The Original issue was fixed, I'm closing this thread to stop it from being necroed.
If you have any issues with Battlefield 2042 please make a new topic about your problems and what kind of steps you have tried to solve them.
/Atic
@LeMairyHuff warzone has game modes like rumble, king slayer, clash with 100 players all playing at once with unlimited respawns, condensed in an area far smaller than any bf2042 map (parachuting into the match actually lets you see basically everyone in the match at once, and the performance doesnt suffer), with vehicles. and there are bullet physics (velocity, drop, drag), explosions, terrain physics, weather effects, shadows, lighting, sound as well, and it still runs great. really dont want to defend warzone, never been a cod player, im a pure bf fanboy, just switched to warzone to bridge the gap between bfv's development end and bf2042, and now that bf2042 is out i played more warzone in the past 10 days than i did bf2042...
if the tckrate was doubled vs. bfv, i could understand that the client-side performance would suffer (this is eg. why cs/css/csgo never introduced 128 tick official public servers, but have them in most official leagues where there is a limited number of clients, all with equal high-end sytems), but the tickrate is 25% *less* than bfv in bf2042! and packet extrapolation worked in cs in 2000 already without overstressing single-core, single-threaded cpus 21 years ago, no reason why today's multi-core multi-threaded cpus with considerably higher ipc shouldnt handle it with some 2x-4x more players in a match. its just the engine, they forced 128 players mostly for marketing reasons without making sure the engine can handle it resp. developing a new frostbite engine that does, and even portal with 64 players doesnt run well, if it only was 128 players, portal should run as well as bfv does, but it doesnt at all, it is just slightly less unplayable, but still unplayable, compared to how it should run to be playable.
I wasn't aware of that as I don't keep up to date with that game. However, I can guarantee the visual quality of 2042 is a step above Warzone. There's simply less going on to make everything look nice because the details are not the same.
I'm more aware the engine for Warzone will be more performant than Frostbite. Probably because it's simpler and most of its features aren't a WIP at any given time. I don't doubt that EA/DICE will be writing just as much engine code as game code to keep up with the upgrades they try to present with these games. Moreover, no one asked for 128 and from a player perspective, you won't be able to notice much of a difference. I doubt anyone wants to run at half the frames just to see a couple more explosions and helis flying in the distance. This isn't good game design.
The data per tick rate has doubled, which of course will degrade performance and all networking stuff is of course, CPU driven. Hmm CSGO can do that because literally everything on a given map is static. You don't even have to synchronise bullets because they don't have physics. They are implemented using Hitscan which costs nothing in comparison to 2042s simulation. COD used hit-scan until Modern Warfare (2019).
It all comes down to redundant and overcomplicated code. Frostbite is probably massive and overly complex compared to the likes of COD. You have to think about what games it's shared accross. Fifa, BF, Madden, NFS...
Not enough thought goes into larger games these days because they know they can get away with it. I would not work for a AAA like this which doesn't get to independently create a game they want. It's all money-driven.
If you enable the console using "`" key, type drawfps and set the value to 1, you can see the expected frame rate from the CPU and GPU seperately. My GPU is constant 130+, my cpu sits at 60 which is laughable.
An example from earlier. I run a 6800XT Nitro+ and 3600 @ 4.3GHz, 3600MHz DDR4 dual-channel linked with IF clocks perfectly:
