Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Does FFXIV have the least optimized engine in history?Follow

#1 Oct 10 2010 at 7:19 AM Rating: Default
**
557 posts
And, if so, why?

Is it the problem of the weird PS3 hardware?

And if not, name some other contenders.
____________________________


#2 Oct 10 2010 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
575 posts
That was the least optimized post of all time.
#3 Oct 10 2010 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
**
723 posts
It's not quite as bad as people make it out to be. If you have a respectable system, the game will look nice and run perfectly fine. For it to genuinely be a mess and a failure, even top of the line systems would have issues.
#4 Oct 10 2010 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
133 posts
Actually I think the graphics engine is one of the few things in this game that is near perfect. It's meant to be high end, so that it'll still look good in 5 years when we're all playing it. Overall I don't think it's poorly optimized, it's just designed to be run on higher end systems. Even a medium setup should run it well, though. I have an ATI 5770 and I run it just fine at max res with everything on except Ambient Occlusion. I get 30-50fps depending on where I am...and that's with just a ~140$ video card.
#5 Oct 10 2010 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
*
237 posts
First I think you need to list your PC's specs.

Second compare those specs to the minimum requirements then compare it to the recommended requirements.

If you're speccing with minimum requirements or around that. That means you play at minimal settings or higher settings to your comfort.

If you're speccing at recommended requirements then you get to play at the recommended settings

I bought a new PC with a i7 @ 2.8ghz and a lower end ati card (can't recall the # but this gen entry level 5700?) I play on my 32" LCD tv @ 1360x768 ambient occlusion off, distance blur on. shadows standard textures high and the game plays great.
____________________________
FFXIV has it's first official RMT'r: Zyuu
#6 Oct 10 2010 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
14 posts
I never have problems; and have everything max... I mean some people think they have good rigs; maybe even they do. Its not the game eating there system..its something else; processes, hardware. It runs so smooth lol. I would say to those with good systems try going to the config in the FFXIV folder and make sure to turn off ambient occlusion, maybe set shadows down or something. Ambient occlusion seems to be the biggest problem for most. If nothing after that; in game turn the dust (feet) option off, and maybe even Physics off (a big one to). (Update drivers; check to make sure you don't have a maleware process hogging the system. They can tend to be scanning their own folder in a loop and take up to 30-50%.) Anyway..dunno game is lovely and runs lovely. I don't even crash. (Maybe x6s in beta.)Only lag i ever get is server and menu lag (Which is typical; worse then in beta sometimes)
#7 Oct 10 2010 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
29 posts
Jeraziah wrote:
It's not quite as bad as people make it out to be. If you have a respectable system, the game will look nice and run perfectly fine. For it to genuinely be a mess and a failure, even top of the line systems would have issues.


Not true. The UI system is lagging no matter what system you have. Server lag will still be there no matter what system you have. This game does not run perfectly fine if you have a great system. You'll still have issues. One can like the game all the way but lets be truthful here and simply not lie. The game has performance issues that are tied to the servers and the actual design of some systems. Not every problem is the fault of the user's computer system. Even top of the line systems some users have have reported problems. One can be safe to assume that reviewers have top of the line systems and they have the same exact issues with the game everyone else does.
#8 Oct 10 2010 at 8:47 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too. A couple of years later, everyone upgrades and can run Crysis maxed out and now their excuse is that they can run Crysis maxed out and Metro and FFXIV are poorly optimized. 3 years from now when people are upgrading their rigs and running XIV maxed with no problems they'll have once again forgotten about how they labeled XIV's engine as unoptimized.

XIV runs just fine on my PC. I don't have everythin maxed and get lower frames than I'd like in cities, but that's because they're cities with lots of details all around to render whereas it's mostly the ground and distance rendered in the field. Throw in a second 5870 or upgrade to the top end card a year from now and it'll be better still.
#9 Oct 10 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
43 posts
I have a 5970 and I still get the same 30-50 fps. Also, the ui lag is horrible. It can take 2 seconds to trade a single item with a retainer.
#10 Oct 10 2010 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
UI and the game run fine on my machine with the only lag I get is when I am transferring things to my retainer. I also spent some money on a few upgrades when I heard the game will be fairly high spec.

