Return of Reckoning

Ye im allways capped at 99.
Would be nice if there was a way to extend that tho.

My PC:
i5 2500K @4.2 GHZ
8GB DDR3
GTX 970 OC edition
SSD

Now, when playing on Oh shiney I do get between 40-100FPS in Scenarios and while travelling, depending on the number of players around me and the severity of effects.
When playing keep sieges on Oh shiney my FPS drops down to 10-23. When I set it to fastest framerate I get around 25-50FPS in keep sieges/massive battles.

Now, I just want to add that I've played Witcher 3 and the newest Doom on ultra with this PC (only the shadows were set to lower) and I was pulling some nice FPS with those. So, regarding the Warhammer, it's just bad code, and if I'm not wrorng (one of the devs said this) there are a lot of packets which are probably causing the lag/FPS drop during massive battles.

Dalgrimar wrote:i7 6700
Geforce GTX 1060
16gig ram

and i run capped at 99fps tho sometimes i have heavy fps drops making my screen freeze every 5 seconds for like 0.5s but thats game related i think.

And ofc in big keep fight my fps drops to 10 XD

And this says it all. Dalgrimar has a more powerful PC than mine and he is getting low FPS in keep sieges.

Dalgrimar wrote:i7 6700
Geforce GTX 1060
16gig ram

and i run capped at 99fps tho sometimes i have heavy fps drops making my screen freeze every 5 seconds for like 0.5s but thats game related i think.

Growing seeds using miracle grow remix can cause this. Usually reloading UI fixes it. Also, we have the exact same PC rig herpderp

I'd just like to point out that anyone testing the performance of the game on their system should disable all addons. If you want to streamline your gaming experience you'll have to cut down on the fat and go on an addon diet, WAR seriously doesn't run well with a lot of them enabled.

Also (stylised) text. Turn off any dynamic text in-game (chat doesn't count) and the experience will be much smoother when a large amount of players are around (that includes WSCT).

Just pointing it out because people tend to think the graphical engine itself is garbage when it's usually all the UI elements that slow the game down.

Razielhell wrote:

saupreusse wrote:

Lindisfarne wrote:I just got a new PC but it's more high end,
Intel Skylake 4.0ghz, 16gb DDR3 and a GTX 1060.
I get like 120 fps in SC and 45-60 in big fights on full settings with forced AA even while streaming at 5k bit rate/60fps. And I never have problems with crashing even with my old PC.

I rendered this in 1440p, and sadly the GTX970 series will crash the game as soon as more then 3.5GB Vram are being used (thanks again Nvidia).
one question: isnt war locked at 100fps? i couldnt get more than 100

Yes capped at 99-100 FPS.

Okay yes, you're correct, i was just estimating from memory, i went and looked at some of my streams, and it seems i was a little ambitious with my estimates xD. In RvR battles i see drops down to 15-20 fps, and 30-40 in sc's. But thats on max settings while streaming.

blaqwar wrote:I'd just like to point out that anyone testing the performance of the game on their system should disable all addons. If you want to streamline your gaming experience you'll have to cut down on the fat and go on an addon diet, WAR seriously doesn't run well with a lot of them enabled.

Also (stylised) text. Turn off any dynamic text in-game (chat doesn't count) and the experience will be much smoother when a large amount of players are around (that includes WSCT).

Just pointing it out because people tend to think the graphical engine itself is garbage when it's usually all the UI elements that slow the game down.

This raises an interesting question. If the addons are pressuring hardware, wouldn't that be something visible if you take a look at CPU, GPU and RAM performance? I have my CPU, GPU and RAM stats on HUD during the gameplay. And, in the middle of the largest fights and biggest FPS drops, everything looks fine hardware wise. Is it the addons? Is the code that wasn't meant for 4+ core CPUs and newer graphics chips? Is it package loss between client and server?\
Next massive fight/keep siege I'm gonna turn off all of my addons and I'm gonna turn off stylized text in order to test your theory.

Well WAR definitely wasn't made for multiple core processors (afaik very few games are even today, apart from a few RTSes).

I think that simply the interaction of the game engine and the UI/API code is what's slowing the whole process down and not the strain the addons put on the computer resources (which they don't, I'm pretty sure that apart from a few addons most are well coded).

There's a reason why players who dedicate themselves to ORvR turn off overhead names.

saupreusse wrote:

Lindisfarne wrote:I just got a new PC but it's more high end,
Intel Skylake 4.0ghz, 16gb DDR3 and a GTX 1060.
I get like 120 fps in SC and 45-60 in big fights on full settings with forced AA even while streaming at 5k bit rate/60fps. And I never have problems with crashing even with my old PC.

I rendered this in 1440p, and sadly the GTX970 series will crash the game as soon as more then 3.5GB Vram are being used (thanks again Nvidia).
one question: isnt war locked at 100fps? i couldnt get more than 100

970 3.5GB issue is mostly a myth. I had all 4 gaming rigs at home with MSI 970GTX's and never ever once had an issue with them. People seem to make the 3.5 issue a big thing when it was really a storm in a teacup. They benched perfectly. Although I don't mind getting the $30.00 per card for the class action lawsuit.

Now I have 1080 GTX FTW in all of the systems. I don't check FPS in a potato-looking game like WAR but I do notice stuttering that I suspect is due to some issues with the rendering engine or NPC bugs or perhaps WAR isn't multi-threaded (haven't looked). 1060 isn't a high end card, it's the lowest end of the current series and about equivelent to the 970GTX +8-10% more performance is all.

I think I had pretty solid performance when I played Live and had 9800GTX cards back then.

Kobra wrote:1060 isn't a high end card, it's the lowest end of the current series and about equivelent to the 970GTX +8-10% more performance is all.

I had a 970 before this 1060 cuz my 970 got bricked trough shipping and i feel the 1060 outperforms the 970 by a mile tbh.

Dalgrimar wrote:

Kobra wrote:1060 isn't a high end card, it's the lowest end of the current series and about equivelent to the 970GTX +8-10% more performance is all.

I had a 970 before this 1060 cuz my 970 got bricked trough shipping and i feel the 1060 outperforms the 970 by a mile tbh.

Speed wise, it's about 8-10% faster. But the extra ram really would help a lot with textures and and post processing. It's a little better, but the 1070GTX would offer very very considerable performance gains at just a little more money. About 60% gain over a 970 on the 1070 for a little more money.