolution, 16xQAA and all graphics settings at Very High.
Come on NCSoft, its gotta be possible to make this darn game run better.
PS: Remove GG for gods sake, worst invention ever.
It's all to do with your hard drive speed. The only bottleneck for L2 on high end machines is slight frame rate spikes when it has to load new textures from the hard drive into memory. Games like Crysis are more predictable in terms of what textures will be needed, so it loads more stuff into memory prior to gameplay. MMOs though are unpredictable and so L2 loads textures only when they are needed.
Even on my high end system, when running into areas with new textures, things slow down a bit. Once they are all loaded in though, it's smooth as silk until something 'new' is required.
Get a 10k RPM hard drive or even better, a solid state drive (very expensive though) and that's the best thing you can do for L2 performance (assuming you already have a lot of RAM etc ... I have 4 GB and L2 uses every bit of it heh).
GG doesn't really impact performance much on decent machines - it's memory footprint is quite small.
Uhm, I have 4 10.000 RPM Raptor drives in RAID 0 on an internal PCI-E RAID Controller card giving awesome harddrive speeds. Its blazingly fast.
Hmmm ... yeah well you should be getting excellent L2 performance then. It's smooth for me even running through Giran in full detail and my system probably isn't as uber as yours. Interesting.
Actually as already said, the bottleneck (major) on L2 is Gameguard. Remove it, and L2 flies.
The other bottleneck is memory textures not being released. (I.E. memory leaks)
There was a easy way around it, and it still works, but more complicated.. to basically force L2 to "reload" the map you are currently on and dump all the rest. Doing this every hour or so vastly increases performance over long hauls as well.
/sarcasme on
GameGuard is a wonderfull thing, it is!!
/sarcasme off
Ugh
I run a Intel Q6700, 8GB Ram, ATI HD3870 512 VRam with Raptor Raid.
Still I think my slowest PC is almost as fast as this one with low settings on both of them.
I only wish VMware would step up even more and enable AGP support and some other graphic filters etc in it's Workstation.
Sure L2 will run on a VMware Virtual PC but the graphics are so so.
I have had a strange experience with L2. I built a decent computer.
Specs:
CPU: Intel e6850 3.0GHZ core 2 duo
RAM: 2x1gb OCZ 800mhz (5-5-5-15) RAM
HD: RaptorX 150gb 10k RPM
Video Card: BFG 8800 GTS OC 320mb
MOtherboard: ASUS cant remember model but its a nvidia 680i chipset
Its a nice system and runs L2 great, but not perfect. So i tried running XP 64bit instead of XP pro. I had alot of issues with XP 64 and I didnt notice any performance improvements. So I went back to XP pro 32bit
So back to my strange experience. I bought a new laptop an ASUS G2SG-A1.
Its Specs:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5Ghz 6MB L2 Cache 800Mhz FSB
Memory: 2x2GB DDR2-667mhz
Hard Drive: 320GB SATA 5400rpm
Video: Nvidia 8700GT 512MB
This laptop runs vista ultimate. So I load up L2 for the first time and it loads real fast. I run it side by side with my desktop and the loading screen comes up faster than my desktop. I login characters side by side at same time and the laptop wins again. I play on the laptop and its so smooth, I get no lag on those load spots, not even a flicker of FPS lost. THe game runs absolutely flawlessly on this laptop and this is at 1920x1200 resolution with everything set at its max settings and ground detail and shadows on. If I do this on my desktop it performs well but as good as my laptop.
This makes me wonder what the bottleneck is on my desktop. You guys suggested the HD was the bottleneck but my laptop has a 5400 RPM drive while my desktop has a 10k RPM drive. THe only thing I can see is that its because it is running on a 32bit OS or that the extra video RAM makes the difference as my desktop only has 320mb VRAM. I ran XP 64 on my desktop and didnt notice any performance increase in L2. My next and last step is running Vista Ultimate 64bit on my desktop.
I would love to get L2 running on my desktop just like my laptop.
I agree my laptop runs at 7200 and my main system. and they both run XP (Had Best Buy take Vista off the Laptop). My main System is a P4 at 2.8 Ghtz and my laptop is dou core 2 at 2.0 Ghtz. My main has 1.5 gigs of ram and my laptop has 2 gigs. My main Runs a ATI 9800 pro with 256 ram and my Laptop a ATI 1800X with 256 on board ram. I'm not a tech Geek so if I have some terms wrong just correct me nicely .
They both run smooth with everything turn on till I run into a new area then the main system slows down a bit till it has all the info it needs the laptop don't.
If I port 2 a different town on my main system then go and port my buffer. Even thou I ported my main first my Buffer ends up in the new town first.
I think it's more then just Hard drive that bottle necks.
While i'll agree it's insanely highly unoptimised.. but it still runs...
it doesn't scale at all well.
The introduction of new features and effects usually isn't to possitive on other features.
Hardrive access and it's own native sata modes are critical in lineageII
What alot of people don't seem to understand is that even current system using SATA isn't actually using "true" sata... it's running in an emulated mode.
