412 réponses à ce sujet

[BridgeBurner]

Something interesting I found out when I asked some Unreal Tournament buddies....

The Unreal Engine 3 (used in UT3) cannot surpass 90 FPS. The engine is physically incapable of doing it, and uncapping the frame rate in the UT3 files will have zero effect; frame rate will stay at 90 regardless.

Mass Effect 3 is based on the UE3 engine. An engine that was hard coded to cap at 90 FPS.

Could it possibly be, that bioware messed up with the adaptation of the engine? The AI in unreal tournament isn't frame rate dependent, a lot of the guys I've played with would testify to that, however, it seems that bioware have somehow managed to "bypass" by accident or by design the UE3 engine's hard code which prevents UE3 engine games going past 90 FPS....

The point I'm trying to make is that the "modified" UE3 engine used in ME3 (which technically has the same framework as the unmodified version) is somehow causing "anomalies" at high frame rates; frame rates which the engine was never designed to be able to reach...

It only just occurred to me, this morning to ask Drewlie about 90 FPS, and he said 90 FPS is a hard coded frame rate cap for all UE3 games, and he seemed to be pretty confident that this would apply to all games based on UE3 coding.

Modifié par Annomander, 09 février 2013 - 04:40 .

[Dyaheon]

I don't know about that. Another UE3 game, Tribes Ascend can be uncapped as well, and I believe many others. No ill effects to be found in that game, but it's multiplayer only and not hosted by players.

Also, I think the OP states that you run into anomalies well before the 90 FPS number.

[BridgeBurner]

Dyaheon wrote...

I don't know about that. Another UE3 game, Tribes Ascend can be uncapped as well, and I believe many others. No ill effects to be found in that game, but it's multiplayer only and not hosted by players.

Also, I think the OP states that you run into anomalies well before the 90 FPS number.

Well, it was just a theory. Seems a bit strange, that bioware ship a game with frame rate capped at 60, yet remove the base engine's cap of 90 FPS in the process.

[Caratinoid]

Annomander wrote...

Something interesting I found out when I asked some Unreal Tournament buddies....

The Unreal Engine 3 (used in UT3) cannot surpass 90 FPS. The engine is physically incapable of doing it, and uncapping the frame rate in the UT3 files will have zero effect; frame rate will stay at 90 regardless.

Mass Effect 3 is based on the UE3 engine. An engine that was hard coded to cap at 90 FPS.

Could it possibly be, that bioware messed up with the adaptation of the engine? The AI in unreal tournament isn't frame rate dependent, a lot of the guys I've played with would testify to that, however, it seems that bioware have somehow managed to "bypass" by accident or by design the UE3 engine's hard code which prevents UE3 engine games going past 90 FPS....

The point I'm trying to make is that the "modified" UE3 engine used in ME3 (which technically has the same framework as the unmodified version) is somehow causing "anomalies" at high frame rates; frame rates which the engine was never designed to be able to reach...

It only just occurred to me, this morning to ask Drewlie about 90 FPS, and he said 90 FPS is a hard coded frame rate cap for all UE3 games, and he seemed to be pretty confident that this would apply to all games based on UE3 coding.

As I said before, the game runs fine even at 400 FPS, the issues that you get are due to bugs in AI logic. Shield regen bug for instance, happens because of a rounding error, if you take a level drell adept in to gold without cyclonic mod and play at around 35 FPS for example your shields will take 2 seconds longer to recharge (intended for gold is 3.7 seconds).

[Commander_Rafael]

Caratinoid wrote...

Annomander wrote...

Something interesting I found out when I asked some Unreal Tournament buddies....

The Unreal Engine 3 (used in UT3) cannot surpass 90 FPS. The engine is physically incapable of doing it, and uncapping the frame rate in the UT3 files will have zero effect; frame rate will stay at 90 regardless.

Mass Effect 3 is based on the UE3 engine. An engine that was hard coded to cap at 90 FPS.

Could it possibly be, that bioware messed up with the adaptation of the engine? The AI in unreal tournament isn't frame rate dependent, a lot of the guys I've played with would testify to that, however, it seems that bioware have somehow managed to "bypass" by accident or by design the UE3 engine's hard code which prevents UE3 engine games going past 90 FPS....

