Jump to content

Quick question to.....


Recommended Posts

I'm a fan of most Ubisoft/GRIN games, but honestly: GRAW 2 PC seriously needs optimization. Then again, most Tom Clancy games do. Have you noticed that Rainbow Six: Vegas looks like it's running on Unreal Engine 2.5X but is actually running on Unreal Engine 3? I mean, what UE3 specific features are in R6: Vegas that you wouldn't be able to get through Unreal Engine 2.5X? On top of that, Rainbow Six: Vegas performs at lower FPS than other UE3 titles, like Gears of War, Bioshock, and UT3, all of which are available for the PC?

Can someone from GRIN explain to me why GRIN and Ubisoft games tend to run at lower performance than other game titles than run off of the same respective engines? I know GRAW 2 was developed off of a proprietary GRIN engine, but I'm also wondering if someone from GRIN could speak for GRIN/Ubisoft games in general, particularly with GRAW 2 PC, as far as optimization goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegia physics engine. You don't get the explosions on the other games like you do with software or hardware ageia. Ghost recon has always pushed the thresh hold on new gaming technologies. Because of this the hardware usually isn't up to snuff until about 6 months in unless you are a hardcore upgrade freak like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what do you mean? I have AGEIA turned off. I can't even turn it on.

At minimum details, sure, I'll get 100-200 FPS even. But the minute I turn on shadows and lighting, I'm getting 10-20 fps. In a game like Call of Duty 4, there is also dynamic lighting and shadows, but I get around 60 fps in that game, texture resolution is higher too, along with specular/normal mapping.

My question is directed at GRIN, specifically with WHY it's so inefficient in GRAW 2 PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is Ageia software physics in use, even if you don't have the hardware.

Is that the reason for the mediocre performance, though?

GRIN also used it's own engine for GRAW and GRAW2 and not UE.

I know GRAW 2 was developed off of a proprietary GRIN engine, but I'm also wondering if someone from GRIN could speak for GRIN/Ubisoft games in general, particularly with GRAW 2 PC, as far as optimization goes.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What card and resolution do you run? at 1280x1024 i run around 90 fps. This is with shadows on low, all else but envionmental on high... oh and post effects low

I have a quad core with an 8800 gtx. On a server however with only 4 in i run at 130 fps. On a full server i run 60-70fps

In COD4, everything high i run in the 90's

Also note i am on vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UT3 also uses the Ageia Physx (and supports the card too), so I wouldn't be so quick to blame that with R6 Vegas (which Grin had no part in). More or less crappy porting from the 360 version to the PC.

As for why GRAW 2 is so demanding is because of things like deferred lighting, soft shadows, complex physics, large open areas that need to be rendered, high poly characters and objects, things like that. Even on the low settings the game still looks decent because you can't lower a lot of settings that you normally can in other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UT3 also uses the Ageia Physx (and supports the card too), so I wouldn't be so quick to blame that with R6 Vegas (which Grin had no part in). More or less crappy porting from the 360 version to the PC.

Uh, yeah, I know that. I SAID that already. Here:

I know GRAW 2 was developed off of a proprietary GRIN engine, but I'm also wondering if someone from GRIN could speak for GRIN/Ubisoft games in general, particularly with GRAW 2 PC, as far as optimization goes.

As for why GRAW 2 is so demanding is because of things like deferred lighting, soft shadows, complex physics, large open areas that need to be rendered, high poly characters and objects, things like that. Even on the low settings the game still looks decent because you can't lower a lot of settings that you normally can in other games.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had to do the same thing. Ran a helluva lot better. Also, just because you have large areas doesn't mean they have to be rendered even when you're not looking at them. Ever tried making a map using Unreal Editor? (YES I KNOW GRAW2 DIDN'T USE THE UNREAL ENGINE BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT) If you have to map a huge area, you set up these invisible sheets on the area called "antiportals", which is the same as (in pseudo code)

"IF player isn't looking at antiportal area, THEN antiportal area = render status = 0"

As a map designer myself, I just can't see why GRAW 2 has to run at terrible performance, even when I'm looking at the freakin' ground, or in a tight space. It's called MAP OPTIMIZATION. And if you've never built a map or at least seen someone apply optimization parameters in map design, then don't say anything, because you won't know what you're talking about.

Also, if Ubi says "I don't like this, make it this way instead," GRIN still has the right to optimize a map. I highly doubt Ubisoft would say, "Damnit GRIN, you're optimizing the map too much. Take out those optimizing parameters! I only want customers with super super high-end video cards to be able to play my games. Muhahahahaha (evil laugh)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal belief as I've mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games. I've never known snipers to be hindered to 150m view range. you can see guys just pop out of the air from nowhere and that's why I don't like the diesel engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal belief as I've mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games. I've never known snipers to be hindered to 150m view range. you can see guys just pop out of the air from nowhere and that's why I don't like the diesel engine.

