do the devs....

[Dracot]

<p>have a clue what Zbrush is? Maybe Mudbox? Or can we expect to see the game be 100% cpu dependant forever instead of adopting next gen design techniques?  Amazing how after so many years, and such amazing games on the market, this game runs so [I cannot control my vocabulary].  </p><p>130+ fps in crysis under major load areas, 35-50 in eq2.   Really guys get with the program.</p>

[Rothgar]

It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Imagine the response if he was talking about EQlive here.

[Yarginis]

<cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" /></blockquote>Even is this is true, if you targeted the Geforce 3 as the <b>minimum</b> card, why place particle effects, and shadows, both of which are completely <b>optional</b> to playing the game on the CPU? People with low end cards could still play fine on low quality setting without these features enabled, as most likely did anyway to help performance. While people with higher end cards could enable them and enjoy a much smoother game play experience, and nowadays as a bonus everyone would be able to run the game much smoother.At the least these should be able to be run on a separate core of a multi-core system as a stop-gap to moving them to the GPU.

[Pitt Hammerfi]

<cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></blockquote> omg im so wrapt you finally confirmed some of the gfx work was being done on the cpu, thankyou Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> IMHO this is a single most important change to EQ2 you could ever make. whilst the game still looks fantastic, the performance leaves something to be desired. Best post ever in the history of eq2

[DamianTV]

<p>Well you know that guy that saved your butt last week when you were about to die?  Yeah.  They were probably running a GeForce 3 card.  So if we were to put all the load on the GPU and not the CPU, it wouldnt be fair to the people that dont have wads of disposable income to throw on a computer.  Then the cant play.  Is it fair to them?  Yes times are changing and Im sure they are changing with it, and are probably targetting a bit higher end systems, but they arent gonna push for Crysis hardware requirements, nor should they.  My box wont run Crysis.  Nobody I know has a box that can run it all the way turned up.  Theres a target audience they have to go for, and they'd like to be able to run EQ2 on as many computers as is possible, not just a few that have spent over 2000 on top of the line hardware.</p><p>So lets face it, back to the original point, the guy that saved your [Removed for Content] was able to save your [Removed for Content] because the game runs on his system.  If the game didnt run on their computer, well have fun at the mender!  <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Neiloch]

Yep, thats the dilemma. Oh they could easily make the game run smoother on newer machines. but the fact of the matter is that the game MUST run WELL on the minimum specs that the game ran on when it came out, or even lower specs. They actually did change the graphics and such a while back to lower the minimum specs and improve performance. I'll play on lowest settings possible before agreeing to anything that makes some people who can play now unable to play at all.

[Miladi]

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep, thats the dilemma. Oh they could easily make the game run smoother on newer machines. but the fact of the matter is that the game MUST run WELL on the minimum specs that the game ran on when it came out, or even lower specs. They actually did change the graphics and such a while back to lower the minimum specs and improve performance. I'll play on lowest settings possible before agreeing to anything that makes some people who can play now unable to play at all.</blockquote>Actually this wouldn't necessarily be true. Its been done before in EQ1 when Shadows of Luclin came out and they required DX8 which meant everyone running Win95 couldn't play any longer. The game changes, and if they release a new expansion that requires an upgrade to play the game at all, then I see no problem with it happening. I might not be able to play any longer, but that's what happens to people that can't afford the latest and greatest. I can't play Crysis because of my system, but it doesn't affect me all that much. So there's no MUST involved, they merely CHOOSE to allow low end systems to run it, maybe not well but at least  runable, because it increases the player base. I'd rather have to upgrade than play a game that doesn't run well on high end systems in case I ever do upgrade this computer and would want to see some bang for my buck.

