New terrain looks AMAZING, however at the expense of performance - Rust

So today, after I read the [URL="http://playrust.com"]devblog[/URL], I jumped on the dev branch to take a look for myself at the new terrain. And I've got to say, the new terrain looks absolutely AMAZING. However, I agree with Garry's decision to postpone the update. Besides the numerous bugs and the map taking forever to load, the FPS took a HUGE hit. I used to get like 25-30 fps (playable), now I get like 10-12 fps (unplayable). The devs really need to focus on optimization this week. I don't think my Intel HD Graphics Card can handle anymore of it. :suicide: [editline]2nd April 2015[/editline] Is anyone else getting lower performance on the dev branch?

well, poligon count skyrocketed with the amount of rocks and new terrain things this week.. i supose they are gona need to improve it a lot before this goes to live.. maybe removing the poligons that are underground.. if you roam a map as admin you can see that there is a SHIET TON of unnneded underground poligons that my video card has to calculate.. Also most of this rocks are rendered even further away than the view distance (max 2500) for some reason.. Just give them some time to optimize all this things.. Im preety sure performace is not going to improve from prev week.. maybe if they fix the video lag and freezes each time you are in a assault rifle shoting, but besides that.. all terrain improvements WILL have a sirious impact on performance, no mater how much they optimize it.

[QUOTE=Tuks;47447542]Im preety sure performace is not going to improve from prev week.. maybe if they fix the video lag and freezes each time you are in a assault rifle shoting[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Shader Warm-Up Remember how you used to enter the game and it’d stutter and load when you’d look around, and when you first fired a gun? Well that’s fixed now because we preload the shaders. Something we should have been doing six months ago, but we’re idiots.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Better Profiling/Performance Reporting The one huge thing the Legacy version has over the current version is performance. Our performance is shit, and it has been for a long time. So I decided that we’re looking at the wrong stuff. I’ve been measuring performance by frame-rate. It’s what a lot of idiots like me do. It isn’t useful. We need to look at how much time is spent rendering, how much time is spent culling, how much time is spent animating, how much time is spent processing physics, and how much time is spent on game logic. ... What this means is that if we see in our graphs that last week the average framerate dropped by 10%, we don’t just think “fuck”, but we also can think “oh average physics went up by 5ms, that must have been when we added x, lets tone that down”.[/QUOTE] [url]http://playrust.com/devblog-54/[/url]

So.... does that mean they are going to try improving performance?

yeah fps is a big problem with this game i get a stable 68fps then for no reason it drops to 24 then crashes happens 80%of the time when i go to my base or a random part of the map it sucks makes me not want to play any more last patch i was getting blue screen memory dumps only with this game not getting that any more when new patch came i just crash game freeeeezes up same with my friends they have amd cards same as me

I've noticed that whenever I open my inventory, it gets a bit laggy.

the beta: dev is a lot worse in FPS wise.. they may have fixed the shader with weapons, but i was checking tweeter and they disable it... so my guess would be it doesn't work as intended (yet) Profiling/Performance Reporting means, now we have something that REPORTS beter stadistics, but nothing is fixed or improved yet.. with a bit of luck they will get some usefull info from those stadistics and improve something, but it wont be this week.

Yeah, I was talking about the dev branch

[QUOTE=GUNNY7UNIT;47450798]yeah fps is a big problem with this game i get a stable 68fps then for no reason it drops to 24 then crashes happens 80%of the time when i go to my base or a random part of the map it sucks makes me not want to play any more last patch i was getting blue screen memory dumps only with this game not getting that any more when new patch came i just crash game freeeeezes up same with my friends they have amd cards same as me[/QUOTE] Same here. I have been getting constant blue screen errors within the last week. I also run an AMD card. I experience these lag spells like what you are describing randomly that bring my fps down to 1-5 and it lasts a few seconds or longer. When I am in my very large base area, I get 10-20. Usually If I'm running around, not right next to bases get a solid 45-55.

Just want to say that over the past few days my performance on the dev branch has greatly improved. Glad to know the devs are working hard to improve framerate. Keep it up.

[QUOTE=neel11;47447055]my Intel HD Graphics Card[/quote] ...... was that a joke? Intel HD graphics are for Windows, not for games. If you can run RUST at all I'd consider that a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE success.

