I've just gone on Test, and the GPU shadows is gone - I am really excited about where this development is going and...
it's no longer on Test.
Can I have it back!
I'm still of the opinion that CPU shadows as is (for local detail), with GPU shadows for the environment (distant detail and tree-shadow), is a good way to go.
Xalmat wrote:
Holy moly, that's incredible.Now I just need to plunk down another $1k to upgrade my system again
Holy moly, that's incredible.
Now I just need to plunk down another $1k to upgrade my system again
Yes it is, but why are you telling me this?
Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:
Xalmat wrote:Holy moly, that's incredible.Now I just need to plunk down another $1k to upgrade my system again Yes it is, but why are you telling me this?
Holy molly, that's funny.
Cexi@Everfrost wrote:
What happened to GPU Shadows? They are no longer in Options in SOEBuild=5530T (March 26, 2009 Update).
The GPU shadows are temporarily disabled due to server updates. They'll be back shortly.
Autenil this font's for you.
Hmm,
As the GPU shadows are an ongoing work, and they don't form part of the next live update, and the fact that the whole package needs to be on test as it will come over to live for a few days, I smell a live update next Tuesday or Wednesday.
Elementary.
Kahling
GPU Shadows still not on Test. Even when the .exe updated.
GPU Shadows on Live? GPU Shadows is not ready yet to use. The reason:
GPU Shadows gives lesser performance than CPU Shadows, and at the same time CPU Shadows gives a better shadowing system. Only Environment Shadows and Off-screen needs ironing out to get perfection, but it's clearly superior at the moment.
GPU Shadows will be a great benefit because Environment shadows is really very good on it and the Tree Shadows detail is superior than what CPU Shadows is right now.
Albright wrote:
GPU Shadows still not on Test. Even when the .exe updated.GPU Shadows on Live? GPU Shadows is not ready yet to use. The reason:GPU Shadows gives lesser performance than CPU Shadows, and at the same time CPU Shadows gives a better shadowing system. Only Environment Shadows and Off-screen needs ironing out to get perfection, but it's clearly superior at the moment.GPU Shadows will be a great benefit because Environment shadows is really very good on it and the Tree Shadows detail is superior than what CPU Shadows is right now.
CPU shadows for ME still give a greatly inferior performance to GPU shadows (which I also generally prefer visually). For you you get better from CPU and thats nice but it doesnt apply to everyone.
shaunfletcher wrote:
Albright wrote:CPU shadows for ME still give a greatly inferior performance to GPU shadows (which I also generally prefer visually). For you you get better from CPU and thats nice but it doesnt apply to everyone.
"It doesn't apply to everyone" - well that's conclusive. Not.
Anyone with a basic CPU at the 2.4Ghz range with about 1Mb L2 cache, be it AMD K8 or a P4 641 (at 3.2Ghz) is going to be able to run EQ2 with CPU shadows at Very high with Extreme Detail appearance at around 30fps minimum. In places like TS and CL, where there are very few models and objects, even with that type of processor, you will hit anywhere from 70-90fps (with the GPU I've referred to).
Greatly inferior performance. I doubt that very much. You're likely using a CPU so stupidly out of date that you've invalidated yourself from any argument about who it does or doesn't apply to.
But then if your CPU is poorer than a P4 641 which I think is about the bottom line to getting Extreme Detail in the performance window of 30fps, you would be so severely GPU limited that any kind of useage of GPU shadows would be far worse than using CPU shadows.
So you're full of it in the context of what you are saying.
shaunfletcher wrote:Albright wrote:CPU shadows for ME still give a greatly inferior performance to GPU shadows (which I also generally prefer visually). For you you get better from CPU and thats nice but it doesnt apply to everyone."It doesn't apply to everyone" - well that's conclusive. Not.- Snip -So you're full of it in the context of what you are saying.
Wow, whats with the personal attacks? Good for you if your PC is uber enough to run CPU shadows at a great framerate.
But ask the general game population if they can turn shadows on without the game grinding to a halt. You'll find that most of them can't.
I have a Q6600 and in most cases I can run full shadows in most areas, though now that I'm running vista it's much more of a performance hit.
Your argument about TS and CL is a bit odd, because those zones are pretty sparse. Try going into SoS with full shadows on and see how good your framerate is there.
