open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Blog: The EVE Client - A Love Story
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:48:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Alz Shado
There is still one unappreciated area where Lag still hits me the hardest...

Actually, the following paragraph from the blog does show that you might be positively affected:

Originally by: The EVE Client - A Love Story
What this means in the real world is that after a certain amount of time loading resources, the memory started to become fragmented, which lead to degraded performance when copying resources in memory. We do a lot of copying resources in memory, from putting a new ship on the screen to loading up a menu, so after a while that process became slower and slower. This resulted in across-the-board performance drops after playing for a while with a specific playing style. This did not affect all players on Windows XP and not all hardware seemed to be affected equally which is why it was pretty hard to find. Also, this did not happen on Windows Vista.


As that particular performance issue is being improved, then hopefully your circumstances will be bettered by it.

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2008.12.08 16:48:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Alz Shado
Edited by: Alz Shado on 08/12/2008 16:30:53
Not bad, CCP.

There is still one unappreciated area where Lag still hits me the hardest, and it's without ever seeing a single NPC. It's when I have the market view and the wallet view open simultaneously, and am updating a large number of orders (300+)

After working my way about halfway through my list, the time it takes to open an order takes increasingly longer for the client to respond to basic UI commands. We're talking 30+ seconds between right-click and the context menu to appear.

I know I've complained about this previously (2006-ish) and with recent improvements such as disabling the autorefresh I thought you'd had it licked. Except, it's not. I got to thinking it might be a system-wide memory leak because the issues seem to get much worse the further from DT you get (comparing times with similar system populations) but only the guys with the tools can really check that for sure.

Being able to update my orders without having to wait 30 seconds for the system to respond to UI commands: that's my Need for Speed initiative.

(and yes, this issue has persisted across several system configurations and many, many Windows reinstalls. It's not my box, or my cable connection, or anything else in my control)
I will be very interested in hearing from you after QR 1.0.3 is released. Please let us know through a bug report if you're still having these problems next week.

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:22:00 - [33]
 

Good to see you guys n' gals (let's not forget the gals!) at CCP are ontop of these kind of under-the-hood changes that are not immediately obvious to the players. (Like a missing model or client crash). It's this attention to detail that makes CCP stand out from the Crowd (pun intended).

Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:28:00 - [34]
 

Are you also going to take another look at your server side optimizations?

Looks like whatever you did to improve the performance of linked turrets increases damage output.

I am still waiting to find out if this is a bug or undocumented feature, or if you need more information about what I have found: bug report 65695.

Ishina Fel
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:14:00 - [35]
 

Just to doublecheck if I got this right...

Even if I DON'T turn off turret effects, I will see improvements on the freeze time at warpin, because all those turrets will only ask my client to load them after it has received notification that they're actually firing (which may take up to 10 seconds from the warpin time)?

Or does your pretty graph(tm) only apply to having turret effects off entirely? The description isn't quite clear. I understand that it will be performing better without turret effects than with, but I do like my eye-candy!


Zex Maxwell
Caldari
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:27:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Zex Maxwell on 08/12/2008 18:27:15
hey, Atlas,

Is it CCP's goal to have the same client performance when you have all the graphic options on, as if you had all of them off? Its nice that you are able to turn it off in PVP, but when I rat/mission, I would like to see all the bells and whistles, yet keep the same performance.

Hauler Honey
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:45:00 - [37]
 

Will QR 1.0.3 also fix bug where you are frozen after clone jumping and need to restart the client?

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2008.12.08 18:53:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Ishina Fel
Just to doublecheck if I got this right...

Even if I DON'T turn off turret effects, I will see improvements on the freeze time at warpin, because all those turrets will only ask my client to load them after it has received notification that they're actually firing (which may take up to 10 seconds from the warpin time)?


That is correct. No turrets are loaded up into the scene until you see them firing. With this change the premium client should load up most scenes faster than the classic client on modern hardware.

Joakim Wasyl
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:01:00 - [39]
 

That is a freaking awesome blog of awesomeness.

Lake
The Praxis Initiative
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:06:00 - [40]
 

I remember making this comment back in beta, a few times since, and never really got a clear answer:

Why not start loading the destination grid while still in-warp?

There seem to have been huge strides in reducing the freeze time but it's always going to be a load-intensive process. Does it not make sense to do the load-heavy stuff while the player can do virtually nothing anyway?

