Update

Raven0 · Post by **Raven0** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:25 pm

Hi Vice. I'm seeing really lowframerates. Here are the details:
System Specs:
Windows XP Pro SP3 (pretty sure it's 32-bit, doesn't say 32 or 64 in system properties)
Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2140 @ 1.60Ghz
nVidia GeForce 7300 SE/7200 GS 512mb, driver v306.81
DirectX9.0c
2.5 GB DDR2 RAM
53.9 GB of 153 GB hard drive space free

Just upgraded RAM from 1GB and saw no change in FPS. It could be a dual channel issue with 2gb in one slot and 512 in the other, will be checking that later today. I'm seeing 8-30 fps in space, usually 5-8 planetside. Lowering video and detail settings yield no improvement with or without Gamebooster or TweakAll.
NVidia settings are at 'performance', threaded optimization 'on'. CPU usage during gameplay is 30-50% total with 2619816 total physical memory, 1133056+ available, 1263368+ system cache .
Planets are set to pre-generated.
Even at 5fps when planetside, it's still somehow reasonably smooth and playable. I don't expect outstanding framerates with this setup, but it seems like something's not quite rght.
Here are my questions:
Shouldn't lower detail/resolution show some minor improvement?
Is my CPU slowing it down?
If memory serves, 1.6 Ghz dual-core should be about as good as 2.0 Ghz single CPU. Or am I mistaken?

Now the dumb question:
My video card and monitor are equipped for digital video (DVI?). I'm currently using an analog VGA cable. Could switching to a digital cable be an easy solution?

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious or misinterpreting my system's capabilities. Computer hardware isn't my area of expertise.

Post by **Vice** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:41 pm

Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2140 @ 1.60Ghz
nVidia GeForce 7300 SE/7200 GS 512mb, driver v306.81

These, combined with the likely 800 MHz FSB motherboard you are using with that system, are your more significant limiting factors. Yes, the 1.6 GHz processor is probably the primary bottleneck. Even with dual core, GHz still matters and is why 2.0 GHz is listed as a minimum requirement. The game can still play, it may just have points where performance is at or below desired minimums.

About the only ways to try and improve performance would be to turn off the 3D cockpit and reduce detail settings. But at those specs, I wouldn't expect too much of a noticeable improvement. Not pairing your DDR memory could be a much bigger issue. I would check into making sure you can have all memory sticks properly paired in the required slots to make sure DDR is active. That can have a significant effect on performance. Otherwise, it will require a CPU/motherboard and/or 3D video card upgrade in the future for a major improvement.

Viper · Post by **Viper** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:45 pm

I had more or less the same problem as you have Raven, although I didn't have it as bad. I have a AMD Athlon dual core 2.3 Ghz, 4Gb of RAM and a NVidia GTX550Ti 1Gb which gives quite a bit more performance in comparison to your setup, and still my framerates can drop to around 15 planetside. In space I have up to 60 though and all settings to high.
Like you, it's my cpu that's bottlenecking me. I'm planning on getting a Phenom quad core soon to improve my performance. Seeing the difference between your and my setups, you should definitely consider some new hardware.

Probably like you, I was a bit disappointed when I was first confronted with my pc's poor performance with the expansion, and the difference with EM v1.x. And personally I don't have a lot of money to spend at the time. But truth be told, looking at most other games around that offer graphics of the same level as EM, EM's system requirements are really not that high. And because development in the pc world just goes so quick, a 1.6Ghz cpu is really not adequate anymore.

Munshine · Post by **Munshine** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:15 pm

I think I'm even more cpu limited than you guys: single core Athlon 64 3700+ (2.21 ghz) . 2 gb of RAM Nvidia 8800GTS.
10 -14 fps planetside, 30 fps in space. With lowest settings, 1 or 2 fps can be gained but it's not worth the pain.

You are using pregenerate mode Raven ?

I thought that Procedural was the appropriate setting for low-end systems ?

Viper is right, EM's system requirements aren't very high comparing to current games. I'm not complaining though and I'm happy that my old system is running the expansion.

