Please for the love of God, add an option away from PiP scopes

[Saeletra]

I know it's been asked of the devs multiple times through the years and they've explained why it isn't so simple, but I just got back onto Sandstorm and realized they're on the same engine and it's A LOOOOT more optimized while simulating more effects and bigger maps. The only thing that holds Sandstorm back is the customization for the guns and the operators being limited.

I really think at this point that optimization will get better, but the insistence of the devs for PiP scopes feels so stubborn. It just tanks FPS since it double renders your game essentially, and this game doesn't have that much of a competitive PVP population yet to warrant its insistence in the name of keeping things balanced and fair. PiP scopes could arguably compromise that balance since it essentially means that your capacity to respond to threats is gimped by the fact that you have more of a chance to lag and have ♥♥♥♥ your GPU's pants depending on where you aim your scope at a certain part of the map, and how many things are happening during an engagement. Options for stability and better optimization should be given more precedence over that. Doesn't help that certain maps with lots of foliage and light sources tend to have performance issues even on hardware that's decent... (on a 2060 with an i7)

Sandstorm also has the options of PiP Scopes and non-PiP Scopes, and they're both in the same engine as GB.

[F1GHT3R™]

Sorry to hear, that youre struggling for PiP Scope performance.

Im not a developer, but heres an attempt at some helpful tricks:

If GPU bound:

1. Inside the Graphics Option Menu, tick the checkbox to view the advanced settings, now if i recall correctly, somewhere on the right side should be a resolution scale setting for PiP Scopes.

Default is 1.0, meaning 100% Resolution, if you for example set it to 0.5 (meaning 50%), it will render the PiP scope at half your current Screen Resolution. That should decrease the performance impact quite a bit at the cost of more pixelated/"ghosting" visuals inside the scope.

2. Alternatively, lowering the main Resolution can help aswell. I strongly recommend using DLSS either way, its basically free performance at minimal visual cost, when using the quality or balanced preset.

If CPU bound:

1. Settings wise, im not sure which ones are the most CPU intensive, it can vary for some Games. Generally some of the usual suspects are view distance and shadows, so lowering those is worth a shot.

If both:

By far the biggest difference in both GPU & CPU is which API (in this case DirectX) youre using. Official DirectX12 support has been added in a recent patch, which did absolute wonders for my CPU bottleneck (i7 4790K).

When launching from steam a pop-up should appear where you can select to launch in DirectX12. If it does not, i believe adding -dx12 as a startparameter either in steam or in a shortcut should work aswell.

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

While we are at the Topic of PiP Scopes in regards to developer feedback:

I personally really like PiP Scopes, but i agree, there are some drawbacks. Performance being one of them and the other being in the current implementation, it appears to be suffering from quite a bit of ghosting, unless you bruteforce clarity by sheer resolution, which currently is only possible by increasing the main Screen Resolution. Of course aside from that, TAA and DLSS also play a major role in the final result.

Because of all that, i think it would be really cool, if we could set the PiP Resolution scale beyond 100%, so we can get better scope visuals without cranking up the main screen resolution.

In addition, i recently read something very interesting regarding PiP implementation: Some Games actually lower the internal resolution of the main screenport (meaning anything thats not within the scope) dynamically when aiming down PiP scopes to gain significant performance back.

Now if we could combine these two, this would mean better looking PiP Scopes at the same or even better performance levels. However the obvious drawback here is the visual impact outside the scope, maybe some generous depth-of-field blur could help hide the resolution decrease?

But alas, as the OP correctly stated, such features are anything but simple and probably a colossal pain in the A** to program, let alone making it compatible with various forms of AA and Ai upscalers.

So absolutely no hard feelings towards the developers if it aint possible, i just figured it fits to the topic of this thread.

[JohnJ]

Unfortunately it's not really an optimization thing. Overall optimization will help some, but using a PiP scope will still reduce framerate by a certain percentage. It's the nature of how it works.

We aren't being stubborn about it. To do things the "traditional" way would require us to lock in placement of scopes on the weapon and that kind of goes against the core customization feature. Not saying we won't ever do it though as we do debate it alot.

