Better (And Needed) Video Optimization.

[taiiat]

5.- If the game has it, allow for players to disable trilinear/ bilinear filtering. (I don't know if this game has it, but if it does, the option to disable it should be included.)

honestly, if you see a Framerate improvement from disabling Texture Filtering, you're so far under recommended minimum spec, that you will not play Warframe smoothly. ever. 

Texture Filtering is considered a free technology nowadays, because that's how significant of a performance impact it makes. none. 

 

But if I'm right, what should happen (sooner rather than later), is dedicated servers. No more host migration, no more extra load on a host's PC (my internet speed is godly so it tends to be me), and no more hosts who run the game on a 5 year old netbook making it lag like hell for other players.

honestly, i'm thankful Warframe is P2P. 

at the end of the day, while some players would benefit from dedicated servers - players like myself would suffer. i greatly enjoy being able to host or join matches with reliable players and we can have perfect experiences.

dedicated servers won't ever be perfect. ever. 

 

and yes, for once i'll be selfish and say i don't want dedicated servers because my matches couldn't be as great sometimes. sure, they're not always great, but i relish in the times that it is.

 

 

you know what i'd really love? Warframe to utilize Resources.

i have a story for you. 

 

today, in ODD, i happened to check my GPU monitor - and i had a record low Temperature. while playing Warframe. a lower Temperature than i have while my system is idle. 

 

 

 

so what i really hate, is i see Warframe using plenty of CPU Cycles, but my GPU is almost idle while i'm in matches. more GPU utilization in the menu than there is in match.

in the average match, CPU Utilization is around 70-85% capacity. okay. GPU Utilization is around 19% Capacity. seriously? GPU's are the most powerful aspect of every computer, even an average GPU is 100x more powerful than a high grade CPU.

 

please, move the visual processing entirely to the GPU. it's where it belongs. we could even move Physics there.

 

better still, letting players choose whether to focus load on CPU or GPU. this makes a huge difference for players that may be low or under spec. they can target the load to different aspects of their specific set of Hardware, to take best advantage of it as possible. 

[blackgu4rd]

I have noticed this too except with my 64 bit..when co-op my frame rate drops into the teens

Yeah, playing 64-bit Void III MD with 4 people drops my framerate to 20ish where it would be 40ish on 32-bit in the same rooms (tested over 6 games each, but didn't post that since I didn't have exact numbers). Lowering all settings and resolution in 64-bit gives absolutely no performance improvement.

Edited March 7, 2014 by blackgu4rd

[Beasy63]

Yeah, playing 64-bit Void III MD with 4 people drops my framerate to 20ish where it would be 40ish on 32-bit in the same rooms (tested over 6 games each, but didn't post that since I didn't have exact numbers). Lowering all settings and resolution in 64-bit gives absolutely no performance improvement.

 

I wouldnt say no improvement but its small..and yea in the void and in the new tileset the rate drops as low in the teens..my specs are similar to yours besides a couple things.

[TheDark1105]

Indeed, but I wasn't the one hosting the dojo in the co-op tests. And I mentioned that in my post.

 

I must have missed that bit, thanks. However I I know that hit detection (and maybe other things unnoticeable) are client side so keeping that synced could put load on clients as well.

[TheDark1105]

honestly, i'm thankful Warframe is P2P. 

at the end of the day, while some players would benefit from dedicated servers - players like myself would suffer. i greatly enjoy being able to host or join matches with reliable players and we can have perfect experiences.

dedicated servers won't ever be perfect. ever. 

 

and yes, for once i'll be selfish and say i don't want dedicated servers because my matches couldn't be as great sometimes. sure, they're not always great, but i relish in the times that it is.

 

I have never once seen anyone who prefers P2P. Dedicated servers would be the ONLY way to provide a near "perfect experience".

[taiiat]

Dedicated servers would be the ONLY way to provide a near "perfect experience".

not at all. if the Host and Clients perform well and are reliable, matches can go very well.

 

i've Hosted Survivals (US East) and had people in Central Europe have a match as smooth as if they were Solo. and people from Australia having a pretty average experience.

 

this is certainly not the majority of the playerbase of any game, but enough where i'd rather not lose it if i didn't have to. 

 

Dedicated Servers are certainly reliable, but that's reliably average. P2P hosting fluctuates more, both up and down .

Edited March 7, 2014 by taiiat

[TheDark1105]

not at all. if the Host and Clients perform well and are reliable, matches can go very well.

 

i've Hosted Survivals (US East) and had people in Central Europe have a match as smooth as if they were Solo. and people from Australia having a pretty average experience.

 

this is certainly not the majority of the playerbase of any game, but enough where i'd rather not lose it if i didn't have to. 

 

Dedicated Servers are certainly reliable, but that's reliably average. P2P hosting fluctuates more, both up and down .

 

I mean, I'll take your word for it a suppose, but in my experience as a gamer of 12+ years dedicated servers have always meant a better overall online experience. I'm not saying P2P is S#&$ all the time, but you're more likely to have a bad experience with P2P than with dedicated servers. And there are no reasons why a P2P connection would be better than a dedicated server connection. I can sit here and rattle off reason after reason for why a dedicated server is better, but reverse that question and I'm at a loss.

