How can this game be so sluggish?

[Tocsin_786]

I understand its in Alpha, and they are switching away from CryEngine, but I should not be getting 48 FPS at 720p, on low graphics settings in Star Marine, on a 970. I could deal with the 24FPS on area 18 at 1080p, because It was a massive sprawling city based map. But Star Marine is an FPS shooter, and the map has nothing really special in it for me to get such low frames that I had to change my resolution down. 

[spiralfuzion]

6 minutes ago, Tocsin_786 said:

I understand its in Alpha, and they are switching away from CryEngine, but I should not be getting 48 FPS at 720p, on low graphics settings in Star Marine, on a 970. I could deal with the 24FPS on area 18 at 1080p, because It was a massive sprawling city based map. But Star Marine is an FPS shooter, and the map has nothing really special in it for me to get such low frames that I had to change my resolution down. 

do you think it's worth it to buy a pass to play the game? I'm content with playing 1080p under 60fps. I've seen the game play decent with an rx 480 which i am using rn. I really want to try it but don't know if it's worth it right now. 

[Tocsin_786]

1 hour ago, spiralfuzion said:

do you think it's worth it to buy a pass to play the game? I'm content with playing 1080p under 60fps. I've seen the game play decent with an rx 480 which i am using rn. I really want to try it but don't know if it's worth it right now. 

I play the game very intermittent (mostly after an update) because I want to save the game to play when it is truly finished and by that time I will have an upgraded PC. The game even before the latest update, which added the  FPS game play, and many other things was already pretty good in terms of content. You can do missions, races, meet up with others, go to a general hangout area called Area 18, where you can buy weapons, explore the city, buy clothing, food, and socialize with other players. The game is very beautiful, but only if you have the specs to run it. It runs pretty decent at 30 FPS on medium graphics with a GTX 970, but I can't tolerate that when playing multiplayer FPS games (such as in the new update). 

 

TL:DR - Yes, it really is worth the purchase. Its not a expensive game for what its asking for, just get a cheap ship package that has both the Star Citizen, and Squadron 42 games in it, and you will be good to go. Its not a game that you will play 24/7 right now, but they have added enough since the time I purchased, that I can truly start recommending it to people. The game is no where near finished, but it is finally worth buying. 

 

I dont know if this package comes with the Squadron 42 (which is a singleplayer version of the game thats not even out yet), but this is a package on sale right now, with a ship that I own. Its a good ship, and its a very good price to jump on right now. 

 

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Aurora-MR-SC-Starter-Holiday-Warbond-Edition

[Gyre-Taenn]

It's inconsistent. I can get a consistent 60 frames in SM. You need to first try and delete your USER file and maybe verify your install files.

 

Don't get too frustrated too quickly without asking for some help. Also, the network improvements aren't in yet, so the frames will always be very limited in multiplayer situations.

[Whiskers]

I was playing the game a few days ago and noticed the performance issues too.

 

Curiously, my GPU usage sat at around 80% or so and my overall CPU usage fluctuated between around 15 - 50%. But when I looked at core utilisation I noticed that core 2 was pinned at 100% use pretty much the entire time. Changing the game's resolution even down to 480p resulted in only a 4fps improvement because the game was being CPU limited. Which is pretty amusing when it's running on a 3770k @ 4.7GHz.

 

Assuming I'm not the only one this is happening to, they're definitely not threading the game properly. The load should be much more evenly distributed. Hopefully they'll fix it soon.

[Gyre-Taenn]

6 hours ago, Whiskers said:

I was playing the game a few days ago and noticed the performance issues too.

 

Curiously, my GPU usage sat at around 80% or so and my overall CPU usage fluctuated between around 15 - 50%. But when I looked at core utilisation I noticed that core 2 was pinned at 100% use pretty much the entire time. Changing the game's resolution even down to 480p resulted in only a 4fps improvement because the game was being CPU limited. Which is pretty amusing when it's running on a 3770k @ 4.7GHz.

 

Assuming I'm not the only one this is happening to, they're definitely not threading the game properly. The load should be much more evenly distributed. Hopefully they'll fix it soon.

There are plans to support up to 8-cores with full utilization. Whether they can/will pull this off is up in the air.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Tocsin_786]

52 minutes ago, Gyre-Taenn said:

There are plans to support up to 8-cores with full utilization. Whether they can/will pull this off is up in the air.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hopefully. I want an actual reason to upgrade a 5 year old cpu at this point. Aside from CPU heavy games like Cities Skylines, and Planet Coaster. No game that I play daily like BF4 and many others top out my cpu. 

[Helly]

This game is currently NOT limited by most pc's but by the servers you're playing on. A lot of the stuff is done by the servers and the netcode is not done yet, far from it in fact. 3.0 will bring an update and improve it but it still wont be perfect. Dont base the performance of the game on ur pc being not enough, and definately dont buy a new pc for it.

[Gyre-Taenn]

2 hours ago, Helly said:

and definately dont buy a new pc for it.

Oops...

[SteveGrabowski0]

Man I can't understand how anyone can play a game in alpha unless you're being paid by the studio to do it.

[colt92]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Man I can't understand how anyone can play a game in alpha unless you're being paid by the studio to do it.

It's a reward in exchange for helping fund a game that wouldn't be in development otherwise.

What I can't understand is people shitting on a game in development that they haven't even tried or even researched.

[SteveGrabowski0]

39 minutes ago, colt92 said:

It's a reward in exchange for helping fund a game that wouldn't be in development otherwise.

What I can't understand is people shitting on a game in development that they haven't even tried or even researched.

I'm not shitting on the game. I have done QA on some excellent AAA games (and some that sucked too) but none of them were very good experiences in alpha.