[Saeletra]

Originally posted by F1GHT3R™:

Sorry to hear, that youre struggling for PiP Scope performance.

Im not a developer, but heres an attempt at some helpful tricks:

If GPU bound:

1. Inside the Graphics Option Menu, tick the checkbox to view the advanced settings, now if i recall correctly, somewhere on the right side should be a resolution scale setting for PiP Scopes.

Default is 1.0, meaning 100% Resolution, if you for example set it to 0.5 (meaning 50%), it will render the PiP scope at half your current Screen Resolution. That should decrease the performance impact quite a bit at the cost of more pixelated/"ghosting" visuals inside the scope.

2. Alternatively, lowering the main Resolution can help aswell. I strongly recommend using DLSS either way, its basically free performance at minimal visual cost, when using the quality or balanced preset.

If CPU bound:

1. Settings wise, im not sure which ones are the most CPU intensive, it can vary for some Games. Generally some of the usual suspects are view distance and shadows, so lowering those is worth a shot.

If both:

By far the biggest difference in both GPU & CPU is which API (in this case DirectX) youre using. Official DirectX12 support has been added in a recent patch, which did absolute wonders for my CPU bottleneck (i7 4790K).

When launching from steam a pop-up should appear where you can select to launch in DirectX12. If it does not, i believe adding -dx12 as a startparameter either in steam or in a shortcut should work aswell.

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

While we are at the Topic of PiP Scopes in regards to developer feedback:

I personally really like PiP Scopes, but i agree, there are some drawbacks. Performance being one of them and the other being in the current implementation, it appears to be suffering from quite a bit of ghosting, unless you bruteforce clarity by sheer resolution, which currently is only possible by increasing the main Screen Resolution. Of course aside from that, TAA and DLSS also play a major role in the final result.

Because of all that, i think it would be really cool, if we could set the PiP Resolution scale beyond 100%, so we can get better scope visuals without cranking up the main screen resolution.

In addition, i recently read something very interesting regarding PiP implementation: Some Games actually lower the internal resolution of the main screenport (meaning anything thats not within the scope) dynamically when aiming down PiP scopes to gain significant performance back.

Now if we could combine these two, this would mean better looking PiP Scopes at the same or even better performance levels. However the obvious drawback here is the visual impact outside the scope, maybe some generous depth-of-field blur could help hide the resolution decrease?

But alas, as the OP correctly stated, such features are anything but simple and probably a colossal pain in the A** to program, let alone making it compatible with various forms of AA and Ai upscalers.

So absolutely no hard feelings towards the developers if it aint possible, i just figured it fits to the topic of this thread.

I've already done everything you've said before. In certain maps with a lot of foliage, I turned my settings way down even, it did little to help with performance, still hovering around 40-48 dips with PiP on. I experimented with TAA, FXAA, and no anti-aliasing with settings from High, Medium, and Low and performance didn't increase or help at all in parts of certain maps like Small Town, which seems to be tied with the foliage. It's weird because in other maps like 747, even with dense objects around, I still get 60+ FPS on High with a 0.25 aliasing weight on TAA. I am always on DirectX12.

Originally posted by JohnJ:

Unfortunately it's not really an optimization thing. Overall optimization will help some, but using a PiP scope will still reduce framerate by a certain percentage. It's the nature of how it works.

We aren't being stubborn about it. To do things the "traditional" way would require us to lock in placement of scopes on the weapon and that kind of goes against the core customization feature. Not saying we won't ever do it though as we do debate it alot.

I actually think you should consider this. I think a compromise between performance and the core customization could be made. I'd rather take a set placement of a scope that's not in PiP as an option (like a pre-set railing position? or maybe a toggle-in no PiP setting on the weapon loadout screen which would limit our choices in customizing to compatible non-PiP attachments and placement?) rather than suffer from inconsistent performance with PiP. I think you've done GREAT with the performance with DX12 so far but dabbling on some of the newer map renovations I start to feel how inconsistent it is with PiP scopes which has been my primary source of frustration. Hope you understand, GB is the only decent modern realism shooter I've played in a while and it just frustrates me regarding performance issues, and the fact I have an aversion to PiP since it exacerbates these issues at times - just don't want that to be the case for GB.

