I'm not talking about performance in other games. I don't expect this setup to be top of the line anymore, but to be able to run this old game at higher settings without unacceptable slowdowns.
Other people who were running recent (then) Intel procs with Nvidia cards like mine or 500 series cards were also getting unacceptable performance.
There's no way in hell I'm upgrading right now for this game. I'm upgrading in two years or so, once I start getting around 30fps at high settings in my games.
I'm also not playing as many PC games as before, so I have even less reason to upgrade right now.
1. I am far more inclined to look towards Cryptic's poor programming (especially with what I know about the way the UI/overlay is redrawn); issues are rarely with the overall FPS/graphical performance but with specific bugs and instances (huge ice cream blobs that bring powerhouse computers to a crawl, some of the larger bitmap backgrounds, the SW background/artifacts, fireworks (lol), EWP, etc)
2. The game running well on your computer is proof of absolutely nothing and if that's all you have to add it contributes exactly squat to the thread.
Ok I linked the wrong GT 610 card, I just assumed you were running on non gaming notebook like a lot of these people do. Here is what the tech media have to say about the desktop variant of the GT 610:
"The GT 610 is a rebadged GT 520, which could mean we are looking at a GF119, or GF 108 GPU, featuring a pretty paltry 48 CUDE cores. The GT 610 is intended to be the entry level 600 series card, and is unlikely to even outpace integrated graphics found on modern Ivy Bridge chips. "
Seriously? This computer is considered subpar. It hasn't been upgraded at all, the memory and everything is still stock.
Either you don't know what you are talking about or you don't have a subpar computer.
I'm sorry, but this map has no problems with me whatsoever. Aside from feeling disoriented when playing it the first time, I have no lag or anything. The 20-fleet players map is still what lags me, but that's it.
This map doesn't need to be touched. Leave it as is. If your computer sucks, then get a new computer. Mine was "average" in 2008, it is considered "old" right now in late 2012.
So in all honesty, your computer isn't subpar. It is terrible.
You're either lying or you are running the game at the absolute lowest graphics settings.
With the highest-end PC, on highest graphics settings, solar wind is not staying on 60+fps.
You obviously do not know much about how stuff works, this game is simply limited and unoptimized, and doesn't take full use of a new end PC's full resources.
So you can have a high end PC 10 years in the future, this game will still not be able to run 60+ fps smoothly in alot of areas.
For the "Solar wind works fine for me" statement, is a bit relative depending on your graphics settings etc. and what FPS you think is reasonable, for me, having a high-end PC which should run most NEWER games (which should be much more resource hungry on my CPU/GPU) it is not acceptable for this kind of game to drop below 60 fps and only using 40-60% of your CPU/GPU resources simply because its unoptimized.
Anything below 60 fps is not acceptable for me because I personally notice it, as much as I notice the difference between 4x and 8x AA (which doesnt work in this game unless you force it manually with some third party program).
Ok I linked the wrong GT 610 card, I just assumed you were running on non gaming notebook like a lot of these people do. Here is what the tech media have to say about the desktop variant of the GT 610:
"The GT 610 is a rebadged GT 520, which could mean we are looking at a GF119, or GF 108 GPU, featuring a pretty paltry 48 CUDE cores. The GT 610 is intended to be the entry level 600 series card, and is unlikely to even outpace integrated graphics found on modern Ivy Bridge chips. "
"pc games that where released in market till 2008 can be played using this graphics card"
Your card is literally in the same tier as integrated graphics. I'm sorry but you need to upgrade.
I realize that there are much better cards than this, but the card will easily run games like Battlefield 3 which SHOULD be significantly harder to run than STO. I also pointed out that I have zero issues with other maps. If I was trying to run the game at max graphics I could see it having some lag issues but I am running it at very carefully chosen settings. Other than the occasional times when I can clearly tell the server itself is causing lag, I leterally have ZERO lag on any map except this one. Also the point I am making is that the Solar Wind graphic itself is clearly what is lagging. I am far from an expert on video game programming, but I do know enough to recognize that the wind graphic itself is composed of individual object for each "ding" that you see. (ding BTW is an art term, maybe you are following that)
If I am having issues with this map, imagine what is happening to the average player with an average system. PvP maps should be designed to work well on a system that meets the minimum requirements of the game. If this was a episode map, no big deal. In PvP reducing graphic quality too much actually gives a significant advantage to your enemy, in particular distances and such. I see no purpose to the graphic on this map, therefore if it slows down FPS for a system with minimum requirements listed, it should be removed.
I would not have even made the post in the first place if this was a problem only I experience, but the fact of the matter is EVERY time I que this map, someone besides me also complains that the lag is killing them. You can clearly see in this post that it's not an isolated problem.
P.S. Please actually read up on the EVGA version of the GT610. It's actually winning awards for it's performance and being listed as the recommended card for a LOT of games released in 2012, including some games that are considered to be among the most graphic intensive. (again not claiming it stacks up against a $200-$500 dollar card, but it greatly exceeds the requirements listed for graphics to play the game listed) You will also notice if you go to the EVGA site that the GT610 actually has more than one version. I don't have the box anymore and don't feel like dismantling my computer to get the exact model, but my card is the most advanced version of this card that EVGA makes.
In closing, I will simply restate my earlier point. This is about a PvP map that has a very high demand graphic made up of hundred if not thousands of individual object, each of which must be tracked as they move across the map. No matter what system you run, the wind graphic is taking more processing power than the entire rest of the map, so IMNSHO and that of the vast majority of other PvP regulars I have talked to, it's a detriment to gameplay.
