Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Does FFXIV have the least optimized engine in history?Follow

#52 Oct 11 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Soezu wrote:
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.

You obviously don't even know what system resource FFXIV requires the most if you think "particle effects" mean anything in terms of graphic performance for this specific game. You don't even know that FFXIV barely uses GPU power compared to most modern games.

You really should stop talking as if you know everything.
#53 Oct 11 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
**
254 posts
Quote:
You obviously don't even know what system resource FFXIV requires the most if you think "particle effects" mean anything in terms of graphic performance for this specific game. You don't even know that FFXIV barely uses GPU power compared to most modern games.

You really should stop talking as if you know everything


Are you forum stalking me? Lmao I think you are...

I know one thing, FFXIV's visuals are mediocre at BEST in comparison to most other next gen games on the market. If you think otherwise you most likely dont even play PC games. **** games a year old have much better visuals than FFXIV. AND they have much lower system requirements. Hence the fact that FFXIV is severely underoptimized.

But yes, please keep forums stalking me and defending your precious broken game at every step of the way. I'd prefer you keep putting money in SE's pockets so the game will get fixed faster.

edit: You're an idiot for defending FFXIV like it's your bible.
#54 Oct 11 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Soezu wrote:
Quote:
You obviously don't even know what system resource FFXIV requires the most if you think "particle effects" mean anything in terms of graphic performance for this specific game. You don't even know that FFXIV barely uses GPU power compared to most modern games.

You really should stop talking as if you know everything


Are you forum stalking me? Lmao I think you are...

I know one thing, FFXIV's visuals are mediocre at BEST in comparison to most other next gen games on the market. If you think otherwise you most likely dont even play PC games. sh*t games a year old have much better visuals than FFXIV. AND they have much lower system requirements. Hence the fact that FFXIV is severely underoptimized.

But yes, please keep forums stalking me and defending your precious broken game at every step of the way. I'd prefer you keep putting money in SE's pockets so the game will get fixed faster.

edit: You're an idiot for defending FFXIV like it's your bible.

You're comparing a DX9 game to DX11 games. No **** it's not as pretty. Did I say FFXIV was the prettiest game on the market? Way to put words in my mouth.

Do you even know what optimization means? It has nothing to do with how pretty graphics are, it's how well it runs on a system. I've already explained where FFXIV needs optimization but you somehow still think it has to do with graphics, which is the one place FFXIV is actually well-optimized. LOL? You're the only idiot here.

Word of advice: Learn a thing or two about computers before you try to tell people what's optimized and what's not.
#55 Oct 11 2010 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
Starting system...

E4600 Dual Core @ 3.0GHz
EVGA GTX 480
You had the strongest single video card commercially available right now and a crappy old core 2 duo? Of course your processor is going to be a massive bottleneck.
____________________________
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.
#56 Oct 11 2010 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
bsphil wrote:
SoumaKyou wrote:
Starting system...

E4600 Dual Core @ 3.0GHz
EVGA GTX 480
You had the strongest single video card commercially available right now and a crappy old core 2 duo? Of course your processor is going to be a massive bottleneck.

To be fair, I upgraded from an 8800 GT just last week. I ran it at the same exact settings as I run it on the GTX 480, minus the 8x CSAA (Multisampling would kill the 8800 GT). I can also pretty much guarantee a GTX 460 would run this game just as well as a GTX 480, considering even GTX 460's don't run it at more than 60% GPU usage on a stock clock.

E4600 Dual Core @ 3.0GHz
EVGA 8800 GT
Multisampling: Off
Depth of Field: Off
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Buffer: Resolution
Shadows: Off
Textures: High
Texture Filtering: Very High

That's everything at the same settings, minus Multisampling.

Max FPS - 24, Min FPS - 8

Both GPU and CPU usage at this point were both around 90-95%, but consider that the 8800 GT wasn't running it much worse than a GTX 480 with the same settings (except Multisampling). Also consider the massive difference between the G92 and the GF100 chips, and the difference should be much higher if it was a GPU issue.
#57 Oct 11 2010 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
And that's the issue - it's all CPU, not GPU.

