Well... actually they are kind of right though. These are the options people have when complainig about performance in the alpha state of a game. Optimization is beta state, alpha all the planned features getting added. That is how games development works for ages now. The only difference is: back in the days ypu didn't get to see the alpha state. And the devs won't do anything else but preparing the next feature patch and solve some issues with bugs. But i wouldn't expect them to crank up performance. Maybe if something breaks performance so that nobody can test anything no matter what settings changes they make. I am in the same spot with my i7, 1080 ti and 32gigs of ram. But i turned the shadows to medium and it runs okish. At least so that i can test things for giving feedback.
Recommendation is that if you can't handle it right now, turn it off until the game reaches late beta phase, where optimization and fine details are done. I have my graphics on best and even in a cluttered environment with 15+ large bases and CVs, I am getting a solid 60 FPS with a i7 4770k and a gtx 1070. Moving around in that clutter results FPS to drop to about 40FPS while the game is loading in new objects. Even then I don't see a bottleneck on either CPU or GPU, since they both happily hover around 50-70% utilization. Other cases for low FPS could be a slow hard drive, not enough ram, overheating components or some other user error.
During Alpha development we should never expect to "play" it as a game - we're all testers watching what usually amounts to closed-Alpha-behind-the-scenes-stuff. So yes, the recommendation holds: turn off eye candy, take an extended break from the game, or find a way to significantly beef up your gaming rig. All Alphas need to be overpowered to run more smoothly. As an example, here's what I'm running to get smooth loading and framerates in Alphas I test: [email protected], Samsung 850 Pro SSD, Nvidia 980ti (needs upgrading), 64gig of overclocked RAM, Primocache (to simulate C: on a RAMdrive), Primo RAMdisk (so the game can run on an actual RAMdrive), a Soundblaster Z (to offload audio processing), and a highly tuned OS for maximum responsiveness. And I still get lower than 60 FPS in some Alphas. It's to be expected.
To be fair, that what happend with ARK was some shady **** in my eyes. Saying the game is release version but still contains Alpha bugs and mostly the same performance problems they said they will solve in Beta just to be able to sell the game full prize and not getting criticized for selling DLCs for an unfinished game lets me think the big team (60 or so people) have a serious lack in moral. Almost the same for NMS at least the devs try to fix the game and add things they promised before release that didn't make it into the release version. But those two examples along with some other cases did actually harm the indie devs image a lot. But i am not willing to throw every indie dev into the same bowl as those to examples as of yet. Right now Eleon did nothing to make me believe that this game will be the same **** in another package. Is there a risk that they have been too ambitious? Sure. But that is the risk you have to take when you have your own visions, or in our case, believe in someones vision for the game. I don't think they will go down that same shady road as others already mentioned, and there is nothing pointing in that direction. So i am pretty much sure for at least 85% that they will improve performance when the time is right..... which is not now really.
Arrclyde....I am painting the industry with a very broad brush...I do not want to splash any on Eleon without anything to back it up. I have just said the industry as a whole is crapshoot. And we have people who "assume" they know how a software roadmap is being laid out and followed. I honestly think this bunch would be coding by candle light with punch cards if it is needed to continue. And I think customers have been treated very well by Eleon, But at the same time...I think pointing fingers and saying---that looks uncomfortable is a good thing to have in your community. And not have other people go shut up and sit down or go away. The exact same alpha beta stage arguments have been thrown at a lot of products that were not "finished" well.
This is a misunderstanding, but an easy one to see the logic of. I see where you're coming from. But it will be done before release. It will be done better in the end if it is done a bit before full release. It's just one of the last things done before release of just about any game. You refer to "playing catchup", but doing it this way is in fact the opposite of that. While they've done minor optimisations here and there, the bulk of it should be done all at once, near the end of development, so that they're not having to redo it and change it every time they add something during the most change-and-feature-intense phase of development. This is how just about every game works, it's what devs across the industry have found best works. It is absolutely an industry best practice. And it's something which users should learn about if they're going to pick things up Early Access. As Arrclyde says, seeing the alpha state is still a relatively new thing for most users, so of course there's some learning and adjustment involved both for users and for reputable devs. I have a brother who finds himself a bit spooked by EA failures such as No Man's Sky and others before it. So he simply does not pick up EA games. He's not comfortable paying to be a tester. And that's completely fine, and very understandable. Just about nobody who chooses to do so is going to suggest others are unreasonable for preferring to wait for full release. He understands what EA is and he's learned that it's generally not for him. I plan to snag him a copy of Empyrion when it goes release But we both know he won't be happy with it until then. It sounds from this and other threads like EA may not be for you. I know it's not always phrased as politely as it could be, but it's really not a judgment. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. EA isn't a typical gaming experience, it isn't for everyone. But you need to purchase accordingly, not expect the typical, proven development process to be upended for your own sake. That's just a recipe for frustration. Yes, the best advice re: Empyrion for those who struggle with EA is to take a break and come back closer to full release, such as during late beta. It's up to you what to do, if you're happier staying then please do. But expectations ultimately need to be reasonable to the phase the development is in. I agree that such arguments are ridiculous in the face of an unfinished release product. But the fact is this isn't a released game yet, nor anywhere near it. So these arguments are still valid for this particular case. The invalid use of them for situations which are not actually applicable doesn't change that, even if seeing them may give one pause in light of it. And Eleon hasn't given any indication they're likely to go down that road.
