Grimrock

My pc to is fine in dungeons and the original beach but tanks like hell in every other outdoor area to like 20 - 30

petri wrote:Ok, sounds still playable to me?

I don't have numbers now (I guess it was slower) ... you see my numbers for 640x400 and all low, barely 70fps.

E.g. here I had 39FPS in twigroot forest with higher resolution and more GFX

here I had only 20fps

also ive noticed i dont get this killer frame drop when previewing an outside area in the map im making but when i export it and play it in game it drops framerate like a brick

Karinas23 wrote:also ive noticed i dont get this killer frame drop when previewing an outside area in the map im making but when i export it and play it in game it drops framerate like a brick

hmmm, interesting. What are your system specs?

intel core i7-2600k @4.0ghz
8gig ram
Geforce GTX260

petri wrote:My work PC is pretty much the recommended spec and the game runs very smoothly on it. I don't see what the problem is.

Out of interest: which CPU is inside your PC?

My impression is that rather current and more optimized CPU series like an Intel 2nd Generation iCore chip will hardly see any dips in framerate.

An example: my 1st Gen i7-950 runs at the same clock speed as the 2nd Gen i5-2400. Yet that i5's cores are about 30% faster then my i7's cores, effectively doing more work at the same time. Thus i guess anyone with rather current hardware will hardly notice any fps dips.

Karinas23 wrote:intel core i7-2600k @4.0ghz
8gig ram
Geforce GTX260

A very fast CPU, a lot faster then mine, but kinda moderate GPU.
The 260 prolly gets taxed a lot by outside area shadow/lighting stuff, causing slow downs.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

petri wrote:My work PC is pretty much the recommended spec and the game runs very smoothly on it. I don't see what the problem is.

Out of interest: which CPU is inside your PC?

My impression is that rather current and more optimized CPU series like an Intel 2nd Generation iCore chip will hardly see any dips in framerate.

An example: my 1st Gen i7-950 runs at the same clock speed as the 2nd Gen i5-2400. Yet that i5's cores are about 30% faster then my i7's cores, effectively doing more work at the same time. Thus i guess anyone with rather current hardware will hardly notice any fps dips.

Karinas23 wrote:intel core i7-2600k @4.0ghz
8gig ram
Geforce GTX260

A very fast CPU, a lot faster then mine, but kinda moderate GPU.
The 260 prolly gets taxed a lot by outside area shadow/lighting stuff, causing slow downs.

Hmm, yeah, interesting indeed.

@Karinas23: could you please do some screenshots with CPU load (Taskmanager), GPU load (GPU-Z) and the FPS (debugInfo = true in the grimrock.cfg) in such a situation when the FPS are down? (like e.g. this one)

petri wrote:My work PC is pretty much the recommended spec and the game runs very smoothly on it. I don't see what the problem is.

My PC exceeds the recommended specs, with an i7 950, R9 290X and 16gig RAM, 1TB SSD, and I still experience heavy FPS drops in certain areas(like looking at the energy field in front of the hub for example).

The "problem" would be that games, which have way more visual complexity and are way more demanding, run better than a game with subpar(maybe, probably the wrong term, please don't stone me to death) graphics, which runs worse than said games, even while stressing the gpu even more.

Anyway, that's just to elaborate on the "problem". You said in another post that you optimized the game as much as you could, and that there isn't much room for any optimization left, and that's fine. I'm thankful for that statement, because I now know that it's not lazyness on the hand of the devs, but rather engine limitations(probably). This is actually relieving.

I looked at some places, like this forum, reddit, 4chan and the steam forums, and it seems that quite a lot of people still experience this "problem". I can't speak for others, but I installed it on two other machines today. A desktop PC and a Notebook(Samsung Chronos 7-Z7e S02DE, wich manages to play games like TW Rome 2 on ultra without problems), and the Notebook has the same problems as my Desktop. Only the other PC which uses a GTX 750 doesn't experience said drops. It would be interesting to know if others experiencing problems, also use AMD gpus. Games that run fine on Nvidia, while having problems on AMD, are not a rare sight these days unfortunately.

ITwiener wrote:My PC exceeds the recommended specs, with an i7 950, R9 290X and 16gig RAM, 1TB SSD, and I still experience heavy FPS drops in certain areas(like looking at the energy field in front of the hub for example).

We got the same CPU and your GPU is even faster then my GTX 760. These are my views of that energy field: Also when sidesteping to move the forcefield out of view the fps only change marginal if at all.

By "heavy" drops do you mean "sudden", like a straight jump from 60 to 30?
For me the fps transition is absolutely smooth and without a tool to display the actual fps i would not even notice it's less then 60.
Settng Vsync plus Triple Buffer (both in game and driver) works great here.

@Petri; "Playable" is a poor term for a game. Technically the game is playable at 10 to 15 FPS, but that isn't what most people think of when they mean "Playable". Unfortunately, the norm these days is to push 1080p and 60 FPS, and anything less, it is seen as sub-par quality. Most players who spend the money on a current generation rig (so $1500 to $2500) are expecting to get solid 60 FPS in any game that comes out except for maybe something produced by CryTek. If they get less than 60FPS it is not acceptable. Since LoG2 doesn't seem to be a powerhouse, people expect solid 60+ FPS in the game. If this game was built by CryTek and utilized CryEngine 4, I doubt people would expect to see a solid 60 FPS on max everything. Most players assume that this game should run at a solid 60 FPS at all times with max settings, when they can play other games at 60 FPS, max everything, and when they don't there is a problem, and hence why we are having this discussion in the first place.

Also, why is it that you can only have a single thread to the GPU? Doesn't most GPUs have multiple cores, or is it because there is only a single physical route (ie the BUS) from the CPU to GPU? Is there any ways you could reduce the number calls by say, staggering calls so that different calls occur on different frames or cycles?