I have an i7 with a modest 5770 and I could run the open beta on max everything at 1280x1024 (without AO) and it ran pretty smooth tbh.

Why? The i7. That's how this engine is coded - plenty of people have noticed the intense use of the CPU during gameplay. It doesn't have a big memory footprint, doesn't tax my GPU much, but yeah, it uses my CPU like crazy. And that's the PS3 design - many cores, limited memory, no this-gen GPU bells and whistles.

The game just doesn't look good enough or run well enough to warrant requiring a new-gen CPU. In PC gaming, it's normal to be expected to upgrade your GPU, but CPUs go for years. Quads and Core2Duos can still run other new titles out there.

I could run Aion on my Pentium 4 with a 48xx and it looked great. I ran L4D on it, Bioshock. I'm not saying FFXIV should run on a Pentium 4, but I just got my Core 2 Duo here at work 2 years ago and if it couldn't play new games I'd be ****** (if it were a computer I expected to play games on).
____________________________


#58 Oct 11 2010 at 3:00 PM Rating: Default
**
415 posts
yfaithfully wrote:
And that's the issue - it's all CPU, not GPU.

I have an i7 with a modest 5770 and I could run the open beta on max everything at 1280x1024 (without AO) and it ran pretty smooth tbh.

Why? The i7. That's how this engine is coded - plenty of people have noticed the intense use of the CPU during gameplay. It doesn't have a big memory footprint, doesn't tax my GPU much, but yeah, it uses my CPU like crazy. And that's the PS3 design - many cores, limited memory, no this-gen GPU bells and whistles.

The game just doesn't look good enough or run well enough to warrant requiring a new-gen CPU. In PC gaming, it's normal to be expected to upgrade your GPU, but CPUs go for years. Quads and Core2Duos can still run other new titles out there.

I could run Aion on my Pentium 4 with a 48xx and it looked great. I ran L4D on it, Bioshock. I'm not saying FFXIV should run on a Pentium 4, but I just got my Core 2 Duo here at work 2 years ago and if it couldn't play new games I'd be ****** (if it were a computer I expected to play games on).

Like I said, it's because the game was optimized based on the PS3's Cell Processor with its 8 physical cores. The i7 also has 8 effective cores (4 physical, 4 hyperthreaded), which is why it can handle the processing demands of the game.

Edit: Nvm, we just repeated each other twice. Anyway, I imagine they'll get to optimizing the game for 2-4 cores eventually.

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 5:02pm by SoumaKyou
#59 Oct 11 2010 at 4:20 PM Rating: Default
***
2,535 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
Like I said, it's because the game was optimized based on the PS3's Cell Processor with its 8 physical cores. The i7 also has 8 effective cores (4 physical, 4 hyperthreaded), which is why it can handle the processing demands of the game.


As if that is even relevant.

In fact, it would be a good idea for you to just stop talking about anything even remotely connected to hardware until you can answer the following questions:

How many different types of core does the cell have? If more than one, how are they different? How do their capabilities compare to those of an Intel CPU core?

How many cores are available for game software to use? What are they generally used for?

List the parts of a graphics engine. For each part describe whether they can be processed by the GPU, the CPU, or either.

Describe at least one way for a game to make inefficient use of GPU processing resources while simultaneously using only a portion of the GPU's processing power.
#60 Oct 11 2010 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
BastokFL wrote:
SoumaKyou wrote:
Like I said, it's because the game was optimized based on the PS3's Cell Processor with its 8 physical cores. The i7 also has 8 effective cores (4 physical, 4 hyperthreaded), which is why it can handle the processing demands of the game.


As if that is even relevant.

In fact, it would be a good idea for you to just stop talking about anything even remotely connected to hardware until you can answer the following questions:

How many different types of core does the cell have? If more than one, how are they different? How do their capabilities compare to those of an Intel CPU core?

How many cores are available for game software to use? What are they generally used for?

List the parts of a graphics engine. For each part describe whether they can be processed by the GPU, the CPU, or either.

Describe at least one way for a game to make inefficient use of GPU processing resources while simultaneously using only a portion of the GPU's processing power.