Top it off, NONE of the raptors (and if my specs are right on the volosicraptor drives), supports Total TRUE sata II gen mode.
AKA, in SATA1 mode the performance is basically identical to that of IDE UDMA 5... that's it, that's all, nothing extra beyond that.
Now SATAII however incorporates NCQ support as well as a number of other critical performance enhanceing features. LineageII is a beast, it makes heavy use of NCQ, i guarantee it as i've seen the results.
10,000 RPM drives are all fluff, sure they can search out and find random access anything quick, but as far as total true transfer rates with random and jumpy track read/writes, they don't perform all that great there.
This is why Seagate Barracuda 7200.11's run circles around raptors lineup.
And this another reason my Raid array is still one of the world record holders for both access times/read/write speeds.
Also LineageII makes very good use of dual and quad core cpu's... so long as your running windows vista.
And memory through the roof to.
Motherboard Chipsets are a critical part of the equation. Efficiency is the player, not total brute force power.
Alot of motherboard with intel chipsets are very efficient, meanwhile NVidia's Nforce lineup i've found to be critically flawed....
and thats despite this machine being able to run Crysis pretty well at 1920x1200 resolution, 16xQAA and all graphics settings at Very High.
lie much? I don't need to even hear what hardware you have crysis does not run well at that resolution/settings no matter your hardware/how overclocked it is
and thats despite this machine being able to run Crysis pretty well at 1920x1200 resolution, 16xQAA and all graphics settings at Very High.
lie much? I don't need to even hear what hardware you have crysis does not run well at that resolution/settings no matter your hardware/how overclocked it is
i would have to agree
even a skulltrain setup is barely able to cope with crysis @ 720p (1280x720) resolution with even 2-4x FSAA enabled
Just so you guys know, after K1.5 hit the live servers, i was able to go from Giran low graphs 2 account with lag to 1 high end graphs hig res and a low res account running flawlessly in giran.
With shadows on, notice shadows has been burning Gforce cards forever in lineage2.
The amount of FPS i got from the optimizations brought with k1.5 is huge...
Im running vista thou, so many problems i had migth have been due to that, and now where optimized for the Vista Os. However shadows running so good these days, and thats a first on any of my Gforce cards ive owned throu the lineage2 years.
Its not all bad, i actually would praize the devs for this update on the optimization work.
Actually I stand selfcorrected. I crashed in the intro when I played the first time and I hadn't noticed it had taken resolutions down when I got back in, it had kept the quality settings and AA though.
At full resolution it does drop down to 8-20 FPS tops.
Regardless of that, it should still be more than sufficient for L2.
Now SATAII however incorporates NCQ support as well as a number of other critical performance enhanceing features. LineageII is a beast, it makes heavy use of NCQ, i guarantee it as i've seen the results.
If this really made so much of a difference, why is an ancient machine with a Geforce4 and a single low performance SATA 1 drive performing so closely?
Just so you guys know, after K1.5 hit the live servers, i was able to go from Giran low graphs 2 account with lag to 1 high end graphs hig res and a low res account running flawlessly in giran.
With shadows on, notice shadows has been burning Gforce cards forever in lineage2.
The amount of FPS i got from the optimizations brought with k1.5 is huge...
Im running vista thou, so many problems i had migth have been due to that, and now where optimized for the Vista Os. However shadows running so good these days, and thats a first on any of my Gforce cards ive owned throu the lineage2 years.
Its not all bad, i actually would praize the devs for this update on the optimization work.
I m with you on that ... CT1 was a huge drop in performance for me, that's been mostly fixed with CT1.5
Now SATAII however incorporates NCQ support as well as a number of other critical performance enhanceing features. LineageII is a beast, it makes heavy use of NCQ, i guarantee it as i've seen the results.
If this really made so much of a difference, why is an ancient machine with a Geforce4 and a single low performance SATA 1 drive performing so closely?
LineageII uses a system that automatically adapts various portions of itself to the systems detected..
AKA, highend machines will result in higherend features being turned on or set that are not changeable..
It's not just graphics settings you see.. there is much more underlying things happening.
i've got a machine that has a Radeon 8500le (same generation as a geforce 3 initial series)... on a intel p4 HT 1.5ghz system... running 1gb of ram. and 80gb IDE drive.
interestingly... using proper settings, that system is able to almost keep up with my huge beast.
scaling things properly, there is a signifcant difference in how things operate..
Typically lineageII dislikes NEW generation hardware ..... it was all designed for older stuff, even thought it's a mish mash of features that require newer hardware.
Now SATAII however incorporates NCQ support as well as a number of other critical performance enhanceing features. LineageII is a beast, it makes heavy use of NCQ, i guarantee it as i've seen the results.
If this really made so much of a difference, why is an ancient machine with a Geforce4 and a single low performance SATA 1 drive performing so closely?
