Have they done any changes to make the game run smoother? I want to subscribe again but need to know if they have optimized the game, as it was running pretty crappy if there was more than 10 people on my screen. (it's not my pc, so dont try.)
Whats your computer specs?
I got an I7-2600K
max settings on a 1680X1050
150+ at fleet an no problems at all
6 gb of ram, 3.2 4core i7 something, and GTX 590 1920*1080 resolution
---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 08:29 AM ----------
20 fps in fleet on low(atleast after launch with 120-150 people there), 0.1-1 fps in the pvp zone (cant remember the name) with about 140 ppl from my faction. on lowest quality
ilum sucks for everyone, but 1) they've done a bunch of optimizations for the area, which have helped, and are working on other changes, and 2) they've pretty much neutered the area, since you can do the ilum pvp dailies with regular warzones now. Not sure about your fleet issues, but I've been on servers with those kind of numbers, and have been fine, with worse hardware.
Eire - 50 Balance and Kinetic Combat Shadow, Master Zhar Lestin server. Ace guild
As the op said try 1.2 pts to check if they improved for you. I havent tested it yet, but many players are reporting better fps on the pts.
Funny thing about swtor engine is you go to a wz, everything on high 20 fps, you reduce to very low/low and bam 20 fps. Hope they fix it asap, coz i really love pvp in swtor but i cant really play @ 20 fps, and no its not my machine something is terribly wrong, because i get 100 fps in world while questing and around 20-25 fps on fleet with 280 peeps on it.
It really has to be something wrong on their end.
All these people with super computers having shitty fps, then you have me:
Intel core 2 duo e8400 @ 3Ghz
4G of DDR2 ram
... I rarely dropped below 60 fps even on the fleet and never below that in PvP. Maybe the times in ilum where there was 200 people there trading, but on the fleet? Hardly ever. regardless of how many people are around
My performance in 1.2 is around what it was before in beta now.
The load screens though, yes, have always been terrible. Far too many of them and far too long. There simply is no good reason for having to have a load screen to get onto your ship, it's not that much extra data to have on the same map as whatever planet you're on. I remember ages ago, shortly after the game was announced, they were talking about how any of the load screens would always occur behind cut scenes, so you would never see a load screen. So for instance, you go to a planet, and the cut scene of your ship flying down to the planet would be when the game would load. It does actually start doing that, but the load screens are so long, that it doesn't really make a difference. Shame really.
The problem with these threads is that "running fine" is a very subjective issue. For instance, on my machine right now, sitting at 1600x900 res, fullscreen mode, and medium settings with shadow details disabled, most areas I get around 30-80fps (yes, it really does vary this much, but more on that to come), but in warzones I usually get about 25fps (been having issues lately where sometimes I only get 10, not sure what is causing this).
The thing is, that so many different things will contribute to what kinds of frame rates you are going to get beyond system specs and settings. The environments vary greatly from one planet to another, add on top of that the vast differences in populations and character/mob densities in your current area, and the number of things going on, it gets pretty crazy.
The other thing, is that every different person has a different idea of what "running fine" is. I, for one, don't mind sitting with my settings as they are and getting ~30-40fps the majority of the time. For someone else, they may expect that they should have every setting maxed out, and still be getting 60-90fps everywhere, including Warzones.
I will say this, they have come a long way on improving the games performance for everyone since launch, and they are doing more to make things better as time goes on. All you can do is try it out and see how you feel about it for your personal definition of "running fine" probably best done with the help of a friend who is still playing, or making a fake account to take advantage of the weekend passes to update your client and check things out.
Core i7 2600k (no OC)
8GB DDR3 1600
Mushkin Chronos 120GB SATA3 SSD
I run it at 1920x1080 with almost everything on High. I just checked the fps in the cantina on Tatooine and it was running at 40-60. All in all I don't pay attention to the actual numbers and just see if it looks good and for the most part it really does. Even in WZs and high traffic areas. The only thing that ever slows me down is my own internet connection.
With that being said, the game has been optimized to run better than it did at launch. The game is still a CPU hog and it will probably take more time before it will run with as little foot print as possible.
By the way, I used to have poor performance. Found out my CPU was overheating because of the additional stress this game causes. I can play BF3 with no issues. I used to think it wasnt my computer until I figured this out. I increased air flow and now I no longer have any problems. Sure its the games poor coding and resource management, but it was also my computer. Take that for what its worth.
Major design flaw when it becomes the customers's problem to try and get the game to work on a more than capable PC. You should not have to be in an Intel lab to be able to run the game.
There is a legit reason that these FPS/performance threads keep popping up.
I must be lucky. I have never had any issues, and my PC is far from a super computer.
Guess I'll count my blessings
Intel-i7 first generation core
500Gb HDD that is about 67% full
Windows 7 Pro-N edition 64b
Running TOR at max graphics with almost no issues, few areas and camera angles I drop below 25, but most of the time I'm sitting in the 52-60 range... On that note, Alderaan looks awesome.