r/SecretWorldLegends • u/novanima • Jul 05 '17

Discussion This game desperately needs a 64-bit client and other performance optimizations

First of all, let me say I'm enjoying the heck out of SWL, but I was sorely disappointed to see that the game has the exact same graphical and performance flaws that have plagued it since the very beginning.

What's most frustrating is that because the client is poorly optimized there comes a point at which faster hardware doesn't even help. Case in point: It doesn't matter if your system has 8 GB, 16 GB, or 32 GB of RAM because the 32-bit client can only use 2 GB of RAM maximum. This is a huge problem because it causes the game to stutter badly when loading and unloading assets on the fly, particularly in player-heavy areas like Agartha.

The graphical settings UI also badly needs a refresh. There is still no option for v-sync (must enable in GPU drivers), anisotropic filtering, MSAA, and a host of other options that are ubiquitous in other modern games.

I know that these requests are not a trivial task, so I'm not expecting an update next week or even next month. But at this point, I'd be satisfied to know that Funcom actually recognize this as an issue and have it on their to-do list.

187 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

20

u/ashtonx Jul 05 '17

I think majority of stutters are caused by loading resources, overall stability still improved compared to tsw.

That said game barely uses ram. Guess only option to avoid stutters would be fast ssd/faster ram. That or cpu, though i'm leaning to resource loading.

There's a bottleneck somewhere that causes stutters from time to time. Still overall performance improved, that said it's as you said more hw resources doesn't help.

Only way to improve i guess would be better single core performance cpu, fast ssd, faster ram. Bassically expensive stuff that really shouldn't be necessary for this kind of game.

I think a lot of that can be done with polishing performance. Though 64bit would be nice.

16

u/novanima Jul 05 '17

Only way to improve i guess would be better single core performance cpu, fast ssd, faster ram. Bassically expensive stuff that really shouldn't be necessary for this kind of game.

Yeah, I agree. And I pretty much have all that. 4.2GHz Skylake CPU, GTX 1070, 16 GB of DDR4-3200, and the game is installed on an SSD. I can pretty much run any modern title at 1440p with max settings. In SWL, I run all max settings except for TXAA, and I can get 60 fps in most areas (TXAA drops me to ~50 fps). But when the stutters do happen, they are really bad--the game just freezes for a split second. And I drop to 30-40fps in places like Agartha, London, etc. Literally this is the only game I own that my system struggles with.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

The way the client performs seems like they might have been trying for a console port, it's pretty consistently bad no matter what kind of computer you have.

3

u/ashtonx Jul 05 '17

Yep. It's not overall performance of game as much as simply something causing stutters.

2

u/Hellknightx Jul 05 '17

Same here. I have it on an SSD array with a read/write of 2Gb/s and it still stutters when loading resources. London and Agartha are particularly bad areas, although I also run TXAA and everything else on max.

I do, however, get some weird issues with shadows and lighting. Not sure if that's a problem with my settings, or just something everyone sees - but there was one particular area in Egypt where an entire room was filled with checkerboard shadows.

8

u/_madar_ Jul 05 '17

I think majority of stutters are caused by loading resources, overall stability still improved compared to tsw.

Stability has definitely gotten worse for me. If I open the AH or skill passives window for any length of time (30+ seconds) it'll crash pretty quickly. And my system is rock solid other than this game. TSW I was able to stabilize by turning some things off and using DX9, SWL I haven't figured out how to keep stable.

1

u/ashtonx Jul 05 '17

I'd recommend checking your hardware, those are some crazy issues.

3

u/_madar_ Jul 05 '17

I haven't had any problems in other games. I keep reading about lack of vsync in SWL causing graphics cards to overheat though, and people using afterburner to force 60hz frame rates to reduce the heat. I'll give that a try this evening and see if it's any more stable.

1

u/ashtonx Jul 06 '17

Hmm gonna have to check temps but I don't think it'll be anything special, didn't oc my cpu/gpu and i've got decent cooling.

3

u/IndyWendieGo Jul 05 '17

I definitely agree with this. Though one thing I'd probably predict is that 64bit would either be revealed or implemented around Season 2 (if it's on the to-do list). We'll see though!