I switched out my ati quadcore 2.2ghz for a ati quadcore 3.4ghz that I can oc a little. I have it up to 3.7 now.

Also switched out my nvidida 9400gt for a xfx ati radeon 5770 xxx edition.

Also spent a bit of money on a better heatsink, fans, psu, and a better case. After playing FFXIV as smoothly as I have been, I think that money was well spent.

To answer your question: I don't know much about gaming history's top 10 list of optimized game engines, but FFXIV runs really well for me. If I hadn't made those upgrades I might feel differently.
____________________________
FFXI: PLD BST BRD RDM SAM PUP


#11 Oct 10 2010 at 9:36 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
133 posts
NeoStar9 wrote:
Jeraziah wrote:
It's not quite as bad as people make it out to be. If you have a respectable system, the game will look nice and run perfectly fine. For it to genuinely be a mess and a failure, even top of the line systems would have issues.


Not true. The UI system is lagging no matter what system you have. Server lag will still be there no matter what system you have. This game does not run perfectly fine if you have a great system. You'll still have issues. One can like the game all the way but lets be truthful here and simply not lie. The game has performance issues that are tied to the servers and the actual design of some systems. Not every problem is the fault of the user's computer system. Even top of the line systems some users have have reported problems. One can be safe to assume that reviewers have top of the line systems and they have the same exact issues with the game everyone else does.



The UI menus are trash, and lag like crazy and high end systems won't help you much. However I think we're mostly referring to the actual gameplay... i.e. walking around, battle animations, lighting effects etc... I find the actual graphical engine to work near perfect if you have a decent enough system. I don't think there are really many problems at all with it. But of course everyone (including SE) agrees the menu lag is trash.
#12 Oct 10 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
107 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too. A couple of years later, everyone upgrades and can run Crysis maxed out and now their excuse is that they can run Crysis maxed out and Metro and FFXIV are poorly optimized. 3 years from now when people are upgrading their rigs and running XIV maxed with no problems they'll have once again forgotten about how they labeled XIV's engine as unoptimized.



That's because Crysis really WASN'T that well optimized when it was released. They later released warhead with much better optimization and a good variety of computers were able to get the most out of it.

To the OP: Yes I do believe this is one of the worst optimizations in history. It's pretty evident in how the game runs; it's a console for what they will put in the ps3.

Every setting in game (in the config) is meant to be PS3 compatible. Hence, we have the most draconian system to change our screen resolution, window format, hardware mouse, sound options, etc (anything that wouldn't be a toggle on the ps3 version) sitting outside the actual game.

Why can't the game alt + tab in full screen mode? I doubt it's RMT countermeasures at this point (they wouldn't give a windowed option if they were worried about bots/hacks) as much as they just didn't want to bother with the support yet (again think of the game as a ps3 client).

Then there's the issue with video card support that so many are having. It's not optimized AT ALL for xfire/sli. It's also not optimized for multi gpu video cards (i.e. the GTX 295). Case in point: I have my GTX 295 (which matches 5870 performance in many gamese) which does not get used to its full potential at all. I can turn off one of my gpu's in the nvidia control panel and get the same performance out of the game (so anyone with a Dual card is really only using one half of it).

Their unwillingness to support hardware mouse (THE most basic option for PC games) speaks volumes of how little they either care or are capable of optimizing the game or the UI for the PC. I'm sure others could come up with many more examples.

At this point I'm just not sure whether they were lacking time or they just didn't have the right people on board (given that they don't seem to develop for PC's that often...).

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 11:57am by Nutchoss

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 12:00pm by Nutchoss
#13 Oct 10 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
FFXI was pretty bad too, possibly a little less optimized. It seemed to just be a direct port of the ps2 game in a PC emulator rather than an actual PC version of the game.

yfaithfully wrote:
Is it the problem of the weird PS3 hardware?
No, just Crystal Tools.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#14 Oct 10 2010 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too. A couple of years later, everyone upgrades and can run Crysis maxed out and now their excuse is that they can run Crysis maxed out and Metro and FFXIV are poorly optimized. 3 years from now when people are upgrading their rigs and running XIV maxed with no problems they'll have once again forgotten about how they labeled XIV's engine as unoptimized.


Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated.
#15 Oct 10 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
**
254 posts
Quote:
Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated


This is exactly my thought. If FFXIV had some genre breaking visuals like Crysis did I would think otherwise, but it DOESNT. FFXIV has average visuals. And yes the fact that it is so hardware intensive just shows how actually unoptimized the game actually is. People look at it like "oh my god that mountain in the background looks amazing" and they dont even realize this game has little to ZERO particle effects. I could care less how good a game looks when I'm standing still looking at a tree. I care about how it looks and performs in the heat of action, and FFXIV is one of the most bland and boring I've seen in ths aspect.

Long story short, FFXIV's system requirements do NOT reflect it's in game graphics. And this shows a serious lack of optimization. Cue the morons saying "Hey when I stare at a wall it's the best looking wall i ever saw in a mmo"
#16 Oct 10 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*
204 posts
Nutchoss wrote:
Every setting in game (in the config) is meant to be PS3 compatible. Hence, we have the most draconian system to change our screen resolution, window format, hardware mouse, sound options, etc (anything that wouldn't be a toggle on the ps3 version) sitting outside the actual game.
Not to say this is wrong necessarily, but many Japanese PC games (not just console ports) have an out-of-game config for a large amount of the graphics options. It is still possible they're split by what options the PS3 version will have, but I can't remember the last time I played a modern Japanese game without an outside config utility, nor an American game with one. Just some kind of cultural design difference.
____________________________
The More You Know 三☆
#17 Oct 10 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Default
*
116 posts
umm no, more like the best. do you see how good this game looks and how high of settings you can run on a sub par computer? my newest peice of hardware is the oldest quad core they make (and the game is vastly gpu dependant) and I use a 8 series video card and I can run it on max settings apart from AA/DoF/AO. Its about the only thing they did get right.
#18 Oct 10 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,246 posts
BastokFL wrote:

Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated.


Except Crysis is no MMORPG.

For a game that is required to display million of different models, animations, processes and calculations at one time, it does incredibly well on current hardware.

In an MMORPG, you can't expect them to make perfect graphics without a hit to FPS. They can't predict whether or not 100 people will be stood in the same place or not. But by default they must assume that it COULD happen, and have the graphics scaled to be capable of doing it without the game crashing.

Crysis is easily capable of restricting the number of things that are displayed at one time.

The fact of the matter is, we will NEVER see the BEST graphics in an MMORPG. It's impossible.
____________________________
Meowth!
#19 Oct 10 2010 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
yfaithfully wrote:
And, if so, why?


Because SE's "programmers" write unmaintainable spaghetti code and seem to have no idea how to write code that is well organized. Probably comes from having learned to program on 16-bit game consoles with limited memory where the code would never be re-used for anything anyway.

Also because writing a an efficient game engine is actually not that easy. There is a reason why id, Epic and Crytek can make a business out of licensing game engines to other companies.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 6:37pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#20 Oct 10 2010 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Eldonia wrote:
Actually I think the graphics engine is one of the few things in this game that is near perfect.


No, no it isn't.

It's very slow for the technology they are using. CryEngine 3 has more features and is also much faster.



Edited, Oct 10th 2010 6:41pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#21 Oct 10 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too.


People who didn't know what the @#%^ they were talking about cried that Cyysis wasn't optimized. Crysis running at maximum settings was showing a level of detail that no game had ever attempted before.

FFXIV on max settings is about the same level of detail as Red Dead Redemtion. It looks pretty because of it's art direction not because it's engine is outstanding (it's not). Unlike the original Crysis there is no technical reason why it should not run faster than it does except bad programming.



Edited, Oct 10th 2010 6:47pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#22 Oct 10 2010 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ditx wrote:
BastokFL wrote:

Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated.


Except Crysis is no MMORPG.

For a game that is required to display million of different models, animations, processes and calculations at one time, it does incredibly well on current hardware.

In an MMORPG, you can't expect them to make perfect graphics without a hit to FPS. They can't predict whether or not 100 people will be stood in the same place or not. But by default they must assume that it COULD happen, and have the graphics scaled to be capable of doing it without the game crashing.

Crysis is easily capable of restricting the number of things that are displayed at one time.

The fact of the matter is, we will NEVER see the BEST graphics in an MMORPG. It's impossible.


You do not know what you are talking about.


