TO DEVS: MUCH NEEDED CORE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES

[Vanyel]

Devs... You constantly update the game content, features, gameplace, etc.. which is GREAT! But EQ2 is RAPIDLY falling behind other MMOs in technology. For example: Lord of the rings online with ONE client can use DX 9 OR DX 10 and use either single cpu machines or up to 4 GPU cores.. it's VERY GPU friendly... even with the game under HEAVY load on a 2 core system, I've never seen teh game go over 14 or 15% CPU load since it's mostly using the GPUs... EQ2 really needs to get with the times. We all pay monthy fees to play the game.. pay for our xpacks..

I think it's time SOE took some time out and revamped the client (sort of like you did with Luclin expansion in Eq1) 

1) Allow the client to use single and multi CPUs (up to 4 (8 would even better) cores) - just this alone would make a HUGE performance increase since you guys do most of the game on the CPU vs the GPU anyway and would be a much easier coding change vs moving it all to the GPU

2) STOP rendering 75% of the graphics on the CPU and move the rendering to the GPU (DX10 protocols would FORCE this change)

3) More Multi GPU friendly (#2 would have to be completed first). The reason why SLI and Crossfire have so little impact on the game is that that game doesn't use the GPUs much. And why people can run out and buy $600 video card and see only slight perf increases.

4) Allow the client to use either DX9 AND DX10

5) Allow the client to address more memory (actually you all just did this with the LARGEADDRESSAWARE version you just released allowing it to use 3GB of RAM on 32bit windows (IF 32 bit users change their boot.ini files) and up to 4GB of RAM on 64bit windows, but it took us 2 YEARS of HOUNDING SOE to impliment this.

[Melciah]

I believe he meant the following:

2) STOP rendering 75% of the graphics on the CPU and move the rendering to the GPU (DX10 protocols would FORCE this change)

otherwise, I gotta agree, it is sorta sad the amount of system (not graphics) resources that EQ2 still takes up...

Vanyel wrote:

2) STOP redering 75% of the graphics on the CPU and move the rendering to the CPU (DX10 protocols would FORCE this change)

[Freliant]

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

[Kitsune286]

Well, two problems here:1st. This is in testing feedback, so your thread, while it might be read by a dev, is technically the wrong place. =)2nd. As someone else mentioned, they would have to redo the entire client, and they would have to give up considerable manpower to that kind of project, which means no new content/feature/anything for who knows how long.

[Dacies18]

they did this in everquest live at some point in the expantion timeline. I cant imagine that this is not in the words or all ready being worked on. I think its pretty crappy that you knock everquest 2 a game thats been out over 4 years to a game that has barely been out a year. 

[Ahlana]

Freliant wrote:

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

As stated by others something like this was done in EQ1 during their expansion course. Luclin era introduced a new client with better graphical capabilities. It did not delay the expansion timeline in anyway. However that was simply a change from DX8 to DX9 and at the time EQ1 was the dominant player in the market, as such they had a dev team bigger than EQ1 and 2 does combined atm.

I think the most you might ever see of this client changed is to support dual cores. This wouldn't take much and they wouldn't have to change how the graphics are supported as it will still be all done on CPU. I don't think GPU's will ever play a large part in EQ2's overall design. Too big of a change too late in the game.

[Vanyel]

Melciah@Lucan DLere wrote:

I believe he meant the following:

2) STOP rendering 75% of the graphics on the CPU and move the rendering to the GPU (DX10 protocols would FORCE this change)

otherwise, I gotta agree, it is sorta sad the amount of system (not graphics) resources that EQ2 still takes up...

Vanyel wrote:

2) STOP redering 75% of the graphics on the CPU and move the rendering to the CPU (DX10 protocols would FORCE this change)

Yes thank you. I just corrected my post

[Vanyel]

Ahlana wrote:

Freliant wrote:

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

As stated by others something like this was done in EQ1 during their expansion course. Luclin era introduced a new client with better graphical capabilities. It did not delay the expansion timeline in anyway. However that was simply a change from DX8 to DX9 and at the time EQ1 was the dominant player in the market, as such they had a dev team bigger than EQ1 and 2 does combined atm.

I think the most you might ever see of this client changed is to support dual cores. This wouldn't take much and they wouldn't have to change how the graphics are supported as it will still be all done on CPU. I don't think GPU's will ever play a large part in EQ2's overall design. Too big of a change too late in the game.

Exactly. I know they probably can't/won't do everything I listed. My point is they need to so "something" and to the preve person.. yes I would give up an xpac to get needed tech updates... but as in eq1 it didn't delay the xpac... you have teams working on the xpacs and a team(s) working on a client overhaul.

 But the best thing they could do at this point is add dual/quad core support. That in itself would give the game a HUGE performance jump

[Vanyel]

Kittsune@Unrest wrote:

Well, two problems here:1st. This is in testing feedback, so your thread, while it might be read by a dev, is technically the wrong place. =)2nd. As someone else mentioned, they would have to redo the entire client, and they would have to give up considerable manpower to that kind of project, which means no new content/feature/anything for who knows how long.