[Syndic]

It doesn't even have to be the latest or greatest, just has to be something you can buy today.When EQ2 was released (or was shortly after) the latest card was the Geforce 6800, I know I bought specifically to play EQ2 better.  Now your telling me that the 6800 which I had up until a few months ago can't do particle effects on the GPU?  You can't even buy a 6800 anymore.  How much is a new video card $100?  Sure the latest and greatest may not be cheap but the game should at least look at moving things around a bit so the game performs better.<hr /><span class="postbody">Miladian says "My box wont run Crysis.  Nobody I know has a box that can run it all the way turned up."</span><hr />Nobody said the machine needed to run Crysis turned all the way up, I know mine struggles on  medium settings but it still performs and looks more fantastic than I think EQ2 does.  Eq2 looks lovely but has a much heavier cost on your computer than it should.  Also opposite to you I don't know anybody who DOESN'T have a machine that can play Crysis (just depends what settings your happy with).Also it's much cheaper and easier to upgrade your video card than what EQ2 does at the moment which forces you to upgrade your whole system.

[AratornCalahn]

I laugh at n00bs who say EQ2 runs bad. Planetside is the king. Its not only the best game ever, far ahead of its time but it <i>hardly runs</i> on the <i>most powerful</i> computers enterly because it wasn't designed to run on them.

[DamianTV]

<p>Its not really a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN Sony will change the system specs.  Sony needs to be able to target the widest audience possible, hence what high end gamers consider low end system specs.  And since the game is constantly evolving over years, it is known that the target audience will end up getting a bit better as far as their system specs are concerned over the course of those years, when the specs reach a certain level, then it is time to "Raise the Bar" for minimum system specs.  MMO's are a rare class of games that dont have system specs that will stay the same for the life of the game.  Half Life is released, the system specs dont change.  EQ1 took a while but eventually dropped support for Windows 95 due to requiring Direct X 8.  And the only reasn the even considered making the minimum compatible system to have Direct X 8 was because a large enough of the percentage of their target audience could meet those minimum hardware requirements.</p><p>Thats pretty well whats happening right now with dual core processors.  At the initial time of release, the percentage of the target audience that had dual core processors in their systems was low enough that having dual core support was probably considered but not implemented.  But now that it has changed that dual cores are pretty much default in a higher percentage of the players systems, its time to implement support for it.  The Dev's have stated that multi core support is in the works.  </p><p>Now as far as GPU not handling particle and shadow effects, it may be time for the Devs to consider putting that on the GPU.  But if multi core implementation is supported, one CPU core might be used to render shadows and particles, or it might be switched to the GPU.  For me it kind of depends on which one will get the better framerate, and I could care less which one handles it as long as I can get max framerate out of whatever they decide to do.  But because they also have to think about the lower end systems with lets say GeForce 6 series and still running a Single Core Proc, the game has to be playable on their systems as well.  </p><p>Programming for both single core and multi core support vs. performance issues on both is a technical nightmare.  Be patient, and let the Devs take their time on this one so they can do it right.</p>

[Deadrus]

<cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote><p>I think maybe you are missing the point a little bit. Sure Crysis cant run on a geforce 3. Heck On my old single core pc with 2 gigs of ram and with a geforce 6800GT ran crysis just barely. Now here is the kicker. I got  new pc with a dual core processor still 2 gigs of ram and my Geforce 8600Gt Crysis Runs extreamly well with everything on very High. Thats just 2 generations of video cards after the Geforce 6. 3 Generations if you count the Geforce 6. OK Eq2 was able to run on a Geforce 3 thats great it was able to.... But on my same new system in eq2 i can run things a bit higher in most of the places im in and the animatoin is some places is abosultely beautifull in other places i still get a slide show. Crysis went form Just playble to flawless in just 2 video card generatoins. Eq2 stil doesnt come close to running flawless And we now have Geforce 9s out so thats 6 Generations of Video cards And Im going to wager it still wont run flawless with that video card. But ok since i dont have a Geforce 9 ill just say 5 Generations because im only working with a Geforce 8 at the moment. Crysis with 2 graphic card generatoins took the game from just playable to runing flawless everything up. Eq2 has gone 5 generatios of graphics cards and i'm not geting much better performance. That my friend is the problem. </p>

[Armawk]