I get what you mean. Back in the days before the internet (WOOOAAAH!!111 yeah right kids there have been games before there was an internet) publisher and studios had to make sure their product was finished before releasing it to the stores. Today even the biggest companies release Games in an unfinished/unpolished state because they know the can patch it after release due to everybody, so is the common assumption, has internet today. And that is a mess. But i can understand that back in the days the games only had a fraction of the lines of code todays games have. But while i agree with you some.... not so bright people use this arguments for an official released game (*cough*ARK*cough*) to justify the bugs and performance issues, in EGS case it stays valid. It is still in Alpha and has never been officially stated as the "release version". It is up to the develpopers to say what stage of development their product is in, not up to the customers buying in to an alpha version of a game. Technically you could even go from Beta back to Alpha or from release version back to Beta, but that is not a good way as it takes away a lot of trust and leaves a bad taste of "they have no clue what they are doing and are impatient as heck". But patient needs to be on both sides: on the developers not to release the game to early and on the customers side to deal with technical issues during that time until the game hits release. Those technical issues include bugs and performance. Just to be clear, i don't want you to believe that i think you are talking bad about Eleon. And i understand you are annoyed by the statement "don't like it: turn it down or take a break". But imagine how annoyed people bringing this exact statement because there are always people hwho don't seem to know what "early access" or "alpha version" means. And i mean officially means not what they would like it to mean. I actually have seen people stating that early access means: "that i can buy and play before others, and it has nothing to do that the game isn't finished." And they have been dead serious about it, ignoring the fact that their definition makes absolutely no sense.
To be accurate, he said to do that if you can't wrap your head around the concept of playing an incomplete WIP. Eleon is not at fault in this situation- the issue is the unreasonable expectation of having a polished product during alpha. They are doing exceedingly well, and the state of the game this early in the development cycle bodes very well for the finished product- when it comes. I'm not a game developer (I wish), but I've been fairly active in the mod community over the years. I've done everything in complexity from hex editing with the original TeamBG to a near total conversion mod for Tribes 2. I've done models, animations, textures, and script coding- pretty much everything except the actual executable. That's given me a taste of how complex the actual process really is, and how vulnerable existing systems are to changes- especially seemingly unrelated ones. When I say Eleon is doing things right, I'm speaking from experience, not some fanboi geekout
I've been doing this and great advice. My computer from 2012 cant handle Empyrion anymore. 5.x was superfine. 7.x is unplayable, even on low. I guess Im just saving up for a new rig and play when it feels right. It's hard in the sense that Empyrion is one of my fav games...
You know. Sometimes I find the people who have no clue about game development cycles really annoying. They start threads and whine about things that are expected issues at the current stage of game development. It's like they never bothered to do even the slightest bit of reading or research before purchasing the title. Even when Steam throws it literally in your face before you make the purchase. Simply put ckulp99, you are an idiot. Now, edugate yourself a little bit and go read the Early Access FAQ that Steam stuck in your face before you were able to spend money on the title. Then Google game development cycles. That concludes my asshole moment for this morning. We're bloody lucky that something like Early Access exists so we can experience the game and assist with it's development cycle. (Assist, not b!tch about) Rather than hearing about the game for 6 years before it's released.
I know... for a moment, I had to double-check that I wasn't on the 7DtD forums by mistake... The constant "Why doesn't this game look like CoD4" and "Fix PvP so I can maintain some unspecified advantage" is pretty much why I don't hang there anymore..
Which brings to mind another point. A Unity 3D voxel game is a completely different animal than is 99.5% of the other games you play. It stresses different hardware. So if your CPU, RAM, or HDD have any slowness or bottlenecks, it will tank your FPS. And in reference to the 7DTD forum, here are some details on exactly why you cannot compare a true 3D Voxel game to performance of any other flat 2D game you play. (Games like Ark, Battlefield, CoD, ect are 2D games with flat textures.) What is the difference between a Voxel game, and all the other games I play?