Many, many asian MMORPGs use Unreal or CryEngine fyi.

Also, MMORPGs in fact do restrict the number of players and monster models you can see on screen. In most MMOs you will not see the avatars of everyone in a crowded area. What they do is show the models nearest your character until they hit the limit and stop there. For examples of this refer to Dragon's Aery when Fafnir's window was open on FFXI.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#23 Oct 10 2010 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
BastokFL wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too. A couple of years later, everyone upgrades and can run Crysis maxed out and now their excuse is that they can run Crysis maxed out and Metro and FFXIV are poorly optimized. 3 years from now when people are upgrading their rigs and running XIV maxed with no problems they'll have once again forgotten about how they labeled XIV's engine as unoptimized.


Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated.


There are a lot of stylistic components to XIV's graphics. I think people forget that we're largely beyond massive leaps forward in graphics engines for DX9 applications. What we get now are subtle tweaks and improvements here and there. Most people don't see these improvements or really recognize what is going on. The fact that I can see Limsa Lominsa as a rendered 3d city scape from Camp Skull Valley is a hint of what SE has been up to. You don't notice the demanding aspects of the engine up close. If all you're doing is staring at the ground looking for mobs or fighting, you don't really appreciate the details. Take a look around. Soak in the full view outside of the cities. That's when it becomes apparent just why XIV is so demanding. Even the sunlight bouncing off the clouds impresses me. It's not something you see in a lot of other games. Next time you're out bombing around in the field, take a look at the level of detail on your friendly neighborhood aldgoat or crab.

The devil is in the details, and XIV is full of details.
#24 Oct 10 2010 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
ditx wrote:
Except Crysis is no MMORPG.

For a game that is required to display million of different models, animations, processes and calculations at one time, it does incredibly well on current hardware.

In an MMORPG, you can't expect them to make perfect graphics without a hit to FPS. They can't predict whether or not 100 people will be stood in the same place or not. But by default they must assume that it COULD happen, and have the graphics scaled to be capable of doing it without the game crashing.

Crysis is easily capable of restricting the number of things that are displayed at one time.

The fact of the matter is, we will NEVER see the BEST graphics in an MMORPG. It's impossible.
No, you won't see the best graphics you can see in a MMO. Does not change the fact that crystal tools is inefficiently made.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#25 Oct 10 2010 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Most of the people who have been saying that the Crystal Tools engine is optimized well seem to be confused about the difference between quality and efficiency. The Crystal Tools engine can and has made beautiful games. But that is not optimization. Over the course of the production of FFXIV, I've noticed something about this team as a whole. They have spectacular writers, great graphic designers, some of the best music in the genre, basically every area of game is exceptional, except the programmers. Square Enix seems to have learned a little too much from designing games from the 16-bit era, as Lobivopis mentioned. Their memory efficiency is great, but other than that they can't seem to code their way out of a wet paper bag. To me, it almost seems like they have a team of graphic designers that also knows how to program, and SE decided that made them qualified to write the back end for the game as well as the front end.

The game looks stunning from a panoramic perspective, yes. But that is only one half of the equation. Google, for instance, has recently optimized their search engine. It doesn't work any better, it responds with the same results it always did, but it does so almost as fast as you can type in your search. The question was not whether FFXIV is the most graphically unimpressive game out there, but if it was the least optimized.

To that, I say that the engine is extremely clunky, it does the job "good enough", but it has no elegance.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 6:45pm by Hulan
#26 Oct 10 2010 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


There are a lot of stylistic components to XIV's graphics. I think people forget that we're largely beyond massive leaps forward in graphics engines for DX9 applications. What we get now are subtle tweaks and improvements here and there.


Download the Heaven benchmark (it's a demo of the Unigine engine) run it in DirectX 9.0c mode and then compare it to FFXIV.

FFXIV lacks global shadowing, and volumetric shadows and lighting. And it's ambiant occlusion makes little difference in how the game looks (compare it with Unigine with AO turned off)

Look at the torches in the "hallway" part. Note how they cast omni directional shadows on the walls. Notice how the shadowing is entirely based on ambient occlusion and global shadowing from the sun and other light sources within the level without using any precalculated light maps. (try the "enviroment" slider and change the time of day)

DirectX 9.0c is not an excuse. Even in DirectX 9.0c Unigine has more features than Crystal Tools and despite that it's still much faster.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 8:21pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#27 Oct 10 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
E6400 (2.13 C2D)
3 GB RAM
8800GT 512MB

I get about 15-20fps at 1280x1024 windowed absolute lowest settings. Drops to around 10 if there's more than 5 people on screen.