[QUOTE=RedJenny;47462909]...... was that a joke? Intel HD graphics are for Windows, not for games. If you can run RUST at all I'd consider that a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE success.[/QUOTE] I wish it was a joke. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HbcJ9hJ.png[/IMG]

I am impressed your Lenovo runs the game that well. Even my beast of a system took a graphics hit, I went from 250 and above (no vsync) to 180-210. pretty big hit. To paraphrase Spiderman's uncle: With great terrain comes great FPS hit. I see they have re-implemented turning grass off, and made it into a slider... [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584276817512628225[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584699954070949888[/url]

[QUOTE=garry]just for a test[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=y0himba;47466682]I am impressed your Lenovo runs the game that well. Even my beast of a system took a graphics hit, I went from 250 and above (no vsync) to 180-210. pretty big hit. To paraphrase Spiderman's uncle: With great terrain comes great FPS hit. I see they have re-implemented turning grass off, and made it into a slider... [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584276817512628225[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584699954070949888[/url][/QUOTE] I was getting almost 10 more fps with the grass off.

[QUOTE=y0himba;47466682]I am impressed your Lenovo runs the game that well. Even my beast of a system took a graphics hit, I went from 250 and above (no vsync) to 180-210. pretty big hit. To paraphrase Spiderman's uncle: With great terrain comes great FPS hit. I see they have re-implemented turning grass off, and made it into a slider... [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584276817512628225[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/RustUpdates/status/584699954070949888[/url][/QUOTE] I hope you realize 250 fps to 180-210 is hardly even a hit. Your render time increased by a single millisecond!

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47466969]I was getting almost 10 more fps with the grass off.[/QUOTE] IMHO, a not quite 10fps boost isn't great. I hope this test remains just a test.

[QUOTE=utilitron;47468539]IMHO, a not quite 10fps boost isn't great. I hope this test remains just a test.[/QUOTE] Going from 10 to 20 fps makes a big difference in gameplay. If I can run it at 30+ fps then everything is fairly smooth. Anything under 15 and I end up losing almost any fight I get in where I have to aim.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47469319]Going from 10 to 20 fps makes a big difference in gameplay. If I can run it at 30+ fps then everything is fairly smooth. Anything under 15 and I end up losing almost any fight I get in where I have to aim.[/QUOTE] But there is likely a larger culprit at hand that is sucking up far more FPS. Allowing a game breaking change to justify a small FPS boost doesn't seem worth it to me. Something is choking certain systems, and it is not the grass.

[QUOTE=utilitron;47469377]But there is likely a larger culprit at hand that is sucking up far more FPS. Allowing a game breaking change to justify a small FPS boost doesn't seem worth it to me. Something is choking certain systems, and it is not the grass.[/QUOTE] Right now it's the grass. When I turn grass [B]off[/B] my fps goes [B]up[/B]. When I turn it back [B]on[/B] my fps goes [B]down[/B]. This would lead me to the conclusion that grass is affecting my fps. Hopefully they will figure out a more efficient way to render it, but since they gave everyone the option to turn it off it isn't game breaking.

[QUOTE=RedJenny;47462909]Intel HD graphics are for Windows, not for games. [/QUOTE] Actually, the newer Intel HD graphics cards are completely different than a few years ago. They can do gaming decently, just not handle high settings on some games. In 2014, your statement is a bit off. Of course a discrete graphics card can do better if it is a good card, but you can certainly do most games on a good system with a new model of Intel HD graphics.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47469473]Right now it's the grass. When I turn grass [B]off[/B] my fps goes [B]up[/B]. When I turn it back [B]on[/B] my fps goes [B]down[/B]. This would lead me to the conclusion that grass is affecting my fps. Hopefully they will figure out a more efficient way to render it, but since they gave everyone the option to turn it off it isn't game breaking.[/QUOTE] If it's something else that's massively choking frame rate that can't be tested by simply having players turn it off, like poly counts, light frustums, texture streaming, grass could be considered a necessary evil/not even worth mentioning. For example, if one of my other examples were the culprit, and suddenly everyone got way over 60fps, a 10fps difference between grass on and off wouldn't be a problem, and people wouldn't be irritated with it. That could potentially be the scenario here, we don't know yet. If something is throttling framerates by like 50fps, and grass is only 10fps, which would you rather tackle? Though we don't know if this is the case, it very well could be, and probably is. Grass is actually rendered incredibly efficiently, considering they're rendering hundreds of thousands of instances of it with one single drawcall.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47469473]Right now it's the grass. When I turn grass [B]off[/B] my fps goes [B]up[/B]. When I turn it back [B]on[/B] my fps goes [B]down[/B]. This would lead me to the conclusion that grass is affecting my fps. Hopefully they will figure out a more efficient way to render it, but since they gave everyone the option to turn it off it isn't game breaking.[/QUOTE] This is actually wrong, likely because you don't understand how it works. It isn't as simple as all that. Please read my post [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1459494&p=47469856&viewfull=1#post47469856"]here[/URL] for more information.