If it's still good, congrats, but not even I can run full shadows there.
Please don't derail the discussion with "your pc is so outdated you have no point in being here." It's not constructive, and it's rather insulting.
"It doesn't apply to everyone" - well that's conclusive. Not.Anyone with a basic CPU at the 2.4Ghz range with about 1Mb L2 cache, be it AMD K8 or a P4 641 (at 3.2Ghz) is going to be able to run EQ2 with CPU shadows at Very high with Extreme Detail appearance at around 30fps minimum. In places like TS and CL, where there are very few models and objects, even with that type of processor, you will hit anywhere from 70-90fps (with the GPU I've referred to).Greatly inferior performance. I doubt that very much. You're likely using a CPU so stupidly out of date that you've invalidated yourself from any argument about who it does or doesn't apply to.But then if your CPU is poorer than a P4 641 which I think is about the bottom line to getting Extreme Detail in the performance window of 30fps, you would be so severely GPU limited that any kind of useage of GPU shadows would be far worse than using CPU shadows.So you're full of it in the context of what you are saying.
My CPU is an e8400, I have 4Gb ram (3.5 effective on XP) and my GPU is an ATI 4850 with 1GB. My machine runs the game superbly at all times.
And Im TELLING you (not asking you) that GPU shadows gave, up to the point they were taken out, much better framerates than CPU shadows. CPU shadows give acceptable framerates (they give acceptable framerates even in live with enviro shadows on, I never ever play with them off) but GPU shadows went much faster still, having almost no effect on framerates compared to shadows being off.
I dont see why you are so obsessed that you get angry when someone else doesnt find the same results as you. Maybe you should take a little sit down in the calm corner till you can play nice with others?
Your posts previously have been very interesting by the way, so lets not spoil it all?
I had a look today and all I have is the option of None, or CPU Shadows.
Specs as follows:
Time of this report: 3/28/2009, 20:17:41 Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254) Language: English (Regional Setting: English)System Manufacturer: Custom System Model: Custom BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2400, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.3GHz Memory: 2046MB RAM Page File: 519MB used, 3418MB available Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)DX Setup Parameters: Not found DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT Manufacturer: NVIDIA Chip type: GeForce 8600 GT DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
shaunfletcher wrote:Albright wrote:CPU shadows for ME still give a greatly inferior performance to GPU shadows (which I also generally prefer visually). For you you get better from CPU and thats nice but it doesnt apply to everyone."It doesn't apply to everyone" - well that's conclusive. Not.Anyone with a basic CPU at the 2.4Ghz range with about 1Mb L2 cache, be it AMD K8 or a P4 641 (at 3.2Ghz) is going to be able to run EQ2 with CPU shadows at Very high with Extreme Detail appearance at around 30fps minimum. In places like TS and CL, where there are very few models and objects, even with that type of processor, you will hit anywhere from 70-90fps (with the GPU I've referred to).Greatly inferior performance. I doubt that very much. You're likely using a CPU so stupidly out of date that you've invalidated yourself from any argument about who it does or doesn't apply to.But then if your CPU is poorer than a P4 641 which I think is about the bottom line to getting Extreme Detail in the performance window of 30fps, you would be so severely GPU limited that any kind of useage of GPU shadows would be far worse than using CPU shadows.So you're full of it in the context of what you are saying.
You know I would for the most part agree with you except for I think your wrong.
I ran with the setup you offered and yea my framerate went up but that was at the cost of a good picture. I found it full of jaggies that gave me a headache and made my eyes burn. I would rather play the game with lower framerates as long as it is smooth and looks really good. How anyone can play it without AA turned on is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am sure your settings work great for some people but I don't run the resolution alot of others run because I use a plasma monitor that doesn't support extreme resolutions, so for me your settings don't work.
Framerates don't mean anything if the game doesn't look good, I could run shadows in a raid setting at 90fps+ but it would look like claymation and that is not what attracted me to this game. I enjoy the GPU shadows more because I don't take any performance hit using them, though I must say the tweaks that have been made to CPU shadows are very impressive.
On a side note, it would appear that when indoors on live my cloth simulation goes away but comes back whenever I leave the home... is that intended?
