This game needs frame rate optimization and it needs it now. We are at the point where huge gaming rigs way above spec, 8700k and a 1080ti, are having trouble getting above 30fps with minimal structures around. This is unacceptable. For one the official page sites CPUs and GPUs from 8 years ago as enough to run this game when they are obviously not. I know we all want a pretty game but not at the expense of actually playing it. Please for the sake of the game and your community work on FPS. This shouldn't be a game that gets under 200fps on a 1080ti.
What resolution are you running? I only have a 2600k and a 1070, yet get a fairly solid 60 fps (at 1920x1200) with settings maxed out. Lots of interior light sources push things a bit too far though. It has gotten better over time, but still needs work certainly. Edit: even with a fairly large base and multiple assets parked around it's still performing fairly well. CPU doesn't generally appear to be particular taxed, though GPU can max out when there are lots of active light sources. Note: turning Shadows to medium, while not as nice, does make a huge difference. Plus I've noticed that Medium Shadows don't look quite as bad as they once did. I usually run High, but if I'm on a CV with lots of active lights, I might pop things down to Medium - but just for Shadows. Scoob.
I agree with all of this. FPS with lighting seems to have gotten worse in the last updates. Its tough, a lot of the polishing we ask for will get un-done with a new update. Optimization is generally not good time-management for a small team.
Optimization happens in late beta. EGS is still mid-alpha. It would be beyond stupid to try to optimize a game that doesn't even have half its features in place because they will affect the optimization process. I'd much rather Eleon spend their time adding content than re-optimizing the same stuff every time a new addition breaks something.
1920x1080p, yeah I've played over 1k hours I know what causes performance drops (not being condescending). I mostly notice this in dogfights or if you fly a CV over class 4. My class 6 CV has 10 lights and 7 grow lights, minimal decorations, its ment for PVP and still has issues.
Except they feel the need to up the graphics, such as the pixel count per block which we cant tone down. They upgrade graphics to extents that cause issues and don't optimize. Are you saying that we should have to deal with shitty FPS on machines that are over specced for a game that shouldn't even stress a 780ti? The game ran decently in 5.0 100+ fps solo class 2 sv flying, 20 fps in huge 6v6 CV fights. Thats acceptable. However they nose dives in 6.0 and continue to do so. Riding a motorcycle through Akua shouldn't result in 40fps.
Because it's alpha. You don't optimize in alpha... and expecting a polished game in alpha is like moving into a half-built house and wondering why you get wet when it rains... A tip, though? Turn off bloom. That doubled my framerate. All the post-processing effects are what really hurt FPS when they're not optimized. And 40 fps in a decoration-heavy environment is actually pretty damn good for alpha. Anything over 30 looks like continuous motion to the human eye... Now, if you were running 15fps, maybe you'd have a reason to complain
Yes yes I know what to turn down everything is on low. What I'm saying is they up graphics that we cant change such as textures and pixel amounts while leaving the game unoptimized. That leads to terrible performance when you start having more than one ship flying around. Thats gamebreaking. I understand your point but you are failing to see that they seem to have the time to make their game "prettier" they should have the time to consider the consequence of adding graphics overhead and not improving draw call on the gpu.
Seriously? You don't go and optimize a mid-Alpha build that's constantly receiving smaller patches. If you're unhappy about getting sub-200 FPS, may I respectfully suggest you're not being realistic about what kind of game it is you're playing. It's unfinished. It may be helpful to re-read what you can expect during the average Early Access title, out on Steam. The boilerplate Early Access blurb usually states that you can expect bugs, poor performance, and even a game that doesn't work at all. There's never any guarantee any of it will be comparable to a released game, for a reason.
Can we also agree its dumb to ruin your game's FPS for the sake of better graphics then? If optimization is a last topic thing why are graphics that hurt FPS before that? At the same time they should be updating their minimum specs if they plan to keep the game in this state. As of now I don't think its possible to get 200fps, thats just a random number, I do know it is impossible to be above 20 in multiple ship dog fights or near drone bases with more than a handful of drones. Thats a core part of the game. Both of these scenarios were fine a year ago. The decline in quality due to graphics introductions without optimization alongside those graphics is why there is an issue. If your game cannot handle the updates roll it back that simple. I've got over 30 friends that used to play this game hardcore for thousands of hours each and they all cite FPS as the major reason they do not want to play anymore.
