We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 76 to 96 of 96

Thread: Back to Beta.

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Depends on which game I'm in :)
    Posts
    6,708
    Quote Originally Posted by whheydt View Post
    2. Make sure your power supply can handle an added graphics card. Modern cards are pretty power hungry.
    According to the HP specs on that model it has a 300W power supply. So they will want to replace it with a beefier supply.
    "Everyone's got one. Better to be a smart one than a dumb one." - me
    "It's people like you that [I]think[/I] you know everything that give those of us that [I]do[/I] a bad name." - me
    "Eat, drink, and be Merry, 'cause Pippin was a fool of a Took."

  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Linnier View Post
    Whoa.. So you're saying they haven't been updated in (3) years now? If memory serves correctly this game went Free to Play in September of 2010. I would really hope they have been replaced since then, right?

    My work replaces our servers every six months and we only have (500) employees accessing them on a daily basis. I can not imagine the stress an MMO places on a server, I would hope you missed out a lot of upgrades.

    I can not contemplate you guys still running the same servers from three years ago... Surely you are mistaken?
    This has been discussed at pretty good length upthread...3 years isn't a lot of time at all, for many reasons, but to expand based on your example:

    The server(s) providing Exchange services, communications, and file sharing (maybe some asset tracking?) for 500 internal employees are a vastly different animal than an enterprise host system providing complex application hosting for tens of thousands of remote client users. Turbine's not running the game from some box sitting on a guy's desk, or from a racked pair and switches in a server closet somewhere...this is a fully data-center hosted enterprise system of multiple commercial racks, likely running pretty extensive virtualization.

    You'd think, from a layman's perspective "sure...they're less complicated, so it hurts less if you don't upgrade them, right? Turbine should be upgrading their hardware MORE often, not less!" Enterprise hardware architecture doesn't work like that. The small internal solution stuff you're talking about is more akin to a desktop solution (simply running as a file server, not as an end user client), and does tend to get updated more frequently. My company does update our internal-use servers more frequently than our client-facing enterprise hosts....we can get away with that, because the service running on those internal servers tend to require more updating, are radically less expensive, and the risk of horking up Exchange services for employees due to teh upgrade pales in comparison to our core customer product going down for 5 hours. The needs (and risks) are entirely different for an architechted client-facing enterprise solution.

    Here's a good anecdote regarding enterprise hosting and upgrades. Our core solution (I work for a billing solutions provider) runs on a 3270 mainframe. To translate from any other application, we've got an extensive middleware environment set up between that mainframe and the customer. A couple of years back, we saw an opportunity to both upgrade our hardware (and software) from the Sun UNIX servers we were using to some smokin' hot (at the time) AIX boxes, and save ourselves some money in long-term operating costs and licenses to boot. So, we built the new environment, informed our customers, worked with them to set up a test environment so they could make any necessary changes on their side, then, on the announced day, stood up the prod environment and flipped the switch.

    It was unmitigated disaster. See, the new environment was performing TOO well. We were actually clocking idle on our side waiting for incoming client transactions (rather than running a low-density queue like normal, and our transactions were returning to the client too fast for them to handle. They started encountering data integrity issues. Transactions queued up against their system and eventually dropped on the floor (in our world, that often means money that changed hands, client revenue, was unaccounted and in most cases, that transaction couldn't be recovered). We spent 3 days working with clients to try to fix it...messed with adjusting configurations on their side to handle the flow, buffer our output so they could handle it better....nothing would bring error and loss rates under 50% under normal business volume. On the 4th day, our largest client issued the ultimatum: "roll back, or we walk". We rolled back.

    By going after the new, shiny upgrade (the old servers were ~4 years old, and worked brilliantly), we ended up seriously pissing off our clients, and eating a little over 3 quarters of a million dollars in SLA remedies and the cost of these new servers we now couldn't use. We measured the risk/reward poorly, and paid the cost of upgrading hardware that didn't need upgrading.

    You upgrade commercial host application servers when there's an actual need that justifies the risks and the costs, to both you and your customers. You don't upgrade just to say you have newer stuff, on the vague idea that newer is probably going to be better. If Turbine were to, say, spend money on more frequent upgrades, pass the cost along to us (seen anybody complain about pervasive the Store's become lately?), and oh, by the way, cause large impacts to the game's availability more often, I wouldn't be a satisfied customer....I'd demand that they measure their business needs and risks better.