Albright wrote:"It doesn't apply to everyone" - well that's conclusive. Not.Anyone with a basic CPU at the 2.4Ghz range with about 1Mb L2 cache, be it AMD K8 or a P4 641 (at 3.2Ghz) is going to be able to run EQ2 with CPU shadows at Very high with Extreme Detail appearance at around 30fps minimum. In places like TS and CL, where there are very few models and objects, even with that type of processor, you will hit anywhere from 70-90fps (with the GPU I've referred to).Greatly inferior performance. I doubt that very much. You're likely using a CPU so stupidly out of date that you've invalidated yourself from any argument about who it does or doesn't apply to.But then if your CPU is poorer than a P4 641 which I think is about the bottom line to getting Extreme Detail in the performance window of 30fps, you would be so severely GPU limited that any kind of useage of GPU shadows would be far worse than using CPU shadows.So you're full of it in the context of what you are saying.My CPU is an e8400, I have 4Gb ram (3.5 effective on XP) and my GPU is an ATI 4850 with 1GB. My machine runs the game superbly at all times.And Im TELLING you (not asking you) that GPU shadows gave, up to the point they were taken out, much better framerates than CPU shadows. CPU shadows give acceptable framerates (they give acceptable framerates even in live with enviro shadows on, I never ever play with them off) but GPU shadows went much faster still, having almost no effect on framerates compared to shadows being off.I dont see why you are so obsessed that you get angry when someone else doesnt find the same results as you. Maybe you should take a little sit down in the calm corner till you can play nice with others?Your posts previously have been very interesting by the way, so lets not spoil it all?
You've got an E8400.
I've got an E8600 (both tested at 3Ghz D/C and 4Ghz O/C). And I can easily say without feeling bad about it, that CPU performance is not only better than GPU, and that CPU shadows is far superior in appearance and accuracy, over GPU, that this is where you are making it up and just sticking like glue to your evaluation.
When I have tested on 5 machines over the week, one being so low down on performance (A64 4000) and one right up there in the high end, it tells me that when I test an E8400, that CPU shadows, is by and large, completely irrelevant as a CPU hog. Even the A64 4000, a CPU so woefully underpowered nowadays, gets away with 33fps all the way up to 100fps in TS and CL. It hits 44-68fps quite comfortably in RoK, and KP.
Of course, this is all based off of my config: and that I am absolutely certain you are aware of.
But even if this were not the case, your E8400 would have no problem with the standard configs available by default up to about High Detail, where it would tail off slightly, and very particularly in groups (but you'd still get good performance until the spells went off).
Now I understand you saying that GPU shadows is better performing (and to you, it looks better), but what you fail to mention (because it's pretty damn obvious) is that GPU shadows' implementation is way under what CPU shadows already offers, and is far advanced and accurate.
I've tested GPU shadows right down to the balls area - there is a lot about it that falls way short of CPU shadows - this isn't SoE's fault here. They're stuck with a big limitation at the moment, and they're working around it to wherever it is they want to go with it.
The only benefit I can see with GPU shadows, is an environment shift. The CPU could do away with that and let the GPU do all the intricate detail on tree shadows (which scales through the Complex Shader Distance setting).
The 8400 CPU is way more powerful than the new coded EQ2 engine needs. If your GPU shadows is performing better, it's unique to you and your view.
"I dont see why you are so obsessed that you get angry"
Which further proves my point about your personal evaulation between the two. Because it's very inaccurate.
Daedalus Raistlin wrote:
Albright wrote:Wow, whats with the personal attacks? Good for you if your PC is uber enough to run CPU shadows at a great framerate.But ask the general game population if they can turn shadows on without the game grinding to a halt. You'll find that most of them can't.I have a Q6600 and in most cases I can run full shadows in most areas, though now that I'm running vista it's much more of a performance hit.Your argument about TS and CL is a bit odd, because those zones are pretty sparse. Try going into SoS with full shadows on and see how good your framerate is there.If it's still good, congrats, but not even I can run full shadows there.Please don't derail the discussion with "your pc is so outdated you have no point in being here." It's not constructive, and it's rather insulting.
CPU shadows runs great for everyone - I'm sure (nay, certain) for a large majority.
"But ask the general game population if they can turn shadows on without the game grinding to a halt. You'll find that most of them can't."