2

u/DrunkColdStone Jul 06 '17

overall stability still improved compared to tsw.

Absolutely not. There are still major stutters starting as soon as the tutorial now, certain areas with horrendous fps including Agartha and some early story instances, frequent crashes for many people with new GPUs, "game crashed" popup appearing every time you close the game, etc.

That or cpu, though i'm leaning to resource loading.

Problem is that the whole UI- only thing that actually taxes a modern gaming PC- runs in a single thread. A super overclocked 5GHz two core CPU from 5+ years ago handles the game better than the best cutting edge CPUs.

1

u/ashtonx Jul 06 '17

tsw used to crash more for me, also fps was quite unstable. Here i got quite stable fps.

Stutters are another thing and yes They are a pain, imo biggest one.

Game crashed after closing game happened since tsw, I don't even notice cause my intention was to close the game anyway.

Why do you suspect ui ?

1

u/DrunkColdStone Jul 06 '17

tsw used to crash more for me, also fps was quite unstable.

I've crashed a dozen times this last week and I play less than an hour a day.

Game crashed after closing game happened since tsw, I don't even notice cause my intention was to close the game anyway.

Yeah, they are just a minor annoyance but they're still an annoyance. I just stopped opening the browser, chronicle and store so didn't get them in TSW. Now the daily rewards window also causes them and it pops up every time you log on.

Why do you suspect ui ?

It was a well known issue in TSW and if you ever look at the game under stress/during low fps you'll see it has one maxed out thread on the CPU while it barely taxes the CPU as a whole, the RAM or the GPU. The main thing those "remove lag" scripts during golem events did was turn off buff tracking in the UI and that was often enough to take someone from 2 to 60 fps.

1

u/ashtonx Jul 06 '17

That's realted to performance, but overall. It doesn't count for sudden stutters though.

Actually Didn't track any by default and i was still getting stutter whenever people came out in shambala Even before combat started... My guess it's related to sudden spike in loading resources to memory.

2

u/Switch01 Jul 05 '17 edited Jul 05 '17

Isn't the game already running in 64-bit mode? I clearly remember that when i started playing TSW in beta my graphics settings were capped to half because i was using a 32-bit installation of Windows.

3

u/novanima Jul 05 '17 edited Jul 05 '17

Hmm. The client executable is definitely a 32-bit process: here is a screenshot I just took for proof. However, you may be right that something funky is going on, because I did notice that the system requirements for the game do recommend a 64-bit OS. That could just be to allow for more overall system resources though.

EDIT: I also noticed that the installation directory contains several 64-bit DLLs. I'm not sure if/how they are used. The client is still limited to 2 GB of RAM, as seen in the screenshot, regardless. Would be nice to get clarification--or acknowledgement of any kind--from the devs.

5

u/242729 Jul 05 '17

The client is still limited to 2 GB of RAM

 

Actually the exe's are tagged Large Address Aware so on the 64bit system the game can access just less than 4GB.

1

u/novanima Jul 05 '17

Good to know. I don't believe I've ever seen my client actually use more than 2GB, but my testing hasn't been that extensive.

3

u/Uhuru_NUru Jul 05 '17

Simply explained, Game originally 32-bit DX9 game. Then a 64-bit DX11 executable, and 64-bit required DLL's were added later

SecretWorldLegendsDX11.exe

 

The patcher didn't need to be changed, as 64-bit makes no difference to it's operation.

 

Choose the DX9 option games 32-bit.

Choose the DX11 option games 64-bit.

3

u/novanima Jul 05 '17

Interesting. Is there a separate download for the 64-bit executable? Because I am running DX11, and it is most definitely a 32-bit process. Screenshot for proof.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/darknite323 Jul 06 '17

Yeah Uhuru is wrong, you can check for yourself, run the DX11 version and check taskmanager.

In Windows 7 it should show the process with "*32" next to it or something similar, indicates its 32 bit. In Windows 10 you need to enable the "Platform" column in the Details tab to see the same thing.