    Remember the upgraded launcher a few months ago? That was a decision Turbine was driven to by real business need (the end-of-life declaration by MS on the .Net framework they were using), and we still saw dozens of threads complaining that Turbine "upgraded something that worked fine, and broke it in the process".

    Also, while internal hardware can be upgraded more frequently with less risk and cost, as I noted above, 6 months is a little aggressive. Are you sure they're not performing patch upgrades and other OS improvements, rather than actually physically replacing hardware? Maybe they replace 1 piece out of the system every 6 months on a gradual rotation program? I don't know your company's business, so feel free to point out the real need if you know it, but I suspect that aggressive an upgrade schedule for purely internal hardware is more an indication that your IT folks have some serious horsepower within your company, and they're overstating the need....I suspect that your company might be spending money it doesn't need to be spending on toys it may not actually require.
    Last edited by Ailedra; Jul 28 2013 at 12:35 PM.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Penter-Kar View Post
    According to the HP specs on that model it has a 300W power supply. So they will want to replace it with a beefier supply.
    And make sure that new supply has a beefy 12V rail (45 amps or better), regardless of the wattage.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by robbie1435 View Post
    From what I hear, Alieware isn't very good... Maybe I'm listening to the wrong people though.
    Alienware is overpriced for what they offer, but they're still among the best pre-built gaming machines available.

    Linnier is right....you can generally get twice the machine for around half the price by buying the parts on Newegg and doing your own build (or having a friend do it for you).

    The surcharge for having a big-box company pre-build for you is pretty high....you can usually radically outbuild that $400 Wal-Mart HP for $300 on Newegg. This is simply because a large majority of the population is still uncomfortable with PC hardware, and would never even consider doing their own build, even though it's not really any more difficult than assembling a piece of Ikea furniture. It feels high-tech to people, so they don't consider that they could probably do it.

    Alienware simply takes that same concept, and applies it to a niche audience (gamers) who know they need better hardware and are willing to pay more for it. The components themselves are good (everybody, from HP to Alienware, is using the same parts made by the same companies), and the builds are stable, it's just way more expensive than it needs to be.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Skyrim is also a single-player game that only has to render one player (you) from local data. It does not have to track and deliver the position, look, and current actions of dozens of remote users (the other players in an MMO) and potentially hundreds of mobile environment objects (like mobs) to your local video card so that the card can translate those things into your display in anywhere close to real-time as compared to the remote server. The difference in graphical load on your local client is orders of magnitude different.

    You're comparing apples and Volkswagons.
    Now that's just silly. To make any kind of significant difference would require several more hundreds of players in one given place than LotrO has ever had.
    [CENTER][IMG]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7803/rz50.png[/IMG][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?508409-Scenic-Arda"]Scenic Arda[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?532343-Scenic-Helm-s-Deep&p=7014227"]Scenic Helm's Deep[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?519168-New-forum-skin-light-theme"]Forum Light Theme[/URL][/CENTER]

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Taravith View Post
    Now that's just silly. To make any kind of significant difference would require several more hundreds of players in one given place than LotrO has ever had.
    So, we're comparing updates from a local HDD at a SATA 2.0 data transfer rate of 2.4 Gbit/s (and that's a maximum of a foot from the local GPU in the very roomiest case) against every player animation, mob movement, crafting node update, server zone location check, character status update, etc...all of which have to be transferred via T1 (in the best case), modem and NIC (a cable modem alone averages about 40ms of latency per update), then rendered by a GPU to match the local user's current state (which is, of course, constantly moving as well) without discernible lag.

    You think that's an accurate comparison, do you? I'd be interested to hear why you believe that.

    Skyrim's a lush game with a lot going on...I'm not arguing that. So is LOTRO (or any modern MMO). But anybody trying to compare GPU load for display translation latency between a remote host MMO and a local source RPG is...well, "just being silly".
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    So, we're comparing updates from a local HDD at a SATA 2.0 data transfer rate of 2.4 Gbit/s (and that's a maximum of a foot from the local GPU in the very roomiest case) against every player animation, mob movement, crafting node update, server zone location check, character status update, etc...all of which have to be transferred via T1 (in the best case), modem and NIC (a cable modem alone averages about 40ms of latency per update), then rendered by a GPU to match the local user's current state (which is, of course, constantly moving as well) without discernible lag.