I tired to find a good forum for this, and this seemed like the best one. Anytime I found a forum that I thought was proper, the forum mods locked my posts.

[Beldin_]

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...412574&#4652378

Rothgar wrote:

As you can see, we've been pretty busy over the past few GU's.  I'm sure some of you are asking, "Where is the multi-core support and better utilization of the GPU"?  As you can imagine, these aren't quick-fixes, and take some time.  We are definitely looking at many options for improving performance of the client as well as reducing lag on the server.

[Troubor]

Freliant wrote:

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

Myself, yes I wouldn't mind this at all.  Let the next expansion or two be delayed by let's say six months or so.  New content is wonderful, sure.  But if they did update the core application to use multi-core cpus, to use graphics cards more and so forth, then each future expansion can benefit from that too.  An improvement like this now means an improvement for the life of the game.  I think, IF it means delaying an expansion (who says it MUST delay one), that this is a worthy tradeoff.

[Grimlux]

Screw redoing EQ2's core...  I hope they start Developing a Sequel, as the game is now reaching 5 years old. The graphics are getting a little rigid and this will allow EQ2 to implement all these features on a new pallet. If they havent begun on a sequel then they are falling behind. EQ1 was released in 1999, and EQ2 was released in 2004. If they have not begun development, then they are a roughly a year behind.

[Burnout]

check latest development inside sony -> soe integrated in the playstation department -> guess for which platform eq3 will come...

[Karlen]

>>>But if they did update the core application to use multi-core cpus, to use graphics cards more and so forth, then each future expansion can benefit from that too.  An improvement like this now means an improvement for the life of the game.  I think, IF it means delaying an expansion (who says it MUST delay one), that this is a worthy tradeoff.<<

[EnderBeta]

Burnout wrote:

check latest development inside sony -> soe integrated in the playstation department -> guess for which platform eq3 will come...

>.< ugh, dear lord please don't make me buy a PS3 or for that matter any console to play a MMO on it.

 Hopefully this is just a matter of a possible EQ3 being on the PC and the PS3 and not just on the PS3.

[Grimlux]

Burnout wrote:

check latest development inside sony -> soe integrated in the playstation department -> guess for which platform eq3 will come...

This does not surprise me. I used to work for Microsoft Game Studio's. Not only were multiple software studio's being housed within MGS but they supported both PC and 360 development. Some were designed for both, some just only the PC and/or 360. It makes sense that EQ2 SOE would be part of one large scale Game studio. Unfortunately, if SOE releases a "EQ3" on P3..thats it for me. The playstation 3 was the largest piece of garbage console ever released.

[EnderBeta]

Karlen@Befallen wrote:

>>>But if they did update the core application to use multi-core cpus, to use graphics cards more and so forth, then each future expansion can benefit from that too.  An improvement like this now means an improvement for the life of the game.  I think, IF it means delaying an expansion (who says it MUST delay one), that this is a worthy tradeoff.<<

*raises handI use multi core. If by using my second core in my T2700 Core Duo in my laptop,  I can eek out a few more FPS to compensate for being limited to a Geforce 7300 Go then yeah by all means add the support.

[GrunEQ]

I'm all for a good fix up, so what if it delays new content....so be it, the new stuff will eventually come....meanwhile I'd like some improved performance and nicer graphics.

[Fatuus]

GrunEQ wrote:

I'm all for a good fix up, so what if it delays new content....so be it, the new stuff will eventually come....meanwhile I'd like some improved performance and nicer graphics.

SOE doesn't make money fixing what they already have done, only by selling new expansions.

[EnderBeta]

Fatuus wrote:

GrunEQ wrote:

I'm all for a good fix up, so what if it delays new content....so be it, the new stuff will eventually come....meanwhile I'd like some improved performance and nicer graphics.

SOE doesn't make money fixing what they already have done, only by selling new expansions.

If its not free stick it in the next expansion pack, I'll pay for it as long as its reasonable in price and a foot note feature included with new content.

[Darian]

I thought the game engine was built to scale with new technology? We have yet to really see that.

[Tamar]

Freliant wrote:

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

Yes...

[Naubeta]

I don't know much about computers aside from what I read before deciding on mine, but I think I can sum things up...* "multi-cores" would make very little difference, ppl are just asking for this because they've bought a PC with 4* same for direct 10* what would make a differnece is having the graphic card do animiations, particles and shadows* when they do do this (which they've said they will) the downside will be that the shadows won't look as nice since graphic card shadows are just made out of lots of little blobs (why they don't look very good)

[Beldin_]

Paznos@Mistmoore wrote:

I thought the game engine was built to scale with new technology? We have yet to really see that.

It was built to run better on the FASTER CPUs that they expected, however the CPU development took another route with the multi-cores, and thats the big problem

[Ahlana]

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote:

I don't know much about computers aside from what I read before deciding on mine, but I think I can sum things up...* "multi-cores" would make very little difference, ppl are just asking for this because they've bought a PC with 4

Actually since EQ2's graphic is mostly done on the CPU instead of the GPU putting in support for multiple cores would indeed make a huge difference as the cores could split up the work. It would act much like SLI acts on games that support dual video cards.