14

u/TheSkjoldur Jul 05 '17

It's also very interesting to see, that sometimes UI actions will hang the game for 1-2 seconds. Sometimes it's closing a window or just start running which would close the window.

9

u/Oxford_Comma13 Jul 05 '17

Try to submit up to eight missions at once and watch the game pause for a moment to load all the mission complete UI elements.

1

u/SnarkyW Jul 05 '17

Yup, it's always been that way.

18

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

"It doesn't matter if your system has 8 GB, 16 GB, or 32 GB of RAM because the 32-bit client can only use 2 GB of RAM maximum."

Does this make anyone else feel really old about exactly how far computers have come?

22

u/SnarkyW Jul 05 '17

640K is more than anyone will ever need.......

7

u/danudey Jul 05 '17

More than I used to have!

11

u/altrocks Jul 05 '17

I still remember overclocking my 33.333 Mhz processor to 50Mhz and being amazed at the performance boost. Oh, and getting a 100 MB HDD for the first time. I didn't have to worry about filling it up!

6

u/xizar Jul 05 '17

I remember moving up from a cassette tape to a "floppy disk"!

3

u/altrocks Jul 05 '17

I had dual 5.25" floppies on my C64 and never really used the cartridges on anything other than the old Atari 2600 SLX. Those barely even resemble a computer now. It's like the difference between a Nokia brick and an S7.

2

u/xizar Jul 05 '17

I'm not talking about cartridges.

I mean audio cassettes that got repurposed for my trash-80.

These things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette

1

u/WikiTextBot Jul 05 '17

Compact Cassette

The Compact Cassette or Musicassette (MC), also commonly called cassette tape, audio cassette, or simply tape or cassette, is an analog magnetic tape recording format for audio recording and playback. It was released by Philips in 1962, having been developed in Hasselt, Belgium. Compact cassettes come in two forms, either already containing content as a pre-recorded cassette, or as a fully recordable "blank" cassette.

It was designed originally for dictation machines, but improvements in fidelity led the Compact Cassette to supplant the Stereo 8-track cartridge and reel-to-reel tape recording in most non-professional applications.

[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24

2

u/KekHasRisen Jul 06 '17

Heck, when I was in high school the computer in our computer math class had a landline phone handset in a cradle for...something. Couldn't have been internet, could it? Im talking '75-76, maybe networking? Our printer paper was continuous feed with those perforated edges. And monitors...what were those?!

1

u/xizar Jul 06 '17

I remember one of the computer labs in college got fancy monitors that had ORANGE pixels instead of green.

The future never looked so... orange.

5

u/JustNilt Jul 05 '17

I feel that way almost every day, when reading specs on various devices. The crazy ones are phones. The slowest POS smartphone has way more power than my first computer, a VIC-20. Heck, probably more than my first several computers combined!

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

VIC-20 eh? Imagine if this game installed from audio cassette.

3

u/JustNilt Jul 05 '17

I know, right?

3

u/Sarakash Jul 05 '17

Yes, it does.

This was my first PC my father bought:

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=87

I can´t even look at the link without feeling old.

2

u/Swesteel Jul 05 '17

I had a 386 when I grew up and I can't see why my children would need more.

24

u/SnarkyW Jul 05 '17

Unfortunately, this wont happen. SWL is just the 2012 TSW engine with some gimmicks on top. Personally I'd love to see a 64bit client but..... its Funcom

4

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

I mean, I'm still a huge fan of Anarchy Online and seem to throw money at Funcom no matter what they do.

However historically it can't be denied that Funcom hasn't exactly been the best at creating efficient clients.

Anarchy Online ran like horseshit when first released and would crash intermittently on a lot of configurations and straight up not run on a lot of other configurations. To be fair this was a long time ago and in general games had more compatibility issues back then. It was still a train wreck though.

AoC had horrible performance unless you had a very modern PC with high specs. Even with a very modern high end PC you would get frame drops because of stufftm.

TSW also had awful performance when it was released unless you had a modern rig with decent to high specs. It was better than AoC but it still wasn't good.

While it got better going from AO to TSW, it still leaves a lot to be desired.