And a neat bonus: you'd actually see the fleet come into view from a tiny dot of ships to an expansive fleet, sorta like stations are visible the whole-way-in, giving a much cooler warp-in look =)

The flip side is of course to start loading incoming ships for players waiting on the destination grid before they've arrived. Though this has the unintended consequence of a load-spike serving as a bit of a spidey sense for an incoming fleet =p

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:41:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Dev Blog
A number of fleet fights have been conducted on our testing servers where our players basically showed us how they play the game and allow us to gather information on specific usage profiles.



So devs dont play the game NOR watch eve vids?

Irongut
Sex Money Guns
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:05:00 - [42]
 

Great devblog with oodles of technical dev info. Very Happy You mention differences in heap performance between XP and Vista. Did you test any of this on 2k for those of us still using that old reliable workhorse?

Never had any problems with heap fragmentation myself but I have profiled and used alternate memory managers before so I know how tricky this stuff can be. I look forward to seeing a huge performance improvement later this week.

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2008.12.08 20:28:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Lake
Why not start loading the destination grid while still in-warp?
Is is already being done to some extent. We do preload some of the models and textures up to an extent that we can without giving away tactical information (we don't want people to know what they're up against while they're still a billion km's away). This asynchronous loading of resources is much more advanced in the Premium graphics codepath. It is partly because of this that the Premium client loads a grid quicker. We will be making more advances in preloading in subsequent patches.

In order to take advantage of this you must have your resource cache size set above 0.
Basically, I would recommend having your resource cache size set as high as your computer can manage; having resources ready for the graphics card in memory is always faster than loading and constucting them from scratch.

Flamewave
Crimson Moon Society
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:43:00 - [44]
 

Quote:
So, we are replicating the lazy turret loading from Classic into Premium. This means that turrets will now only be shown for ships that satisfy one of the two following conditions:

* You are doing 'look at' on the ship.
* The ship is shooting its turrets and Turret Effects are enabled (default).

What this means is that ships will not show their turret models until the point when they are fired. If you disable Turret Effects through the settings menu (the escape menu) then you will generally only see turrets on your own ship.


This kinda gives us moviemakers the shaft. Would you consider giving us the option to enable all turrets without having to do a 'look at'? It'd work well as a drop-down box, like:

Enable All Turrets
Lazy Turrets
Disable All Turrets

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:45:00 - [45]
 

Quote:
With Quantum Rise, we kind of messed up the performance of the EVE client.


I thought so, doing the 1million km emergency warp after jumping through gates was quite Mad

Smilla Snow
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:04:00 - [46]
 

And what about the OS X Client?


Chruker
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:15:00 - [47]
 

And the IGB?

Levitikon
Constructive Influence
Northern Associates.
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:20:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Levitikon on 08/12/2008 23:24:36
Edited by: Levitikon on 08/12/2008 23:22:42
Can you tell me about heap management performance of other OSes, like WINDOWS XP x64 (aka. Windows 2003 x64)?

Are there any synthetic benchmarks that check heap management?

I have access do MSDN AA and can check wide variety of operating systems (from XP, 2k3 x64, Vista, to 2008 and W7), I just don't know how and what exactly to test.





On the related note:
Here is an example test comparing performance of various OS and as you can see, every Os have it's own strong and weak points: http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8344/perfressmalltg6.gif Question is, which of those are of particular importance for EVE?

Kristel Elke
Amarr
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:32:00 - [49]
 

Thanks for publishing your test plan post release.. nice job.

Vorononv Circut
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:50:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Vorononv Circut on 08/12/2008 23:52:55
Originally by: Maria Kalista

Aren't we forgetting something CCP?


Linux & Mac users once again get the short end of your stick. Am I right?ugh



Can't speak for the Mac client, but Premium under Wine in linux currently gets better performance than premium under Vista. That comparison is made with all settings all the way up, except no shadows (they don't work in Linux afaik).

So... I don't think linux is getting the short end of the stick, but CCP should either drop their useless Cedega deal or push them into supporting premium like their GPL cousin can.

Edit: Spelling correction. Am I the only one that keeps misspelling cEdega?

