Jump to content


Sandbox server & HD maps, FPS and new graphic engine + (my) computer performance [nerd thread]


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

ValkyrionX #1 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:10 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

 

hello folks!

 

I share with you the experience between yesterday and today on the sandbox server, the new HD maps and the new graphics engine of the game; trying to dispel unnecessary fears for players with an old hardware configuration (as in my case) who can continue playing WOT without any performance issues.

-------------

 

I do not lose time in comments about maps changes in terms of gameplay and gaming tactics, strategic positions, and similar things. Certainly at first impact the maps look identical on the minimap but playing it you will realize that many things are different .. the positions of certain important points like bushes, rocks , houses and patches .. anyway, always graphically speaking, i think WG did a hellish job without a shadow of doubt. At first impact, the maps will look much and much bigger, though it is not really that way.
Graphically speaking, congratulations to WG developers, really remarkable the improvements of lights and shadows. The new graphics engine looks good in providing excellent performance levels, very stable FPS and non-existent graphics lag, very fluid play and great new animations for critical damage such as fire and engine rupture in a tank, great animations too from explosion for ammorack. Note, though, the greater use of RAM and CPU than before

The level of realism concerning the breakage of the objects on the maps is pretty good, with some problems though. Walls made of rocks or rough bricks in certain maps are destroyed in too large pieces that often bounce like gigantic pieces of polystyrene and are destroyed in pieces that are really too big for brick or stone bricks of that kind. Great animation of bales of hay, wooden palisades, explosive drums, carved stone columns, statues and fountains, telephone or electric poles. And the ultimate touch is really nice new animation when you destroy a car or a motorcycle.  A lot of climbs have disappeared altogether because of the radically changing of the maps. Beautiful the presence of so many combat planes, and hunting bomber formations or so many barrage balloons scattered on the skies or fallen on the maps (Redshire) , and of course beautiful to see the giant arty piece "Gustav" on the steppes. Finally, the animations of small houses and partially damaging houses when you fire on them are decent.

Great new water physics, much more realistic. Also great is the new animation that allows you to literally wipe the tanks when you finish in the water ... even partially, you will be dumped with wheels and tracks! Great field modifications, more realistic colors and pleasing grass, bushes and trees, and finally explosions, fire and more will affect terrain animations. It's great to see that at last the bullets shot by the cannons will be similar to the WOT animations on the console .. it's very nice to see finally on WOT PC too! There are still so many vehicles to rework in HD, otherwise it would not make sense.

Only a limited number of HD maps, I expected more but I think I should be so good for the moment. I still do not see the shadow of a new/old map in this game ....we'll see what's going on in 2018 ..

 

 

-------------

 

Now I share with you my hardware setup so you can compare it to yours. Note that I played WOT on 2 different PCs, and I share with you my hardware configuration from the desktop PC (on SSD and not a normal HDD) from which I regularly play WOT. It's a pretty old PC with good overall performance, but with really poor graphics performance on the current version of WOT (30/58 FPS) .. well I have more FPS playing the sandbox version with HD maps 45/60 FPS despite increased use of RAM and CPU. On average, loaded game, obviously the sandbox version, uses about 1 GB of RAM with a CPU load that ranges from an average of 10 percent when Im in the garage (with no other apps in use) of up to 50 percent while playing a game. Obviously I do not know whether the current sandbox version has been improved for multicores performance. I ask you this if you are aware of it. Also share your hardware configuration!

 

I've played in both improved graphics and standard mode and I've always had good overall performance. Clearly grafic settings you will have to configure yourself manually and try them grade by grade, tell me yours!

Ergo, you have nothing to worry about performance unless if you're playing with a pc that has windows vista :teethhappy:

 

thx for reading! peace :justwait:

 

 

 

 

RAM
MOBO

 

GPU

 

CPU

 

OS

 

 

 

 

 



StrikeFIN #2 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6593 battles
  • 798
  • [FIPDR] FIPDR
  • Member since:
    03-05-2014

And WG told on sandbox blog that GPU usage is reduced, RAM usage is reduced and overall less stress for performance, so neither of these are true?


Edited by StrikeFIN, 12 October 2017 - 11:34 AM.


ValkyrionX #3 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostStrikeFIN, on 12 October 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

And WG told on sandbox blog that GPU usage is reduced, RAM usage is reduced and overall less stress for performance.