<p>bump/normal mapping is used throughout all aspects of EQ2 (a very early game in terms of relying on it so heavily in fact), hence the question about mudbox or zbrush is rather ill thought out isn't it?</p>

[Dracot]

<cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really not fair to compare EQ2 to Crysis.  EQ2 started development over 6 years ago and is CPU heavy because it targeted nVidia Geforce 3 video cards as the entry-level card.  This card didn't have many capabilities which is why animation, shadows and particle effects are all done on the CPU.  Try to run Crysis on a Geforce 3 and see how well it works.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />I know that by today's standards people want more performance and we are WELL aware of that.  We are working on things as we speak to help improve performance.I'm not sure what ZBrush and Mudbox have to do with EQ2 unless you're suggesting we scrap everything and start over.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Guess you don't know what zbrush or mudbox would do then cause you've built all your look into the geometry and not used the normals correctly.  Of course your game is going to scream for help using movie rated models vs normals.  Blaming the gf3 engines for this is an excuse, no other games used that method back then and im sorry they looked great if not better. Not trying to argue and insult the work done, you guys did a great job making a movie quality game, except you crippled next gen performance.  Sony has the cash, it would not be that hard to remap alot of the models.  You already have your UVW maps setup.  No excuse why you can't provide a screaming game thats 5 years old almost now. 

[Dracot]

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep, thats the dilemma. Oh they could easily make the game run smoother on newer machines. but the fact of the matter is that the game MUST run WELL on the minimum specs that the game ran on when it came out, or even lower specs. They actually did change the graphics and such a while back to lower the minimum specs and improve performance. I'll play on lowest settings possible before agreeing to anything that makes some people who can play now unable to play at all.</blockquote>Ummm game runs SUBPAR on high end machines.  max FPS ive gotten in eq2 is about 50 max and thats a good day.  I'm using a dual 8800 ultra, 4g memory, 2.6ghz dual core setup.  Thats jsut the barebone without talking to OC setups also in use.  The system ran me around 1400bux, when eq2 came out i used a fx-55 on a GF6800ultra.  The game runs exactly the same performance then as it does now, there is no excuse.

[Dracot]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>bump/normal mapping is used throughout all aspects of EQ2 (a very early game in terms of relying on it so heavily in fact), hence the question about mudbox or zbrush is rather ill thought out isn't it?</p></blockquote>I've actually found wireframe screens from one of the original modelers from eq2, his models showed average 15-20k quads, meanwhile look at a model from say DOOM3 which housed about 4k per model.  More resources needed to render mesh smoothed models vs low poly models with a normal projected upon them. From research online it shows yes they did use normal mapping, but not to an extent wher the models were low poly enough to show performance upgrades.  Explain why incredible looking game on the market now look so great yet render incredible performance, then a 5 year old game runs worse on newer machines than were originally used? Zbrush wasn't even introduced until a few years ago, mudbox is jsut out of beta last year. So no, using correct mapping programs wasn't an option, and was forced to be done exclusively in the 3d packages.  Since then we've seen new models introduced with the same crap effect on performance.  A game that was introduced when a 6800 series was highend, should by all means run flawlessly on a dx10 grade card, no exuse whatsoever. 

[OutcastBlade]

<p>Well this is not the current devs' faults, but we were told way back at launch that EQ2 was designed to run smoothly on system specs that hadn't yet existed, so Rothgar, you just officially exposed a lie that many of us were aware of the moment we upgraded our systems.</p><p>As for you guys working on improving the performance, I am happy to hear that. It shouldn't take you long to transfer particles and shadow effects over to the GPU when you actually dedicate sometime to it. But not only that, whatever else you have the CPU running that could be running on the GPU, which I suspect would be normal mapping as well since with my rig I still have video lag at Zek docks... but I digress.</p><p>You will make many people very happy if you get these bad design flaws out of the game thanks to a clueless and lazy initial engine dev team.</p>

[Armawk]

