Weekly BF

FPS on OP Underground

Comments

  • Talon2018
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Running 9900K @5ghz Core with 4.6ghz Cache
    4x8gb DDR4 3900mhz CL16
    EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3 OC 2100mhz and 7800mhz memory
    1TB Samsung M.2 NVME 970+
    Win10 1903

    I run 4K @144hz G-Sync
    Ultra Textures and Filtering
    HBAO and TAA High
    Medium Everything Else
    DX11

    I run 110-144fps on the new Underground map with above config and settings.

  • LOLGotYerTags
    13277 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @Talon2018
    Run it in DX12 with the same settings and post your results 
  • Talon2018
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 6
    @Talon2018
    Run it in DX12 with the same settings and post your results 
    DX12 runs same/similar FPS except leads to microstutters that aren't present with DX11 and future frame rendering. DX11 and FFR is butter smooth gameplay with above FPS at 4K. 

    Since DX12 does not bring a performance bump in this game, I see no reason why anyone would use it for other than DXR features. 
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13277 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    edited October 6
    Talon2018 said:
    @Talon2018
    Run it in DX12 with the same settings and post your results 
    DX12 runs same/similar FPS except leads to microstutters that aren't present with DX11 and future frame rendering. DX11 and FFR is butter smooth gameplay with above FPS at 4K. 

    Since DX12 does not bring a performance bump in this game, I see no reason why anyone would use it for other than DXR features. 
    Just as I thought,   I just needed clarification that DX12,  Or rather it's implementation,  Is also causing issues.

    Thanks man.
  • crelok
    55 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Same here,all other maps get smooth play and frames are great but this is laggy(maybe due to high pingers)-maybe....but wouldn`t you think a inside map with not much distance would be less intensive etc?as i said i tested it to see if my gear is off,but its fine.
  • OskooI_007
    843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 7
    crelok wrote: »
    ....but wouldn`t you think a inside map with not much distance would be less intensive etc?

    A DICE developer once commented that soldier animations are very CPU intensive. Probably the most CPU intensive thing in the game.

    So having a bunch of players running around in a small area maxes out the CPU due to all the soldier animations that need calculating.
    Post edited by OskooI_007 on
  • RudyMentally
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    First time I played the map, fps were dropping like crazy when running towards the C building over the open square. But ever since, it did run smooth at all times ?! I run dx12 with 120 fps cap (don't want vsync and capping at 144 will put the tearing line mostly in the same spot which is annoying) at low/medium settings 1080p with a gtx1080 (non-ti) on a 9700kf with 16 GB DDR4-3333. Maybe there is some graphics setting which really hammers the fps when enabled which I have turned down or something ? Or perhaps like the 9900k owners said, it just needs a high end cpu to play smooth ...
  • SneakyGunman
    378 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 8
    crelok wrote: »
    ....but wouldn`t you think a inside map with not much distance would be less intensive etc?

    A DICE developer once commented that soldier animations are very CPU intensive. Probably the most CPU intensive thing in the game.

    So having a bunch of players running around in a small area maxes out the CPU due to all the soldier animations that need calculating.


    Out of all the FPS games I've played and interacted with developers for those games I've never, ever heard/read a developer say player animation was cpu costly. 

    Either you misunderstood the developer or something just aint right with this game. 
  • OskooI_007
    843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)


    Out of all the FPS games I've played and interacted with developers for those games I've never, ever heard/read a developer say player animation was cpu costly. 

    Either you misunderstood the developer or something just aint right with this game. 

    Nope, I understood the developer perfectly.
    mischkag wrote: »
    We never ran console versions at 60Hz for 64 players. As I stated in another thread, the reason is not to save operational server hosting money, the reason is that the consoles cannot keep up the required 60 fps for larger game modes, mostly due to animation CPU load. If we can however run 60fps for 64 players @ 30Hz, we should be able to run 24 players @ 60Hz at 60fps also. As mentioned before, we do plan to test it and see if it is feasible or not. But first the general issues regarding hit detection and low/high ping have to be fixed as otherwise it is close to pointless.
  • TFBisquit
    1711 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    That's correct, for consoles.
    Pc is slightly different since the dedicated gpu is usually further evolved, thus up to the task.

  • OskooI_007
    843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 8
    TFBisquit wrote: »
    That's correct, for consoles.Pc is slightly different since the dedicated gpu is usually further evolved, thus up to the task.

    Nope, animations are calculated on the CPU for both console and PC. There is no GPU offloading.
    Post edited by OskooI_007 on
  • SneakyGunman
    378 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 8
    (Quote)


    Out of all the FPS games I've played and interacted with developers for those games I've never, ever heard/read a developer say player animation was cpu costly. 

    Either you misunderstood the developer or something just aint right with this game. 

    Nope, I understood the developer perfectly.
    mischkag wrote: »
    We never ran console versions at 60Hz for 64 players. As I stated in another thread, the reason is not to save operational server hosting money, the reason is that the consoles cannot keep up the required 60 fps for larger game modes, mostly due to animation CPU load. If we can however run 60fps for 64 players @ 30Hz, we should be able to run 24 players @ 60Hz at 60fps also. As mentioned before, we do plan to test it and see if it is feasible or not. But first the general issues regarding hit detection and low/high ping have to be fixed as otherwise it is close to pointless.



