Grass: please remove the option to remove the grass - Rust

This disrupts the stealth, shows loots, shows bodies and traps... [URL="http://s8.postimg.org/ogmgnh0tv/grass.png"][IMG]http://s8.postimg.org/ogmgnh0tv/grass.png[/IMG][/URL]

[QUOTE=giosepeluiz;47468096]This disrupts the stealth, shows loots, shows bodies and traps... [URL="http://s8.postimg.org/ogmgnh0tv/grass.png"][IMG]http://s8.postimg.org/ogmgnh0tv/grass.png[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] I removed the post i have made to support the attention to this one. It was about the same issue. I see no point in remove the grass. The TRAPS are an amazing idea and they increase the tactics and improve the gameplay for strategic players. Without grass, there is no point to set traps strategically to catch players because they will SEE the traps. Also there´s the loot problem. Grass is good. DON´T remove grass...

[IMG]http://s8.postimg.org/p658zu1df/grass.png[/IMG] there you go

you can remove grass in new rust? grass.on false? or something new?

[QUOTE=txiah;47468328]you can remove grass in new rust? grass.on false? or something new?[/QUOTE] Yesterday the devs added a slider with grass quality, but this slider removes the grass when it is at zero.

Hey, I think I am getting higher fps at daylight. Pls make a day/night slider!!! I dont see enemie... I mean I cant play at night this way. Thats it. If you want performance, just remove game elements. :rock:

garry explicitly said on Twitter that it's for testing. Calm your tits.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47468467]garry explicitly said on Twitter that it's for testing. Calm your tits.[/QUOTE] Yes, I saw, but it never hurts to ask and always good to prevent. ;)

I have to say, I noticed a significant increase in fps with the grass off. And, given all the past debating over whether it impacts the fps, I screwed with it for awhile to make sure it wasn't something else. I hope they can keep it though because I agree with the OP on it's benefits.

i'm not fussed about high quality grass, but personally i'd hate to see the ability to remove it entirely remain. it basically makes traps redundant, but i'll test as usual:)

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47468616]I have to say, I noticed a significant increase in fps with the grass off. And, given all the past debating over whether it impacts the fps, I screwed with it for awhile to make sure it wasn't something else. I hope they can keep it though because I agree with the OP on it's benefits.[/QUOTE] To be fair, they've done a lot of terrain changes since they made that post about grass not effecting fps. It wouldn't surprise me if the recent terrain changes just temporarily borked it.

Yes, we must eventually remove the option to remove grass, and, also, I would like to see the removal of the removal of the removal tool of the hammer, while not removing the removal of the ability of raiders to remove entire bases.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47469111]To be fair, they've done a lot of terrain changes since they made that post about grass not effecting fps. It wouldn't surprise me if the recent terrain changes just temporarily borked it.[/QUOTE] I kind of figured it might have something to do with procgen 7, but at first I didn't think it would make much of difference based on past performance. Just kind of surprised it made such a large difference when turned off.

[QUOTE=giosepeluiz;47468354]Yesterday the devs added a slider with grass quality, but this slider removes the grass when it is at zero.[/QUOTE] so this is in the next client update? the current one does not have a grass slider - at least I do not see a "grass" slider. How do I get the new client?

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47469262]I kind of figured it might have something to do with procgen 7, but at first I didn't think it would make much of difference based on past performance. Just kind of surprised it made such a large difference when turned off.[/QUOTE] Maybe a bit of information will help shed some light on the subject. My computer can run most games with pretty decent FPS (~60 - 100). When I play Rust, I get low FPS (~15 - 30) So the question is: what causes my FPS to be low? Because my PC can run other games, it makes the issue likely Rust specific. However, because other people running different setups are not experiencing low FPS, it is likely the issue is hardware specific. There has to be a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBD86IV2Tws"]bottleneck[/URL]. There is a 2 fold effect when you remove grass. First the GPU has less to do and second the CPU has less to do. When you fully disable the grass you are seeing a drop in the queue at the bottleneck. Every object that was waiting is now waiting less time for each object removed. Something is now taking less time. How much time? Well we take 1 second divided by the amount of FPS times 1000 to get the milliseconds per frame (1/10) * 1000 = 100 ms. So we know it takes ~100 ms to compute all the grass on my computer. Each [URL="http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems/gpugems_ch07.html"]grass cluster[/URL] is several polygons. [IMG]http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems/elementLinks/fig07-05.jpg[/IMG] There are hundreds of clusters. So lets say we have 10,000 polygons making up the grass. Depending on where the bottleneck is, determines how much of the time/fps is attributed to rendering the grass itself vs stalling/starving because of the bottleneck. If a process is delaying everything .001ms 10,000 objects would then take 100ms to compute. So even if it seems like the cause is the grass, the real culprit could be a process slowing everything else down. I hope this makes sense and was informative.