The point I'm trying to make is that the "modified" UE3 engine used in ME3 (which technically has the same framework as the unmodified version) is somehow causing "anomalies" at high frame rates; frame rates which the engine was never designed to be able to reach...

It only just occurred to me, this morning to ask Drewlie about 90 FPS, and he said 90 FPS is a hard coded frame rate cap for all UE3 games, and he seemed to be pretty confident that this would apply to all games based on UE3 coding.

As I said before, the game runs fine even at 400 FPS, the issues that you get are due to bugs in AI logic. Shield regen bug for instance, happens because of a rounding error, if you take a level drell adept in to gold without cyclonic mod and play at around 35 FPS for example your shields will take 2 seconds longer to recharge (intended for gold is 3.7 seconds).

You mean, if 35fps is enough to make Drell's shields charge longer, on the average-gamingpc 60fps almost every class will get some delay? That's awful, 2 seconds longer is a really disadvantage.

[Caratinoid]

Commander_Rafael wrote...

Caratinoid wrote...

Annomander wrote...

Something interesting I found out when I asked some Unreal Tournament buddies....

The Unreal Engine 3 (used in UT3) cannot surpass 90 FPS. The engine is physically incapable of doing it, and uncapping the frame rate in the UT3 files will have zero effect; frame rate will stay at 90 regardless.

Mass Effect 3 is based on the UE3 engine. An engine that was hard coded to cap at 90 FPS.

Could it possibly be, that bioware messed up with the adaptation of the engine? The AI in unreal tournament isn't frame rate dependent, a lot of the guys I've played with would testify to that, however, it seems that bioware have somehow managed to "bypass" by accident or by design the UE3 engine's hard code which prevents UE3 engine games going past 90 FPS....

The point I'm trying to make is that the "modified" UE3 engine used in ME3 (which technically has the same framework as the unmodified version) is somehow causing "anomalies" at high frame rates; frame rates which the engine was never designed to be able to reach...

It only just occurred to me, this morning to ask Drewlie about 90 FPS, and he said 90 FPS is a hard coded frame rate cap for all UE3 games, and he seemed to be pretty confident that this would apply to all games based on UE3 coding.

As I said before, the game runs fine even at 400 FPS, the issues that you get are due to bugs in AI logic. Shield regen bug for instance, happens because of a rounding error, if you take a level drell adept in to gold without cyclonic mod and play at around 35 FPS for example your shields will take 2 seconds longer to recharge (intended for gold is 3.7 seconds).

You mean, if 35fps is enough to make Drell's shields charge longer, on the average-gamingpc 60fps almost every class will get some delay? That's awful, 2 seconds longer is a really disadvantage.

It doesn't quite work that way, every kit has a different amount of shields so the biggest rounding error will manifest at a different frame rate for other kits. Characters  with 250 shields are affected the most and can not rechrage their shield at all if you run the game at 120 FPS.

It looks like shield increase is calculated for each frame and then rounded down to an integer. So for a kit with 250 shields on gold we get 250 * 0.25 * 1.075 = 67.2 shield points per second. Now if you divide that value by frame rate you will see how much points you will get per frame, if the result is something like 1.9 points per frame then you will lose 0.9 points per frame because of rounding down making it take longer. If the result is smaller than 1 then you get no increase at all.

Modifié par Caratinoid, 09 février 2013 - 06:27 .

[Commander_Rafael]

Yeah, I get it, but I thought as 35fps is enough to make 2 seconds longer on a Drell, 60 fps is probably enough for some messing up with 500-characters shield's, right?

[MaxShine]

I tried this out by setting MaxSmoothedFrameRate to 30,60 and 120 (and yes I checked the in-game fps with my dxrecorder playclaw...). I have to say I did not notice a difference in accuracy, enemies neither got super accuracy at 120fps nor did they become morons at 30fps. How can you be 100% sure there is really a difference in enemy accuracy? I have not tried out 10fps yet like you did in the video, but at 30fps on gold they would have shot me to pieces.

Update:

ok, at 11fps I got the same results as you in the video. I was bobbing and weaving around the ship on the LZ on FB white with 4 Geth troopers a hunter and 2 geth bombers around. 10 times around the ship... They did not manage to kill me...

Modifié par 100RenegadePoints, 09 février 2013 - 08:31 .

[Greyze2k]

There seems to be some silly info in this thread.