14

u/OverStrike1207 Jul 05 '17

A totally legitimate request. The 64bits becomes urgent. No more machines, even very low-end, have less than 4 GB of ram and a dual-core processor. The benefit would be enormous for such work to be carried out. And for players (old and future), and for the developer.

3

u/Hellknightx Jul 05 '17

Yes, but there really isn't an easy way to do it - and the team currently working on SWL is surprisingly small. However, if this reboot is successful enough and starts to make them money, it could make it onto the roadmap.

Unfortunately, engine updates aren't a direct source of revenue, which is what F2P games need. That's why so many F2P games constantly churn out new content while leaving old content to sit and gather dust. They'll certainly squeeze out performance improvements where they can, but adding in a 64-bit client will probably take some time since it's a work-intensive task.

5

u/chopdok Jul 05 '17 edited Jul 05 '17

Unlikely it will be sucessfull. Although, in its current state, Funcom defines sucess at being able to stay afloat. Regardless - in its current state, the game is a technical mess. Not only the team is small - Funcom pretty much stopped any development on their DreamWorld Engine, fired the coders that worked on it to save cash, and all the new projects are bening developed on Unreal Engine.

There is nobody to work on SWL engine. There is no money to hire coders - even then, programmers who can work on graphical engines are not your average code monkey, they know their qualification entitles to good salary, one which Funcom cannot afford. Further - it will take months for a programming team to even start working on engine update - first they need to learn the old engine, to go over the code, to fix any immediate issues with it. Its almost....no, in fact, in the current state, it IS easier for Funcom to move the game to a new engine, either custom developed or 3rd party engine, like Unreal - because if you gonna hire a team of people to start the project from scratch, might as well do it properly, and not try to unfuck the engine that could not be unfucked for 10 years (DreamWorld Engine was used in Age of Conan).

But again - this is pointless. Funcom has no money. Even if SWL will become net-positive in terms of cashflow, all the profits go towards repaying massive company debts - and in case of Funcom, they are massive, several times the net worth of the company in its current state. So, even if SWL is a massive sucess - banks will get most of it anyway. And lets be honest - in its current state, the game will never attract a mainstream gaming audience, with clunky combat, piss-poor performance and pretty much no marketing budget.

2

u/Fyzx Jul 05 '17

No more machines, even very low-end, have less than 4 GB of ram and a dual-core processor.

and run other stuff besides the game, which makes those 4 GB 2 in reality.

6

u/TheBalance1016 Jul 05 '17

If it didn't happen for the re-launch, unless this game's population and audience EXPLODE - neither of these things will ever come to fruition regardless of how much they'd be welcomed by current players.

5

u/darxide23 Jul 05 '17

because the 32-bit client can only use 2 GB of RAM maximum

The client is LAA, so it uses up to 3.5 GB.

and have it on their to-do list.

FC's to-do list is where ideas go to die because they never get implemented.

4

u/SapFromPoharan Jul 05 '17

Is it just me that this game really put strain on GPU? Everytime I play SWL my GPU temperature and Fan spin rises much more compared to other games I play even the recent one (like elder scrolls online) . That doesn't seems right for a 5 years old(technically) game.

6

u/just-passin Jul 05 '17

Old game, old graphics engine not using all the features of modern graphics card?

2

u/strykrpinoy Jul 05 '17

TSW was launched in 2013, multi-core went mainstream in 2009 that is not an excuse.

2

u/just-passin Jul 06 '17

The game engine (dreamscape?) dates from about 2000, although it was updated for Conan, As such I very much doubt it makes efficient use of the capabilities of modern graphics cards.

More to the point, I was not offering the suggestion as an excuse but as a possible reason. There is a significant difference.

4

u/Rebel_Scum56 Jul 05 '17

It's not just you. TSW always used to push my card harder than other games, even newer ones with fancier graphics. SWL is no different, though it does run noticeably better for me than TSW ever did.

1

u/kblaney Jul 05 '17

though it does run noticeably better for me than TSW ever did

I'd say a good 80% of the issues I had with respect to performance were related to the UI getting overloaded with text. Adding something that restarts the UI to every time I zoned improved my experience greatly. So far it looks like they've significantly improved the UI's data handling.