I wouldn't mind so much if the UI/server lag wasn't so atrocious.
#28 Oct 10 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,535 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
BastokFL wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Everyone cried that Crysis wasn't optimized when it was new, too. A couple of years later, everyone upgrades and can run Crysis maxed out and now their excuse is that they can run Crysis maxed out and Metro and FFXIV are poorly optimized. 3 years from now when people are upgrading their rigs and running XIV maxed with no problems they'll have once again forgotten about how they labeled XIV's engine as unoptimized.


Except that FFXIV is no Crysis.

14's visuals are good, but they are not spectacular. The game simply does not look very good for how system-taxing it is, and there are major shortcomings in the visuals compared to other games - the water is bland and uninteresting, environmental shadows are non-existent, the depth-of-field is unconvincing, the ambient occlusion is bad, and the lighting model is woefully outdated.


There are a lot of stylistic components to XIV's graphics. I think people forget that we're largely beyond massive leaps forward in graphics engines for DX9 applications. What we get now are subtle tweaks and improvements here and there. Most people don't see these improvements or really recognize what is going on. The fact that I can see Limsa Lominsa as a rendered 3d city scape from Camp Skull Valley is a hint of what SE has been up to. You don't notice the demanding aspects of the engine up close. If all you're doing is staring at the ground looking for mobs or fighting, you don't really appreciate the details. Take a look around. Soak in the full view outside of the cities. That's when it becomes apparent just why XIV is so demanding. Even the sunlight bouncing off the clouds impresses me. It's not something you see in a lot of other games. Next time you're out bombing around in the field, take a look at the level of detail on your friendly neighborhood aldgoat or crab.

The devil is in the details, and XIV is full of details.


All that says to me is that you have a inadequate reference pool to compare with.

FFXIV is doing nothing visually that hasn't already been done better by games like Red Dead Redemption, Far Cry 2, and Just Cause 2. The latter of which I also know for a fact runs better than 14 on the same hardware.

Christ, even in WoW I can see Dalaran's 3D model from a quarter of a continent away.
#29 Oct 10 2010 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
21 posts
Phenom II x4 Black Edition @ 3.2Ghz
4Gigs DDR2 Ram
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512

I play at windowed 1600x900 with evrything else set at its highest, and it runs perfect. The UI is a bit slow still, but thats no the computers fault.

That being said if you have a dual core (I don't care what speed) your game will suffer. Before I bought the Phenom II I was playing with a Athlon X2 @ 2.8Ghz (clocked to 3ghz) and I got lag constantly. I was watching my CPU meters closely playing this game, and it utilizes all 4 cores. Anything less than a quad core will lag. This game is very GPU AND CPU intensive.

Hope that helps. Also if you are an AMD fanboy (like me) you can fit the new AM3 slot processors into the old AM2+ slot motherboards, so you won't need up upgrade everything. Just make sure your current AM2+ mobo is compatible with AM3 (90% of asus ones are) and have the most up to date bios.

If the game is slow in any other aspect besides the UI, it is you computer, not the game. Trust me, I went through that whole process...
____________________________


#30 Oct 10 2010 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
BastokFL wrote:


FFXIV is doing nothing visually that hasn't already been done better by games like Red Dead Redemption, Far Cry 2, and Just Cause 2. The latter of which I also know for a fact runs better than 14 on the same hardware.

Christ, even in WoW I can see Dalaran's 3D model from a quarter of a continent away.


FFXIV does have good art direction I'll give it that. And that makes me sad because I realize how much more their designers and artists could have done if they had licensed CryEngine or whatever.

I'm convinced that pride is the reason they developed an in-house engine. A belief that they are too good to use someone else's technology in a flagship product.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 8:27pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#31 Oct 10 2010 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
**
451 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
[quote=BastokFL]

I'm convinced that pride is the reason they developed an in-house engine. A belief that they are too good to use someone else's technology in a flagship product.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 8:27pm by Lobivopis


Probably.