I think it's pretty funny that you even ask those things like you're some kind of PS3 developer. Tip: Googling things for answers doesn't count.

That said, the Cell processor and the Quad Core are completely different entities. You can't compare them. The Cell processor excels at linear tasks while i7's are at home with variables.

The problem is in how a game is programmed. The PS3's GPU is a piece of crap, so the CPU is programmed to handle all the major tasks. The Cell has a ladder setup, where one core communicates to the next and so on, like a set of steps. It's harder to program for, but once you get the steps correct, the Cell can handle ridiculously huge calculations, which allows developers to offload a majority of the processing requirements, that would normally be put on the GPU, onto the CPU.

Now if you program a game with a variable amount of instructions in a multi-threaded nature, then the i7 would excel. Each core in an i7 can process things independently, unlike the Cell, which depends on each of its other cores to process something. It's a much more open-ended system, but it's easier to program for and doesn't stress the CPU too much. The downside is an increased use of the GPU and system memory, but that's a lot easier to offset than a system bottlenecked because its 2-4 cores are struggling to utilize the step system that the Cell uses.

Now, obviously FFXIV isn't programmed with a "PC's first" mentality, hence why the CPU usage is so ridiculous and the GPU isn't even stressed. Though I suppose you're welcome to argue against this, but you'd be wrong.
#61 Oct 12 2010 at 5:02 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
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).



FFXIV has two main threads and a bunch or "housekeeping" threads that don't really take a lot of CPU time. There is very little difference going from 3 cores to 4 cores. You can check this for yourself by setting core affinity.

Also the Cell processor used in the PS3 isn't as fast as the latest CPUs used in PCs It's actually a couple years out of date.

____________________________
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
#62 Oct 12 2010 at 5:04 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Twolow24 wrote:
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.


Do you actually know anything about how game engines work?
____________________________
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
#63 Oct 12 2010 at 5:06 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
MikaelCS wrote:
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.


No.

Their engine is not really good. It is the exact opposite of that. It is in fact woefully outdated.

They would have been better off licensing Unreal or CryEngine and channeling the resources they wasted on developing their horribly out of date badly optimized engine into useful things like art assets.




Edited, Oct 12th 2010 8:08am 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
#64 Oct 12 2010 at 5:17 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
BastokFL wrote:

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.



The 68000 was really a 16-bit CPU with the ability to use 32-bit internal registers. It also had support for a 32-bit address space even though only 23 lines were supported by hardware. This allowed software written for 68000 based computers to support more memory that was available on a 68000 on later 680xx series CPUs if correctly written.

Interesting fact: IBM's engineers wanted to use the 68000 in the original IBM PC but were forced to use the 8088 by management because IBM had the rights to manufacture it.

The 68000 was used in almost every 16-bit arcade game too. Usually they would use a 68000 and a Z-80 (or more rarely a 6502) with it's own memory as a seperate sound controller. The 68000 would send codes to the sound controller and it would then play whatever sound or music that code was associated with. Usually the sound hardware was a Yamaha 2151 or other Yamaha FM chip (the 2151 was the most popular) for music and an OKI DAC of some type for PCM sound effects (although other combinations of sound chips were sometimes used).

The boards almost always followed the pattern of:

68000 (main CPU)

Z-80 (sound controller CPU

YM2151
OKI DAC.


I guess having a "Main" CPU and a "Sound" CPU that was it's own separate microcomputer made debugging easier or something.



Edited, Oct 12th 2010 8:28am 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
#65 Oct 12 2010 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:


You're comparing a DX9 game to DX11 games. No sh*t it's not as pretty. Did I say FFXIV was the prettiest game on the market? Way to put words in my mouth.



Download the Heaven 2.1 benchmark and run it in DirectX 9 mode.

It looks better than FFXIV, it has ambiant lighting based entirely on ambient occlusion (none of this "tacked on" bullsh*t like FFXIV uses) and global shadowing. And it's faster too.

DirectX 9 is not an excuse.

Edited, Oct 12th 2010 8:37am 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
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (22)