    You think that's an accurate comparison, do you? I'd be interested to hear why you believe that.

    Skyrim's a lush game with a lot going on...I'm not arguing that. So is LOTRO (or any modern MMO). But anybody trying to compare GPU load for display translation latency between a remote host MMO and a local source RPG is...well, "just being silly".
    While your comparison is fundamentally correct (network data vs. local datastore), the details are less than completely accurate.

    Many home network connections are well above above T1 rates, as T1 is 1.544Mb/s. Turbine's data center undoubtedly has line far faster than T1, and almost certainly faster than T3 (45Mb/s). Most likely, they're looking as something in the OCx range. However, that doesn't mean that they allocate very much bandwidth to supporting an individual client.

    On the other side, if an older PC, or even just an older HDD, is in use, there is the potential for data to be coming over a SATA I interface or even--potentially--ATA133.

  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    So, we're comparing updates from a local HDD at a SATA 2.0 data transfer rate of 2.4 Gbit/s (and that's a maximum of a foot from the local GPU in the very roomiest case) against every player animation, mob movement, crafting node update, server zone location check, character status update, etc...all of which have to be transferred via T1 (in the best case), modem and NIC (a cable modem alone averages about 40ms of latency per update), then rendered by a GPU to match the local user's current state (which is, of course, constantly moving as well) without discernible lag.
    Are you having some kind of internal argument with your evil alter-ego through my post? Why are you answering comments that no one made about non-existent lag problems when we were talking about fps drops?


    Skyrim's a lush game with a lot going on...I'm not arguing that. So is LOTRO (or any modern MMO)
    Well except that one of those has much more detailed geometry and textures and post-processing effects but yeah, apart from absolutely everything they're exactly the same.
    [CENTER][IMG]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7803/rz50.png[/IMG][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?508409-Scenic-Arda"]Scenic Arda[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?532343-Scenic-Helm-s-Deep&p=7014227"]Scenic Helm's Deep[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?519168-New-forum-skin-light-theme"]Forum Light Theme[/URL][/CENTER]

  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Taravith View Post
    Now that's just silly. To make any kind of significant difference would require several more hundreds of players in one given place than LotrO has ever had.
    several hundred players would cause the system to fail.

    You got the following issues each time you add additional character within sight range:

    1) On the server side you have to update every client for every action by each character

    a) Two characters. Each action has to be sent twice. Instead of a load of 2. Load of 4.

    b) Six characters. Each action has to be sent six times. Instead of load of 6. You have a load of 36. Hence the limitation of six characters in a fellowship and six characters in most instances.

    c) When you jump to a 24 character raid you are at a load factor of 576. Turbine can support some what less than 16 six person instances for each raid instance. I do not have a clue what the overhead cost of a 24 person instance is versus a 6 person instance.

    Within mathematics this situation is called an n-squared problem. A type of problem that quickly over whelms the ability of machines or people to handle as additional actors arrive.

    2) There is a visual problem on the client side. Each character has its own set of textures for its gear, weapons, particle effects, animations, creation options... Your PC is unable to keep up with all the requestas to bring in new textures. Your PC has problems with completing all the steps for rendering a frame fast enough.

    You will see more detail in your personal character in single player games than in online games because the game designer knows there can never be another character. Most designers use a less detailed visuals for NPCs than for your own character to reduce the load.
    Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    45
    I kinda get the impression, that the people discussing with the OP here, believe there is no lad issue in LOTRO or am I mistaken? If you really think that, i'm getting confused. I am not a tec guy to be fair, but I and everyone I know and talk to on Eldar are more or less beyond frustrated with what seems as lag issues. I mean, mounted combat, pvp, instances all seem to contain lag atm. When you hear so many people mention it for so long, it can't only be an issue on the clients end can it, that doesn't seem very plausible to me?
    [center][color=yellow]The Mellowship/Eldar[/color][/center]

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeonath View Post
    I kinda get the impression, that the people discussing with the OP here, believe there is no lad issue in LOTRO or am I mistaken? If you really think that, i'm getting confused. I am not a tec guy to be fair, but I and everyone I know and talk to on Eldar are more or less beyond frustrated with what seems as lag issues. I mean, mounted combat, pvp, instances all seem to contain lag atm. When you hear so many people mention it for so long, it can't only be an issue on the clients end can it, that doesn't seem very plausible to me?
    No...people are pointing out that comparing LotRO to Skyrim is like comparing apples to aardvarks.