[Cypher]

You are asking the developers to remove their core modification system for weapons, because you have low performing hardware. That makes little to no sense.

Expecting the rest of the community to compromise between the core modification system to increase performance by removing PIP is totally wrong.

There is a reason games have minimum requirements, and recommended requirements.

You can't expect to continue playing new released games on old out dated hardware, and then tell developers they need to accommodate you.

I don't know what your system is, but if your complaining about performance for PIP then it has to be very old hardware.

If you have a Nvidia 20-30 series you can still turn on frame generation with a hack that works for any game that has frame generation support.

As the other member suggested also make sure you also run Dlss. If you can't do either and are running on a 10 series then as I said either update your hardware, or play folder games that support your old gpu.

[Saeletra]

Originally posted by Cypher:

You are asking the developers to remove their core modification system for weapons, because you have low performing hardware. That makes little to no sense.

Expecting the rest of the community to compromise between the core modification system to increase performance by removing PIP is totally wrong.

There is a reason games have minimum requirements, and recommended requirements.

You can't expect to continue playing new released games on old out dated hardware, and then tell developers they need to accommodate you.

I don't know what your system is, but if your complaining about performance for PIP then it has to be very old hardware.

If you have a Nvidia 20-30 series you can still turn on frame generation with a hack that works for any game that has frame generation support.

As the other member suggested also make sure you also run Dlss. If you can't do either and are running on a 10 series then as I said either update your hardware, or play folder games that support your old gpu.

Uh, please read again. I'm telling them to consider it as an option alongside the default core modification system as a toggle, just like how Sandstorm does it - Sandstorm literally lost nothing of its own modification or gameplay elements just by adding this as an option. You aren't removing the default system, you're giving an alternative alongside it that will give limitations to the user who opts for it.

This PiP debacle with performance has already been talked about way before, since 2018 as I recall. I have a 2060 with an I7-8700K. That's a modest enough system and I'm not even trying to play this game on crazy graphics settings. I mentioned this in my OLD post about PiP. There's only so much you can do to optimize picture in picture since it literally renders your game twice through the scope, and the maps and the foliage being as they are with their own performance problems exacerbate this problem. I even mentioned that I lowered graphics settings and experimented and found that there was nothing that could really help in solving PiP's problems with performance as it will still hover around 40-48 FPS on certain map parts regardless if options are on Low, Medium, Epic or High, or even with PiP being below ~0.50. The other alternative is they could add a non-dual render

Frame generation doesn't solve the problem. It's a band-aid solution. You still have to contend with the input lag, the shimmering, and the blurry jankiness of PiP (even with 0.025 weight) with aliasing options like TAA.

Other games have like Squad and Tarkov have grappled with PiP and how much it absolutely destroys performance for years too. Really not a controversial realization that PiP as a forced option is a sacrifice for performance and isn't about how fancy your system is. In these posts, FSR2 even ♥♥♥♥♥ up the PiP after forced integrations:

https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/16ucmbl/pip_scopes_are_unusable_with_fsr2_without_fsr2/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/393380/discussions/6/3884974596971396563/

This is in the same engine; UE4. Amazingly Sandstorm manages to both implement an option away from PiP and optimize PiP in a way that doesn't feel like your PC ♥♥♥♥♥ itself whenever you look at a certain part of the map, but maybe that's because of how they made their maps.

[Coco Jambo]

No, please stay away from present PIP scopes. Even IMHO previous PIP scopes was better. New PIP LPVO's in 1x feels like red dots.

[Cypher]

Sandstorm is full of freeze frames when shot at regardless of specs, and settings.

I have no frame rate, input lag, or ghosting of any form with Dlss quality and frame generation on my 3080 ti.

[Saeletra]

Originally posted by Cypher:

Sandstorm is full of freeze frames when shot at regardless of specs, and settings.

I have no frame rate, input lag, or ghosting of any form with Dlss quality and frame generation on my 3080 ti.

What? Sandstorm's PiP and maps are very much more optimized than GB's right now?

Good for you. Do you feel better yet that you can circlejerk your specs instead of acknowledging that PiP is inherently performance intensive?

