Ever wonder why this game heats up GPU's so much?

[Lyern]

its fine if you want to disagree and look smart, however, thats not why i am making this post.

Sorry, if I came across as trying to look smart, when I was just trying to be informative and giving a documented argumentation against something that I thought (and still think) is incorrect. It was more of a case of going like : "Oh wow, looks like these people are saying something that contradicts what I have learnt in class. Or maybe they have some information I don't know? I'll send them a nicely documented message, and see if we can have a nice discussion about computer graphics :D".

I am making this post (and the previous one) so that everyone can know the reason why I think the fact that you saw water being rendered though a wall once when you glitched does not mean that all the graphic optimization issues are because of "miles of water and waves being rendered."

If giving an opinion opposed to yours on a forum, a public space where we are supposed to discuss things in a civil and intelligent way is "looking smart", then hell yeah, I am. But above everything, I am offended by your comment ;__;

its rendered because there is 0 fps drop when you go through the floor or stare through a wall.

That's not a valid argument. I don't see any FPS counters on this screen shot. Are your eyes so good that you can actually see drops that do not make the FPS go below 24 images par second?

The reason why you didn't see any FPS drops might also be just because the mesh data was already in GPU memory, as loading things in and out of GPU memory is a well known FPS drop inducing bottleneck.

Also everyone knowledgeable about properly applied polygon culling techniques (and everyone can be with the links provided in my earlier post :D) would be able to tell that with proper culling and clipping, going through the floor, a wall, or whatever should not impact the number of polygons that are actually drawn on the screen: since you are seeing (rendering) stuff that is in front of you (behind the wall in this case), you are not seeing (rendering) what is behind you (in this case, in front of the wall).

its pretty common sense. anything that exists through a mesh is rendered.

I'm not sure I get what you meant by that sentence. It is possible to render only parts of a mesh (for example, on the screen in the OP post, we can't see the hill you are inside of because of back face culling. This part of the mesh was removed since it is not facing the camera)

when you go through the floor there isnt a brief pause or load in which the water is generated, because it already exists on the board.

Yeah, but having it exist in the scene (I guess that's what you meant by board?) doesn't mean that it is actually usually rendered in a normal situation.

theres a reason every MMO does not put anything underneath floors.

Hmm, because there usually isn't anything to see? In this present case, I'm pretty sure that the water is there because it was computationally cheaper to leave it there rather to take it in and out of memory every time the sea comes in and out of view in La Noscea (this would case significant FPS drops). And no, animating those waves is not that expensive (see how the water is atrociously tiled?). And like I said earlier, it has already been done in high profile commercial games that have been praised for their graphics engine (Crysis 2...).

explain to me, that if i put drawing detail on 1 and make my game look like its being played on a gameboy i suffer the same GPU heat problems..... hint it isnt because the game quality of 8 bit textures on drawing detail 1 are graphic intensive.

I do not know how SE coded this game, and neither do you. I know however that even though in the lowest graphics options, all we can see is a blurred and pixelated mess, the game still seems to process high quality meshes and textures. This is a part that was actually badly optimised by SE.

And having GPU heat problems =/= The game is not optimised, or too computationally expensive.

I just played BC2 on max which is way more graphic intensive and i could not even hear my gpu. Turn on ff14 in the middle of camp horizon and it goes to 90 degrees, fan at 90%. maybe it has something to do with there being nothing but endless white underneath the ground in BC2, /shrug.

Way more graphics intensive, but doesn't heat your GPU? There's a contradiction in there.

Also, way to compare apples and oranges here. A MMO and a FPS usually have a different level (world) structure, because a MMO tends to be an "Open world" when you usually don't have long lines of sight in a FPS (unless they like to make it easier for snipers lol). So more things are clipped/culled, hence more FPS for the apparent same more level of detail.

Nobody knows how this engine works

Except SE and I'm not even sure about that lol. So please tell me how you can affirm what was said in the OP post if you don't know how their engine works? That's my main gripe in this whole discussion.

because for one it doesnt even look that great for how extensive it is on hardware.

The difference between this game and let's say, BF3 (yeah, I haven't seen BC2, but I assume they should be fairly similar) is that SE bet mostly on pretty models and textures, at the expense of pretty effects (shadows, physics, particles...). Whether it was a good choice (and whether it "doesn't even look that great") is a matter of opinion (I would have liked more advanced texture mapping personally, c'mon SE that's easy and cheap ;__;)

Not to mention in BC2 i have vision of the whole entire map and in this game i have vision of about 300 yalms.

See above. (and yeah, their drawing distance is kinda weird).


PS: There, I was just trying to be informative and exhaustive. And yeah, I'm still pissed, and I feel trolled. Hopefully this was helpful to someone though. And at least it was enough to procrastinate until play time and patch notes, hell yeah :D