Agrilad
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:53:00 - [51]
 

Now if only you'd find and fix the rare occurence of complete lock up of my system when runnign two clients. I've had to hard reboot 6 times since QR. only 2 of those since QR 1.0.1 though. so you haven't eliminated it. Cause it never used to happen. :p

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2008.12.09 00:08:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Irongut
Great devblog with oodles of technical dev info. Very Happy You mention differences in heap performance between XP and Vista. Did you test any of this on 2k for those of us still using that old reliable workhorse?

Never had any problems with heap fragmentation myself but I have profiled and used alternate memory managers before so I know how tricky this stuff can be. I look forward to seeing a huge performance improvement later this week.

I'm afraid we don't officially support Windows 2000 any more. However, LFH is supported on Windows 2000 SP4. We should see similar effects there as on Windows XP.

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2008.12.09 00:12:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Flamewave
Quote:
So, we are replicating the lazy turret loading from Classic into Premium. This means that turrets will now only be shown for ships that satisfy one of the two following conditions:

* You are doing 'look at' on the ship.
* The ship is shooting its turrets and Turret Effects are enabled (default).

What this means is that ships will not show their turret models until the point when they are fired.

This kinda gives us moviemakers the shaft. Would you consider giving us the option to enable all turrets without having to do a 'look at'? It'd work well as a drop-down box...

That is something we can consider. Perhaps with something like a prefs.ini flag at a later date.

However, if you are making a movie and you need to see the turrets it's pretty easy just to do quick 'look at' at the more prominent ships in your frame and their turrets will be loaded for the remainder of the scene.

Adam C
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:12:00 - [54]
 

Love you CCP oxoxoxxooxx <3 <3 <3 >.<




Komen
Gallente
Capital Enrichment Services
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:15:00 - [55]
 

Okay, I read the blog, and what I got out of it was this: It will stop trying to do 1000 things at the same time, and rather will spread those 1000 things out over time, and at need, optimizing resource utilization.

If that's not what's going on, can someone explain it to me? 'Cause zomg technobabble.

Dmian
Gallente
Gallenterrorisme
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:09:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: CCP Atlas
Basically, I would recommend having your resource cache size set as high as your computer can manage; having resources ready for the graphics card in memory is always faster than loading and constucting them from scratch.

You know what would be great in the future? Rolling Eyes

A PC profiler application (or the ability to create a PC profile in the client.)
Nadeo uses this with great success, I believe. When you download Trackmania Nations Forever, it runs a series of stress tests on you machine, and chooses the appropiate settings depending on the results.

Vista has the WEI, which I don't know if it useful and if you're using that info for anything, but it would be great to be able to run a series of tests on your machine and know how capable it is of using this or that feature. It will also be great for first time users, specially when the game gets launched in a box.

If you want to see it in action download Trackmania Nations Forever (be warned that it used to have a lot of DRM features) and see it for yourselves. Then, with this profile it would be easier for your customer service to track problems and know exactly what kind of machine the player is using.

With that and LogServer you'd see the time of your bug reports reduced, imho.


Sandrine Starfire
Gallente
Dissident Enterprises
The Craftsmen
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:20:00 - [57]
 


Really great Job CCP !

I want to say, that i have seen various and many MMO's, but none of them brought the facts of what are they doing, patching, improving, so detailed to the player base.

<3 love CCP.


Shadow Lightbringer
Nightghosts Inc
Posted - 2008.12.09 06:27:00 - [58]
 

I'm looking forward to seeing how these changes improve the performance of the client under Wine in Linux. Very Happy

Great work CCP.

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2008.12.09 07:11:00 - [59]
 

Quote:
With Quantum Rise, we kind of messed up the performance of the EVE client. It's sad, but it's true...

With Quantum Rise 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 we made it better again.


You didnt. Myself and several other players are still experiencing client instabilitiy and at least from personal experience am getting the cold shoulder from the devs with the bug report (its remained un touched by the devs sence the last patch). Granted its better then it was before 1.0.2 but I am still getting crashes under the same conditions.

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2008.12.09 07:20:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Jacob Mei
Quote:
With Quantum Rise, we kind of messed up the performance of the EVE client. It's sad, but it's true...

With Quantum Rise 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 we made it better again.


You didnt. Myself and several other players are still experiencing client instabilitiy and at least from personal experience am getting the cold shoulder from the devs with the bug report (its remained un touched by the devs sence the last patch). Granted its better then it was before 1.0.2 but I am still getting crashes under the same conditions.



You did notice he said "better", yes? Not "omfg wtf zomg perfect"?


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only