SE's trademark is their arrogant, Proprietary attitude. I've never seen an actuall explination, but I think the reason the'yre running the UI server side is so it can't be modded. Because it is "their property". Same reason they're running proprietary servers, rather than using a third party server company, because they want control of everything.

So ya, I'm sure they thought they could make a better engine than anyone else, even those that specialize in it. Because thats their attitude. Now that they might know they made a boo-boo, they're too proud to admit it.


#32 Oct 10 2010 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
92 posts
KristoFurwalken wrote:

SE's trademark is their arrogant, Proprietary attitude. I've never seen an actuall explination, but I think the reason they're running the UI server side is so it can't be modded. Because it is "their property". Same reason they're running proprietary servers, rather than using a third party server company, because they want control of everything.


I've always had a good impression of their server code. XI servers pretty much only go down for patches, and XIV hasn't had too many server-crash type glitches yet post-alpha. Also their security seems top-notch, so far no XI code has been leaked to allow third-party clone servers.
#33 Oct 10 2010 at 11:49 PM Rating: Decent
So basically what I'm seeing here is that the game runs pretty poorly unless you have a quadcore... Awesome. Looks like a $400 upgrade just to play the game without any graphical lag, yet I'll still get UI and server lag.
#34 Oct 11 2010 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
WombatMcBurbon wrote:
So basically what I'm seeing here is that the game runs pretty poorly unless you have a quadcore... Awesome. Looks like a $400 upgrade just to play the game without any graphical lag, yet I'll still get UI and server lag.


Oh you'll still get lag without at least a $300 video card, and you still won't be able to use ambient occlusion.

Speaking of AO, it's pretty obvious that they tacked it on to the engine at the last minute. You can see that it's adding shadows on top of precalculated lighting rather than doing it like Unigine and others where ambient shadows are 100% based on ambient occlusion.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#35 Oct 11 2010 at 2:57 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,408 posts
I just need to upgrade my processor and the game will run great, at the moment I some times get lag.
____________________________


If my velocity starts to make you sweat, then just don't
let go
#36 Oct 11 2010 at 3:05 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
I agree that their engine seems horribly unoptimized.

*Techie talk warning*
As a game Dev, there is one that really shocked me to discover: They don't occlude objects behind terrain. Meaning you still process the entire draw distance behind a wall. Even when you turn the camera to the wall, you get no performance boost.

I discovered this while mining, I was getting some lag in the little circle game because of the millions of alphas in Gridania forest. I realized the wall in front of me wasn't culling when i tried pointing the cam through the ground and had a noticable reduction in choppyness. (since there's no geometry to process on the other side of the floor.)

*breathe*
All that to say, that's a huge optimization hole there. Really shocking it was just left so rough. Many people would be seeing huge performance boosts across the board, if they did include this basic engine process. I tilt the camera to look through the floor every time I mine now, minigame precision goes way up.

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 7:55am by RattyBatty
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#37 Oct 11 2010 at 5:52 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
29 posts
RattyBatty wrote:
I agree that their engine seems horribly unoptimized.

*Techie talk warning*
As a game Dev, there is one that really shocked me to discover: They don't occlude objects behind terrain. Meaning you still process the entire draw distance behind a wall. Even when you turn the camera to the wall, you get no performance boost.

I discovered this while mining, I was getting some lag in the little circle game because of the millions of alphas in Gridania forest. I realized the wall in front of me wasn't culling when i tried pointing through the ground and had a noticable reduction in choppyness. (since there's no geometry to process on the other side of the floor.)

*breathe*
All that to say, that's a huge optimization hole there. Really shocking it was just left so rough. Many people might be seeing huge performance boosts at all times, if they did include this basic engine process. I tilt the camera to look through the floor every time I mine now, minigame precision goes way up.


Edited, Oct 11th 2010 5:11am by RattyBatty


I noticed that when looking at a wall. One of the first things I did to try and increase my FPS for a minute in hopes that would make the UI run better was to point myself at a wall. It has worked an every other MMORPG so I figured it would work here and didn't understand why it didn't until now.
#38 Oct 11 2010 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Yeah basically you're calculating the environment all the way to the horizon at all times, if you're looking in that direction (which is 90% of the time).
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#39 Oct 11 2010 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
254 posts
ditx wrote:
In an MMORPG, you can't expect them to make perfect graphics without a hit to FPS. They can't predict whether or not 100 people will be stood in the same place or not. But by default they must assume that it COULD happen, and have the graphics scaled to be capable of doing it without the game crashing.