Utilitron, yes I agree that Rust 2.0 is killing most systems. my i7/Quad Core with GTX 740 gets 60+ FPS with most other games including legacy but with Rust 2.0 I get 15-28FPS. I have four systems at home and one of my other machines that places legacy without a problem and WOW in full HD with 60FPS can't even run Rust 2.0. so one would have to say that Rust 2.0 is definitely on the GPU hunger side of things. there is no reason that systems that clocked Rust legacy and other games like WOW at full HD and 60FPS can't play Rust 2.0

Here's what's essentially going to happen. [I]-FP re-enables the options to lower grass for performance testing purposes -People complain because it ruins gameplay (which it does) -This goes on for a month or two[/I] [I]-FP disables the option to lower grass due to them optimizing grass -People complain because they no longer can see shit on the ground and they think it lowers performance (like the initial switch from Legacy to Experimental)[/I] While I understand the reasoning for implementing such an option, it does suck, because people will just lower grass all the way in order to see traps now. I'll personally just keep it cranked up because it looks better and makes the game a bit more challenging, and I play games for challenges, not for competition or to rein over others. [editline]dsfaslkj[/editline] Just did a quick romp around on Rustafied Dev. Practically no difference in FPS when going from Grass 0 to 100, even in areas with heavy amounts of trees and grass. On one occasion, I got about a 1-2 FPS increase going to 0 from 100, but that's not that much of an improvement. The settings that appear to have the highest influence on performance for me are Terrain Quality and Graphics Quality. Cutting Terrain Quality down to about half at least gave me an extra 5-7 FPS, while lowering Graphics Quality down to 3 from 5 gave me almost a 10 FPS increase. In foliage dense areas, the game seems to hover around 25-35 FPS for me on absolute max settings @ 1920x1080. This is with an FX-8350 and a GTX 970. Not bad, but I can tolerate 30 FPS, so I can't really speak for others.

Personally, I like the ability to turn off grass. Tired of losing crap in the grass every time I hit a barrel.

16 hours ago: [QUOTE=garryjnewman;47468096] "Is it alright if we keep it in for a month or two to gauge the effect it has on performance?"[/QUOTE]

No,it isn't alright [editline]7th April 2015[/editline] Just put green boxces where the grass was And it would be alright

[QUOTE=utilitron;47469856]So the question is: what causes my FPS to be low?[/QUOTE] An informative post, but I don't see any slowdown at all, so this isn't a universal problem. My rig is nowhere near cutting edge. I'd call it mid-grade: AMD 8320E CPU 16 GB DDR3 R9-280 graphics at 1920x1080 Samsung 840 Evo SSD Win 7, Avira, etc. I generally don't see poor framerates. Once in a while, maybe 3-5 times per hour, it will pause for half a second. Usually this is when something massive comes into render range, or when I'm navigating a complex area (lots of buildings nearby). But this is brief and goes back to full speed after a half second. I'm not being argumentative, and maybe there is a legitimate problem here. I'm only pointing out that some of us on mid-grade hardware aren't seeing any problem at all.

I'll just leave this here. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/31qxpo/about_grass/[/url]

[QUOTE=Maximum Over;47475300]An informative post, but I don't see any slowdown at all, so this isn't a universal problem. My rig is nowhere near cutting edge. I'd call it mid-grade: AMD 8320E CPU 16 GB DDR3 R9-280 graphics at 1920x1080 Samsung 840 Evo SSD Win 7, Avira, etc. I generally don't see poor framerates. Once in a while, maybe 3-5 times per hour, it will pause for half a second. Usually this is when something massive comes into render range, or when I'm navigating a complex area (lots of buildings nearby). But this is brief and goes back to full speed after a half second. I'm not being argumentative, and maybe there is a legitimate problem here. I'm only pointing out that some of us on mid-grade hardware aren't seeing any problem at all.[/QUOTE] Sorry dude but that isnt a mid tier computer, that's got an insane resolution and a buttload of RAM. Rust is currently memory heavy so you're most likely not seeing issues because of all that RAM.