[rentaspoon]

On 25/12/2016 at 2:54 AM, Tocsin_786 said:

I understand its in Alpha, and they are switching away from CryEngine, but I should not be getting 48 FPS at 720p, on low graphics settings in Star Marine, on a 970. I could deal with the 24FPS on area 18 at 1080p, because It was a massive sprawling city based map. But Star Marine is an FPS shooter, and the map has nothing really special in it for me to get such low frames that I had to change my resolution down. 

Open up the console and put r_vsync = 0

I'm on a 970 and have no issues with a 4690k and 16Gb of ram. PU is server side but I've found vsync will just drop the FPS way to much.

On 25/12/2016 at 3:01 AM, spiralfuzion said:

do you think it's worth it to buy a pass to play the game? I'm content with playing 1080p under 60fps. I've seen the game play decent with an rx 480 which i am using rn. I really want to try it but don't know if it's worth it right now. 

If you want to see a game built in progress yes, its worth it, for me it's soaking up every piece of info they have which makes this interesting and playing online with a bunch of friends

4 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Man I can't understand how anyone can play a game in alpha unless you're being paid by the studio to do it.

Because it's better than what is currently out there from most top tier companies, most games I play are now alphas due to finished products running just as bad if not worse than the alphas

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm not shitting on the game. I have done QA on some excellent AAA games (and some that sucked too) but none of them were very good experiences in alpha.

Like what if you don't mind me asking?

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 hours ago, rentaspoon said:

Like what if you don't mind me asking?

I'd rather not say because in the past I have discussed how these companies knowingly released games with completely gamebreaking bugs that weren't found by the first party certification (eg every console game has to get tested by Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc). They were corrected quickly by patches though. It sounds shitty but they all do this and I'd be singling out a couple of great companies by naming the games I worked on. Companies I really enjoyed working for and whose releases I love to play,

[Majestic]

Put in my formal refund request the other day. I don't expect CIG to ever deliver, feature creep, lack of dates, shifting deadlines. It's been 4 years, and whatever is out wouldn't even fit to be on steam Greenlight.

 

I can't be arsed anymore. I'll take that $140 back now, thanks Chris.

[Tocsin_786]

55 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Put in my formal refund request the other day. I don't expect CIG to ever deliver, feature creep, lack of dates, shifting deadlines. It's been 4 years, and whatever is out wouldn't even fit to be on steam Greenlight.

 

I can't be arsed anymore. I'll take that $140 back now, thanks Chris.

Why didn't you opt for a cheaper package? $45 is a lot better to swallow if the game does not deliver than $145.

[Majestic]

8 hours ago, Tocsin_786 said:

Why didn't you opt for a cheaper package? $45 is a lot better to swallow if the game does not deliver than $145.

$60 didn't stop people from going full cognitive dissonance over No Man's Sky.

[Helly]

still find it unbelievable how people expected a game of this size to be done within 4 years. This game will happen, my almost $400 stays right where it is, and i'm already planning to buy a super hornet when its for sale again. Might take another 2 years for the game to be done but for me it's already worth the wait.

[Tocsin_786]

9 hours ago, Majestic said:

$60 didn't stop people from going full cognitive dissonance over No Man's Sky.

But No Man's Sky did not have much in the game. Sure it played well, but what can you actually do in it? Even though SC does not play well at all, atleast I can do missions, exploration, and other things that many other games offer. 

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, Tocsin_786 said:

But No Man's Sky did not have much in the game. Sure it played well, but what can you actually do in it? Even though SC does not play well at all, atleast I can do missions, exploration, and other things that many other games offer. 

What is there outside of ICC probes and distress beacons? Both NMS and E:D have more to do in 'em.

[Tocsin_786]

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

What is there outside of ICC probes and distress beacons? Both NMS and E:D have more to do in 'em.

I haven't played it that much to know, but I used to hate SC as well and complained about the progress, but they released Star Marine and a few other things. This made me feel like they didn't just eat our money and are actually trying to make a solid game. 

[Majestic]

I'm not debating the merit of their bloated techdemo's. All i'm seeing is the same post-purchase rationalization that plagued NMS before and after it's release.

And that's coming from someone who spent $140 on it. Even if I don't get it back, i'm not going to unconditionally defend it. 

 

There is some serious risk of the project going out of control.

[Tocsin_786]

54 minutes ago, Majestic said:

I'm not debating the merit of their bloated techdemo's. All i'm seeing is the same post-purchase rationalization that plagued NMS before and after it's release.

And that's coming from someone who spent $140 on it. Even if I don't get it back, i'm not going to unconditionally defend it. 

 

There is some serious risk of the project going out of control.

You are correct. This is the first game in the since Black Ops 1 that I have pre-ordered. If it fails, then I will just go back to how I usually buy my games (after a week or so of checking gameplay and reviews). But if it succeeds then I along with probably you will be happy campers. I went into this with a mindset that it is too good to be true, because it really is something that has not been attempted, so if it fails, then i would have learned my lesson. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

On 2.1.2017 at 8:37 AM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm not shitting on the game. I have done QA on some excellent AAA games (and some that sucked too) but none of them were very good experiences in alpha.

Rift: Planes of Telara developer alpha was literally better than the finished game

 

Maybe because only 200 people were on the server and the content was focused without unneccessary sprawl. Then they added PvP gear and it rotted overnight.

[2FA]

On 1/4/2017 at 5:04 PM, Majestic said:

I'm not debating the merit of their bloated techdemo's. All i'm seeing is the same post-purchase rationalization that plagued NMS before and after it's release.

And that's coming from someone who spent $140 on it. Even if I don't get it back, i'm not going to unconditionally defend it. 

 

There is some serious risk of the project going out of control.

I'm not really sure how you can compare an Alpha to a finished (debatable) game. I get that you're uncertain about SC but how fast were you expecting it to be made?