And this coming from a single core user!!! It is true with the current client setup, usage of more than one core would indeed make a very noticable increase in performance.

[Naubeta]

I was just saying that it's probably easier to just get the graphic card to do things because that's what they do (it's just not being used in EQ2). Rather than come up with new ways to try and get the cpu to help (with more cores). I mean, if that was the way to go (or it was feasible) then everyone would be doing it.Changing so the graphic card does animations, partices and shadows would basically fix everything for anyone with a graphic card made in the last couple of years.And then direct 10 would add nothing... because it doesn't really from what I've read. In LoTRO it gives you water with smoother edges, and then makes everything go much more slowly. It doesn't speed things up at all.And there wouldn't be anything for more cpu cores to do. Maybe a few % help at most by putting some network things on there (I think that's all wow does)?

[seamus]

Ahlana wrote:

Freliant wrote:

Would you guys like to delay the next few expansions to do this? What you are asking for is essentially to redo the entire game from the bottom up...

As stated by others something like this was done in EQ1 during their expansion course. Luclin era introduced a new client with better graphical capabilities. It did not delay the expansion timeline in anyway. However that was simply a change from DX8 to DX9 and at the time EQ1 was the dominant player in the market, as such they had a dev team bigger than EQ1 and 2 does combined atm.

I think the most you might ever see of this client changed is to support dual cores. This wouldn't take much and they wouldn't have to change how the graphics are supported as it will still be all done on CPU. I don't think GPU's will ever play a large part in EQ2's overall design. Too big of a change too late in the game.

Trust me, adding support for threading is not trivial, at least for anything that would provide a significant boost. It would take a significant effort to add multi-threaded support in a meaningful way. If it didn't take a significant effort and was risk free we would have already seen support for it. At the moment they are addressing what we call 'low hanging fruit' issues, issues that take relatively small effort and have less risk.

Personally I think they are definitely evaluating support for multiple threads as well as better use of modern day gpu's, that in itself may actually take longer then the implementation.

[lstead]

* "multi-cores" would make very little difference, ppl are just asking for this because they've bought a PC withI disagree. City of Heroes is another game that was created without dual core support. In order to enable it, you actually have to create a shortcut with a flag to render the graphics on the other core. With a slower processor the difference is extreme, you can virtually double your FPS by turning on that flag.Also, I have seen come up again and again complaints from people about the performance in EQ2. These are people who run current games and are shocked to see such poor performance from a game that is four years old. It's an impediment to gaining new subscribers.

[Webin]

seamus wrote:

Trust me, adding support for threading is not trivial, at least for anything that would provide a significant boost. It would take a significant effort to add multi-threaded support in a meaningful way.

I came to say the exact same thing, so I'll just quote for emphasis.As someone who has actually done multi-threaded programming (in Java, years ago), I can verify that it's not as a simple a task as saying "do some stuff on another CPU".  The programmer has to actually separate the required processing tasks into separate and unique tasks (that don't overlap or have much interaction).  If the game engine has been designed from the start to only have one "thread" of task (that being "present the game to the player"), then to retrofit it with multiple "threads" ("render the game on screen", "accept data from server", "calculate changes", "transmit new player info") is a very difficult process.   Granted I'm not a professional developer, but when faced with the problem of adding multi-threading, my approach would be to scrap the entire thing and start over.It's no simple task.  I do agree that it would be simpler (and more productive) to move some more rendering tasks to the video card.  Since I haven't done graphics programming on that scale, I can't say how difficult it would be to do that.

[EnderBeta]

Naubitzi@Crushbone wrote:

I don't know much about computers aside from what I read before deciding on mine, but I think I can sum things up...* "multi-cores" would make very little difference, ppl are just asking for this because they've bought a PC with 4

Actually if the game engine supported multi core it would help a lot. It would allow different parts of the engine to execute at the same time instead of just running in one loop. If done right you could get a good boost in performance. However what's tricky is getting access to variables between threads. At the very least offloading sound, and maybe the AI and shadows to another thread could allow for a good boost in performance.* same for direct 10

As the engine is programmed now, yes. As new graphic cards come out that support DirectX 10 in hardware and games start to use the features no. But as of yet its true EQ2 doesn't gain anything from it.* what would make a differnece is having the graphic card do animiations, particles and shadows

Yes it would do wonders. However animation in general is a result of the processor and graphics card working together, because in the game animation is tied to either the AI or user input and the render loop. Which in itself also happens to be why making the engine into more then one thread is difficult.* when they do do this (which they've said they will) the downside will be that the shadows won't look as nice since graphic card shadows are just made out of lots of little blobs (why they don't look very good)

That's true, EQ2 appears to be using a very precise ray tracer to draw the shadows, which is both why the shadows are CPU intensive and very nice looking. If the devs could move the shadow routines to another thread it would offset a lot of the performance hit from enabling the shadows. However it wouldn't hurt to implement shadows from the graphics card and give the option to use either the graphics card shadows or the software shadows. Even better allow us to pick when and where, like leave the characters shadows the software but use the generic shadows from the graphics cards for the environment and torch shadows.