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by WBS View Post
    As I've said in another topic on these forums about the problems people are having in Wildermore etc:

    I don't have as good a system as many who are having these issues on a daily basis and yet I rarely see them if at all. If it were an issue with the game's hardware or software we'd ALL have the same issues. We do not.

    You tend to talk with great authority about many things which you clearly know very little about I'm afraid.
    I don't exactly have a top of the line system anymore and never really did although my current system back when I built it several years back was somewhat close. I'm running a Q6600@3.2Ghz, 6 gig of DDR800 RAM, Radeon 5770 and good ol' mechanical hard disk drives with Windows 7 64 bit. At the current time I run a resolution of 1920x1200, directx 11 rendering and pretty much all graphical settings at high or above. I do not have anywhere near the problems many people seem to be talking about. That said, I do have problems and most of them are on my end. The absolute biggest problem I run into is likely a texture loading issue. With the high resolution textures and high graphical settings I run it can take a while to get everything from the hard drive to the graphics card to be processed on the screen. For me this is most obvious when I first login to a character who happens to be in Rohan and especially where I normally park my characters in Snowbourn. When my character shows up finally there are usually some graphical elements yet missing, mostly those involving grasses which use frills but also some NPCs. The character is pretty much unusable until everything is finally sent to the graphics card and rendered onto the screen at which point I have no trouble running between 30 and 60 fps. The main thing to make note of is the fact that at the time the system is still loading textures and such that my GPU does NOT have much of a processing load. I'm one of those people who loves having monitors setup for the various functions of the system and I run CPU/core load monitors, memory monitor, GPU monitor and bandwidth monitor. The actual load on the GPU is not normally anywhere close to being maxed out when I run into low-fps situations.

    For me its very likely an SSD would improve my performance issues dramatically. That said, I'm not exactly happy that this could be the case and still think there may be other under the hood issues which could be fixed with regards to the game/graphical engine to alleviate this problem. There also may be some issues with my own system which I haven't yet tried due to the time and effort required which may help performance on my end. Windows 7 is really good about keeping itself running well over a long term period but I'd be willing to bet I could get some better performance with a reinstall considering the number of years it has been running.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeonath View Post
    I kinda get the impression, that the people discussing with the OP here, believe there is no lad issue in LOTRO or am I mistaken? If you really think that, i'm getting confused. I am not a tec guy to be fair, but I and everyone I know and talk to on Eldar are more or less beyond frustrated with what seems as lag issues. I mean, mounted combat, pvp, instances all seem to contain lag atm. When you hear so many people mention it for so long, it can't only be an issue on the clients end can it, that doesn't seem very plausible to me?
    No one here is saying there aren't issues with regards to performance in many areas with the game. I've seen quite a few issues on my own and many other have as well. However, people use the word "lag" way too much and in many cases where it makes no sense. First of all lag is a specific term relating to latency; how long it takes a packet of information to get from origin to destination and back. Using that term with regards to frames per second or anything else makes no sense and the ignorance of the definition of the term causes a lot of problems for everyone involved.

    On top of that you have so many different possible causes of problems that it's impossible to say this one thing is the problem. There may very well be ten different unrelated issues which combined cause a problem or even a problem similar to another unrelated one. The point people are trying to make is that the cause of most problems are on the user's end. Old and outdated hardware (keep in mind those two are not always the same thing) is blamed more often than not because it's true. I can assure you that I had a lot of fun playing Betrayal at Krondor, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Wolfenstein 3D and such on my 486, however there's no way I would expect that old system (if I even still had it) to run LotRO. While that's an obviously extreme example there are a lot of people running practically ancient hardware who expect LotRO to run perfectly on their ten year old systems or even five year old budget systems. This is simply not a realistic expectation.