Because what Judas forgot to mention was that no current single hard drive is able to fully saturate the bandwidth available in a SATAI connection, much less SATAII. Hell, even alot of basic Raid configurations dont fully saturate the bandwidth available over the bus, because they are using an onboard Raid setup.
just not all of them.... actually majority of them don't do well..
Nvidia's/Via/ATI/etc. onboard solutions are terrible..
Only onboard Solution RECENTLY able to beat out it's Ad-IN competitors is Intel's Storage Matrix system.
The TOP end hardrive is able to surpass the bottlekneck SATAI provides, it's rated for 150MB/S total throughput (1.5gbps), however considering overhead and such, the actual number is closer to that of 100-120MB/s maximum read/writes on that hardware.
With SATAII the same drive does a bit better, but it's basically able to stretch itself out.
Bursts aren't really relavent, i can burst 5000MB/s (50gbps) but if all i'm loading is a single texture in that burst, and the rest is requireing more, it's only the initial jump that is of benefit, the rest is still waiting.
No using differing techs, Intel's storage matrix system has various lvls of options and technologies that make hardrives work far more efficiently, write back caching and ncq and serveral others unique to intel's system.
Any machine i've setup using Intel's SATA usually does a smooth silky run of l2... meanwhile nvidia/ati/via's solutions are a slacking result.
Ad-IN raid cards have a few advantage and also disadvantages, one major con is latency... vs on board, it can't hold a candle to it usually.. and unless your spending some serious wauds of cash on an addin raid solution, it's pointless.
Intels onboard Raids are indeed currently the best onboard solution, but they are still not capable of high transfer rates like a dedicated Raid card is. And Matrix Raid is just taking the best (fastest) part of the drive(s), but still not as good as a great add-in card.
And I wasnt speaking about burst tranfers, I was talking about sustained. And yes, 100-120MB/s is the current max that any SATA drive can sustain. But there is none currently available that is capable of saturating the bandwidth fully available for SATA1, SATA2, or let alone the bandwidth available to the PCI bus when raided with a onboard "controller" (they are, after all, all software based).
I havent heard of Ad-IN, but the current rage over on the board I frequent is the Areca cards. Sure they are $500 raid cards, but they are capable of some serious sustained read speeds that a regular PCI bus cant handle, so the required PCIe 8x or 16x slot is required. Talk about some high sustained rates with those cards...
And you'd be surprised just how many "normal" (abby?) folks get them. If I needed some hard drive speed, I'd go with an Areca card myself.
And not even optimised system yet (throw the CPU usage out the window as at the time of the test, things were going on, usually the cpu usage is sub 3-4%)
? From a Seagate 7200.11? From what I can see around they do around 100+ Mbps sustained. Definetly not 650 Mb, what exactly is that a raid of (and how many disks?)
With windows xp, using a dual or quad core intel CPU, the result it that LINEAGEII makes use of usually only a single core, pegging it to the max.
Where as on the same system with vista, LineageII properly load balances across the available cores.
With Quad core, it is further distributed. This makes things work a hell of alot better.
Example being is that not one single core is pegged, and things are evenly loaded, making loading extra l2 clients even faster and easier to work with.
Vista's Threading management for multi core cpu's is superior to that of xp, and it's memory management is even better.
Lord, the benchmark was obtained using 6 Seagate 500gb 7200.11's in raid 0 on that ICH9R chipset. Considering overhead and everything, the Drives runnning in a single drive mode, have produced anywhre from 115MB/S as far up to 125+ MB/S sustained, as well as random access times as low as 6.9.
Making sure as to not have the "bugged" 7200.11's that seagate has listed, Which require a firmware update to operate properly. These drives litterly BLOW the doors off anything WD has out.
I've YET to find a faster drive that is even remotely close to the price range. Best bang for the buck.
With raid 0, there is always overhead, there for every extra drive you throw into the raid array, the combined read/write performance of the drives drops a little each time,
if to drives are lets say, able to sustain 125mb/s, and you come 2 in hopes of 250MB/s, it's usually not the case, resulting in roughly only 230MB/s (and that's being generious). Add another for 375MB/s, and you end up with 300MB/s..... 4 for 500MB/s, gett 350, 5 for 650, get 390etc...etc..
however as you can see the ICH9R chipset is one hell of a robust and blazing fast (hardware) Raid controller. (NOT software as you had mentioned)..
Heres the details of the system running that array.
Gigabyte GA-x38-DQ6
Q6600
8gb DDR2
6x Seagate 500gb 7200.11 in raid 0 on ich9r
Vista x64
2x hd3870 crossfired
700 watt ocz gamerxstream
The raid array was setup with a 128kb stripe size.
The previous raid array i had was 4x 7200.10's 320gb in raid 0 on the same system which was barely able to break 270-300+ MB/s...... so it was shocked to see 6 7200.11's completely surpass 600MB/s
Optimized?! Am on a 3.0 ghz and I get lag at times with the distances though I am listed as default with very wide. Tabula Rasa has memory leaks and I think that is the issue here also. Plus trying to keep some of the higher end computers happy. Its a rough time in video game market because the ranges are becoming huge on what some people have and what some don't.
