| Page 146 of 274 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 9th May 2015 18:36 Post subject: |
|
 |
I don't like that they go for realism.
I do like it when playable characters have some sort of presence and weight to them though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th May 2015 18:46 Post subject: |
|
|
The only thing it would need, is great gunplay... a lot of FPS's already mess up on that. So for a spaceflight game that would already be stellar. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 9th May 2015 19:07 Post subject: |
|
|
A weenie! 
See, banter is more fun than waiting on this game!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 10:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Short question:
Did they, at least, made the game - performance-wise - more scalable? As in, lower graphic settings and get improved performance/FPS?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 12:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| blackeyedboy wrote: | Short question:
Did they, at least, made the game - performance-wise - more scalable? As in, lower graphic settings and get improved performance/FPS? |
Yes there were some improvments in the last 2 patches.
But there are still some problems when there are ships exploding. But this will be get better as soon as all ships have the new damage system. (the old damage system takes to much cpu power to process when a ship is destroyed)
BUT the fps modul will need more power too - because of much more polygons and geometry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaltern
Posts: 5859
Location: Lockerbie, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 12:51 Post subject: |
|
|
You basically need an epic CPU and at the absolute minimum a 970 or equivalent to get this to run at an acceptable speed, and there are still huge issues when objects are added to the play-field, especially AI drones.
I just get this feeling they keep adding and adding, because they just want to show new stuff, to keep people interested, but they're not too bothered about optimising and fixing anything because it takes too much time, and would get in the way of adding yet another moneysink- I mean ship.
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
My system: Ryzen 7 3700x|Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Windforce OC|Vengeance 3000Mz 16Gb RAM|2x 500Gb Samsung EVO 970 M.2 SSD |SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GB + OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD|EVA Supernova 650W PSU|Logitech G27 Wheel|Logitech G19 Gaming Pad|SteelSeries Arctis 7|Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse + Logitech MX Master Mouse|Razer Blackwidow Chroma X Keyboard|Oculus Quest 2 + Link|Pixio PX7 Prime 165hz HDR & 1x Samsung 24FG70FQUEN 144Hz curved monitor
-= Word to the wise: Having a higher forum post does not mean you are right. =-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 16:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Kaltern wrote: | | You basically need an epic CPU and at the absolute minimum a 970 or equivalent to get this to run at an acceptable speed, and there are still huge issues when objects are added to the play-field, especially AI drones. |
This.
You basically need something more powerful than an i5-2500k and more powerful than a 780 at 970 levels. Or to suck it up and accept your new place as a console-level derpa locking framerate at 30. If you can handle, or even prefer with some motion blur coughcough, 30 then go for it.
| blackeyedboy wrote: | Short question:
Did they, at least, made the game - performance-wise - more scalable? As in, lower graphic settings and get improved performance/FPS? |
No major improvements. It doesn't matter if you run on "LOW" or "V.HIGH", the performance is terrible and the scaling is near nonexistent, you'll see a 5fps difference maybe. Apparently I just have high expectations and I'm impatient though, go figure 
The latest info I posted on the last page, detailing the Star Marine module, had CIG speaking of significant performance improvements they've been working on in the background and that we'll start to see them in 1.1.2 patch but that's obviously not correct since 1.1.2 has been out for a few days, it brought the Tutorial mode, and the performance is as described on previous page.
~edit~
Funnily enough, 1.1.2v3 is out now as part of the PTU but the strange thing is, the patchnotes speak of changes and fixes and improvements and updates to Star Marine, as if it's already out, yet I can't see it anywhere. Oh well... anyway;
Performance is still really poor, constant hitching, random framerate drops, combat with more than 1 AI on screen causes it to drop to 40s.  At least there's scaling now, yay(!) In the hangar it's 60fps even on v.high and it does look nice, the attention to detail even in the hangar construction is incredible.. the little details, the textures, even the lifts have these cute little digital icons that animate and show you the status of the lift - and inside the lights cast some of the most realistic looking shadows I've seen yet. It's a pretty game and I'll never argue against that, however, when you actually get out of the hangar and go to Training or Drone Sim, the performance tanks to levels I'm simply not comfortable with - everyone else's mileage and experience may vary, naturally.
It stutters and hitches from time to time as it's loading in new data, so I'd strongly recommend an SSD if at all possible. It's not possible for me as I don't have enough space left on my SSD, but yeah.. if you do; do it. It will help with the frustratingly slow load times and should alleviate random stutter which is the most experience-killing thing right now. I think 3dcviper is certainly right about one thing; Star Marine is going to be *significantly* more intensive than Arena Commander - simply due to the insanely high levels of detail and geometry in characters and closed quarters.