 

the gpu usage is reduced for real, i think this is the first test phase so we have to wait and continue the test, anyway i have better performance overall and this is the important thing..with a low setting&hardware configs

if i can play the improved grafic too with this new version of the game is a very good thing especially for my hardware...they simply optimized the code, the smartest use of memory and caching

I will better evaluate the use of the ram and have more to say in the thread these days, anyway anyone who has at least 4gb ram can be quiet..a guy (not you is an example) that play wot with a pc that has 2 gb ram have mental problems!

 


Edited by ValkyrionX, 12 October 2017 - 11:41 AM.


jack_timber #4 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:38 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 34462 battles
  • 2,232
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014
Nice post Valkyrion. Thanks.

DefeatedUranus #5 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:42 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 32702 battles
  • 178
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

Very informative post. Thank you.

 

You haven't posted your current rig set up though, would be nice to know :)



dennez #6 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:46 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 17441 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013
Well if that (pretty ancient and crappy) setup runs the new graphics at an ok level, then atleast WG is doing something good. I'll try Sandbox on my setup maybe tonight and will report.

ValkyrionX #7 Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostDefeatedUranus, on 12 October 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Very informative post. Thank you.

 

You haven't posted your current rig set up though, would be nice to know :)

 

rig setup? 
 

View Postdennez, on 12 October 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Well if that (pretty ancient and crappy) setup runs the new graphics at an ok level, then atleast WG is doing something good. I'll try Sandbox on my setup maybe tonight and will report.

 

can you share your experience and your hardware configs here mate? I want to read all possibles feeedback :)
 

DefeatedUranus #8 Posted 12 October 2017 - 12:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 32702 battles
  • 178
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostValkyrionX, on 12 October 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

------------

Now I share with you my hardware setup so you can compare it to yours. Note that I played WOT on 2 different PCs, and I share with you my hardware configuration from the desktop PC (on SSD and not a normal HDD) from which I regularly play WOT. It's a pretty old PC with good overall performance, but with really poor graphics performance on the current version of WOT (30/58 FPS) .. well I have more FPS playing the sandbox version with HD maps 45/60 FPS despite increased use of RAM and CPU.

 

 

 

 

RAM
MOBO

 

GPU

 

CPU

 

OS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, so currently I only play WoT on my work laptop. 

 

My 'Rig':

Core i5 @1.7ghz

16GB RAM

500GB SSD

Built in graphics (Which is dreadful) 

 

I am downloading the SB client now on standard so would have been good to know how well they'd compare. (I guess I'll find out within the next 30 mins) 



ValkyrionX #9 Posted 12 October 2017 - 12:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostDefeatedUranus, on 12 October 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

Yes, so currently I only play WoT on my work laptop. 

 

My 'Rig':

Core i5 @1.7ghz

16GB RAM

500GB SSD

Built in graphics (Which is dreadful) 

 

I am downloading the SB client now on standard so would have been good to know how well they'd compare. (I guess I'll find out within the next 30 mins) 

 

and my is

 

amd phenom II 9550 quadcore 2.20ghz

4gb ram ddr2

256gb ssd sata2

amd radeon hd5670 m 1gb gddr5 (hdmi cable to monitor)

mobo asrock k10n78m-pro with amd k10 chipset

-built in grafic is nvidia geforce 8100

-gigabyte LAN

-onboard HD audio (realtek)

 

 

obviously I've tested everything without overclocking the components as I usually overclock everything cause this mobo allows it very well

 

 

 


Edited by ValkyrionX, 12 October 2017 - 12:10 PM.


xtrem3x #10 Posted 12 October 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32889 battles
  • 1,532
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

Here is my pc spec:

 

CPU: i7 4790k

Mobo: MSI Gaming Z97M

Ram: 16GB DDR3

GPU: Nvidia 1080TI

HDD: 512GB SSD (OS on separate SSD - Windows 10)

Monitor: LG Ultrawide 3440x1440

 

Sandbox runs great, never ever drops below 60FPS running at maximum possible settings ingame including the ingame AA options

 

Maps look nice, really nice details and they look bigger with all tanks moving slightly faster so they play out the same but you don't feel so tightly together. The distances look better and driving about is more pleasant.

 

Gameplay wise it's the same, nothing has changed.