    What was said is that, "...mostly due to animation CPU load..."
    Not solider animation. 
  • OskooI_007
    843 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 8
    (Quote)
    What was said is that, "...mostly due to animation CPU load..."
    Not solider animation. 

    Nope, he said as the player count increases so does the animation load. So clearly he's taking about soldier animations.

    Here's another quote to help clarify.
    mischkag wrote: »
    Well for higher pings this is something we are actively looking into. There are some reasons this is not feasible at the moment as the server would have to have the exact representation you have on the client as otherwise you once again run into small mismatches which lots of ppl will complain about. Animations are nowadays very complex and expensive and to run these on the server would see the server CPU costs explode. Most cheating happens thru aim bots which would not be any different with server side hit detection, only damage amount cheats would be prevented. To say Quake was better than the client side one is just a poor statement. I played Quake a lot back then and can very well remember how much i had to lead my shot with the railguns... Games have become so much more detailed and complex, comparing that to a game 20 years ago is not very helpful.

    He's replying to someone asking why server-side hit detection can't be used. When he says, "exact representation" he's referring to calculating soldier model animations on the server in order to run server-side hit detection.

    So clearly, he's talking about soldier model animations being CPU intensive.

    I don't know why you guys always try disagreeing with me. I'm just trying to share knowledge with you. :smile:
  • Aditrex
    122 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    metro is really cpu heavy i got better results on grind mode even they have to do some more work for sure i have 3700x and 1070 ti getting around 110+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB9rXCprfzU
  • Mr_Pettsson
    15 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    AMD Ryzen 3600x and 5700xt card , 16gb 3200hz ram, running 1440p and getting around 100fps in ultra present.
  • TFBisquit
    1711 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    (Quote)
    What was said is that, "...mostly due to animation CPU load..."
    Not solider animation. 

    Nope, he said as the player count increases so does the animation load. So clearly he's taking about soldier animations.

    Here's another quote to help clarify.
    mischkag wrote: »
    Well for higher pings this is something we are actively looking into. There are some reasons this is not feasible at the moment as the server would have to have the exact representation you have on the client as otherwise you once again run into small mismatches which lots of ppl will complain about. Animations are nowadays very complex and expensive and to run these on the server would see the server CPU costs explode. Most cheating happens thru aim bots which would not be any different with server side hit detection, only damage amount cheats would be prevented. To say Quake was better than the client side one is just a poor statement. I played Quake a lot back then and can very well remember how much i had to lead my shot with the railguns... Games have become so much more detailed and complex, comparing that to a game 20 years ago is not very helpful.

    He's replying to someone asking why server-side hit detection can't be used. When he says, "exact representation" he's referring to calculating soldier model animations on the server in order to run server-side hit detection.

    So clearly, he's talking about soldier model animations being CPU intensive.

    I don't know why you guys always try disagreeing with me. I'm just trying to share knowledge with you. :smile:

    He’s talking about server cpu load. I imagine they run multiple servers per cpu. We are talking about cliënt cpu. Which ofcourse on pc side isn’t strained as much. Consoles use more cpu due to the graphic chip quickly getting old, which isn’t upgraded during its life cycle. So modern games also use more cores on consoles to compensate.
    But sure, your input is appreciated.
    It boils down to them not being able in more cpu investments, but still they crank out more heavy graphics, thus straining the servers.
  • fightinirish73
    9 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ryzen 2700x 4.2 vega 64 sapphire oc 1742 getting max 80 fps massive drops to 45 t0 60 plus massive latence and instakills this map is broken plain and simple dice never seem to get it right lately
  • maraker
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I have also bad fps drop in that map. below 50 fps sometimes. I try to fps cap by using max variable.... but no lucky. Same unlucky when settings any graphics settings. THEN using DDU, installing new drivers. No help at all. THEN I reset nvidia control panel settings and installing MSI afterburner , capping fps to 73 (random select) with afterburner, starting game.
    Whaaaat now I get stable 73 fps in that map, I do not know what I do and why it fixed. Played 6 round and all it is fine. 
    Now I scare to touch any settings. 
  • DiscoPr0
    92 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Decided to finally visit the forums and see if anyone else was having this issue. Most maps I am above 70fps but Op Underground is always sluggish feeling.
  • Jinko_itx
    739 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 11
    just to let everyone know, the Battlefield series has always pushed the limits on graphics technology so I am not surprised that a brand new map is pushing it, sets a high standard, if you can't handle with your hardware, lower your settings....
    edit: I don't mean to sound condescending but the reason for such high cpu usage is you have literally all the players close by shooting pretty much all at once and that will brutalize a cpu, prolly the reason this map hasn't came out earlier. I'm sure more optimizations will come out for high-end AMD users as it is a new map, but again, when you have 64 players on top of eachother with bullets flying all over the place, it will devastate the cpu as the cpu takes care of the physics in this game. 
Sign In or Register to comment.