[Beasy63]

I mean, I'll take your word for it a suppose, but in my experience as a gamer of 12+ years dedicated servers have always meant a better overall online experience. I'm not saying P2P is S#&$ all the time, but you're more likely to have a bad experience with P2P than with dedicated servers. And there are no reasons why a P2P connection would be better than a dedicated server connection. I can sit here and rattle off reason after reason for why a dedicated server is better, but reverse that question and I'm at a loss.

Same

[taiiat]

And there are no reasons why a P2P connection would be better than a dedicated server connection.

i mainly attribute it to shorter routes and less jumps for the data, lowering Latency. it's a gamble whether it pays off or not, and heavily depends on the location of each player. 

if the packets end up going through an area where the infrastructure is perhaps not that great compared to around it, match performance will suffer. 

 

without a Dedicated Server as a middleman, there's less jumps needed for the data(atleast some of the time), making for better responsiveness provided the data is able to move efficiently. 

 

in the grand scope, an offsite Server is reliable, absolutely. but it's reliably acceptable. save for A.I. goofiness that isn't related to networking, in well performing matches i see updates happening more smoothly and readily than from an offsite Server.

 

i could tell stories for days about warping and packets that just seem to get ignored or deleted in big MMO's. 

 

perhaps i just trust my own Hardware and ISP to be stable more than i do a ServerFarm run by god knows who located in where the hell ever town. 

 

 

edit:

another theory - when everything is run offsite Serverside like that, the Client is always waiting for the server for updates. which... often means the Client has no control over anything, so if it's a game with say, Guns, and you shoot, it's the Servers' job to process it. the Client can't keep playing during even a small Syncing hiccup. and when the match is Synced better, even if it was just a second, it's all too easy to find your character has warped, or many other things that are detrimental to the experience.

Edited March 7, 2014 by taiiat

[Uberplayer]

....

please, move the visual processing entirely to the GPU. it's where it belongs. we could even move Physics there.

 

Cannot agree more, when I play my GPU is resting while I'm having low FPS because CPU is hammered with all the work.

[aim4it]

honestly, if you see a Framerate improvement from disabling Texture Filtering, you're so far under recommended minimum spec, that you will not play Warframe smoothly. ever. 

Texture Filtering is considered a free technology nowadays, because that's how significant of a performance impact it makes. none. 

Please doesn't ever post this blanet miss understanding of rendering technology anywhere, ever.  If texture filtering was performance free, even crappy computers could use x16 Anisotropic filtering,  Texture filtering takes memory, and a lot of it with most modern games using 4096x4096 resolution, but they also use computational power for comparison the increased number of texture samples between distances from the viewpoint.

[taiiat]

Please doesn't ever post this blanet miss understanding of rendering technology anywhere, ever.  If texture filtering was performance free, even crappy computers could use x16 Anisotropic filtering,  Texture filtering takes memory, and a lot of it with most modern games using 4096x4096 resolution, but they also use computational power for comparison the increased number of texture samples between distances from the viewpoint.

memory is all Texture Filtering uses. the extra Cycles are extremely insignificant. an average spec machine can expect to see a 1FPS drop between no Texture Filtering and 4/8x Anisotropic.

 

i don't speak opinions when i talk about technology. only facts about how these technologies operate.

[ZeroInferno]

memory is all Texture Filtering uses. the extra Cycles are extremely insignificant. an average spec machine can expect to see a 1FPS drop between no Texture Filtering and 4/8x Anisotropic.

 

i don't speak opinions when i talk about technology. only facts about how these technologies operate.

 

Gonna have to stop you there with this one, because you're pretty wrong. Texture filtering does not play well even with higher end machines like mine. In certain games, including Warframe for me, if I turn on texture filtering up to 16x fps takes a nosedive of around 15 to 45fps. That's a decent chunck of frames gone, and all because of texture filtering. Mind you, my current rig is an i7 4770, nvidia 760gtx, 8gb dd3 1600, and a solid state samsung hdd.  

 

I also use nVidia's control panel to override the settings any and all games try to put up with the ones I want. 

[taiiat]

Gonna have to stop you there with this one, because you're pretty wrong. Texture filtering does not play well even with higher end machines like mine. In certain games, including Warframe for me, if I turn on texture filtering up to 16x fps takes a nosedive of around 15 to 45fps.

i wouldn't use Warframe as an example, it's Optimization... leaves a lot to be desired. like, for starters, actually using our GPU's would be nice. instead of them sitting nigh idle.

 

the performance differences on older machines of mine(which were under average compared to what was available at the time) saw little to no difference between Texture Filtering off, and 4/8x. 

i think i once saw a 3FPS difference. 

 

now, perhaps you'd see more of a difference at 1600p or 4k.... but that's not even close to average, so i'm not surprised there.

Edited March 9, 2014 by taiiat

[XVIIX]

Guys is the last update the problem?! I was running the game on 60 fps all the time, now multi is #*($%%@ on 30-40 fps.

[LusterSounD]

Maybe an option to reduce lighting quality?

[taiiat]

Maybe an option to reduce lighting quality?

IIRC, with the way Lighting is handled in Warframe, once you turn Dynamic Lighting off, that's like, 99% of the load, the rest is prebaked lighting. 

being able to turn that off could be an option i suppose, but everything would be fullbright then. the game would look.... very ugly(perhaps enough to even confuse your brain), and i don't think you'd see much of a performance boost.

but hey, why not.

[natostanco]

fx 9370 @ 5ghz, ati r9 290, fps drops to 40, rofl :D