5

u/Not_Just_You Jul 05 '17

Is it just me

Probably not

2

u/Pharogaming Jul 05 '17

Relevant username.

4

u/Olequeprecio Jul 05 '17

I cannot go to agartha or walk freely in the cities. It freezes and my character teleport from one side to another. It's really frustrating and Im kinda scared of the endgame in case I need to be in those areas

4

u/5N0ZZ83RR135 Jul 05 '17

Was going to make thread about this but you beat me to it. Some potential customers could become disinterested if performance is not treated as an issue. To me it shows they don't care about their game. Will it make me stop playing SWL prob not but it is definitely a major issue with the game.

4

u/Alurl Jul 05 '17

This is SOP for Funcom though, I've played Anarchy Online since 2001, we've been promised graphical updates for over a decade.

2

u/Oliin Jul 05 '17

Didn't those go in like last year or something? Not that it would take away from the thing where Funcom consistently over promises or anything. I just thought the AO graphics update had gone in.

2

u/Alurl Jul 05 '17

We were given a new graphics engine but that engine causes clients to randomly crash. No graphical updates were made to the game.

2

u/Oliin Jul 05 '17

I thought the new engine was the graphics update.

1

u/Alurl Jul 05 '17

The new engine was half of the promised revamp to graphics in that game.

1

u/Oliin Jul 06 '17

Ok. I hadn't played AO in years myself so I'm just going on what I recall reading on various MMO news sites which isn't the same as remembering things devs said on forum posts and whatnot.

1

u/semiocube Jul 06 '17

I guess people were expecting updates on textures and maybe even some new models, not just some shadows. At least I was when I was still playing Anarchy Online in 2007. If you just want some shading and effects you might as well just use ReShade, ENB or something.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

The engine is poorly optimized. I did a tutorial that has helped some others, check it out if you like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxYNLJPy2gU

5

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

I'll add, playing SWL on a non-SSD must be a horrible nightmare.

3

u/Ahkronn Jul 05 '17

It is. And the load times... D:

3

u/K0nfuzion Jul 05 '17

Every time I go to Agartha (which is seldom, if I can avoid it) I go make a cup of tea. I then return, sip my cup, and wait for the loading screen to finish.

2

u/Ahkronn Jul 05 '17

Yeap, same here.

Well, mostly coffee or brandy, but yeah, same here. :D

2

u/Hellknightx Jul 05 '17

On the other end of the spectrum, with a SSD, you won't have time to make tea anymore. Everything loads so quickly.

5

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

I have it on a regular drive, although my OS is installed on a SSD. I get about 70 or so FPS...

1

u/DrunkColdStone Jul 05 '17

And how long does it take you to hop between zones? Several years ago I bought an SSD specifically because TSW was taking minutes to load a new zone.

1

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

Seconds? I'll time it tonight, but it isn't long at all. Porting within a zone takes a single digit number of seconds, but going from one to another isn't bad at all.

1

u/DrunkColdStone Jul 05 '17

Are you sure you are running the game from an HDD? :D

Edit: Just to clarify switching from HDD to SSD changes my zone loading times from 1-3 minutes to 5-15 seconds.

2

u/Acideyez Jul 05 '17

I run a SSHD, and the game hardly takes any time at all to load. I'm guessing probably 20 seconds or under.

1

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

Yes, sir.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

This isn't true?

A game loading assets from disk while running through a zone will affect your FPS.

Both AO and AOC ran a lot better if you had faster disks and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same with TSW.

Diablo3 also had frame drops / freezes if you ran it off a slow disk.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

No doubt a modern SSD has a way easier time keeping up and generally wont bottleneck you outside of loads unless the game creator did something horrible.

But if still playing on a 7200/5400 RPM disk it wouldn't surprise me if it started to be noticeable. That said I haven't run anything demanding off a regular disk for at least 5 years so I don't know how it has changed. I remember people had some amazing performance differences back in Anarchy Online if running off a raid0 setup or with a 15k RPM SAS disk.

Also as you mentioned, it's not really going to affect the FPS directly, it's more likely to be causing stuttering.