 

Only negative is that people take a long time to load in. I find myself waiting at least 15 to 20 seconds before the countdown starts. I guess people with either potato PCs or old mechanical HDDs are slow to load in. I take maybe a second or two longer than before and waiting around for 45-50 seconds before each game is annoying


Edited by xtram3x, 12 October 2017 - 01:28 PM.


markthekiller #11 Posted 12 October 2017 - 02:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16832 battles
  • 119
  • [EMOJI] EMOJI
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

I'm kinda surprised  that my rather weak GTX750 1GB can handle (almost) ultra at 40FPS without AA, 25-35 with AA. WG said that performance wouldn't be a lot worse... But from 60-70 to 25-35 is rather disappointing...

 

Btw, on Himmelsdorf all the buildings are black, is this a bug or my PC?


Edited by markthekiller, 12 October 2017 - 02:54 PM.


hansvonb #12 Posted 12 October 2017 - 05:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 57793 battles
  • 143
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

I've played 2 games today (Mines, Prokho) and graphics was awesome .

 

Moreover I am amazed that WG managed to deliver roughly up to ~130FPS on my setup (3600x1920 powered by GTX1060) wheras old one sometimes struggles to get 60.

 

Dunno if they don't break the maps but it looks promising.



Baldrickk #13 Posted 12 October 2017 - 06:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30507 battles
  • 14,643
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

i7 4700K 4Ghz Quad-core with HT
32 GB DDR4
GTX 1070

Everything maxed out and not affecting my framerate (I do use V-sync) as expected.

Not tried with V-sync off yet.

 

Might find the time to test Pentium 4 + 9600 GT tomorrow and see what happens there


Edited by Baldrickk, 12 October 2017 - 06:09 PM.


dennez #14 Posted 12 October 2017 - 09:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 17441 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013

Laptop with i5-6300HQ, 16GB RAM, M.2 SSD and GTX 1060. Gameplay is steady around 100fps on new Mines. Running on 1080p


Edited by dennez, 13 October 2017 - 08:19 AM.


Kolobajda #15 Posted 12 October 2017 - 09:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12435 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

Well, I might as well use this thread instead of creating a new one. Here's my performance report from several maps.

 

Specs:

CPU: Core i7 7820X (8C/16T) @ 4500 Mhz core, 3000 Mhz cache (mesh)

MB: ASUS X299 TUF Mark 1 (still using oldest bios - 0402)

RAM: 32GB Corsair LPX 3200Mhz CL15 quad-channel

GPU: GeForce GTX 1080 @ 2000/11300 Mhz (drivers 385.41)

Disk: Kingston KC400 512GB SSD (only for games, OS is installed on 480GB Intel 730)

 

Game settings:

2560x1440 resolution, HQ-TSSAA, everything maxed out except motion blur (off), grass in sniper mode (off), and effects in sniper mode (low - need to see stuff). Also using the HD client.

 

Results:

Map Description
Sand River No issues, a bit higher framerate at 140-200 FPS
Redshire No issues, 120-140 FPS avg.
Mines When spawning at the northern base and looking directly across the map I got ~87FPS and was COMPLETELY CPU bound (GPU was at ~65% load). In the central hill area it was around 100-110FPS. Maybe there’s a lot of interactive objects and CPU gets bogged down? Note that only 3 threads of my 16 thread CPU were used.
Murovanka No issues, 120-150 FPS avg.
Abbey 110 FPS at north spawn overlooking the central part of the map (cast area), 140-150 FPS when fighting on the western flank.
El Halluf 130 – 150 FPS everywhere
Cliff 120 - 150 FPS
Malinovka 140 FPS at spawn, 120-130 when fighting uphill
Himmelsdorf 120 FPS at spawn, but at the top of the hill (at the castle) when looking at the center of the map just 80 FPS and completely CPU bound (~70% GPU usage). Also some pretty insane LOD popping on the rocks lying on the ground when climbing the hill from the southern spawn – it’s waaay too aggressive and looks kinda ugly.
Steppes 140-160 FPS everywhere

 

That's it so far. The biggest choke points I could find are Mines right at the spawn and Himmelsdorf at the castle location overlooking the center of the map. The game is always GPU bound for me and never goes below 100 FPS, but in those two places with drops to 80-90 the graphics card is hugely held back by the processor. Not sure why, maybe at those locations / camera angles there's a lot of geometry and performance is lower than expected given the fact that the game cannot make use of my 8 core / 16 thread CPU (but no game can to be fair).


Edited by Kolobajda, 12 October 2017 - 10:01 PM.