Nail, meet hammer. Oh. That had to hurt... :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal belief as I've mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games. I've never known snipers to be hindered to 150m view range. you can see guys just pop out of the air from nowhere and that's why I don't like the diesel engine.

Maybe some of the old time modders can answer this. What was the view distance in GR1 before the fog would blur it? i don't seem to remember shooting farther except on those clear mods. Turn your post effects to high and i think you get near the same range without the sharp cutoff, although it's been a very long time since i was in GR1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal belief as I've mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games. I've never known snipers to be hindered to 150m view range. you can see guys just pop out of the air from nowhere and that's why I don't like the diesel engine.

Maybe some of the old time modders can answer this. What was the view distance in GR1 before the fog would blur it? i don't seem to remember shooting farther except on those clear mods. Turn your post effects to high and i think you get near the same range without the sharp cutoff, although it's been a very long time since i was in GR1.

A few example default values from the editor:

Caves

Near Fog: 10

Far Fog: 180

Max Spot Range: 90

Far Clip Distance: 180

Farm

Near Fog: 60

Far Fog: 90

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 100

Railroad Bridge

Near Fog: 0

Far Fog: 207

Max Spot Range: 125

Far Clip Distance: 150

Village

Near Fog: 80

Far Fog: 165

Max Spot Range: 120

Far Clip Distance: 170

Embassy

Near Fog: 100

Far Fog: 400

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 500

Castle

Near Fog: 100

Far Fog: 120

Max Spot Range: 100

Far Clip Distance: 120

River

Near Fog: 20

Far Fog: 150

Max Spot Range: 70

Far Clip Distance: 160

Battlefield

Near Fog: -50

Far Fog: 90

Max Spot Range: 60

Far Clip Distance: 88

Vilnius

Near Fog: -40

Far Fog: 240

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 250

Airbase

Near Fog: 0

Far Fog: 200

Max Spot Range: 120

Far Clip Distance: 200

Red Square

Near Fog: -15

Far Fog: 200

Max Spot Range: 100

Far Clip Distance: 225

MP Valley

Near Fog: -12

Far Fog: 100

Max Spot Range: 60

Far Clip Distance: 160

MP Docks

Near Fog: 280

Far Fog: 300

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 300

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my personal belief as I've mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games. I've never known snipers to be hindered to 150m view range. you can see guys just pop out of the air from nowhere and that's why I don't like the diesel engine.

Maybe some of the old time modders can answer this. What was the view distance in GR1 before the fog would blur it? i don't seem to remember shooting farther except on those clear mods. Turn your post effects to high and i think you get near the same range without the sharp cutoff, although it's been a very long time since i was in GR1.

Example from the editor:

Caves

Near Fog: 10

Far Fog: 180

Max Spot Range: 90

Far Clip Distance: 180

Farm

Near Fog: 60

Far Fog: 90

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 100

Railroad Bridge

Near Fog: 0

Far Fog: 207

Max Spot Range: 125

Far Clip Distance: 150

Village

Near Fog: 80

Far Fog: 165

Max Spot Range: 120

Far Clip Distance: 170

Embassy

Near Fog: 100

Far Fog: 400

Max Spot Range: 75

Far Clip Distance: 500

Red Square

Near Fog: -15

Far Fog: 200

Max Spot Range: 100

Far Clip Distance: 225

If I remember correctly...

Near Fog = Range at which fogging begins

Far Fog = Range at which fogging is at 100% density (stretched across Near Fog to Far Fog)

Max Spot Range = AI Vision Distance

Far Clip Distance = Actually stop rendering geometry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no no no, you guys are still missing what I'm getting at.

Although I appreciate some effort on behalf of the forum for stating fog values, that's not where I'm getting at, in lieu of map optimization in general.

What I'm shooting for in particular in this thread is how even when you're in a tight, enclosed space, where an antiportal-like sheet could've been placed, there isn't one (yes I know GRIN doesn't use Unreal Engine 3, thank-you-very-much, but good game engines should always have some sort of optimization parameters).

Let me reiterate:

When you are NOT looking at a wide, open environment, there should be no excuse for the game to be rendering the wide, open, environment that you clearly can't see (until of course you move yourself so that you are able to see the wide, open environment). For example, in Get Me Rosen, when you're in the room rescuing Rosen himself, there should be no reason that the frames-per-second inside Rosen's room should be exactly the same as it is outside of the room. When you're inside the room, clearly looking at the walls, antiportals (or however they're called in the GRIN engine, if there is even any) should be set up on the walls so that your graphics card isn't working its bum off trying to render something that you can't even see.