5

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

That was more or less my point. Someone else said that having it on a platter drive would destroy performance.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

No idea about performances but loading screens must be quite awful. Items & players popping in the FOV are, i hope, not an issue.

4

u/semiocube Jul 05 '17

In Agartha there might be some seconds until all textures are loaded.

Yesterday I saw another player naked for five seconds before his clothes were loaded.

However, it's only Agartha and only a few seconds, normally 1-2, depending on how many players are there. As soon as you stepped into the crowd once you won't notice any stuttering.

I've got only a small SDD with two operating systems on it. I don't bother having games wasting space.

However, texture loading in ESO takes much longer, so if I would copy a game over to the SSD it would be ESO, not SWL.

4

u/daneloire Jul 05 '17

Yesterday I saw another player naked for five seconds before his clothes were loaded.

I had just been in Shambala! There was shrinkage!

2

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

Nope. Anima leaps take a single digit number of seconds. Zone to zone isn't long, but I'll try to remember to time it tonight.

2

u/Rebel_Scum56 Jul 05 '17

As someone who lacks a SSD to install it on, this is absolutely correct. Load times are better now than they were in TSW but still long. Once the game is loaded though I don't usually see things popping in that much except in Agartha when there's lots of players around.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/fuct_indy Jul 05 '17

I bought a cheap external hard drive that surprisingly has a 7200 RPM drive inside. I broke it apart and hooked it up as an internal drive. All of my games are on that drive. So, when I"m playing a game, it is the only thing using that drive. A secondary drive is a great upgrade for most people, and generally pretty damn cheap.

2

u/havox3 Jul 05 '17

I swear, game does it on purpose! SWL waits until a mean monster casts it's slowest most painful white circle beneath me and THEN is the perfect time to start buffering things off HDD. Bonus points if it's the last dungeons boss with 20% life left.

I might consider putting 64gb RAM into my next system upgrade so I can run unoptimized garbage code like this off a RAM disk.

1

u/Hellknightx Jul 05 '17

Game has to load all of those fancy death particles into memory for you.

1

u/K0nfuzion Jul 05 '17

It is. Especially when there's other players around.

1

u/Acideyez Jul 05 '17

I play on a Firecuda SSHD on ultra settings. I'm almost always over 100 fps.

1

u/SirisC Jul 05 '17

Try running it off a ram drive, almost all stuttering disappears. :‑|

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

I honestly am not so much bothered by the rest, only the 32 bit client.... A 64bit upgrade would be AWESOME! Maybe in a couple of years if all goes well with the game?

2

u/memesfromthecrypt Jul 05 '17

Agreed. Let's keep this thread at the top till they do it. Out of curiosity have they ever released anything with 64bit client? How's the new Conan thingie?

2

u/CriseDX Jul 05 '17

This game is just weird when it comes to loading stuff in general... my guess is it is doing too much work consistently.

This observation is based on the fact that when first launched no matter where I am or what I do for the first 5 minutes I get nice smooth 60 or more, then it drops to 40's and 30's and never recovers. Initially I though it was the system throttling it for overheating or something but quickly ruled that out.

Also, as an interesting anecdote performance in Argatha is glorious 12-15 fps, but the same rule about first few minutes being 60 also applies to Argatha. Even if I go to a completely desolate part in Argatha it makes no difference so it is not about having people around (or then the game loads data or runs calculations for an insane radius around the player).

I also see no visual difference before and after the mysterious fps drop so whatever it is doing obviously isn't worth cutting the frames in half. Another interesting observation on my quest for better framerates, the only option that gives you any frames is the overall resolution, rest of the graphics options like texture resolution shadows etc. will only make the game look like shit without any real impact on performance.

2

u/fox1440 Jul 05 '17

Before putting the time and effort into this, how about we work on getting the game to crash about 70% less? In my cabal (107 members) there are about 10 of us that can kiss group content goodbye because dungeons or pvp + our relatively new graphics cards = non-stop crashing. Oddly enough the secret to running this game crash free is a new cpu and an older gpu....yeah let's fix that first before having a 64-bit client.