I can accept this, if they are using a CPU that is 5-7 years out of date, or they just don't care about CPU shadows. If they have a CPU so low powered (and so out of date), then their GPU shadow performance will suffer greatly.
These two facts are conclusively accurate.
"If it's still good, congrats, but not even I can run full shadows there."
You have an Q6600. About the power of a D/C E8400 without the 6Mb L2 cache (which is split 2Mb per core, so you get a total of 4Mb L2 used by the EQ2 engine pattern-wise). You can't run CPU Shadows on Live. Since your GPU is not relevant here, and even if you had it running it at 2.4Ghz, again, you are unqiue.
"Please don't derail the discussion with "your pc is so outdated you have no point in being here." It's not constructive, and it's rather insulting."
I thought it relevant up to the point until they had a E8400 - not to intimidate a response I could get detail out of. Then additionally, with you saying when on Vista SP1 (which I tested on, and with XP SP3), even poorer performance. So both of you are now on my irrelevant list. Which I hope works in return because making inaccurate statements is a poor show in several different subjects.
I don't think I am going mad here. I was away long before the EQ2 engine got recently updated.
I came back. The game engine is fixed. It runs like a modern game engine that is highly optimized, should.
I am still surprised no one has noticed the difference. I am still amazed why SoE is still slightly detracted about this difference made to EQ2, like they're thinking, "Well, we could do this update and we did. Big deal. Let everyone figure it out for themselves if they notice".
Well, I noticed. I noticed however, that most don't - and I've say it before, Why bother with GPU shadows?
You're 1 of the 2 that leaves me blank on ideas.
Brook wrote:
Albright wrote:I ran with the setup you offered and yea my framerate went up but that was at the cost of a good picture. I found it full of jaggies that gave me a headache and made my eyes burn. I would rather play the game with lower framerates as long as it is smooth and looks really good. How anyone can play it without AA turned on is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I am sure your settings work great for some people but I don't run the resolution alot of others run because I use a plasma monitor that doesn't support extreme resolutions, so for me your settings don't work.
You use a Plasma to play games.
This explains, and largely makes, whatever you say that isn't either positive about what I say, pretty pointless. Plasma is about the worst viewing technology (even at 10 feet away with 42in) to play games on for more than an hour. You may have 50-60hz on it, but Plasma's flicker almost like a CRT. That's your headache problem right there.
Plasma screens are 1024x768, or 1366x768 or 1920x1080.
Now my guess is that you are 1024x768. You don't have a HD Plasma. So you're eyes burning is where this comes from too. If you sitting within 5 feet of that Plasma, good luck with your Optician.
You can't run AA on EQ2. You can do AF though. So you have just firmly stuck yourself outside of the relevancy here.
No its a different kind of evaluation I will grant you that, but maybe you should step back from the details and try to understand..
Im interested, in terms of this game (in purely intellectualy terms I am in fact as interested in the complexities of this as anyone, as it is a big part of what I do in graphics and in fact something of a pet subject) I consider two things to be important. Appearance on a purely subjective and qualitative level (I have no interest in which shadow model is more technically advanced or accurate), and performance as far as it impacts smoothness of play (high framerates are of course good, but they only become of real interest if they get low enough to cause stuttering or ui interference). If it makes my game smoother and/or looks better to my eye then I like it.
This is my view as a PLAYER of this game. Those are the things that affect how enjoyable the game is to play and to look at, which in EQ2 is all that interests me, and frankly that is a perfectly sensible and proper viewpoint to discuss this from.
Are you seriously going to tell me that one system is more visually pleasing as a fact? If so you arent being sensible at all. I in fact find GPU shadows implicitly more pleasing because of the lack of aliased edging and lack of holes and visual glitches alone. I also find it a huge improvement to be able to have full environment shadows switched on, which I cannot do with CPU shadows even on test. Good tree shadows in a game with this many trees is worth a lot to me. Much more than some of the things you find more important. Its taste and viewpoint as far as quality goes.
CPU shadows have markedly improved from their previous lamentable performance. That is indisputable and I didnt dispute it for a second, and the current dev deserves a lot of praise for that and for the many other minor, unnoticed and unremarked graphical improvements recently. Whats highly disputable is your arrogant yelling that GPU shadows are inferior and a waste of time, and further that anyone who disagrees with you is 'disqualified' from the discussion.