Firstly, you can get 120FPS just fine in this game by editing the settings file as some people have mentioned.

I and many friends of mine with 120Hz monitors all tried running the game at 120FPS but there was some weird in-game glitches running at that framerate. Everything seemed flawless, the smooth gameplay as you'd obviously expect, there was ZERO difference with mobs accuracy or difficulty in general, played over a dozen matches with it and we felt nothing different in difficulty.
The problem we "did" have however, was to do with climbing ladders.
Sometimes we wouldn't be able to climb a ladder, walking into the ladder had literally zero effect, as if we were just walking into a wall, the climbing animation just wouldn't happen. This only happened sometimes and it also happened in single player, and it affected all of us who ran at 120FPS. Like I said we played a dozen+ games but the ladderbug just started to drive us mad so we put the framerate back to 60... we were sad but atleast the ladderbug dissapeared.

To my knowledge Bioware never fixed this bug so I haven't tried it since. The last time I ran at 120FPS was about 7 months ago.

[Caratinoid]

Greyze2k wrote...

There seems to be some silly info in this thread.

Firstly, you can get 120FPS just fine in this game by editing the settings file as some people have mentioned.

I and many friends of mine with 120Hz monitors all tried running the game at 120FPS but there was some weird in-game glitches running at that framerate. Everything seemed flawless, the smooth gameplay as you'd obviously expect, there was ZERO difference with mobs accuracy or difficulty in general, played over a dozen matches with it and we felt nothing different in difficulty.
The problem we "did" have however, was to do with climbing ladders.
Sometimes we wouldn't be able to climb a ladder, walking into the ladder had literally zero effect, as if we were just walking into a wall, the climbing animation just wouldn't happen. This only happened sometimes and it also happened in single player, and it affected all of us who ran at 120FPS. Like I said we played a dozen+ games but the ladderbug just started to drive us mad so we put the framerate back to 60... we were sad but atleast the ladderbug dissapeared.

To my knowledge Bioware never fixed this bug so I haven't tried it since. The last time I ran at 120FPS was about 7 months ago.

Well, maybe you should try playing at those framerates now, looks like you have some catching up to do, good news is that the ladder bug doesn't happen anymore.

[FatalionPanic]

Annomander wrote...

[...]
Well, it was just a theory. Seems a bit strange, that bioware ship a game with frame rate capped at 60, yet remove the base engine's cap of 90 FPS in the process.

I'm pretty sure it's meant to be played at around 30 FPS

[Caratinoid]

100RenegadePoints wrote...

I tried this out by setting MaxSmoothedFrameRate to 30,60 and 120 (and yes I checked the in-game fps with my dxrecorder playclaw...). I have to say I did not notice a difference in accuracy, enemies neither got super accuracy at 120fps nor did they become morons at 30fps. How can you be 100% sure there is really a difference in enemy accuracy? I have not tried out 10fps yet like you did in the video, but at 30fps on gold they would have shot me to pieces.

Update:

ok, at 11fps I got the same results as you in the video. I was bobbing and weaving around the ship on the LZ on FB white with 4 Geth troopers a hunter and 2 geth bombers around. 10 times around the ship... They did not manage to kill me...

Geth are very bad for tests, stun lock works regardless, try reapers they have less enemies with guns, it's easier to test effects when there are only a few units firing at you. Between 60 and 120 you will need faster kits cause at 60 and above even running will not help you, they just lock on you.

Modifié par Caratinoid, 09 février 2013 - 10:51 .

[Commander_Rafael]

Caratinoid wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

I tried this out by setting MaxSmoothedFrameRate to 30,60 and 120 (and yes I checked the in-game fps with my dxrecorder playclaw...). I have to say I did not notice a difference in accuracy, enemies neither got super accuracy at 120fps nor did they become morons at 30fps. How can you be 100% sure there is really a difference in enemy accuracy? I have not tried out 10fps yet like you did in the video, but at 30fps on gold they would have shot me to pieces.

Update:

ok, at 11fps I got the same results as you in the video. I was bobbing and weaving around the ship on the LZ on FB white with 4 Geth troopers a hunter and 2 geth bombers around. 10 times around the ship... They did not manage to kill me...