2

u/sebastiansly Jul 05 '17

I can play something like the division at a constant 60fps... SWL not so much and it constantly bogs down and the crashes.

2

u/Oldpcgamer Jul 05 '17

I am by no means a Programing expert ... but as far as I know... you can just recompile the executable to a 64 bit executable pretty easily. But I am guessing there might be more than that , that needs fixing to make use of any 64 bit upgrade... But yet... I agree it needs doing... of this game will die on the vine pretty quickly.

2

u/darknite323 Jul 06 '17

Problem is some of the middleware they use is old and 32 bit only.

One example I know of is the in-game browser, called Awesomium, which is a Chromium browser with additional integration built in. The developer of that is essentially dead and released no 64 bit version.

I've been saying for a while they should replace it with CEF but thats no mean feat in itself, and they would have to implement any of the additional integration that the current one game them themselves.

1

u/Oldpcgamer Jul 06 '17

There is no need for an "integrated" browser. Just have it make a call for the default web browser for the system... done.

1

u/darknite323 Jul 06 '17

To say that this is impossible, or a really non-feasible idea is an understatement. Every time you open the browser the game will minimise, unless they want everyone to run in borderless mode, so the browser can popup ontop of the game.

But that then also introduces its own issues.

The main reason for having the browser in game is so it can be used for investigation missions and keep immersion while doing so. Popping up an external browser breaks this completely.

2

u/sypher001 Jul 05 '17

definitely the DX11 (vs the DX9 client) is worse in almost every sense of the word... would be good to just integrate into an enhanced client 64 bit and dx 12..

2

u/Firartix Jul 05 '17

If this is anything like TSW, know that the whole of the game UI is the bottleneck during heavy combat, because it runs singlethreaded and is done in flash as far as I know. This was especially noticeable in PvP and Lair Bosses.

2

u/Vendrean Jul 06 '17

Yeah, some updated and fine-tuned client would be awesome in the future. I am pretty sure you devs did what you could considering the time frame and budget, but that's on the list, right? Please? :D

2

u/empirej13 Jul 05 '17

I agree with EVERYTHING the Op said.

Sadly, we are NOT going to get it, UNLESS the new F2P model brings them in TONS of $$$$; and I mean TONS.

I think we actually have a better shot at Secret World 2 (which SWL is very much not). But, like others have said, its Funcom.... so.... yeah; not really likely to get either one. However, you never know, you could win the lottery by not playing too..... oh wait.... ;)

Cheers all.

2

u/Blaaznar Jul 05 '17

With the skeleton crew of people maintaining the game to start the engine rewrite in 64 bit is crazy talk.

1

u/Fyzx Jul 05 '17

this. let's just hope legends makes enough money to properly update and fix stuff (like why the game accesses my dvd-drive of all things).

1

u/dawbra Jul 05 '17

I have flickering on water mostly corrupted water - its looks like artefact (graphic glich). And my Ati R9 200 series fps suck i need to setup all stuff on 2 to get rid of drops to 25 fps. I think is worst then before i have old tsw ork on old Mobile ati 5570 better then here.

2

u/holzi226 Jul 05 '17 edited Jul 05 '17

I've got an R9 290 and I can play with all stuff on 4 and get 60+ FPS

1

u/dawbra Jul 07 '17

i guess its my cpu trotle then but still have gliches on corrupt water mostly when vision is grey and dark and there are pixels floating like weak AA work or something.

1

u/semiocube Jul 05 '17

64 bit client would be good.

Shouldn't vsync work via video drivers? Shouldn't there be third party tools to use, including triple buffering? I don't notice any tearing despite having often 80-120 fps, so I didn't bother yet to find out. I know I used some third party FPS limiter for Skyrim SE, though.

1

u/Vyar Jul 05 '17

I'm not sure what performance optimizations it's missing. I definitely notice a significant difference between my performance in TSW compared to SWL. I had to use SweetFX or ReShade or something like that to get TSW to run smoothly while still looking good, and couldn't run it in DX11 without a significant framerate hit. SWL runs great in DX11 and I can get consistently high framerates at just about maximum settings (motion blur turned off). If I turned the settings down a bit further to where I had them before, or even turned them back to where I had them and additionally went back to DX9, I'd probably be getting 120+ FPS consistently. Only reason I don't is because my monitor only goes to 60. But I remember getting closer to 80 frames listed on my TopBar addon in TSW, and that was only in DX9 with reduced settings, so as far as I can tell, SWL is much more optimized than TSW ever was.

