How would they control the beast on their pathetic 10 button pads ? The game has like 60 keys mapped to different functions on the keyboard. Surely Roberts knows assassins will come after him if this turns out to be true.
Gamepad controls are already in the game, with modifier buttons to allow for more controls.
There is nothing in the game right now that could not be ported to consoles - I imagine the ships might need 'streamlining' - but Roberts would have no issue with this if it meant another $100mil.
The consoles can only just run Fallout 4 and Just Cause 3 and you think they'll be able to run Star Citizen at around 30 fps? Not a chance in hell.
Gamepad support is one thing, making the game run on those laptop specc'd boxes is an entirely different matter
Any game can be 'streamlined' enough to work on a PS4 at least - just look at stuff like Eve: Valkyre, and Battlefront - no depth, but the graphics are undeniably pretty. That's all SC is, pretty. It might have a game in there somewhere, eventually, but it's just a whole lot of pretty. And pretty can be downgraded, as we all know.
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
But then I thought I'd try something. I dialed up the monitor to triple-screen - and get identical framerates. If this was a performance thing, then I should be looking at something like 10-20fps max, given the res is 5760*1080. But no, it's still at 30-45fps.
Actually all that means is that your CPU can't render faster then 30-45fps, your GPU is not working at its maximum.
So either your CPU is completely maxed, or whatever its doing its only able to use one core, something they will hopefully fix.
But then I thought I'd try something. I dialed up the monitor to triple-screen - and get identical framerates. If this was a performance thing, then I should be looking at something like 10-20fps max, given the res is 5760*1080. But no, it's still at 30-45fps.
Actually all that means is that your CPU can't render faster then 30-45fps, your GPU is not working at its maximum.
So either your CPU is completely maxed, or whatever its doing its only able to use one core, something they will hopefully fix.
They are working on the engine for dx12 support (not just enabling the api, that would be pointless). But it won't be done until sometime next year. I forget the specifics but something about better support for multithreaded workloads and so on.
That should hopefully help.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black | ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | 32 GB Trident Z 3600Mhz | Gigabyte Aorus PCIe4 1TB SSD | Corsair MP510 1TB SSD |ASUS RTX 3080 Ti TUF | Fractal Design Define 7 | Seasonic 850W Platinum
So either your CPU is completely maxed, or whatever its doing its only able to use one core, something they will hopefully fix.
Quote:
something they will hopefully fix
Quote:
hopefully fix
I read this exact same thing on the RSI forums - either you posted it, or you read it and just copied it to make yourself sound knowledgeable.
Are you for real, or do you just deliberately pick topics that you know you can talk shite in order to cause maximum irritation? Do you think this is fine? Why would you design a game originally to just use 1 core, when there are NO single core CPU's on the market even slightly capable of playing this game.
Some games might be designed around 2-4 cores of course, but not a single core. Not on a 'dedicated' PC Game, where there are no console limitations. And if you're telling me that an i7 4790k running at 4.5Ghz is 'too slow'... well, that's insane given it's probably one of the fastest commonly owned CPU's right now.
The only other logical explanation would be the game is running in some sort of debug mode, which is plausible. If this was the case though, tell the testers - don't keep it secret or mask it as a 'bug' - it's illogical. And most things that are illogical are usually not true.
Or are you going to come out with something like 'the game was designed around Skylake, it uses a special "hidden" instruction to make RSI games go faster'?
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
The whole development of the game itself has been thoroughly entertaining for me these past 3 years. I am convinced it will continue to do so for years to come.
The game in it's current form is great fun even though it is very much alpha and lacks many features that still need to be implemented.
Rest assured with a 100 million under its belt and a few more years development time the game will be glorious.
So either your CPU is completely maxed, or whatever its doing its only able to use one core, something they will hopefully fix.
Quote:
something they will hopefully fix
Quote:
hopefully fix
I read this exact same thing on the RSI forums - either you posted it, or you read it and just copied it to make yourself sound knowledgeable.
Are you for real, or do you just deliberately pick topics that you know you can talk shite in order to cause maximum irritation? Do you think this is fine? Why would you design a game originally to just use 1 core, when there are NO single core CPU's on the market even slightly capable of playing this game.
Some games might be designed around 2-4 cores of course, but not a single core. Not on a 'dedicated' PC Game, where there are no console limitations. And if you're telling me that an i7 4790k running at 4.5Ghz is 'too slow'... well, that's insane given it's probably one of the fastest commonly owned CPU's right now.