<cite>Dracot72 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>bump/normal mapping is used throughout all aspects of EQ2 (a very early game in terms of relying on it so heavily in fact), hence the question about mudbox or zbrush is rather ill thought out isn't it?</p></blockquote>I've actually found wireframe screens from one of the original modelers from eq2, his models showed average 15-20k quads, meanwhile look at a model from say DOOM3 which housed about 4k per model.  More resources needed to render mesh smoothed models vs low poly models with a normal projected upon them. From research online it shows yes they did use normal mapping, but not to an extent wher the models were low poly enough to show performance upgrades.  Explain why incredible looking game on the market now look so great yet render incredible performance, then a 5 year old game runs worse on newer machines than were originally used? Zbrush wasn't even introduced until a few years ago, mudbox is jsut out of beta last year. So no, using correct mapping programs wasn't an option, and was forced to be done exclusively in the 3d packages.  Since then we've seen new models introduced with the same crap effect on performance.  A game that was introduced when a 6800 series was highend, should by all means run flawlessly on a dx10 grade card, no exuse whatsoever. </blockquote><p>Again, wrong on all counts. Bump maps are the very basis of eq2 graphics, they look dreadful with them switched off. </p><p>The models in EQ2 are moderately high end of low poly (characters are anyway, buildings etc are quite low). Very high for the time they were made, and a lot of work is done CPU side that could better be done GPU side (it would still need to be done however), but they are only moderate counts for newer games. There is precisely no truth in any suggestion that EQ2 models are not 'low poly' or that they render all detail in the mesh. Its a preposterous idea in fact. They work just the same as everyone elses models do, its just that the GPU isnt used enough. A mistake, but not at all what you are suggesting. Please stop misleading people with a lot of tech flimflam that doesnt mean what you are saying it means. The performance problem on new machines, which is very real, is at heart due to two things. CPU rendering of visual elements such as shadows/specular/particles, and lack of support for multiple cores. </p><p>Oh and Mudbox and Zbrush dont allow you to do anything that you couldnt do before they came out.. nothing. They make it easier perhaps, but Realtime Bump/Normal maps (which are, I reiterate, all over EQ2)  have nothing to do with those creation tools, they are simply specialist tools for that purpose. Everything can be done to produce an identical effect in any decent 3d package by making higher poly master models and baking the results onto the low poly.  Oh and I'd personally bet money that the current artists use zbrush or mudbox for new content because I see what to me look like the fingerprints of those programs all over the newer weapons/armor textures.</p><p>Look at screens of eq2 with everything on high vs screens with textures on minimum and bumpy point distance at minimum.. this will show you the stuff that IS done in polys and not mislead you with bump mapping making you think its modelled. look closely and you will see that I am correct.</p><p>I guess its a pretty compliment to the designers that you thought their bump maps were convincing enough to look like actual geometry though.. lol</p>

[Hamervelder]

Regardless of <i>how</i> EQ2 handles costly graphic effects, there is one thing that must be addressed:  The horrible character models and textures.  As the previous poster said, most of the detail that you see is done with bump mapping (which, quite frankly, is poorly done).  The actual textures are by and large, simple.  I've noticed some that are no more than tiled squares or chain patterns, not mapped to the model well at all.  Look at female models.  You'll see the textures stretched over the breasts, then crammed together under the arms and either above or below the breasts.  This is because the art department did not create or properly map the textures.  They pretty much just stuck the textures onto the models and oriented them.  There are some art assets in EQ2 that leave me shaking my head.  I'd be ashamed to send work that's as poorly done as some of the work is in this game.Anyway, I digress.  My original point was that the assets the developers <i>did</i> have, are not used well.  They relied on poorly-done bump mapping to provide detail.  They should have started out with good-quality art, and then used bump mapping to enhance details.  Not replace them.  No amount of changes at the engine level are going to make up for poorly-done art.  The sad thing is, some of the character art in EQ2 is just amazing.  Some of it.  A small amount of it.  I feel for the artists, who are obviously capable of good work, but for some reason, didn't get to show it in large quantities.

[Mystfit]

<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=410043" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=410043</a>