I would/still get horrible lag when running up the hill or facing the way of the new kamael area. Have to go alt p to be able to enjoy grinding. It is because of the pulsating lights that the Kamael area has.
I like the tight graphics. To be able to zoom in on a toon and get such clarity as to make the textures feel almost touchable in this game is unsurpassable. Hope Aion is the same way.
My issue is with the chatting. I am sure it has something to do with bandwidth but on many occasions in groups the delay on type back is the worse I have ever seen.
Over time I am sure alot of these issues will clear up. I would recommend checking for upgrades on your video card once in a while.
It is a touchy time with video cards going over the being dual on alot of the next gen machines.
Why do you guys keep on abusing the word "optimized"?
When you program a game you create it for a certain DirectX version. Any hard and software beyond the DX version its programmed for will only experience marginally better performance (as described by people using better HD etc). Take Anarchy Online (another MMO) for example. That game is programmed for DX7. Their community also complained about performance not scaling well towards new computers and their dev's responded with the same answer: It's made for DX7, not 9 (or 10). Reprogramming a game to a higher DX version costs a LOT of time. Anarchy Online actually is upgrading their game to version 9, but they already are working on that for a year. They stated to expect a mayor performance increase once they are finished. Of course; software routines will be replaced by hardware.
Compare it to old games; back in the DOS age I had to program my own matrix multiplication routines to rotate a vector in 3D space. If I wanted to use hardware I had to detect the grahic card and hope it was a well-known one. VESA later on helped with that (a generic piece of software for video much like DX). For DirectX currently it's the same. Don't expect to run in hardware mode in a game which uses a lower DirectX then your card (or well, parts of) is made for. It will stay in software mode.
Your uber cool DX10 card for example will perform very poorly (relatively) when you run a DX3 game. The DX3 game can only utilize DX3 features on the DX10 card. Every non-DX3 routine will be done by the CPU, since thats how the programmers made it. Of course the DX3 game will be fast due to a very fast CPU, but your video card is having a lot idle time.
It's so easy to blame a game (even calling it unoptimized...) while the answer is so simple. I doubt NC will (or can, considering the engine isn't theirs) upgrade to a better DX version. You are pretty much stuck to more or less the same performance as a high-end system when the game was new. Raw CPU, GPU, IO and HD power will increase performance, but it will never be a "oh wow" effect unless you upgrade from a P4 to a Dualcore, for example.
BTW, going from P4 to Dual Core on an application or game programmed on one thread will actually be worse, not "oh wow". But it's in the hands of programmer. It depends if they code everything in the main() or if they manage to split things efficiently. I think that's called... optimization.
BTW, going from P4 to Dual Core on an application or game programmed on one thread will actually be worse, not "oh wow". But it's in the hands of programmer. It depends if they code everything in the main() or if they manage to split things efficiently. I think that's called... optimization.
Did she say it was in dx3? no..
It sure as hell aint in dx10, so dont expect dx 10 cards to give uber boost performance, thats what she said...
Hate to break it to you but multithreaded applications and multiple cores have nothing to do with eachother. I can have a multithreaded application in DOS 6 using a 486 CPU np. Oh, and I can start all threads inside main() without going outside main(), funny eh? Did you know the optimal amount of workerthreads for a server is usually two times the amount of CPU's? This is valid for both a 486 and an Intel Kentsfield.
Did you know a program with lots of copy-pasted code and everything in main() is usually faster compared to heavely OO-ed code (using classes with base classes etc). The reason why we split things isn't speed, it's to make the code easier to comprehend and modify, meaning bugs are less likely to appear and make it less costly for the company to modify code. C++'s templates is a very good alternative (as the precompiler will generate the "copy paste" code for you), but it can't beat carefully thought out "stupid" code blocks in your main() (will require you to know how the compiler translates your code into assembly and how i.e. compiler treats static variables differently inside memory compared to scope-level variables).
Optimization is something entirely different. Refactoring code could be put into that term, but refactoring code usually only has the purpose of increasing reusability. Recognizing a factory pattern in existing code and applying the correct refactor rules might give you a performance increase, but foremost its used to enhance the code in order for the team of programmers to easier handle the code in case of modifications or extensions.
Sounds to me your programming lessons stopped at highschool.
Lineage2's engine requires DirectX 8 to run. The new stuff they added last big patch requires DirectX9 (i.e. the bloom effects and probably some shaders). This doesn't change the fact the game engine (being the Unreal one) runs on DX8 and will not make your game faster using hardware meant for DX9 or DX10.
She exagerated by talking about DX3, yes.
There's not real difference between DX9 and DX10. Nobody claimed they had a DX10 specific card and feel screwed because the performance aren't better than cards made for DX9. The point is that Kamael is a recent client, working with DX9 so DX is not the problem there. DX9 isn't a prehistoric version unable to display more than 3 polygons.
I should not have read all of this my Head hurts now and I have no idea of what I just read. :(
Are you guys saying a Dou Core 2 is a waste with L2 becasue it's old? Becasue my 2.0ghts Duo Core 2 runs L2 a lot better then my P4 2.8 ghtz.