OK, first off, you're not playing a game. You're playing an early alpha build of a game. It will be a game someday. That someday will be a lot farther off if the devs do something stupid like try to optimize before content wrap. If you can't wrap your head around that, you probably need to save yourself some frustration and stop buying early access. If your system is having problems with the low res textures in this game, you need to go back to the drawing board on the build. I only have a 970, and the game runs fine for me. I only turned off bloom and post-processing because I was tired of the little loading hitches
No, those are a core part of multiplayer. And since multiplayer relies on *many* more elements being *much* faster to overcome Alpha shortcomings and unoptimized code layers, it's going to suffer more. You have the client machines (many of them), the net code, the server code, and the servers themselves.. all which can be running at different speeds, and all of which affect the experience for everyone. Even a single slow client can mangle server updates to all other clients. And we all know what a sub-par server does for everyone. A smooth or well-performing multiplayer game experience during Alpha is a wet dream, not a reality. When the game's code and feature set were in the early days, there was less for it to do. It's the nature of development to add more features without optimizing them, since usually customers don't earnestly play until after it's released as 1.0 Rollbacks for sluggish performance pre-release isn't an efficient development model. It's a waste of time. It sounds like those 30 friends were poor Early Access candidates, if they expected the MP experience (base on all the factors I listed in my first paragraph) to be smooth, bug-free, or what have you. It's unfortunate that they left, but it is MORE unfortunate that they arrived with unrealistic expectations.
Eleon do some minor optimisations with most of there large updates, but full optimisation just cant happen until Beta when most of everything is in the game. But they do some performance updates as they develop the game. With how the frames have been dropping for a couple of months now I would say we are due for another performance optimisation update also, probably come around 8.0 or just after.
More Spec Info can help too. I have a AMD 3.7 Ghz Quad Core CPU, 16 GBs of RAM, SAPPHIRE NITRO Radeon R9 390 Graphics Card with 8GB of VRAM, W10 Home 64-bit... & average 45ish FPS the majority of the time. Is this the game's fault? No. It's an Alpha & Alpha means "Under Construction". Can't ask for Full Performance from an Incomplete something. Plus during past testing, it got discovered that there's something about this game &/or Unity that disagrees with AMD Power, also can't seem to be helped. Sometimes what it is that's wrong isn't so easy to sleuth out. TL: DR, people need to quit demanding an Alpha Game to deliver Full Release Performance. You can NOT cheat & use the Early Access section of Steam to shop for Full Release Quality for Alpha Prices.
Not to totally disagree with one side here, BUT if some work isn't pointed in this direction we will be sitting on a released game with bad frame rates.....whether or not it is alpha beta or just doodles on a cocktail napkin.....it is really hard to play catch up and SOME people---wildc*&^%- and some games--AR*---just seem to say its released so that what you get. NOT saying at all that Eleon needs to go suddenly crash course to boost frame rates BUT when the advice is to start turning things off to get good performance it doesn't end well. Seen it lived it didn'y buy a t-shirt.
There is a time for optimization. It's called beta. No new features are added in beta so that bugs can be fixed, code streamlined and graphic optimizations can take place.
No new features are added in beta so that bugs can be fixed, code streamlined and graphic optimizations can take place.------ My faith in gaming companies right now is down to two.....Eleon of course being one of them. But actually acting like any game designer at this point is actually following a road map is almost laughable. Unless you have very good friends working for Eleon studios, I would not be throwing out the idea that they are following 6 sigma faithfully and hitting every bullet point along the way. We can assume that and hope for it, but the industry overall is proving that it isn't happening. -----Emphasis added here---I feel that Eleon is absolute top right now in talking to their customers and building a game WITH them.----- But when game devs come to market with advertised features not included---No Man's Sky---or just give up and take the money and go home....several developers over the last couple of years---or if you just push it out the door and sell the game off--wildcard, you can get a little leary. As a customer I want to put another 1500 hours in this game...and I want it to keep improving everyday...just like it has...but I get a bad feeling when the advice for a customer is to start turning things off.
Actually.. when you feel a bit tired, burnt out, or like the game isn't performing up to expectations - the best advice along these lines I can offer people is to "turn yourself off". At that point it isn't the game that's at fault, but the player for thinking the game isn't living up to their expectations. Turning yourself off means shelving the game for a while, going and doing other things. Play several other large or lengthy games, then peek back in on Empyrion and see how it's doing. Or just -wait- for Beta in a year or two. The game will surprise you, be performing much better, and your eagerness will be completely renewed. Too many people try to play through an entire Alpha development phase, with the expectation that the game will entertain them and be fully playable the entire time. It's unrealistic. The reason that people suggest turning features off is that some players expect Alpha games to perform like released games. That's almost never the case, and to get normal performance from an Alpha you *really* have to throw a lot of powerful hardware at it - client computers and servers alike depending on the mode. Trying to put 1k, 2k, or more hours into an Alpha is just asking to be burnt out and frustrated with the game. Most games don't get that kind of playtime even when fully developed and released with DLC/Expansions. Expectations are out of whack, that's really what needs adjusting and optimizing at this point.
So the recommendation is to turn things off or quit playing? I 'm glad you guys don't work for Eleon.