Sylen..perhaps you need to tone down the response a little.. Perhaps you are making assumptions and being insulting? As far the "assumption" that we are lucky to be involved we a beta game...yes we are---but it is not because we are such great people, it is because the game designer needed money. And I am almost certain that you wouldn't be assuming that I am the least bit uncertain on software development. I mean I did work for a multinational telecom company working with and on security software and applications. Including 6 Sigma roadmapping, National Instruments software adaptations, and security and code assistance for gaming platforms. In everyday operations I was responsible for the specific security frameworks for antipiracy efforts in North and South America....I mean I was responsible. Did I write code...no but I certainly set there with a compiler trying to figure out some of our roadblocks. And most all of our code was written or adapted in house. I am sure you didn't mean me. Now back on track, There is much concern right now with the gaming industry. Many customers are seeing more and more examples of absolutely bad work and it is effecting all of us....Heck the monster BLIZZARD just said they were wrong to neuter class differences in a press release..the specific reason that i quit that adddiction.....we have companies going to court over loot boxes and lots of other examples. I would like our little Eloen driven space corner to just stay nice and keep going forward. But I think it is ok to point and bring something to the companies attention.... That concludes My elitist epen post for the day...I try not to be an @#%^&& in Eleon's house. Too much respect for these guys.....
Of course it is, absolutely... and preferably with specific issues and examples therof to help the devs weed out the problems- when they are at a stage they can... But that's not what the OP was. It was a demand that Eleon drop everything and make the game graphically perfect right "NOW"...
I think some people are missing my point. Yes we are in alpha, no I and others don't expect a fully polished game. What upsets me is that Eleon is upgrading graphics settings, that we cannot influence in the settings menu, which causes the game to be unplayable in multiplayer once more than 3 players are doing things in the same place. The game is multiplayer and singleplayer, yes. Multiplayer is not the only experience, however it is the one with the most content and where the majority of long term players who give the most feedback play. All I was suggesting is maybe they don't make such big graphics overhauls that hurt everyone especially the players that stay the longest after updates, without first looking into making sure the game runs on their recommended specs. I believe it is disingenuous to on their steam page to list such underpowered machines as capable of running this game, we all know once the player moves past stock ships this will not be enough. (please not I'm not talking about super massive class 30 ships).
Problem with the whole "minimum specs" is that people don't understand that Empyrion is a sandbox game. I haven't seen anyone with a minimum spec PC try to play the game and say that it's unplayable. But that is not the issue, the real issue is that people expect too much at times. Since this is a sandbox game, people have to limit their creations if their PC isn't powerful enough to handle any huge and complex structures or vehicles. Devs did a great job at providing stock blueprints, so every player can experience the game. Ever tried playing some games that start off well and eventually slow down in performance? Cities Skylines is a good example, since once the city becomes huge, the engine itself struggles to keep up and the game slows down, no matter what kind of a beast you have running the game. Most likely the engine itself that powers the game will be an issue and not the PC. That is why SimCity had such small areas to build your city, for performance reasons (granted I'd rather play at 25FPS and have a huge city than a small one with 60FPS). It's pretty much impossible to please everyone in this, but if someone who has a low end PC wants to play the game on higher settings, with bigger structures/vehicles and more smoothly, upgrading the PC is the only option. In other words, sometimes users simply have to adapt to what their PCs can handle and not place the blame on the devs.
I agree, however what I am saying is I don't believe those listed specs could even run this game lowest of low at above 30fps while flying a t1 SV.
Intel Core i7 4820K @ 3.70GHz 16.0GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 and pvp is so laggy its almost unplayable
AMD 8350 @4Ghz 32 Mb DDR3 EVGA 970GT Don't play PvP. Coop PVE. Framerate's golden- even when we're all together.. Maybe the problem's not your game- the other guy's unoptimized ships...
People are always saying wait for beta, but when is that? Declaring yourself early access alpha is basically a waiver saying "We have all of these problems but since we're early access alpha it's fine.". As soon as they declare themselves beta people will suddenly be a lot harsher with their criticism and demands so why should any developer ever want to leave the safe haven of Alpha? Early access games stay in "Alpha" for years because there are no downsides to it. People will pay to play an unfinished game and defend the flaws in it because of that. Even if they are in alpha for several years and long standing issues are not resolved the situation doesn't change. Not to say the Empyrion(3 years) or other games like 7 Days to Die (5 years) that stay in Alpha for incredible lengths of time aren't fixing flaws and improving the game. It's just the lack of accountability for declaring Alpha that bothers me.