That said I will do my best to let this thread die, since it has become hopelessly derailed into an e-peen competition about who has the most uber system and whose system doesn't rock, rather than the intended purpose of trying to get a map that causes a large number of players to lag and therefore not want to que for PvP removed. PvP needs all the help it can get to build a larger playerbase and this is one obstacle that could easily be done away with.
I shall now return to my "please do away with need or greed" soapbox.
Comments
Other people who were running recent (then) Intel procs with Nvidia cards like mine or 500 series cards were also getting unacceptable performance.
There's no way in hell I'm upgrading right now for this game. I'm upgrading in two years or so, once I start getting around 30fps at high settings in my games.
I'm also not playing as many PC games as before, so I have even less reason to upgrade right now.
That's not the 610 I have.
THIS:
http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P3-2619-KR
is the card I have. HUGE difference from the one you linked.
Hyperlink times out. Just tell us what the card is instead of linking it.
1. I am far more inclined to look towards Cryptic's poor programming (especially with what I know about the way the UI/overlay is redrawn); issues are rarely with the overall FPS/graphical performance but with specific bugs and instances (huge ice cream blobs that bring powerhouse computers to a crawl, some of the larger bitmap backgrounds, the SW background/artifacts, fireworks (lol), EWP, etc)
2. The game running well on your computer is proof of absolutely nothing and if that's all you have to add it contributes exactly squat to the thread.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/nvidia_launches_fermi_based_geforce_gt_610_gt_620_gt_630#slide-0
"The GT 610 is a rebadged GT 520, which could mean we are looking at a GF119, or GF 108 GPU, featuring a pretty paltry 48 CUDE cores. The GT 610 is intended to be the entry level 600 series card, and is unlikely to even outpace integrated graphics found on modern Ivy Bridge chips. "
http://www.softwaretechnology.info/2012/06/zotac-zotak-nvidia-geforce-gt-610.html
"pc games that where released in market till 2008 can be played using this graphics card"
Your card is literally in the same tier as integrated graphics. I'm sorry but you need to upgrade.
Yeah, that's right.
You're either lying or you are running the game at the absolute lowest graphics settings.
With the highest-end PC, on highest graphics settings, solar wind is not staying on 60+fps.
You obviously do not know much about how stuff works, this game is simply limited and unoptimized, and doesn't take full use of a new end PC's full resources.
So you can have a high end PC 10 years in the future, this game will still not be able to run 60+ fps smoothly in alot of areas.
For the "Solar wind works fine for me" statement, is a bit relative depending on your graphics settings etc. and what FPS you think is reasonable, for me, having a high-end PC which should run most NEWER games (which should be much more resource hungry on my CPU/GPU) it is not acceptable for this kind of game to drop below 60 fps and only using 40-60% of your CPU/GPU resources simply because its unoptimized.
Anything below 60 fps is not acceptable for me because I personally notice it, as much as I notice the difference between 4x and 8x AA (which doesnt work in this game unless you force it manually with some third party program).
I realize that there are much better cards than this, but the card will easily run games like Battlefield 3 which SHOULD be significantly harder to run than STO. I also pointed out that I have zero issues with other maps. If I was trying to run the game at max graphics I could see it having some lag issues but I am running it at very carefully chosen settings. Other than the occasional times when I can clearly tell the server itself is causing lag, I leterally have ZERO lag on any map except this one. Also the point I am making is that the Solar Wind graphic itself is clearly what is lagging. I am far from an expert on video game programming, but I do know enough to recognize that the wind graphic itself is composed of individual object for each "ding" that you see. (ding BTW is an art term, maybe you are following that)
If I am having issues with this map, imagine what is happening to the average player with an average system. PvP maps should be designed to work well on a system that meets the minimum requirements of the game. If this was a episode map, no big deal. In PvP reducing graphic quality too much actually gives a significant advantage to your enemy, in particular distances and such. I see no purpose to the graphic on this map, therefore if it slows down FPS for a system with minimum requirements listed, it should be removed.
I would not have even made the post in the first place if this was a problem only I experience, but the fact of the matter is EVERY time I que this map, someone besides me also complains that the lag is killing them. You can clearly see in this post that it's not an isolated problem.
P.S. Please actually read up on the EVGA version of the GT610. It's actually winning awards for it's performance and being listed as the recommended card for a LOT of games released in 2012, including some games that are considered to be among the most graphic intensive. (again not claiming it stacks up against a $200-$500 dollar card, but it greatly exceeds the requirements listed for graphics to play the game listed) You will also notice if you go to the EVGA site that the GT610 actually has more than one version. I don't have the box anymore and don't feel like dismantling my computer to get the exact model, but my card is the most advanced version of this card that EVGA makes.
In closing, I will simply restate my earlier point. This is about a PvP map that has a very high demand graphic made up of hundred if not thousands of individual object, each of which must be tracked as they move across the map. No matter what system you run, the wind graphic is taking more processing power than the entire rest of the map, so IMNSHO and that of the vast majority of other PvP regulars I have talked to, it's a detriment to gameplay.
That said I will do my best to let this thread die, since it has become hopelessly derailed into an e-peen competition about who has the most uber system and whose system doesn't rock, rather than the intended purpose of trying to get a map that causes a large number of players to lag and therefore not want to que for PvP removed. PvP needs all the help it can get to build a larger playerbase and this is one obstacle that could easily be done away with.
I shall now return to my "please do away with need or greed" soapbox.