ValkyrionX #16 Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostKolobajda, on 12 October 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

Well, I might as well use this thread instead of creating a new one. Here's my performance report from several maps.

 

Specs:

CPU: Core i7 7820X (8C/16T) @ 4500 Mhz core, 3000 Mhz cache (mesh)

MB: ASUS X299 TUF Mark 1 (still using oldest bios - 0402)

RAM: 32GB Corsair LPX 3200Mhz CL15 quad-channel

GPU: GeForce GTX 1080 @ 2000/11300 Mhz (drivers 385.41)

Disk: Kingston KC400 512GB SSD (only for games, OS is installed on 480GB Intel 730)

 

Game settings:

2560x1440 resolution, HQ-TSSAA, everything maxed out except motion blur (off), grass in sniper mode (off), and effects in sniper mode (low - need to see stuff). Also using the HD client.

 

Results:

Map Description
Sand River No issues, a bit higher framerate at 140-200 FPS
Redshire No issues, 120-140 FPS avg.
Mines When spawning at the northern base and looking directly across the map I got ~87FPS and was COMPLETELY CPU bound (GPU was at ~65% load). In the central hill area it was around 100-110FPS. Maybe there’s a lot of interactive objects and CPU gets bogged down? Note that only 3 threads of my 16 thread CPU were used.
Murovanka No issues, 120-150 FPS avg.
Abbey 110 FPS at north spawn overlooking the central part of the map (cast area), 140-150 FPS when fighting on the western flank.
El Halluf 130 – 150 FPS everywhere
Cliff 120 - 150 FPS
Malinovka 140 FPS at spawn, 120-130 when fighting uphill
Himmelsdorf 120 FPS at spawn, but at the top of the hill (at the castle) when looking at the center of the map just 80 FPS and completely CPU bound (~70% GPU usage). Also some pretty insane LOD popping on the rocks lying on the ground when climbing the hill from the southern spawn – it’s waaay too aggressive and looks kinda ugly.
Steppes 140-160 FPS everywhere

 

That's it so far. The biggest choke points I could find are Mines right at the spawn and Himmelsdorf at the castle location overlooking the center of the map. The game is always GPU bound for me and never goes below 100 FPS, but in those two places with drops to 80-90 the graphics card is hugely held back by the processor. Not sure why, maybe at those locations / camera angles there's a lot of geometry and performance is lower than expected given the fact that the game cannot make use of my 8 core / 16 thread CPU (but no game can to be fair).

 

how is your usage of ram and cpu in %?? 

ValkyrionX #17 Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View PostBaldrickk, on 12 October 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

i7 4700K 4Ghz Quad-core with HT
32 GB DDR4
GTX 1070

Everything maxed out and not affecting my framerate (I do use V-sync) as expected.

Not tried with V-sync off yet.

 

Might find the time to test Pentium 4 + 9600 GT tomorrow and see what happens there

 

with v sync off you can have more fps but if your monitor is not a 144mhz you can have tearing problems, but obviusly you have a good gpu so you have to try to play without v-sync activated, tell me if you try to play with v-sync off

ValkyrionX #18 Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

View Postmarkthekiller, on 12 October 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

I'm kinda surprised  that my rather weak GTX750 1GB can handle (almost) ultra at 40FPS without AA, 25-35 with AA. WG said that performance wouldn't be a lot worse... But from 60-70 to 25-35 is rather disappointing...

 

Btw, on Himmelsdorf all the buildings are black, is this a bug or my PC?

 

is not a bug, maybe you played with the sd client and is normal is not a bug..anyway with your gpu you can play the hd client with good and stable fps with medium settings and antialising or tssaa-hd off, tell me if you have more fps deactivating these settings 

250swb #19 Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:11 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23141 battles
  • 5,258
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

On a couple of maps when loading into spawn the ground has been black for a few seconds until it renders, so there is some issue similar to the Himmelsdorf buildings. I haven't been keeping a log, just keeping an eye on my cpu/gpu meter, and the frame rate is steady in the region of 80 - 110 fps with the pc doing far less work, the graphics are as smooth as melted butter. Going the other way, and I haven't tried it myself, QB in his Wednesday stream tried the game on minimum graphics and all sliders to zero and it looked better than I expected, not great by any means but it appeared workable and with very, very high (wastefully high) fps.

 

 



ValkyrionX #20 Posted 13 October 2017 - 08:18 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46188 battles
  • 1,175
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015
"""very important updates today for the SB client""""




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users