Come on, you guys, this Video Game Design 101. No, actually, I learned this in high school, not just in college.

... Even when I'm looking at the GROUND, I'm still getting poor performance relative to other games.

Papa6 mentioned that his "personal belief as [he's] mentioned before is that this game engine isn't suited for FPS games." Is this true? Just want a clarification on that point.

Edited by neilthecellist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your statement is made with SP in mind, consider the real-time 3d overview, available instantly at any point in the campaign... also, performance will drop due to various game characters(both friend and foe) being present around yours.

in MP your framerates seem to be directly dependent on the number of players scattered throughout the map, regardless how close or far they are to/from you.

i do believe the GRAW2 version of GRIN's Diesel engine is quite a bit more stable than the GRAW1 predecessor, and hopefully we'll see another bump in performance with upcoming patch, if it ever gets here that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ty Wolf and Serellan for the stats info on GR1. Granted it's not 150, but most maps in GR1 you couldn't see as far as the clipping was set and the fog started on a lot of them before 150. The longest i think i ever saw was in DFLW but GRAW2 is rendering way more detail then those. 150 i think was to make sure it performed decent even on medium pc's.

Th33f i think is correct. In single player it renders everything at all times. Personally if that is true then i think it is very well optimized to render all that and stay at a decent fps. If you cut out the side scenary, would that not effect widescreens when rendering? or make a heavy slow down when you pan left and right do to haveing to render on the fly? (I'm not a game developer so i'm just asking this)

BTW what are your machine specs?

Also if you are at the same fps... are you sure you don't have vsync turned on in your drivers. That will lock your fps at your refresh rate. If i turn it on, on mine, no 130fps in MP... but 60 all the time no matter where i am.

Also could it be if it stays the same, that that is the the max your pc can handle in the game. (that is why i ask what you are running)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are NOT looking at a wide, open environment, there should be no excuse for the game to be rendering the wide, open, environment that you clearly can't see (until of course you move yourself so that you are able to see the wide, open environment). For example, in Get Me Rosen, when you're in the room rescuing Rosen himself, there should be no reason that the frames-per-second inside Rosen's room should be exactly the same as it is outside of the room. When you're inside the room, clearly looking at the walls, antiportals (or however they're called in the GRIN engine, if there is even any) should be set up on the walls so that your graphics card isn't working its bum off trying to render something that you can't even see.

Here's some screen shots I took while standing in the exact same spot, I just moved the mouse to get a different view. Check the top right for my FPS.

spot1ff3.th.jpg

45 FPS

spot2gn7.th.jpg

95 FPS

spot3rr7.th.jpg

107 FPS

spot4vx5.th.jpg

64 FPS

spot5dr5.th.jpg

97 FPS

spot6mw1.th.jpg

62 FPS

Settings - All maxed out, 1680x1050

System - Athlon X2 6400+, 2GB DDR2 800 RAM, 8800GTS 640MB, Ageia Physx Card

Map - Mission 9, Player and 3 Bots, LAN Campaign

Either your system is bottlenecked somewhere, some of your system settings are reducing performance (like VSync both in the game and your driver control panel), or you're one of the unfortunate people that has some sort of performance bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are NOT looking at a wide, open environment, there should be no excuse for the game to be rendering the wide, open, environment that you clearly can't see (until of course you move yourself so that you are able to see the wide, open environment). For example, in Get Me Rosen, when you're in the room rescuing Rosen himself, there should be no reason that the frames-per-second inside Rosen's room should be exactly the same as it is outside of the room. When you're inside the room, clearly looking at the walls, antiportals (or however they're called in the GRIN engine, if there is even any) should be set up on the walls so that your graphics card isn't working its bum off trying to render something that you can't even see.

*snip*

Settings - All maxed out, 1680x1050

System - Athlon X2 6400+, 2GB DDR2 800 RAM, 8800GTS 640MB, Ageia Physx Card

Map - Mission 9, Player and 3 Bots, LAN Campaign

Either your system is bottlenecked somewhere, some of your system settings are reducing performance (like VSync both in the game and your driver control panel), or you're one of the unfortunate people that has some sort of performance bug.

My vSync is off. Both in-game and in my driver control panel. If it is in fact a performance bug, I'll be very surprised. I mean, I don't have a "non-standard video card". I've got a 7900GTX on one machine, 8800GS on the other (which I don't use much), but in either case, I still get crap-performance relative to other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...