1080p is not an insane resolution, it's kind of the standard. An R9 280 is midtier for a gaming machine in 2015. 16GB of RAM is more than enough, and RAM is one of Rust's bottlenecks right now. The 8-core Vishera CPU is pretty nice, though, but games have to make use of all of those cores to make them count (most don't). His machine is very solidly mid-tier for a gaming machine in 2015, and would be about high tier if he stuck a $450 video card in.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47478201]Sorry dude but that isnt a mid tier computer, that's got an insane resolution and a buttload of RAM. Rust is currently memory heavy so you're most likely not seeing issues because of all that RAM.[/QUOTE] If you're used to playing Rust at 1366x768 maybe, but 1080p is par for the course. Even my four-year-old gaming laptop is 1920x1080. Thanks though. :)

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;47478201]Sorry dude but that isnt a mid tier computer, that's got an insane resolution and a buttload of RAM. Rust is currently memory heavy so you're most likely not seeing issues because of all that RAM.[/QUOTE] Yea, lol. That 16GB, SSD, 3 GB video card, and 8 core processor seem a little high for a mid-range computer. I run this: Intel i3 Quad Core at 3.3 GHZ 8 GB DDR3 Radeon something with 2GB Ram A regular Western Digital Sata3 HDD Windows 7 I get significant fps drop with the grass on, and normally have to drop the resolution from 1920x1080 to 1600x900. EDIT: Although my current rig is about a year away from getting an upgrade, so I'm probably at the lower end now.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47478585] Intel i3 Quad Core at 3.3 GHZ 8 GB DDR3 Radeon something with 2GB Ram A regular Western Digital Sata3 HDD Windows 7[/QUOTE] A lot depends on your graphics card. That makes a HUGE difference in game performance. And although mine is an 8-core processor, each pair of cores shares something (FPU? Been forever since I looked it up and I can't remember, someone correct me), so the end result is that when AMD says "8 cores", it's more or less the same idea as Intel saying "8 threads". Not exact, but it's the same idea that each core does not yield identical performance. The 8320E isn't exactly a powerhouse. In terms of per-core horsepower it's about on par with an i5 4670 -- give or take. I think the R9-280 I picked up on Black Friday sale for around $169. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice card, I just wouldn't call it bleeding edge or even "enthusiast". My definition of a "mid-range gaming PC" is one I build for around $500 - $700. Most enthusiast builds I spec out are well over $1000 and you can build an entry-level gaming rig for quite a bit less. Maybe our comparison tables just aren't lining up. :)

[QUOTE=Maximum Over;47483678]A lot depends on your graphics card. That makes a HUGE difference in game performance. And although mine is an 8-core processor, each pair of cores shares something (FPU? Been forever since I looked it up and I can't remember, someone correct me), so the end result is that when AMD says "8 cores", it's more or less the same idea as Intel saying "8 threads". Not exact, but it's the same idea that each core does not yield identical performance. The 8320E isn't exactly a powerhouse. In terms of per-core horsepower it's about on par with an i5 4670 -- give or take. I think the R9-280 I picked up on Black Friday sale for around $169. Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice card, I just wouldn't call it bleeding edge or even "enthusiast". My definition of a "mid-range gaming PC" is one I build for around $500 - $700. Most enthusiast builds I spec out are well over $1000 and you can build an entry-level gaming rig for quite a bit less. Maybe our comparison tables just aren't lining up. :)[/QUOTE] How much difference do you think that SSD makes for gaming? I wanted to upgrade my HDD to an SSD soon. It's been a couple of years since I wiped my computer and re-installed everything so I'd like to do the upgrade then. I also realized I still had 2 slots open for memory! I'm going to upgrade to 16 GB next week, so I'm curious to see how that affects it. I always upgrade my memory before anything else since that has the biggest impact on system wide perfomance.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47483767]How much difference do you think that SSD makes for gaming? I wanted to upgrade my HDD to an SSD soon. It's been a couple of years since I wiped my computer and re-installed everything so I'd like to do the upgrade then. I also realized I still had 2 slots open for memory! I'm going to upgrade to 16 GB next week, so I'm curious to see how that affects it. I always upgrade my memory before anything else since that has the biggest impact on system wide perfomance.[/QUOTE] All the SSD does is make things read and write from disk faster. You have less wait times before something loads up. In terms of actual gaming performance once everything is loaded up, the SSD has no impact. Not sure that more RAM will make any difference in games either. I don't think there's any game that even actively uses up 8 GB as it is. More RAM will just mean that you can switch between tasks faster without Windows having to read and write to your page file. It never hurts to have more RAM as it'll give your entire system more overall multitasking capacity, but if you have 8 GB already, it's not likely to affect your gaming in any way.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47483767]How much difference do you think that SSD makes for gaming? I wanted to upgrade my HDD to an SSD soon. It's been a couple of years since I wiped my computer and re-installed everything so I'd like to do the upgrade then.[/QUOTE] By itself, it's not a major difference for gaming. It will help if your game suddenly tries to load a large number of textures or a complex map from local storage. It will also help if Windows is doing something in the background that involves I/O, as faster I/O may help that particular task finish, which in turn releases more CPU power / memory throughput for your game. I went with it because it was good deal (Black Friday), and because overall performance is a measure of how lots of little things pile up.