But Like I said I could be 100% wrong trying figure out what you guys are saying
And Sunspark_Hind your whole post needs 2 be rewritten in Tech talk for dummies. :(
Hehe sorry, just wanted to explain something and I asumed enough knowledge would be present in the posters above me.
As for the upgrade; of course it's a good upgrade for you! CPU is quite important when running old videogames up to a certain point (diminishing returns), but P4 to DualCore is a very large step. Don't buy a €600 videocard if you only want to play L2 though, a €200 will be just as fine due to above reasons.
edit: didnt read you already had the system, thought you wanted to upgrade.
Haha Ashely, they are only discussing how to define the term "optimized", and washtak is getting owned because she/he doesnt know how real coding is done on a real company.
They only used the duo core vs P4 as an example. It would give an improvement, but people with Highly Modern and uber gamin computers shouldnt expect a top floating game since L2 is indeed old. Better comp, better gaming experience, but only to a certain extent.
Thanks Sunspark & Nightfox for clearing that up with me and thanks for Tip on the Video card Sunspark. I was wondering if I needed to upgrade my ATI 9800 Pro with 256 (HAH! I know some Tech) to something better but sounds like the one I have now is find correct?
I should not have read all of this my Head hurts now and I have no idea of what I just read. :(
Are you guys saying a Dou Core 2 is a waste with L2 becasue it's old? Becasue my 2.0ghts Duo Core 2 runs L2 a lot better then my P4 2.8 ghtz.
But Like I said I could be 100% wrong trying figure out what you guys are saying
And Sunspark_Hind your whole post needs 2 be rewritten in Tech talk for dummies. :(
I think they are saying that your dual core runs it better not because the program is written for it but because your processor is faster. But that it's not take a lot of advantage of the dual core features.
i don't care why L2 runs so slow.
but, well, why when i run some nowadays game with much better graphics, sound and physics i can get comparable 30-50 fps? my system is XP, i don't have DX10, my video card (8600gts) supports it, but it is quite useless for obvious reasons. why the game which engine is history of programming runs like nowadays technologically advanced games? why i can run unreal 2 with crazy fps rate while L2 lags at comparable scenes?
this is absolutely not about DX version or my improper core2duo CPU. when i had athlon 3000 cpu + gf6600 video the situation was much worse. this could never be if that theories were true.
so why this game is so slow? i think it is very unoptimized code. that is why unreal2 works greatly much better than l2.
We're talking about MMORPG, where the main loop is hard to divide in threads. If you put everything in main() in a MMORPG you will totally mess it up, thus losing performance. Again if your main loop is too big, you don't beneficit of multi-core so of course CPU is important, but if coding doesn't follow, you can go with 16 cores, you will only be able to use other applications at the same time. The multi-core madness is limited by the methods of coding.
But that's not the most important part about optimized code. I worked on a MMORPG and discussed with coders who had to rework the interface and how it was loading. Depending on how you code you can kill your performances, even with a good engine that works smooth for another game. Never wondered why the friend list window takes so much time to appear the first time you call it? And the map window?
Ok CPU and GFX card helps a lot, but you can't say code isn't responsable of anything. When you have the top CPU/GFX card/connection... there's still code to optimize. So yes the demand for optimization is valid.
Reprogramming it to a newer DX is still optimizing the game. :p
Just a curious question, if its only programmed for an old DX, why does the game require (and does not run if it doesn't have it) directx 9.0c
Raw CPU, GPU, IO and HD power will increase performance, but it will never be a "oh wow" effect unless you upgrade from a P4 to a Dualcore, for example.
There isn't even an "oh wow" effect going from a P4/Geforce4200TI/old slow drive to an overclocked watercooled quadcore extreme/8800Ultra card/RAID 4x0. Its just "its a little nicer now".
(The only advantage is that I can't duo box on the P4, while on the quadcore I can run many clients with no problems.)
Oh and FYI, Tabula Rasa ran just about flawlessly for me.
Reprogramming it to a newer DX would be too expensive I bet. Sure, Funcom (Anarchy Online) is doing this, but they are using their own Engine and think it's worth it spending a year rewriting code.
L2 runs on the Unreal Engine. They modded it of course, but to rewrite it all to let it utilize DX9 (or 10) is just madness, thats why theres newer Engines out there. NC themselves stated they wanted to use the Unreal2 Engine for L3 but they appearently aborted and are now developing their in-house engine. Their other coming product (Ayon) uses the Crysis engine I think?