Want to see what scaling is like?
http://i3.minus.com/ioZzZFB4fMHF8.png V.High
http://i3.minus.com/i4hAE9oHSEnt6.png High
http://i2.minus.com/iRREVoIbqU1Bd.png Medium
http://i4.minus.com/ibjVxjNmB5OiCi.png Low
Now let's see what quality looks like up close.
http://i3.minus.com/ibgPnpLyDD3Rcs.png V.High
http://i4.minus.com/ibxCRX91QxgHzb.png High
http://i3.minus.com/ibhfYgjMokRhMO.png Medium
http://i1.minus.com/iuAz6FSmEOdvD.png Low
There was a texture "issue" on Low up close but it was fixed after switching low>medium>low, so don't count the ugly NPC texture in the first shot as indicative, they're pretty much identical to "Medium" - The performance is what to look at.
Then you have completely different scenarios, where there's almost no noticeable change in image quality and performance stays solid at 60, or no noticeable change in image quality yet a 5-10fps drop in performance.
http://i1.minus.com/iWBViTWeuLAup.png V.High
http://i1.minus.com/ib2nxjaUYHkUpF.png High
http://i3.minus.com/ibbE2GN88frADI.png Medium
http://i2.minus.com/ibzIK4UiXd0hLH.png Low
http://i4.minus.com/ibxVWTk6EECpVP.png V.High
http://i4.minus.com/i8mR9SqiUqq4z.png High
http://i2.minus.com/ilMC07aX05PWl.png Medium
http://i4.minus.com/ibpuSvnJBZRRo8.png Low
http://i3.minus.com/iBZmh4gCsm2I1.png V.High
http://i4.minus.com/ibk6d0k0XRgU8V.png High
http://i4.minus.com/ibw5KJAfNXVyGj.png Medium
http://i4.minus.com/irqk52wUBopBE.png Low
I'll try and take some of the launch, but the trainer ship is constantly moving so it's hard to get accurate and fair shots, especially when the game hitches during loading, causing erratic framerate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Right now i get around 50-60fps while in combat with my system... on very high and 1080p.
At the advanced combat tutorial i get 60-70fps while in combat @ very high.
So i dont have a problem with performance....
yes the game freezes for 1 sec if a new AI ship comes into the system. But this is already known by the devs and they explained the reason behind this. This will be gone when all ships have the new damage system.
Last edited by 3dcViper on Sun, 10th May 2015 20:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| 3dcViper wrote: | | So i dont have a problem with performance.... |
I don't care. I don't get anywhere near that kind of performance, not during combat, not with more than one ship on screen, so I do not care if you do. At all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm saying I don't believe you. I do not believe you are getting 15fps+ more, claiming 50-60 on v.high in combat with more than one ship, I do not believe. I was being tactful. Our shots show that my v.high framerates are higher than yours in the tutorial hangar area, so why would I believe your claims that you magically get 15fps more outside? In open space with no AI ships around, it will peak at 60 as it should, but as soon as you start combat then it plummets and I've shown this several times.
.. and yes, I will continue to tell people scaling is bullshit right now because it is. Just because you can disable vsync and get higher performance in certain scenarios does not mean it has even close to good scaling, not when - as evidenced - the difference between Low/V.High in heavy scenes is as little as 5-10fps.
Last edited by sabin1981 on Sun, 10th May 2015 20:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Scaling is bullshit.
But hey... it's just alpha/beta, they'll optimize with a day one patch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:57 Post subject: |
|
|
70-80fps for that shitty quality on low is pretty miserable. And honestly, all those post processing effects that are still enabled on low look way too good and I guess a lot of performance is just wasted there. There is no reason to have high quality dof calculations on the lowest settings :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 20:59 Post subject: |
|
|
If they actually DO optimise this so it IS playable on less than dual 980s (or a magical 970, hey~ho) then I'd be happy, but I can't think of any games that went from "shite" to "great!" at final release. Project Cars impressed me at first... until California Highway, where performance tanked by nearly 50% -- yay crowdfunding Then we have the Unity hell software like Dreamfall Chapters; ran like ass at launch, runs like ass now. Might & Magic X ran like ass during beta, it runs like ass even today.
I just don't believe in the mythical "optimisation" that turns games from requiring 980s to suddenly running great on weaker hardware. "Optimisation" pretty much means "Buy better hardware" in my eyes.
The worst thing is CIG puts out this ongoing beta for people to test and report back, yet when we report performance issues we get told we're ungrateful, unreasonable, impatient, "it's a beta!" blah blah. I'm tired of it.
| PumpAction wrote: | | 70-80fps for that shitty quality on low is pretty miserable. And honestly, all those post processing effects that are still enabled on low look way too good and I guess a lot of performance is just wasted there. There is no reason to have high quality dof calculations on the lowest settings :/ |
I think, as we get closer to release, they'll finally unlock the graphic options and let people configure more than just a lousy slider or a handful of cvars via console.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 21:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure gameplay was WAY smoother when I was still running Win7.
Now with 8.1 I'm more sluggish.
I'm also in the same boat (GTX 780 - 3GB).
Maybe if I'm bored I'll try to fix it.