    Another problem can be your ISP. I have a rather terrible ISP but living out in the middle of nowhere means my options are very limited. However, having this terrible ISP means I've had to deal with a lot of problems many others don't see. The vast majority of warsteed problems such as rubberbanding have to do with latency, jitter and packet loss. High latency is always going to be an issue in just about any online game and there's nothing you can do about it. If your latency is 500ms it's taking a half of a second for the information from your client to travel to the server and then to receive a reply back to your client from the server. Even in a slower paced game such as this that is going to cause issues and in the case of fast moving mounted combat it's going to be even worse. In the case of jitter, having your latency increase and decrease in large increments doesn't happen. Even when my average latency is decent I almost always have problems with high jitter on my connection. Once you add in packet loss things can and will get worse. Packet loss means some information traveling in one direction or the other simply disappears somewhere along the path. This could happen anywhere between your computer and the server at any of the numerous hops which include your network card, router, modem, the nodal servers and their hardware between you and the datacenter Turbine's servers are located in and then Turbine's own routers, switches and so forth. There's always a bit of packet loss between my ISP and Turbine's servers that I can watch and my ISP has serious problems with packet loss as well which I've seen. Keep in mind this is only a part of the issues with warsteeds. There is also the client/server communications. If the client says your warsteed is at location x but the server says it's location y (due to packet loss or anything already mentioned) the server is going to tell the client the warsteed is at y. This is most of the reason you see rubberbanding.

    If anyone has bothered to read this far in this Great Wall of Text the point I'm trying to make is that there are numerous problems with regards to performance. Most of the problems truly on the side of the user or in between the user and Turbine which happens to be out of the control of both. The problems are not simple and the causes of the problems are legion which means there are no simple answers. That said not all of the problems are on the user's end. Turbine is definitely not infallible and I'm sure there are quite a few changes whether known of or not that they can do to help in some cases. I'm personally waiting and hoping for some of these changes to come into play but realize that any changes can be catastrophic if not properly tested and implemented. I'm not a programmer but I realize the code for a game such as this is so massive and complex that even the smallest change can have effects you'd never in a million years think could be possible.

  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Taravith View Post
    Are you having some kind of internal argument with your evil alter-ego through my post? Why are you answering comments that no one made about non-existent lag problems when we were talking about fps drops?
    Well, to be fair, I'd started making the point one way, then eliminated some of what I'd said...the end result probably wasn't the most lucid post I've ever made.

    That said, if you'll read upthread, the OP was originally complaining (multiple times) about "graphical lag", particularly surrounding animations, not a FPS drop...neither my alter-ego nor I were answering non-existent comments. I could return the favor, and discuss you and what voices in your head/"evil alter ego" led you to FPS drop...but I find discussion of topic to be more productive than tossing blithe comments about somebody's posting motivations.

    Put another way, the voices in my head are my own damned business....let's stick to the subject :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Taravith View Post
    Well except that one of those has much more detailed geometry and textures and post-processing effects but yeah, apart from absolutely everything they're exactly the same.
    Here's where I'm confused...my evil alter ego and I agree that this was precisely my (our?) point: using Skyrim's performance to judge how well LOTRO should be performing is an absurd comparison. If you'll look at your post and what you quoted, that's the assertion you were calling silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by whheydt View Post
    Many home network connections are well above above T1 rates, as T1 is 1.544Mb/s. Turbine's data center undoubtedly has line far faster than T1, and almost certainly faster than T3 (45Mb/s). Most likely, they're looking as something in the OCx range. However, that doesn't mean that they allocate very much bandwidth to supporting an individual client.

    On the other side, if an older PC, or even just an older HDD, is in use, there is the potential for data to be coming over a SATA I interface or even--potentially--ATA133.
    You'll also have some pretty extreme variability given local network set-up (performance of the modem, presence, type, and handling time of any routers, wired or wireless, NIC configuration, etc). Overall, you're right...my underlying point was that you can't compare a local source RPG to a remote MMO and expect similar performance.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeonath View Post
    I kinda get the impression, that the people discussing with the OP here, believe there is no lad issue in LOTRO or am I mistaken? If you really think that, i'm getting confused. I am not a tec guy to be fair, but I and everyone I know and talk to on Eldar are more or less beyond frustrated with what seems as lag issues. I mean, mounted combat, pvp, instances all seem to contain lag atm. When you hear so many people mention it for so long, it can't only be an issue on the clients end can it, that doesn't seem very plausible to me?
    Not at all. What's being pointed out is that:

    1) While not every case of poor performance is a client issue, it's very difficult to point to Turbine when you're attempting to play with integrated graphics that are both over-allocated on system memory and have highly out-of-date drivers.

