2 replies to this topic

[Al Bert]

Hi,

as promised, here is the second part of the FPS comparison of all currently available Maps. The first iteration can be found here, the data are used in the following and referred to as "Nov 27th", corresponding to patch 1.1.115. Details about my setup can be found in the graph or under the aforementioned link. I still use the original user.cfg (so the only entry is the one about bitchinbetty).

Description of graph:
For each of the six maps, we see three pairs of bars (blue="Very High", red="Medium" and green="Low" in-game settings like described in the inset). Each pair directly compares the data obtained while running patch 1.1.115 after Nov 27th (left bar of each pair, bright) with new data (same setting, same map) obtained with the Dec 4th patch 1.1.161 (right bar of the pair, dark).

As mentioned in the graph, all values are averaged: over a number of matches on each map, I "frapped" the average, max and min values of the FPS. The corresponding number of matches with that setting on the specific map is mentioned in each bar just to give you an idea of the (sometimes low) statistic. The upper error bar corresponds to the averaged MAX values across these matches, the lower one to the MIN values. I see no effect from restarting the client, so most values are obtained while running consecutive series of matches, just one after the other.




For me, the conclusions are:

• PGI did a good step in the right direction for the "Low" settings (all setting low, no anti-aliasing, v-sync off, motion blur off) - only Caustic Valley and Forest Colony stayed the same as before (see corresponding green bar pairs for those maps), while on all other maps, the FPS increased by up to 5 FPS. This matches with many posts since the last patch of people using low-end systems seeing higher FPS now.
  
• For "Medium" and "Very High" settings, I see no real change, the observable small variations of +/- 1-2 FPS have no significance in my eyes.

Overall (on my system) I can play very well with any settings including the "Very High" one - the 30 FPS feels very smooth.

Others:
I have something like maybe 1 CTD in about 30-40 matches which I report to support with the method thankfully explained here by user InfiniteChaos. In addition I had maybe 2 yellow screen bugs in the past 150 matches - other than that (for me) the game is quite stable (maybe 2-3 Mechlab bugs in addition).


Regards,
Al Bert


PS: I urge everyone to use free programs like FRAPS or such to get a better number & feeling for FPS rates instead of just once in a while looking for the F9 value. I for myself let FRAPS refresh the FPS value only every second. In addition, every so often I read statements like "low FPS blahblah" without actually mentioning real numbers, the system spec, the in-game settings, map used or altered user.cfg file etc. It is quite hard to figure out any valuably conclusion form posts like that.

Edited by Al Bert, 12 December 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[Mercules]

Nice data. It would be nice if others could put up some data, especially those with Duo Core processors. I used to have nightmares about dropping in Forest Colony but could play well on any other map with my old computer. My new one simply doesn't have issues at all regularly hovering in the high 40s to low 50s even in the worst battles with beams and missiles flying everywhere.

[Al Bert]

Mercules, on 12 December 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

[...] It would be nice if others could put up some data, especially those with Duo Core processors.

On my 5 year old laptop with a core duo and the NVidia GT 9600M i still get not above the 10-12 FPS with above "Low" settings - this is why i did not even try the "Medium" or "Very High" settings since it was to tedious of a work to be done and in the end, i also wanted to have some fun while testing

Mercules, on 12 December 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

My new one simply doesn't have issues at all regularly hovering in the high 40s to low 50s even in the worst battles with beams and missiles flying everywhere.

Please define:

• the "new" one (CPU, GPU, RAM)
  
• the in-game settings (resolution, detail setting etc.)

Don't take it as criticism but actually your statement is exactly the kind of statement i ment above, which makes it difficult to judge anything. If you include these information, than everyone can draw hints/conclusions on his/her own to-e-expected FPS on his/her rig. You don't have to come up with statistic like I did, but a minimum information would be very good - thanks in advance!

Al Bert