Raven0 · Post by **Raven0** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:09 pm

The local computer shop had some better stuff lying around. Intel Pentium 4 3Ghz single-core and 1GB nVidia GeForce 9500GT. Testing with various RAM sets seems to indicate that my chipset doesn't suffer from dual-channel dependency. Framerates didn't improve much, but a few more FPS makes a noticeable difference. Now up to consistent high 20s in space and low teens planetside. You're probably right about the motherboard limits. This old box is about as good as it's going to get. Still, as long as it can handle EM, that's all I need!
Guess we can tag this one fixed. Thanks for the quick replies everyone. Maybe I'll have a new PC in time for the next version.

Tritonio · Post by **Tritonio** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:26 am

My framerate becomes quite low near planets too.

I get easily 60fps on open spave with everything at high (even with 2x AA). But when I go into or near the atmosphere of a planter it frops to 27-31 fps.

Here are my specs:

Radeon HD 6770M (1GB RAM)
Core i5 2410M (That's 2 cores @ 2.3GHz with Hyperthreading)
8GB DDR3 @ 665MHz (if I am not mistaken)

I tried turning everything to low, precomputed planets but still didn't manage to go over 35fps while looking at a planet (I mean looking at a planter at a distance that makes it cover my whole screen or even just staying landed on one)

I don't have trouble running other 3D games, it seems weird to get such low fps at that specific case.

BTW the new expansion RULES. I was waiting to buy it but since it's free I'll just gift the game to some friend instead. :-D

Post by **Vice** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:37 am

You're getting pretty good results there with that configuration, 30 FPS is about the mark I would expect it to hit. The more detail the game renders (ie closer to a planet), the higher the workload on your system and lower the framerate. Most mid-range systems should be able to maintain 30-40 FPS under such conditions, higher end systems can probably maintain closer to 50-60 or more. But it obviously requires more horsepower than the original version to render the higher detail.

Tritonio · Post by **Tritonio** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:47 pm

Well its a huge jump from the older version. Can I somehow lower the planet detail? Star detail didn't seem to help.

But it seems a bit odd. If you land on a planet, it's not like you are looking at the whole planet, yet the fps stays near 30. Shouldn't it be like a normal FPS game at that point, more or less? What do you think is my bottleneck here? GPU or CPU?

BTW I get a sense that it's the atmosphere rendering that slows me down. The "fog" in it. I'll experiment more but if I'm missing some other setting please tell me.

Star King · Post by **Star King** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:01 pm

Here is a suggestion, I use a seven year old Gateway 2.0 AMD dual core with a one GHZ ATI GPU. My framerate is the same on the beta as was with the original version of Mercenary which is between 30 - 40 FPS. My GPU is a non-gaming version (ATI HD4350). I get in the low 20's on the planet.
I have four GiGs of ram and use Windows 7 to utilize my ram. I use Team Speak with no graphic issues or lag.
If your limited on cash then upgrade by:

1. Buying Windows 7
2. Buy more ram.
3. Download the pregenerate mode
4. Download GameBooster
5. If you want more FPS then lower your graphics settings

My Evochron experience is fun and this game is really beautiful.

Viper · Post by **Viper** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:04 pm

Wow your fps are really not bad considering your setup, StarKing!

Star King · Post by **Star King** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:28 pm

Actually I am very pleased and enjoy tickering with my AMD PC.
I believe if I replaced my current GPU with a gaming GPU I would see at least a 10 FPS or better improvement.
I was able to get Windows 7 upgrade for $69.00 which I feel was worth every penny.
Windows XP limits your ram. I run the 64 bit Windows 7 version which is kool.

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:34 pm

From post: 151126, Topic: tid=10082, author=Tritonio wrote:But it seems a bit odd. If you land on a planet, it's not like you are looking at the whole planet, yet the fps stays near 30.

It's not the whole planet which is the "gotcha" ... it's the detail. Watch closely and you can see the texture change as you descend. In fact, Vice decided not to include one additional layer ... which would've smoothed out the coastlines when you're planetside. But adding it would've also cut planetside FPS to that of a slide show for many players.

Raven0 · Post by **Raven0** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:29 pm

Another framerate-killer could be the water reflections. I've noticed slightly higher FPS on 'dry' worlds like Rivoch, even with rain and fog. Shouldn't be a problem on most modern hardware, but IIRC some older games had to limit reflective surfaces. Still, it was nice to look out my window and see the moon and station mirrored in the water while dropping to Sapphire for the first time.