Too bad it will never draw 100 people at once for me, more like the closest thirty or so. And several moments after you get there. -.-

I know FFXI had the same issue, especially in crowded areas like the Jeuno AH, but it's a fact that many other MMOs have programmers that have been able to do a better job at this.

(Sega gets the all-time "what the ****" award though for programming the "filler walking-around-the-city" people in Phantasy Star Universe to disappear once you got too... close? ...to them)

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 8:52am by Shassa
____________________________
FFXI: Shassa (Sylph) 75 THF/NIN, THF/RNG, retired '08 ** EQ2: Shassia (Lucan D'Lere) 80 SK, retired '06 ** EQ: Shassa (Bertoxx/Terris Thule) 50 SK, retired '02
#40 Oct 11 2010 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
**
451 posts
I mean it's just a testament to SE's arrogance really.

Companies that specialize in making things, epecially tech companies, tend to be very good at it.

Remember when Apple used to make their own proscessors, they were ok, but eventually they said f'k it we can't compete with intel, so they conceded and went that route.

SE thinking they can make a better engine than someone that makes engines was fubar from jump street.
#41 Oct 11 2010 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
30 posts
yes, it does have the least optimized engine in history. p2beta ftw.
#42 Oct 11 2010 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
*
84 posts
ditx wrote:
[quote=BastokFL]
The fact of the matter is, we will NEVER see the BEST graphics in an MMORPG. It's impossible.



"640 k ought to be enough for anyone"-Bill gates. 1981.
#43 Oct 11 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
KristoFurwalken wrote:
Remember when Apple used to make their own proscessors,


Except that they didn't.

The old Apple PCs (like the Apple II) used the 6502, made by MOS Technology (and later, also manufactured by several other companies) and used in a wide variety of computing devices including the NES/Famicom (in fact, the 6502 is still a widely used microcontroller), and later the 65816, made by Western Design Center and also used in a wide variety of devices including the SNES/SFC.

Older Macs used 68000-series microprocessors made by Motorola, which at the end of the 90's was the best-selling 32-bit CPU series in the world, was also used in the Amiga and the Genesis/Mega Drive, and is also still widely used as a microcontroller.

Later Macs, before the switch to Intel CPUs, used PowerPC CPUs made by IBM; despite no longer being used in any kind of PC, the PowerPC architecture is used in all 3 current-generation consoles (even the PS3's Cell CPU is based on the PowerPC architecture) and has been used in every one of Nintendo's 3D consoles
#44 Oct 11 2010 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
**
650 posts
Engine Optimization and UI optimization are two different things.

Their engine is really good, but the UI implementation needs an overhaul. Or maybe they just need to turn off the debug mode or detailed logging mode whenever the client queries the database for a set of data. If they could implement caching of inventory and npc item data, then the UI would be more responsive.
____________________________
Mikayla Soulfire (XIV), Ul'dah, Istory
Lodestone Profile

Mikael (XI) Bastok, CaithSith
RDM/BST/BLU/NIN/BLM

Thus is our agreement written, thus is treaty made. Thought is the arrow of time; Memory never fades. What was asked is given; The price is paid.
#45 Oct 11 2010 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
119 posts
Its not optimized in my opinion because it doesn't make use of PC RAM. It barely uses any at all and instead over taxes the CPU, GPU, and hard drive. FFXIV uses 800meg-1gig when running for me and that is insane.

APB, although a flop, was a beautiful game although very taxing on a system. It had to load a hand crafted zone (not cut and paste) with thousands of unique zone related objects, hundreds of tattoos, shirt logos, car logos, etc comprising of thousands of widgets. That game required me to upgrade my system to run at max settings with 50 fps and no lag.

That same system that has ran any game I put up to it flawless plays FFXIV like **** with 10-20 fps.

I don't like ego tripping myself by posting specs and whipping out my epeen vs yours but will say a system comprising of 3ghz quad core, 8 gig ram, two new 1 gig video cards SLI'ed, win 7 64bit, etc etc blah blah should not be sweating to run this game and indeed doesn't until other players are introduced.