The only other logical explanation would be the game is running in some sort of debug mode, which is plausible. If this was the case though, tell the testers - don't keep it secret or mask it as a 'bug' - it's illogical. And most things that are illogical are usually not true.
Or are you going to come out with something like 'the game was designed around Skylake, it uses a special "hidden" instruction to make RSI games go faster'?
Are you serious?
I don't read or post on the RSI forums
Star Citizen's limitations are from CryEngine.
The game already uses multiple cores such as for physics, but not in all aspects of the game, which i'm guessing is the issue
So either your CPU is completely maxed, or whatever its doing its only able to use one core, something they will hopefully fix.
Quote:
something they will hopefully fix
Quote:
hopefully fix
I read this exact same thing on the RSI forums - either you posted it, or you read it and just copied it to make yourself sound knowledgeable.
Are you for real, or do you just deliberately pick topics that you know you can talk shite in order to cause maximum irritation? Do you think this is fine? Why would you design a game originally to just use 1 core, when there are NO single core CPU's on the market even slightly capable of playing this game.
Some games might be designed around 2-4 cores of course, but not a single core. Not on a 'dedicated' PC Game, where there are no console limitations. And if you're telling me that an i7 4790k running at 4.5Ghz is 'too slow'... well, that's insane given it's probably one of the fastest commonly owned CPU's right now.
The only other logical explanation would be the game is running in some sort of debug mode, which is plausible. If this was the case though, tell the testers - don't keep it secret or mask it as a 'bug' - it's illogical. And most things that are illogical are usually not true.
Or are you going to come out with something like 'the game was designed around Skylake, it uses a special "hidden" instruction to make RSI games go faster'?
Are you serious?
I don't read or post on the RSI forums
Star Citizen's limitations are from CryEngine.
The game already uses multiple cores such as for physics, but not in all aspects of the game, which i'm guessing is the issue
CryEngine was a very poor choice for the game, granted, but I can play any Crysis version on my current machine with no real difficulty, lower some settings and I can get 60fps no bother.
Since I posted my previous stuff, I have since read that it might be the underlying network code that is slowing things down (I don't really see WHY that would, but I'm not a network software engineer, and as such I won't presume to know enough to comment), but then the AC side of the game is running quite well. So I still think that the game is either: A) Poorly coded, B) deliberately slowed down, or C) hasa some sort of heavy verbose logging going on somewhere.
'Hopefully Fix' is not something that is much use to anyone, especially 4 years down the line.
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
Tried the Alpha briefly, performance sucked ass on a GTX 960, flight was not enjoyable in the slightest as a result but the Aurora feels better than when I tried it when AC was initially released.
Guess I need to revisit this in another year when I upgrade my hardware and development is further in. I still think there's potential here for a good game tho but their scope I feel is...out of hand.
Tried the Alpha briefly, performance sucked ass on a GTX 960, flight was not enjoyable in the slightest as a result but the Aurora feels better than when I tried it when AC was initially released.
Guess I need to revisit this in another year when I upgrade my hardware and development is further in. I still think there's potential here for a good game tho but their scope I feel is...out of hand.
If it does not run half decent o a gfx card like that it is pathetic how much these games are tailored to new gfx cards these days.
Should run half decent at least.
Ryzen 5 3600 cpu@3.60 Mhz.
hyper x 32 gb ddr 4 memory.
Msi Carbon gaming pro ac motherboard.
Evga 600 psu.
Msi Armour rx 8 gb 5700 Graphic card.
Ps4 Standard 500gb.
Lg 4k 42 inch tv.
Oculus Quest 2.
CryEngine was a very poor choice for the game, granted, but I can play any Crysis version on my current machine with no real difficulty, lower some settings and I can get 60fps no bother.
Since I posted my previous stuff, I have since read that it might be the underlying network code that is slowing things down (I don't really see WHY that would, but I'm not a network software engineer, and as such I won't presume to know enough to comment), but then the AC side of the game is running quite well. So I still think that the game is either: A) Poorly coded, B) deliberately slowed down, or C) hasa some sort of heavy verbose logging going on somewhere.
'Hopefully Fix' is not something that is much use to anyone, especially 4 years down the line.
I imagine a lot of it comes down to CPU limitations. If they actually ever go to DX12 I would say thats a guaranteed fix.
Also you can't exactly say CryEngine was a poor choice, there isn't exactly a list of engines that can do a real space game.
Elite Dangerous made their own engine and its full of issues and limitations.
You also can't take just any engine because they won't support the size of what Star Citizen is, they would have to split it up and put loading screens in like Elite Dangerous.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