For now I'm just going to wait until FPS release and check it then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 21:50 Post subject: |
|
|
FPS module will run not as good as fighting in space. There is much more geometry and much more polygons to be shown...
So expect a fps impact from around 20-40%.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th May 2015 22:03 Post subject: |
|
|
By the looks and sounds of it, the game is and will remain a resource hog.
It's a shame, really. Guess Roberts' head is in the clouds now. Literally and figuratively.
And, btw, I see NOTHING spectacular in the posted screenshots that would justify the framerate to drop below 60, on mentioned hardware. What is it, then?! 25 sources of dynamic lights?! That's how Roberts wants to rape hardware, instead of creating jaw-dropping realistic textures and proper lighting for them?!
(that soldier armor is really a joke, both in terms of art design and resolution)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaltern
Posts: 5859
Location: Lockerbie, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 00:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it people just HAVE to come here and tell everyone that the game is perfect? Why can't they just accept it's broken unles you are running a top end i7 with at least 2x980 SLI and 16 Gb?
Because they spent stupid money on the game and feel the need to justify it to others?
*sigh*
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
My system: Ryzen 7 3700x|Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Windforce OC|Vengeance 3000Mz 16Gb RAM|2x 500Gb Samsung EVO 970 M.2 SSD |SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GB + OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD|EVA Supernova 650W PSU|Logitech G27 Wheel|Logitech G19 Gaming Pad|SteelSeries Arctis 7|Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse + Logitech MX Master Mouse|Razer Blackwidow Chroma X Keyboard|Oculus Quest 2 + Link|Pixio PX7 Prime 165hz HDR & 1x Samsung 24FG70FQUEN 144Hz curved monitor
-= Word to the wise: Having a higher forum post does not mean you are right. =-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 00:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, don't forget that DX12 is just around the corner, I'm sure that'll be a nice boon to performance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaltern
Posts: 5859
Location: Lockerbie, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 00:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Assuming they bother rewriting the code to take advantage of it...
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
My system: Ryzen 7 3700x|Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Windforce OC|Vengeance 3000Mz 16Gb RAM|2x 500Gb Samsung EVO 970 M.2 SSD |SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GB + OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD|EVA Supernova 650W PSU|Logitech G27 Wheel|Logitech G19 Gaming Pad|SteelSeries Arctis 7|Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse + Logitech MX Master Mouse|Razer Blackwidow Chroma X Keyboard|Oculus Quest 2 + Link|Pixio PX7 Prime 165hz HDR & 1x Samsung 24FG70FQUEN 144Hz curved monitor
-= Word to the wise: Having a higher forum post does not mean you are right. =-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 07:57 Post subject: |
|
|
For another 15 million $, they might.
That will justify another 3 years delay. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 08:49 Post subject: |
|
|
"God Chris"... ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no9999
Posts: 3437
Location: Behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 08:55 Post subject: |
|
|
I didnt expect it to run good on my 2500K & 7870 anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaltern
Posts: 5859
Location: Lockerbie, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th May 2015 09:21 Post subject: |
|
|
But I expected it to run well on a 970 and 8320 8 core running at 4400Mhz.
And if people STILL think that an AMD CPU is that bad, why is it that MANY demanding games run just fine with that combo hmm? I can tell you it isn't just luck.
Noone here is saying that SC should run on 5 year old hardware at Very High settings with perfect 60 fps gameplay. But it's insulting that:
a) It can't run on Low settings at a res of 800x600 any faster, and (more importantly)...
b) We can't change graphical settings for ourselves, without having to delve into the config file.
It's simply not good enough. Making a game, especially one with such a high profile as this one, with the amount of money being thrown at it, without optimising the basics, is just not acceptable. And they can't even use the console excuse - unless they have a secret stretch goal for 90 million....
Playing Valheim every weekday at 10pm GMT - twitch.tv/kaltern
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it... @kaltern
My system: Ryzen 7 3700x|Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Windforce OC|Vengeance 3000Mz 16Gb RAM|2x 500Gb Samsung EVO 970 M.2 SSD |SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GB + OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb SSD|EVA Supernova 650W PSU|Logitech G27 Wheel|Logitech G19 Gaming Pad|SteelSeries Arctis 7|Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Mouse + Logitech MX Master Mouse|Razer Blackwidow Chroma X Keyboard|Oculus Quest 2 + Link|Pixio PX7 Prime 165hz HDR & 1x Samsung 24FG70FQUEN 144Hz curved monitor
-= Word to the wise: Having a higher forum post does not mean you are right. =-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 146 of 274 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
I want to see 60 fps in gameplay, I don't need/want more. I'm talking about the scenes where you don't even get to that, where it's in the 40s and 50s, and that's where it counts; in dogfights and gameplay with more than one ship it DOES drop down to 40s and I don't accept that. I don't accept how looking in certain directions causes the framerate to drop regardless of settings.
I really should do the same too, but I can't help wanting to dive in and check out each new update in the (increasingly vain) hopes that it improves.. and I know it's my own fault for being so grumpy and disappointed each time too 