[QUOTE=utilitron;47469935]This is actually wrong, likely because you don't understand how it works. It isn't as simple as all that. Please read my post [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1459494&p=47469856&viewfull=1#post47469856"]here[/URL] for more information.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that when the grass is disabled then the CPU and GPU are able to process other information in the bottleneck quicker because there are less polygons to render?

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47470003]So what you're saying is that when the grass is disabled then the CPU and GPU are able to process other information in the bottleneck quicker because there are less polygons to render?[/QUOTE] Essentially. By fixing the bottleneck you will see a much larger, more significant, boost in FPS.

[QUOTE=utilitron;47470078]Essentially.[/QUOTE] Lol, then that means the grass is affecting performance. Of course there's more to it than just a simplistic on and off answer, and I'm sure they will solve the issue. Whether it's how the grass is rendered, in what order it's rendered, the quality, whatever, it's still using resources to render it. This is what I noticed: Resolution is at 1920x1080 (although in the past 1600x900 gives me a fps boost) Quality settings are on 1 (Fast or Fastest?) View Distance is at 2500 (only setting it to 50 ever made my fps go up) Terrain Quality is at 50 (Over 60 drops my fps) Shader is set about 1/2 way. This one only impacts fps if it slides higher than about 50% on the slider. Grass is at 0 and I get +fps. PVT is off because it doesn't make a difference for me and causes odd grahpic issues. All other extras (sun shafts, reflections) are off. Now, if I turn the grass on with all these other settings I get the fps drop. If I turn the grass on and lower the other settings one at a time I get no change in fps (they stay down). The only things that were significantly impacting fps were: The Quality Settings (this is biggest one). The Shader settings The Grass EDIT: I agree that it's not just the grass, but the way things are being rendered the grass is currently one of the top things that affects my fps. Whether it's the bottleneck or something else doesn't really matter when the affect is that turning it off increases the fps. I'm sure that they will locate what the issue is and solve it.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171]Lol, then that means the grass is affecting performance. Of course there's more to it than just a simplistic on and off answer, and I'm sure they will solve the issue. Whether it's how the grass is rendered, in what order it's rendered, the quality, whatever, it's still using resources to render it.[/QUOTE] Lets be realistic. Everything takes some form of time to compute. So of course rendering the grass plays a factor in it. However you completely missed my point. The grass isn't difininitily a significant factor simply because disabling it makes a small boost on your system. I did edit my response to combat this exact style of false assumption. [QUOTE]By fixing the bottleneck you will see a much larger, more significant, boost in FPS.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] This is what I noticed: Resolution is at 1920x1080 (although in the past 1600x900 gives me a fps boost) [/QUOTE] That is because there are less pixels to process. It is the same as the polygon answer. the GPU is able to process other information quicker because there are less pixels to render. [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] Quality settings are on 1 (Fastest) [/QUOTE] This is because there is less information to process. The lower quality textures don't take as long to process. [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] View Distance is at 2500 (only setting it to 50 ever made my fps go up) [/QUOTE] Less polygons. [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] Terrain Quality is at 50 (Over 60 drops my fps) [/QUOTE] Less polygons. [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] Shader is set about 1/2 way. This one only impacts fps if it goes slides higher than about 50% on the slider. [/QUOTE] Less information to process. [QUOTE=frank_walls;47470171] The only things that were significantly impacting fps were: The Quality Settings (this is biggest one). The Shader settings The Grass[/QUOTE] Yes, all of these things have an effect because they reduce the strain on whatever is bottle necked. NONE of this [U]solves[/U] the bottleneck. [U]Solve the problem[/U], [B]not[/B] the [U]symptom[/U].

And they add Guitarr in the game WTF hahahahha.

Wow! Thanks for all them there explainations on the gaming and computery stuff! Until then I will keep my grass off so I can get a bump in performance.

nevermind, I give up