The current DX9 requirement is probably because they added some features like bloom and shaders. They enchanced the engine or added extensions to it, so that could explain the DX9 requirement. Just a guess of course since I'm not an NC developer. All I know for sure is that the Unreal Engine is utilizing an old DX version and henceforth new GFX cards will not have a serious inpact on the overall performance. This is not NC's fault, it's just how software works.
washtak, of course you can get performance increases by recoding parts of the code, that's not the discussion here really, is it? It's very weak to say a piece of software hasn't received optimizations without having knowledge of the product (and no, I don't mean as a customer, but as a in-company developer). Hence my first reply "so easy to blame it on optimizing". Every accusation is only based on guesswork. Seeing as you just stated you are no software developer yourself I don't see it as very productive to have a discussion based on knowledge you received from a third party. The information you state is correct, but you apply it totally wrong. I do this stuff 40-60 hours a week for a living, so I feel quite comfortable in my opinion about this matter.
To get back on the main topic - A bit odd to demand something from a company based on a conclusion of your own guesswork, eh? It'd be the same as demanding NC to stop cooperating with RMT companies, due to your conclusion they do not ban bots :p
Lord Chaos: Tabula Rasa uses an in-house built game-engine. As for why it works great and L2 doesn't.. no clue ;) They either learned something new or new hardware made some things possible which wasn't 5 years ago.
Reprogramming it to a newer DX would be too expensive I bet.
We're talking about the worlds second largest MMO with some of the best graphics. Hardly "too expensive".
I did also clearly state in the top "If possible".
It's very weak to say a piece of software hasn't received optimizations
No it isn't, you yourself clearly stated it hasn't.
Every accusation is only based on guesswork.
Well
1. I didn't really make accusations.
2. Those that may seem as such are correct and not guesswork as its simply how it is working in a practical environment.
Hehe just because a company is rich doesn't mean they will want to spend a lot money on an old title. You don't become rich by spending a lot. They obviously are diverting a lot resources into Aeyon (with tabula rasa being a failed product). Just look at Lineage1; they never updated its engine either. It's just proper marketing, something NC is very good at..
Every code has received optimizations. That's just how stuff gets developed. Asking for it either meant you mis-use the term or meant something else. I think you meant you wanted their engine to be upgraded in order for you to experience dramatically performance increases using new(er) systems? Sure, I'd love that too, but I think it's a too unrealistic demand.
If your 'm' key shows the map with a slight delay, will it be cost-effective to fix it? I doubt you are going to quit because of it. With large software often the choice of purposely not fixing a "bug" has to be made, because its not cost-effective.
I sincerely doubt making L2 run smoother will net them the amount of (new) subscribers to pay for the engine upgrade. I keep having such "fights" with my boss too; I want to upgrade code with new technology (because I think it's fun) to make it prettier, but my boss simply looks at the costs versus what you can get back from it.. and it never really payed off to do it.
As for the rest, was more aimed towards washtak, not you.
TBH I really dont think Sunspark knows what he/she is talking about.
The majority of info has just been completely and utterly wrong.
Rip open the guts of L2 and you'll find it *has* been completely optimized for DX9.0C. Dig further and you'll find it *has* been upgraded for multi core processors and even quad core as of CT editions. (Pre CT, you'd get a single core @100%, and the other core sitting there. Now you'll get both (or all four) cores working together on the application at a variable rate)
There are numerous issues of companies upgrading to support DX. Anarchy Online is a horrible, horrible example.
How about Lord of the Rings? Recently upgraded to full DX10 support. WoW? Full DX9.0 support (from DX 7!). DAoC? MmmHmm...same.
Eve Online? Whohoo, how many DX versions has Eve been through?
Suffice it to say, for a MMO, upgrading to another versin of DirectX isnt unheard of. In fact, its always heard of. Major graphical overhauls are the norm on games two years in or so, not the minority.
...................
L2 dosent perform like it should for two very freaking simple reasons that we've already been over.
Gameguard sucks. Remove it, and L2 instantly has *at least* 50% more FPS.
It memory leaks like a hell. It dosent utilize memory very well regardless.
Hehe just because a company is rich doesn't mean they will want to spend a lot money on an old title.
There's a difference between can't and won't. Eventually it will cost them though, but NCSSoft Korea isn't exactly famous for being on the ball very quickly, just see how long it took them to emulate basic wow features.
They obviously had enough money to go the other way, making the game use way more memory all of a sudden compared to what it used to.
Just look at Lineage1; they never updated its engine either. It's just proper marketing, something NC is very good at..
Thats because L1 is for something completely different, its meaningless to start trying to optimize it as its not needed for a non-3D game.
If your 'm' key shows the map with a slight delay, will it be cost-effective to fix it? I doubt you are going to quit because of it.
In a game such as this, performance is very important and delays can mean serious setbacks compared to other games. Yes, people do quit over it and yes its also giving slight aid to those "other servers". (older clients/no GG)
I sincerely doubt making L2 run smoother will net them the amount of (new) subscribers to pay for the engine upgrade.
It just means that L2 will keep losing to games that does offer better engines and smoother graphics, heck even WoW which is almost as old as L2 is just better in many regards now.
Well I guess that's just where we disagree then. Somehow I doubt time will tell you are right, though. I only entered this discussion for "attacking" software developers as a whole, heh. I will eat my hat when you can find me an NC programmer who, and I quote, throws the whole code in main() and without multiple code optimization checks. Such statements just irks me.
