|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
Warpoint Sharx
347
   |
Posted - 2015.03.24 10:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would agree to a stable 30 frames per second and being able to actually shoot the guy standing in front of me consistently. |
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
Warpoint Sharx
347
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 11:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken wrote:What would be the best engine available on the PS3 to run Dust? It's clearly not the current one...
The game engine is not at fault for code created by people that did not know the engine being the base. Getting forced off of Carbon was the thing that doomed us.
I would be very interested in seeing a full rebuild now that CCP has a firm grasp of UE3 *cough LEGION* |
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
Warpoint Sharx
348
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Aikuchi Tomaru wrote:50 FPS on PS3... damn buddy, not even the PS4 would be able to do that. You should just wait for the PC-Version, like most of us do. LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:I would agree to a stable 30 frames per second and being able to actually shoot the guy standing in front of me consistently. 30fps in a competitve shooter... nah man. It should really run at 60 but I don't see that ever happen on a console. Except in battlefield, CoD, and all the new Halo games/re-masters. Which means, every modern competitive shooter. Also, losing an argument in the dust forums means permadeath, so no more posting is allowed on your behalf.
Posting after permadeath.
You are crazy for even considering 60 FPS on a console as viable. Considering it on the PS3 is border line insanity.
Comparing Dust to battlefield, CoD, and Halo in terms of achievable frame rates should result in a 24 hour ban. The size of the map designs specifically the fact that the maps go on for several hundred meters in to the redline in all directions guarantees that all of the memory on the PS3 is locked up and that is before you examine the fact that every character, vehicle, and installation is rendered as a separate model. Even if we had triple the amount of ram on the PS3 there would likely still be frame rate drops because bad design is bad design.
|
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
Warpoint Sharx
349
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:
A stable 40 frames per second can be reached relatively easily on the PS3 at the very least even with plenty of stuff on the screen. I think Naughty Dog and Insomniac has done that.
The difference is they are not rendering maps almost 5x the size of the play area with extra models that are so far away from the field of battle that they are barely even significant as background. Poor decisions by the original team when they switched to UE3 have always and will always plague this game.
|
LOOKMOM NOHANDS
Warpoint Sharx
354
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Avinash Decker wrote:
You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Unless you are saying that ps3 can't do 60 fps( which is wrong because
COD does it and it can although dust would need to look worse and be optimized better,all of which would be achievement), otherwise the Xbone and PS4 DO run nearly all FPS games on 60fps and 900-1080p.
I am referring to the PS3 but I am also referring to Dust in general. Memory use is horribly optimized on this game. When they built it they attempted to do background scenes in a way similar to how they work on Eve which just pounds the memory of the PS3. There is a video where the guy was lagged and able to run in to the redline for ever. He was able to run into the city way off in the distance and have it fully render even tho this was well over 1000m into the redline. It is this type of setup that ensures that the ram of the ps3 is just plain over flowed. This is why people experience so many fatal errors and hard freezes.
When it comes to the PS4 I do not know the exact specs but I can tell you that bad code that messes up one platform will mess up any platform. |
|
|
| |
|