In 'private instance' situations during quests and the like its at 60fps but soon as you introduce other player toons the fps tanks which might not be the case if they would use the ram - the low ram requirement is because of PS3 with its very small ram chip.

Why we must use a PS3 port to play is beyond me.
#46 Oct 11 2010 at 10:06 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
Twolow24 wrote:

Why we must use a PS3 port to play is beyond me.


I'm interested to see what the PS3 crowd's response will be to the game.
#47 Oct 11 2010 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
119 posts
My prediction is a lot of PS3's will overheat and cook from the inside out.

Time will tell.
#48 Oct 11 2010 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
**
254 posts
I love how people are trying to defend the "optimization" arguement by spouting how pretty the graphics are lol.

Quality of graphics has nothing to do with optimization. Hate to burst your bubble but it's true. FFXIV isnt even optimized hardly at all lmao. It's a game that should require HALF the system requirements but DEMANDS double. Defending it and saying "it needs this much because it looks so bad *** and advanced" is sorta silly and noobish in the PC gaming community. FFXIV doesnt look spectacular. It looks decent. But like I said it's visuals dont have much dto do with optimization. It's more of a question of "how do these visuals perform in motion and the heat of battle?" Which is horrible in comparison to most other games of the same quality or better.

Like I said in other threads, FFXIV looks great if you stand still and look into the distance. In action it is just pathetic. I mean it's 2010 and you cant see your archers arrows fly at it's target? That's so 1990's lmao. FFXIV has to have the least amount of particle effects I ever saw in a game. And that's normally one of the most taxing aspects of a high end game on your system.
#49 Oct 11 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
The problem with FFXIV isn't a GPU issue, it's a CPU one. It's built for the PS3's Cell processor with its 8 cores.

Most people are still using either Core2Duo/Dual Cores and early Intel Quad Cores. Even AMD's Quad Core Phenoms are mediocre at handling the processing requirements that FFXIV puts out. The only processors that can handle the tasks for FFXIV at their highest potential are Intel i5 and i7 Quad Cores with Hyperthreading (4 true cores, 8 effective).

To answer your question, yes and no. It's excellently optimized for video cards, as even the mid-range GTX 460 and HD 5830 can run the game with all settings on their highest with most of the eye candy turned on. No it's not optimized for most processors out there unless you have the highest-performance processor on the market (Intel i7).

I've actually upgraded my computer due to this issue, and I took note of just what kind of resources we're talking about. It was almost a 200% increase in performance just by upgrading the processor.

Starting system...

E4600 Dual Core @ 3.0GHz
EVGA GTX 480
8xCSAA Multisampling
Depth of Field: Off
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Buffer: Resolution
Shadows: Off
Textures: High
Texture Filtering: Very High

FPS - 35 max, 9 low
GPU Usage - 56% (average over 10 minutes)
CPU Usage - 98% (average over 10 minutes)

Upgraded system...

Intel Core i7 930 @ 2.8GHz
EVGA GTX 480
8xCSAA Multisampling
Depth of Field: Off
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Buffer: Resolution
Shadows: Off
Textures: High
Texture Filtering: Very High

FPS - 60 max, 30 low
GPU Usage - 58% (average over 10 minutes)
CPU Usage - 45% (average over 10 minutes)

Take note that the GPU usage stayed below 60%. That means I could still turn on Depth of Field to get it running about 90% (Depth of Field, Ambient Occlusion, and Double Resolution Buffer use up that much video card power) without losing too much in the FPS department. GPU optimization is not an issue with FFXIV.

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 1:36pm by SoumaKyou
#50 Oct 11 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
119 posts
At this point I would be happy with Aion's 'hide other players not in your guild, friends list, or party' feature. Its a crappy feature but at least I could walk through town with something more than 10 fps with a quad core with 8 gigs of ram and 2 gigs worth of video.
#51 Oct 11 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
38 posts
Diablo 2.

Worst. Optimization. Ever.
____________________________
Tyraelle
Hume/Female
WHM63/BLM31
Windurst Rank7
LS: Aurora
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CST
Heero1447, Anonymous Guests (25)