Geth are very bad for tests, stun lock works regardless, try reapers they have less enemies with guns, it's easier to test effects when there are only a few units firing at you. Between 60 and 120 you will need faster kits cause at 60 and above even running will not help you, they just lock on you.

30 fps makes sense. Running in this game, without adrenaline modules, it's only to get to places faster. Enemys hit you regardless.

[Lexsoar]

Caratinoid wrote...

DoubleHell wrote ...

There must be something else to it - with my network monitor open, at 30 FPS i'm sending about half as much data as I recieve, and no rubber banding.

When playing at 60+ FPS it's usually 1:1 or often I'm sending the host more data than I'm receiving, and I usually start to rubber band after sprinting.

With hosts from NZ or Oz, latency is under 50ms, and I never rubber band. No problems to the US west, which gives about 150ms to 200ms of latency.

I usually rubber band on anything east of the Central US - 400ms to the US east coast, 450ms to 600ms to Europe and Asia.

Now that I've got it set to 30 FPS, I haven't rubber banded at all.

By rubber banding you mean when your character and not the enemies starts to teleport all over the place, right?

The fact that you send more data as a client when running at a higher frame rate is normal, should cause problems though. I guess it's possible that a slow host will not be able to proces all the packets in time which will result in his net buffer getting full and dropping some of the packets. Unless the game uses a circular buffer only the latest packets will get dropped while the host still tries to sort through old ones, that can explain the teleports of the client. I've also seen some people saying that the game can get glitchier for them if a certain player joins, so maybe slow host and fast client is also the reason here.

It should be possible to limit the ammount of data sent without altering your frame rate. I'll look in to that.

I'm in Aus on PC and put my 'rubberbanding' down to some connection issue.  Off-host after a heavy melee, roll, jump etc I would port back and forth between two spots untill I went into cover.   After coming across this thread and setting to 30 fps in GameSettings.ini, I haven't come across this reoccuring. 

Only played a few of random public games so far.  I very rarely tried hosting public games as I assumed I might be a laggy(buggy) host.  I'm not sure what framerates I was getting before, this PC is decent so I might assume fps wasn't getting very low.

EDIT
Several games later, I'm enjoying being able to properly melee with Fury and Shadow, no popping between two spots

Modifié par Lexsoar, 10 février 2013 - 08:32 .

[DoubleHell]

Lexsoar wrote...

I'm in Aus on PC and put my 'rubberbanding' down to some connection issue.  Off-host after a heavy melee, roll, jump etc I would port back and forth between two spots untill I went into cover.   After coming across this thread and setting to 30 fps in GameSettings.ini, I haven't come across this reoccuring. 

Only played a few of random public games so far.  I very rarely tried hosting public games as I assumed I might be a laggy(buggy) host.  I'm not sure what framerates I was getting before, this PC is decent so I might assume fps wasn't getting very low.

EDIT
Several games later, I'm enjoying being able to properly melee with Fury and Shadow, no popping between two spots

That's awesome. Glad it's worked out for you too.

I played a game with someone hosting from the Czech republic a day or two ago - prior to the 30 FPS limit I would most certainly have rubber banded, but the game went smoothly.

30 FPS FTW

[Variasaber]

As someone who regularly plays with a framerate that fluctuates between 10 and 2 (yes, that bad), I can say that it does NOT make things easier. Any hindrances caused to the AI are counteracted by the fact that it's difficult to aim, difficult to compensate for recoil, and difficult to react to critical situations (like having to run from cover to cover after getting flanked).

[Dorryn]

Variasaber wrote...

As someone who regularly plays with a framerate that fluctuates between 10 and 2 (yes, that bad), I can say that it does NOT make things easier. Any hindrances caused to the AI are counteracted by the fact that it's difficult to aim, difficult to compensate for recoil, and difficult to react to critical situations (like having to run from cover to cover after getting flanked).

That's way below the 30 fps we're talking about. Playing at 30 fps is alright, even though it's not that smooth. But playing between 2 and 10 fps isn't supposed to be doable, nor should it be happening. You're PC must be well below specs for you to have such a low framerate.

[DoubleHell]

Variasaber wrote...

As someone who regularly plays with a framerate that fluctuates between 10 and 2 (yes, that bad), I can say that it does NOT make things easier. Any hindrances caused to the AI are counteracted by the fact that it's difficult to aim, difficult to compensate for recoil, and difficult to react to critical situations (like having to run from cover to cover after getting flanked).