    2) Performance issues that do exist on Turbine's side can't be easily summarized with "they need to buy new hardware". 3-year-old server hardware is hardly antiquated, and you don't solve application performance issues by throwing new gear at them. You're as likely to spend that money and achieve nothing, mask the real issue, or cause further problems.

    3) As has been pointed out, "lag" is an extremely vague symptom that's very difficult to quantify and even harder to use to isolate any actual issues.
    Last edited by Ailedra; Jul 28 2013 at 07:52 PM.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    You'll also have some pretty extreme variability given local network set-up (performance of the modem, presence, type, and handling time of any routers, wired or wireless, NIC configuration, etc). Overall, you're right...my underlying point was that you can't compare a local source RPG to a remote MMO and expect similar performance.
    Correct. You have to compare Lotro to other MMOs like Swtor or Wow. Skyrim to other single player games like Mass Effect 3 and Fallout 3.

    Trying to compare Lotro to Skyrim (running on PC) is similar to comparing a Toyota Prius to Boeing 787 (moving people around). The performance is completely different between the products in each pairing.
    Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mostly Middle Earth
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty View Post
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Turbine can support some what less than 16 six person instances for each raid instance. I do not have a clue what the overhead cost of a 24 person instance is versus a 6 person instance..
    .
    .
    .
    Is this correct? If so it's slightly worrying.
    If the maths are correct then it would probably be something like 4 x 12man, 1 x 24 man.
    With the number of Sambrogs continuously running, a couple of Erebor raids, a Turtle or two, Warband tours, and Moors raids, it's hardly surprising that the servers are grinding to a halt.
    I'm guessing that the instances dont all run on the same physical server, but it's still a very low number of simultaneous instances.


  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty View Post
    several hundred players would cause the system to fail.
    I can't understand how, almost 10 years ago now, I was able to play an MMO that routinely pitted 100 vs 100 player characters on a single battlefield. I'm seriously puzzled now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty View Post
    You will see more detail in your personal character in single player games than in online games because the game designer knows there can never be another character. Most designers use a less detailed visuals for NPCs than for your own character to reduce the load.
    Given that all single player games nowadays have characters (and building, and monsters, and trees, etc.) that have at least twice (I'm being nice here) the number of polygons LOTRO's have, textures that are 2 to 4 times the size, a much larger draw distance (with LODs that aren't horribly pixelated GIFs - I'm looking at you Angmar) and a butt-ton of post processing, I'm having a hard time believing that a couple of extra low-res dwarves standing in Forlaw is what's tanking everyone's graphics cards.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Well, to be fair, I'd started making the point one way, then eliminated some of what I'd said...the end result probably wasn't the most lucid post I've ever made.

    That said, if you'll read upthread, the OP was originally complaining (multiple times) about "graphical lag", particularly surrounding animations, not a FPS drop...neither my alter-ego nor I were answering non-existent comments. I could return the favor, and discuss you and what voices in your head/"evil alter ego" led you to FPS drop...but I find discussion of topic to be more productive than tossing blithe comments about somebody's posting motivations.
    Let's just agree to blame the OP and meditate together on his assertion that "old engines are causing the server to crash" the way acolytes reflect on a Zen master's haiku. You chose the Path of Latency, I chose the Path of the Graphics Card, but really it could go either way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Here's where I'm confused...my evil alter ego and I agree that this was precisely my (our?) point: using Skyrim's performance to judge how well LOTRO should be performing is an absurd comparison. If you'll look at your post and what you quoted, that's the assertion you were calling silly.
    Skyrim wouldn't have been my choice tbh, if only because, well, this very discussion. Let's take Rift then - it's an MMO so we can avoid all the argument foreplay.

    Pretty much everyone I've seen complaining about FPS drops and that also play Rift mentioned that Rift runs fine for them on Ultra. Even when there's 50 mobs suddenly appearing followed by as many players. What is this sorcery?
    [CENTER][IMG]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7803/rz50.png[/IMG][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?508409-Scenic-Arda"]Scenic Arda[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?532343-Scenic-Helm-s-Deep&p=7014227"]Scenic Helm's Deep[/URL] - [URL="https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?519168-New-forum-skin-light-theme"]Forum Light Theme[/URL][/CENTER]

  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Taravith View Post

    Skyrim wouldn't have been my choice tbh, if only because, well, this very discussion. Let's take Rift then - it's an MMO so we can avoid all the argument foreplay.

