Please increase performance



  • Hello there,

    the game runs with lower frames per second (everything turned down, the 62 fps limit unlocked, no vsync etc.) than Vanilla Chivalry:MW.

    I watched my frames quite closely while playing (which was hard enough to do).

    It hardly changes based on player models on the screen. It keeps low even on an empty server on some maps (esp. Fertile Valley or whatever that medieval mit with the drawbridge is called). It hardly changes even with 20 players running around.

    I presume it is connected to the fire, smoke, water and fog effects in the map. It’s all cool and stuff, but making the game unplayable for me and making my physically sick because of the low frames.

    Yes, I know I am more sensitive to low frames than your average player, but anybody who did some researche knows how important it is to maintain a stable, high framerate.

    If you don’t believe me, believe this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7PKuW7mvA#t=9m
    He knows his shit.



  • There seems to be an issue with the game or servers where after a while your FPS starts to drop, I might get around 60-70 fps and the next day it’s 120, same server, same amount of people. Seems to be happen on all servers.



  • dw’s performance is serverly worse than normal mw… and it has gotten (severly) worse instead of better by the latest patch which is maybe due to the new half working custimization but that’s just a theory.
    crowded spots have horrible fps now, and some maps especially the smaller cut ones are unplayable since they are designed to be played that way.
    just talking of normal servers with 20 or max. 30 players, everything above is fps and lagwise likewise and even more unplayable.

    i don’t have any fps problems with empty servers at least but everything with normal player numbers is bad. also the ragdoll sliders or any other graphic settings don’t really impact the outcome.
    35-45fps is simply not enough for these kind of games, and my hardware is not the limiting factor here.



  • Well it all depends on a varsity of things. In between 20-45FPS things will look realistic as long as its stable. Any less and its really juddery. Any more and it no longer looks real. Motion blur helps a bit but its still too smooth and unbelievable. You might think 20 is too low but that’s a steady 20 FPS. But who gets a steady 20 FPS it would be jumping around. Your eyes don’t see in FPS. But between a steady 20 and 45 FPS is pretty much what your eyes perceive as fluid movement. Its not the limit you can see by any means.

    Some people are just silly and turn motion blur on when they get about 30FPS. Dumb because they are putting artificial motion blur on top of natural motion blur.

    Things like adrenaline can massive change what you see as fluid. It can raise the minimum FPS of what’s smooth to above 30FPS and stick what you see as too smooth to above 70FPS. Its a survival Instinct that helps you notice more slight changes in your surroundings. And in games your adrenaline is often slightly higher than usual. Depends how immersive they are. Horror games are great at this. Though most horror games are usually quite dark. And its hard to notice a difference in frame rates when what’s on the screen is dark.

    And yes it does differ slightly per person what they see as a fluid FPS.

    But for gaming many people don’t want a fluid real looking Immersive FPS they want an FPS to give them an advantage. Hence why many people strive to get above 60.

    Frame rates and eyes is a topic not many understand. No the eyes are not limited to 30 FPS. 30 FPS looks real.

    An interesting test we did in physics with two 144hz monitors was playing a clip at varying frame lot people could guess correctly what one had a higher frame rate than the other or if the frame rate was different and the minimum difference we did was 30FPS. Above 90 people could tell if the frame rate was the same so if both were at 120 everyone could tell. But if the two were different way one being 90 and the other being 120 pretty much everyone noticed a difference but it was 50-50 when It came down to which had the higher FPS. So everyone could tell there was a difference. But it was close to impossible to tell what had the higher FPS it was so fast. With 60 and 90 everyone could tell what was 90 and what was 60.

    And there I go talking about FPS. I just didn’t want a big flame war when inevitably someone would say “but the eye can only see at 30FPS”.



  • eyes are not like cameras as we don’t capture and reproduce frames. our eyes don’t even know frames.
    the praised “30fps” is a point where movement only begins to look fluidly at least from the uneducated internet’s vernacular perspective.
    of course it does depend on how bad your eyes are and especially (!) the movement itself but 30fps is definitely not fluid for a fast movement, might be fluid for a scene where a grandma is crossing an empty street on her own but for fighting and especially first person fighting it is not.
    i just want movements that are displayed fluidly and not fragmentary, therefor the lagspikes and servertickrate is already bad enough and fragmentary.
    without stability in performance there is no competitiveness.
    since chivalry is a game that has been basically founded on adrenaline, that has a rapid tempo and that mainly is not played by old people and still runs under ue3 i demand solid 240fps for everybody.
    i have been watching the game’s (fps) performance during the whole beta and it hasn’t turned to the better and besides beta testing in terms of balancing which you could consider pure meta game it is the fps and graphics that are essential and have to be adjusted to the game and its speed, without frames there is no game and no movement, without the right amount of fps for a certain speed there can only be judderness.
    i don’t mind playing minesweeper with 1fps but again chivalry is not minesweeper.

    edit: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ and bare in mind, (my) swords are faster than (your) balls



  • 240 FPS? I think we can safely say we won’t get that high. Not that you would need it unless you are a vancopter who plays on 150 FOV with max sensitivity.

    Anyway it haven’t see a monitor that goes that high. People have screens between 60-144Hz. You are gonna get really bad screen tearing with 240 FPS. Turning on Vsync would solve it but the way it solves it is by making your monitors refresh rate match the frame rate.

    I often don’t like playing at any more than 60 FPS. Immersion over advantage for me. AMD most games have bad motion blur. So I stick with more natural motion blur of having a lower FPS.



  • 240? lets say 480!



  • @filthypeasant:

    edit: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ and bare in mind, (my) swords are faster than (your) balls

    i’d throw this link in as well for whoever wants the explanation behind it. http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

    i usually just link that to whoever says “our eyes can only see 24/30 fps!”



  • Can you please focus for a second?

    The topic was to increase the performance. We all agree that the human eye doesn’t see in frames per second as it is no camera.

    On Topic: please, Torn Banner, make your game atleast as performant as C:MW.

    Thank you.


  • Developer

    This is currently one of our primary focuses, to improve performance. We are hard at work on the first patch and trying to get it out to you as soon as we can.


Log in to reply