I'd say it'd be pretty unplayable at that frame rate...anything below 15 FPS would hinder gameplay.

[TheThirdRace]

Variasaber wrote...

As someone who regularly plays with a framerate that fluctuates between 10 and 2 (yes, that bad), I can say that it does NOT make things easier. Any hindrances caused to the AI are counteracted by the fact that it's difficult to aim, difficult to compensate for recoil, and difficult to react to critical situations (like having to run from cover to cover after getting flanked).

You're missing the point completely.

What OP said was that running the game with an higher framerate have the consequences of having a higher difficulty.

A console runs at 30 FPS, so technically the AI is tweaked to that framerate, but when you get 60 FPS, the AI refresh twice as fast meaning it can shoot you literally before you get out of cover... and tons of things like that.

Running the game at 10 FPS won't make it easier on you because your framerate is ****, but running the game at 60 FPS and ajusting the AI at half the speed so it refreshes at 30 FPS will get you the same smooth framerate you already have while keeping the same difficulty that consoles enjoy.

The problem is that to do so, you must edit the Coalesced file and there's nothing that would prevent you to set the AI to have the response time of vegetables... In other words, there's nothing preventing you from cheating by making the difficulty non-existant. That's why OP hasn't given us the values to change and has sent his information to Bioware.

[nicethugbert]

Tomorrow is balance changes day. I see no reason why this can't fixed by tomorrow.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 11 février 2013 - 03:01 .

[Deerber]

nicethugbert wrote...

Tomorrow is balance changes day. I see no reason why this can't fixed by tomorrow.

...

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Am I correct in assuming that both console versions are automatically a bit easier due to the 30FPS limit?

If so - what's the easiest way to cap my framerate at 30FPS?

[Commander_Rafael]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Am I correct in assuming that both console versions are automatically a bit easier due to the 30FPS limit?

If so - what's the easiest way to cap my framerate at 30FPS?

capping the fps on 30 fps is completely allowed and easy to do. However, if you are used to higher frame rates it will be a pain to play like this.

To be honest, I think Bioware would only have permission from the financial decisions to fix this if it spreads like the missile glitch.

[TheThirdRace]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Am I correct in assuming that both console versions are automatically a bit easier due to the 30FPS limit?

If so - what's the easiest way to cap my framerate at 30FPS?

From what I understand, the answer is yes and no.

Yes, since AI refreshes only 30 times per seconds you get it a bit easier. Enemies won't be able to shoot you when you run fast (Adrenaline consumable, Drell, Fury), you won't get shot before you get out of cover because they know you're gonna pop, their accuracy is not perfect across the map with the hornet, etc. All those little things add up to quite a lot actually.

On the other hand, since you now run at 30 FPS it's less smooth than it used to be and your accuracy will be less precise. I'm also pretty sure XBOX/PS3 controllers are much harder to master than mouse and keyboard.

So in a way, PC players already have an "advantage", but I'm not sure it should come at the cost of difficulty. Especially since consoles are "mouse/keyboard less" by decision, meaning they didn't want to fragment the player base. PC players shouldn't suffer from the consequences of this decision since it's not their fault if consoles decided not to use the best tools for the job (first player shooters). It's like saying nobody should use a dry machine because a subset of the population decided to hang their laundry outside to dry... kinda ridiculous.

[MaxShine]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Am I correct in assuming that both console versions are automatically a bit easier due to the 30FPS limit?

If so - what's the easiest way to cap my framerate at 30FPS?

in the directory ' C:\\Users\\YourUsername\\Documents\\BioWare\\Mass Effect 3\\BIOGame\\Config' you will find a file 'gamersettings.ini'
In this file there is a section called [SystemSettings] , add to this section the following lines
useVsync=False
SmoothFramerate=True
MinSmoothFramerate=22
MaxSmoothFramerate=30

This will cap your frame rate to 30fps. I did not experience the game to be significantly easier. Actually more fps made it a bit easier for me because mouse movement is smoother and quickly turning is smoother.

I noticed an 'issue' with high rate of fire guns at different frame rates... High rate of fire guns seem not to reach their max rate of fire when the frame rate is low... But I am not sure yet, but there is something concerning ROF, so be aware of that...