As for Ashane, there's a profound difference in adding features requiring (new) DX features and rewriting the core of an engine from ground up for a specific new DX version. The first Unreal engine being made for DX9 is the Unreal 3 engine. If you think NC, or any of the companies you described, will reprogram / reprogrammed the core engine for a new DX version you are gravely mistaken and only read some marketing news making it look better then it is. Some of the other titles you mention are using an in-company engine used by every (new) title for said company. Of course those get updated every time. Oh well, your not gonna believe me anyways, and it hardly matters for the reasons I entered this discussion, as I outlined in the paragraph above this one.
Somehow I doubt time will tell you are right, though.
How can time be telling me right when what I said already happened and/or is happening?
heh. I will eat my hat when you can find me an NC programmer who, and I quote, throws the whole code in main() and without multiple code optimization checks. Such statements just irks me.
The point is rather moot to what I was saying. But either way you don't really know how much they have manpower and time to do and neither do I.
I do see where you're coming from and of course NCSoft is coming from a different beast as well since pure computing power in korea doesn't follow par with the west and this is primarily the reason why they're so behind the curve on the western market.
If you think NC, or any of the companies you described, will reprogram / reprogrammed the core engine for a new DX version you are gravely mistaken and only read some marketing news making it look better then it is
Just curious, a simple yes or no will suffice...
Have you actually decompiled Lineage 2 to actually see what its using?
I dont think you have is the reason I'm asking, or you woudnt be making some of the statements you are. So I'll just assume your guessing based upon no real factual information.
currently uses the Unreal 2.x Engine (there are 3 major revisions of the unreal 2 engine, 2.0/2.5/2.x)
The 2.x engine fully supports DirectX 9.0 (and further able to support dx9.0c and later revisions of the main dx9.0 API)
3D graphics is one thing, CPU is another, Memory and hardrive, these are all things that have thier own advantages.
LineageII is far from "optimised", as it's plainly seen even on older equipment. Yes the textures are nice on models, not so hot on objects and structures, and far worse of alot of the terrain. But it's fairly obvious that the system is so sluggish in what it has to load.
DX10 is a completely different API all together. I don't think anyone is asking for dx10....
As for versioning; L2 uses the "Unreal Warfare" engine, which is version 2.0. You can verify this by looking up official NCSoft articles. Version 2.5 has a few added DirectX9 features, but its core still runs on version 8. Here is quote for you (not from an official source) :
Builds 2500-33xx: Enhanced version of Unreal Engine 2 with optimized rendering codes. The rendering system provides optimized support for DirectX versions 7 and 8, OpenGL, and even software rendering with Pixomatic (licensed separately). While 2.5 does not make extensive use of DirectX 9 features, it does use the DirectX9 API and thus provides an easy starting point for licensees interested in adding DirectX 9.x graphical features [source (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Unreal-Engine-1.5#Unreal_Engine_2.5)]
(note the source has both L2 and L3 there)
A shame I have to keep repeating myself only because some people are not willing to listen. DX8 core. DX9 features. Have a peek at Epicgames' developer section (http://udn.epicgames.com/Main/WebHome.html) if you still don't believe me.
Ashane, how about you giving some factual information instead of argueing without a proper source or reasoning. I'd have no problems admitting you are right with good factual sources, but you are just being loud without proper reasoning to back it up. So far all you say just smells like trolling.
L2 pushes the limits out of the Unreal 2 engine, but it stays a core DX8 engine with added features. Expecting more out of the engine without going to version 3 is just silly. Upgrading to 3.. heh that's Lineage3 until NC decided not to buy the license and make their in-house engine. I'm willing to bet a lot on NC never upgrading L2 to engine version 3, that's just madness! (and they don't live in Sparta).
Ashane, how about you giving some factual information instead of argueing without a proper source or reasoning. I'd have no problems admitting you are right with good factual sources, but you are just being loud without proper reasoning to back it up. So far all you say just smells like trolling.
I asked a simple question. Apparently you've got issues with simple questions, I wont ask again, sorry.
Ofcourse lineage2 is supporting dx9.. what the hell are you guys smoking in here.
It measn its fully operational on direct x 9 systems.. It means you dont have to install direct x 8 or whatever to get it running...
It does not mean the engine, all the code was programed for dx 9.
EvE online reworked there whole CLIENT. And are doing a secondary client for Dx10. They think its worth it, but its a totally different game and setup. So it doesnt mean it would be a good choice for NCsoft to copy.
And i dont need to fricking read the lineage2 code to use common sense. If the lineage2 client was reporgrammed for dx9 today from scratch, it would be smoother and better.
I still say good job ncsoft on ct1.5 couse my game client is working wonders compared to before especially on shadows and HDR front. SO in conculsion they are optimizing, but they are not doing a CCP we need better graphics whoo lets gogogo fire up those programmers and remake everything!
On another note to the guy whos having a slow game. As most mmo todays and especially Lineage2 is Extreemly RAM heavy. On XP id say youd need 2gig atleast to maximize it. I dont know why, im not an expert on the deeper [censored] of it all but my guess is it has to do with the way texture loading is programmed and with all the beeming around in this game.