[Cypher]

Sandstorm has always had this freeze frame garbage when shot at. it almost feels like a feature, more than a bug. I tried to get a refund thinking that it would be fixed, but it never was.

Everything you have stated about PIP is not a problem for my specs which is only 1 era higher than yours. I stated my specs to show I don't got a 4090 which is irrelevant for this discussion on performance issues. If you take it as a circlejerk, then I will state again time to update your hardware.

Don't compare Sandstorm which is a twitch shooter with Ground Branch, that is a tactical shooter. they are nothing alike in physics.

[KrisRedbeard]

Originally posted by Saeletra:

What? Sandstorm's PiP and maps are very much more optimized than GB's right now?

Both of these things have been discussed before.

INS:S probably handles PIP optics in similar fashion to everyone else, which is to used a scene capture component and render the result to a material in the optic.

As far as map optimisation, a straight comparison is not possible, as INS:S uses baked lighting, while GB uses fully dynamic.

[[ACPL] Jon]

Originally posted by JohnJ:

To do things the "traditional" way would require us to lock in placement of scopes on the weapon and that kind of goes against the core customization feature. Not saying we won't ever do it though as we do debate it alot.

Uhhhh... don't?

Eventually just do it for the hardware-capped people. As a trade off.

PS: I remember the same cries about PIP ruining FPS in Sandstorm too, y'all. Remember INS: Sandtrap has been downgraded substanially to run okay on consoles and lower end PC's.

[Saeletra]

Originally posted by ACPL Jon:

Originally posted by JohnJ:

To do things the "traditional" way would require us to lock in placement of scopes on the weapon and that kind of goes against the core customization feature. Not saying we won't ever do it though as we do debate it alot.

Uhhhh... don't?

Eventually just do it for the hardware-capped people. As a trade off.

This is the gist of the alternative of what I've being suggesting.

Originally posted by KrisRedbeard:

Originally posted by Saeletra:

What? Sandstorm's PiP and maps are very much more optimized than GB's right now?

Both of these things have been discussed before.

INS:S probably handles PIP optics in similar fashion to everyone else, which is to used a scene capture component and render the result to a material in the optic.

As far as map optimisation, a straight comparison is not possible, as INS:S uses baked lighting, while GB uses fully dynamic.

I'll concede in that part since it's been mentioned before in other threads, but it also puts into question why it wasn't considered that PiP would severely compromise the performance of the game. Even in 2018 EA there were barely any cards that were able to properly able to handle PiP on resolutions higher 720p at the time.

[Cypher]

As they said they use PIP for their core weapon modification system. That was why it wasn't considered. It's 2024 and I play Ground Branch in 4k DLSS Quality with Frame Generation on. If I put on 4k Dlaa yes my fps tanks, but DLAA is like future AA. Later on GPU's will support 4k Dlaa just like later on cards supported Crysis and then now Cyberpunk2077 for their benchmarks.

Performance has changed specially with DLSS and now Frame Generation. You no longer need a 5 thousand dollar video card to get 60+ fps, or lower resolution to maintain 60 fps.

[=TAC= Stuermer]

Originally posted by Saeletra:

... PiP scopes could arguably compromise that balance since it essentially means that your capacity to respond to threats is gimped by the fact that you have more of a chance to lag and have ♥♥♥♥ your GPU's pants depending on where you aim your scope at a certain part of the map, and how many things are happening during an engagement. ...

You could argue as well that non-PiP has a severe disadvantage, because your whole environment is zooming, robbing you off that so important situational awareness.

It's weird you have such troubles though, I started to play GB on a very old system (i7 4790 + 1080), played 2k mid-settings and never really had much problems. I'm used to play at lower FPS though.

But with average hardware and a solid 2070+ you really shouldn't run into problems with this game ...

[JohnJ]

What is good FPS is kind of relative. This comment is not about the original question, but more generally speaking.

Some people complain of a poorly optimized game when their fps goes from 140 to 105. I don't have any issues with something like that. I don't even have an issue with fps moving between 60 and 90. We could argue all day about does anything over 60 fps matter in a game like GB and there is no "right" answer. But sometimes I think the numbers are kind of psychological to a player. They see a big change and something must be wrong.