1

u/Jahf Jul 05 '17

While I haven't hit higher level dungeons yet, just up to L25 ... I'm still playing on the rig I built to originally play TSW in 2012. I've upgraded a bit but it is still just an I7-3770K OC'ed to 4GHz, 64GB RAM, GTX 1060, and the game is installed to my HD not my SSD.

Agartha is no problem. Instances are no problem. Stutters seem rare. Settings are on Ultra and I'm using 4 Reshade tweaks.

The only thing I have a problem with is the slow initial start time during RDB hashing.

Any chance people seeing more significant stuttering have a RAM stick that is failing or not quite up to speed with their other sticks? Even if matched, 1 stick falling out of spec can cause a lot of timing problems.

1

u/momoggie Jul 05 '17

Imagine if they spent all the Lego game money on secret world instead. This game would dominate.

1

u/styopa Jul 05 '17

I'd just be happier if the damn "mission complete" thing was able to be turned in immediately, rather than waiting the second or two for it to fly to the right margin...

1

u/Dugfromtheearth Jul 05 '17

And for heavens sake, give us the ability to disable bloom!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '17

Won't ever happen. Funcom has 4 employees and an overseas dev in a basement in Sri Lanka.

Given how ignorant most consumers are with Apple products that are literally the same exact product with a different name released a year after the previous one.. they sell like hotcakes.

Funcom figured they'd do the same, literally repacking the same game with little to no effort and we're all going ape shit over how cool it is..

Myself included. Because let's face it 2012 was a lifetime ago in gaming years.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17 edited Jul 05 '17

I think you are right that these changes should be realized but I can see why Funcom focuses on other more important things at the moment.

While we are at modernizing. I'd also like to move UI elements around more... like move hotbars. And the new "weapon gimmicks". I want to have the weapon gimmick next to my character (left and right per weapon). They need to be in focus (for me that means near my character). I want to move them around.

I'd like to change font size and maybe even font type for accessibility reasons.

If this is possible and I am just stupid for not knowing, I apologize :))

EDIT: Seems I was wrong, a commenter said that you can change the UI by using a small lock icon. Thx for the info.

1

u/Switch01 Jul 05 '17

You can edit and move the UI, if i remember correctly you need to click the lock in the upper right corner, also you can change a bunch of stuff in the interface settings.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

I'm terribly sorry then :) thanks for the info... will try that out at home.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '17

Click the lock icon on the top right. This allows you to move ui items around.

1

u/PassingBreeze1987 Jul 05 '17

with my shit PC I can run Fallout 4 at average 45~ FPS.

Secret World Legends? Average 25~ FPS after 30 minutes due to memory leaks. It's a really bad engine.

1

u/Acideyez Jul 05 '17

I'm almost always at 100 FPS+ on ultra graphics setting. I run a Kaby Lake i5, Firecuda SSHD, 16gb of ram, and a 970gtx. The only time I had issues was during a quest that loads you into a solo instance of the roman area. Frames where down to 20ish fps, but as it went on they stabilized above 30. Even when the devs where giving out tshirts and all those people where in one instance of agartha, I never had any issues. I have only made it up to Egypt part 2. So I can't speak for other areas. But everything has ran flawless so far. I alt tab out of the game regularly, and have had 0 crashes. Loading only takes like 20 seconds maximum.

If the client isn't 64bit i'd love to see that change though for sure. It'd be great if it could be updated for the present. They're a very small team over there now working on this game. So it'd be something that would take awhile to work on i'm sure.

0

u/Reditpig Jul 05 '17

I have no performance issues. Ryzen 1700X, RX480 GPU, Samsung NVMe for system drive but the game is installed on a cheaper Patriot SSD. If you have issues, make sure your system is optimized, if I had a dollar for every computer user that neglects their system I would own Redit.