RAM > GFX cards for this game.
It suggest you look into the RAM side, as that can still give heavy impact on lineage2 even today. While last gen and newest gen GFX cards do pretty similar running the game. CPU can always be better on any game also, except tetris! that [censored] is optimized to the limits!
p.s comparing unreal2 with lineage cant be done either. Unreal havent had extensions to it every 6th month and althou it the basics its the same engine, they are used very differently...
/end rant..
As for versioning; L2 uses the "Unreal Warfare" engine, which is version 2.0. You can verify this by looking up official NCSoft articles. Version 2.5 has a few added DirectX9 features, but its core still runs on version 8. Here is quote for you (not from an official source) :
Builds 2500-33xx: Enhanced version of Unreal Engine 2 with optimized rendering codes. The rendering system provides optimized support for DirectX versions 7 and 8, OpenGL, and even software rendering with Pixomatic (licensed separately). While 2.5 does not make extensive use of DirectX 9 features, it does use the DirectX9 API and thus provides an easy starting point for licensees interested in adding DirectX 9.x graphical features [source (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Unreal-Engine-1.5#Unreal_Engine_2.5)]
(note the source has both L2 and L3 there)
A shame I have to keep repeating myself only because some people are not willing to listen. DX8 core. DX9 features. Have a peek at Epicgames' developer section (http://udn.epicgames.com/Main/WebHome.html) if you still don't believe me.
Ashane, how about you giving some factual information instead of argueing without a proper source or reasoning. I'd have no problems admitting you are right with good factual sources, but you are just being loud without proper reasoning to back it up. So far all you say just smells like trolling.
L2 pushes the limits out of the Unreal 2 engine, but it stays a core DX8 engine with added features. Expecting more out of the engine without going to version 3 is just silly. Upgrading to 3.. heh that's Lineage3 until NC decided not to buy the license and make their in-house engine. I'm willing to bet a lot on NC never upgrading L2 to engine version 3, that's just madness! (and they don't live in Sparta).
The orignal Unreal 2 Engine was developed and ran for UT2003, this was a stricked dx8.0, as at the time, that was all there was when it was under developement.
However when LineageII was being conceived, this is what was being used and modified (from my understanding of the course of time)..
However Epics engine designs are very unique, in the case where it's heavily modifiable and upgradeable.
Since beta through to C3, the Unreal engine used was indeed a combination of the orginal warfare 2.0 engine as well as a number of features that were present in 2.5 (namely DX8.1 feature lists)...
UT2004 introduced something of interest. Orginally released with 8.1 fully up and running, meanwhile hidden away was a partially completed dx9.0 (orginal path) API support. This is well known amongst those that have the game and are familare with it's internal workings. Later patches improved and completed the dx9.0 path and consistantly upgraded it's capabilities beyond that of the orginal feature list.
What we see on epics site is meerly the basic list of what epics official releases were, Epic has continued to improve those engines and provided the updates to the liecensies. AKA, if you purchased the 2.0 unreal engine package, you've likely received the code for 2.5 as well as further updates not mentioned on the website. (usually refferred to the same version but differing built numbers).
Proof of this is in the fact that a PILE of games that uses the unreal 2 engine, make heavy HEAVY use of dx9.0c's latest builds.
As i had mentioned, the nice thing about unreal engine flexibility is that it can be easily updated and new code intergrated to improve/fix/upgrade/add features or code paths that didn't excist before, includeing DX9 specific API path.
From what i can gather, is that with the launch of C4, the servers were upgraded to 64bit hardware/software. And if i recall right, The unreal 2.5 engine was required to properly intergrate the 64bit software. On top of it, the clients were required to be upgraded to 2.5 in order to make use of the proper netcode.
Further down the road we've seen more improvements, As of the Kamael orginal release, We are now seeing DX9 code being used (i'll agree it's not 100%), improved shaders were introduced, while buggy, but still introduced. This screams 9.0 even though 8.0/8.1 supported shaders (not beyond 1.4) however i can't see ncsoft making the mistake of not trying to implement shader 2.0b as it's both the most useful and resourceful.
Another factor worth mentioning is that a considerable number of hardware that was designed specifically for the directX 8.0 are now becoming "unsupported" in almost every way, more and more people are having issues using that hardware. Meanwhile people operating within the directX 9 support are having no issues to speak off. More plausible evidence that lineageII is indeed using a much later build then the orginal warfare unreal 2.0 engine.
Surfice it to say, The unreal 2.5 engine does indeed incorporate a DX8 as well as a true dx9 core API
And i'll also agree, Unreal 2 engine will never make the transition to unreal 3. NCSoft would have to dump a pile of resources in totally recoding.
Looks like Lord Chaos was having the same problems I have.. massive and unexplained difficulty loading textures, resulting in big lag spikes even on good hardware.
Is this just totally random as to whom it effects? There must be something that can be done.