    Pretty much everyone I've seen complaining about FPS drops and that also play Rift mentioned that Rift runs fine for them on Ultra. Even when there's 50 mobs suddenly appearing followed by as many players. What is this sorcery?
    Couldn't tell you. I haven't played Rift, so I don't know anything about the game, what kind of pretty "Ultra" means there, or anything else about it. That, and I'm an Ops guy, not a developer. Could be a lot of things, or even a combination of factors. I can kick around a few half-baked theories....off the top of my head:

    1) A newer game/base engine means it may have been written from the ground up to take better advantage of newer versions of DirectX from a software perspective

    2) The overall architecture may simply be superior...different DBMS that interacts more efficiently with the engine, better software utilization of resources, that kind of thing

    3) The client software might be superior

    4) It's simply a better-written game

    5) The people playing Rift are exaggerating somewhat (again, poor performance is often highly subjective and very difficult to quantify...rumor and forum hyperbole to the contrary, I've yet to ever play a game that had NO performance issues of any kind ever)

    Or...

    6) The hardware may be better

    That's the thing....not only has nobody said "LOTRO runs perfectly, and there's no room for optimization", neither has anybody said "no way could there possibly be space for Turbine to upgrade their hardware." I don't work for them...I have no idea what specific hardware they're using, how much of it is virtualized (and in what way), and what other infrastructure piecesparts they have surrounding the application servers, outside of an approximate idea of their age, based on Sapience's post. They may very well have room for some hardware upgrades. You'd have to be one of their architects or SAs to know any of that.

    What I and others have been saying is "the fact that their application servers are approximately 3 years old, and some people experience varying degrees of poor performance, does not indicate that a server upgrade is warranted, desirable, or would absolutely make things run more smoothly."

    The general attitude from some folks in this thread has been "well, the servers are about 3 years old, and I have a lot of anecdotal evidence (note: I'm not discounting those anecdotes, just calling them what they are) that some people get poor performance to some degree or another....Turbine should throw some new hardware around, in the vague hope it'll make some things run better." That's a poor way to run an enterprise system.
    Last edited by Ailedra; Jul 28 2013 at 11:09 PM.
    The forums are not an accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the whole player base. Those who like a particular feature are in the game enjoying that feature. Those who don't like it log out to mention it on the forums. It is a relevant but biased source of feedback, and any claims of community desire should take this fact into account.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Over there!
    Posts
    421
    I guess the main issue is that soon as someone replaces a part in thier puter and it works they suddenly think they know everything there is to know about how puters work. Little do they truly know
    [IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3212/6v1q.jpg[/IMG]

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty View Post
    Turbine can support some what less than 16 six person instances for each raid instance. I do not have a clue what the overhead cost of a 24 person instance is versus a 6 person instance.
    I took this to mean that it uses roughly the same amount of resources to do somewhat less than 16 6 mans simultaneously as one raid instance. Not really a statement of Turbine's capabilities, more some basic math.
    Akhash - R6 defiler

  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Draykfyre View Post
    I took this to mean that it uses roughly the same amount of resources to do somewhat less than 16 6 mans simultaneously as one raid instance. Not really a statement of Turbine's capabilities, more some basic math.
    Unless education has changed, this kind of knowledge is not taught to people unless you are in a college science or technical degree program. I learned about thiks issue when I was taking a course in writing basic database code.

    Our player base is going to include middle school aged youth and up. Plus folks that never went to college or like some of my children got degrees in pre medicine, accounting and art. Many folks on the forums are not going to know why some problems become totally unsolvable if the size is not kept small enough.

    One of the most common problems that is poorly resolved is the picking and delivering packages. The packages do not get sorted properly. The routes are not close to optimal. The facilities are poorly located. For example, I finally bought the low end Kindle from Amazon. It was delivered to me on Monday. It turns out there were three packages to be delivered to me and my neighbors on Monday. Instead of sending a single truck with all three packages, three different trucks were sent. All three of them arrived with 2 hours of each other.
    Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload