Be warned about performance

[TheKinkySlinky]

It may run well in the campaign but if you visit some really built up islands, the game tanks to 30 to 40 fps on ultra on a 1600x 16gb 3000mhz ram and a 1660Ti Asus Oc which is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ considering the ps4 performs about the same in the same built up islands so frankly this port is lazy. and not well optmized. at 30 to 40 fps in a built up area at hardly 40 percent cpu use and 60 percent gpu useage.

[Ryan Fenton]

What are your settings? Setting shadows to medium usually does wonders for most engines. PS4 is basically medium settings for everything. Switch is low for most everything.

[Fantasy Lifer]

I feel you as I am getting those issues even in story mode.

The only solution for me was lowering the resolution below 1080p, putting it in windowed mode and turning the shadows down to medium. (Still stuttered for me in 1080p fullscreen even with the shadows lowered.)

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

What are your settings? Setting shadows to medium usually does wonders for most engines. PS4 is basically medium settings for everything. Switch is low for most everything.

your also forgetting a PC is a much more powerful platform. my specs should have no issues running a built up world. Hell minecraft java runs better in giant worlds and sticks to 60fps at a 20 chunk render on my rig with a 128x tex pack

[Ryan Fenton]

Originally posted by TheKinkySlinky:

your also forgetting a PC is a much more powerful platform. my specs should have no issues running a built up world. Hell minecraft java runs better in giant worlds and sticks to 60fps at a 20 chunk render on my rig with a 128x tex pack

Quite true!

That said, Java Minecraft is basically visual origami with a fairly small number of textures and scripts, despite the Java underpinnings.

There's a lot more visual processing in this particular game, and lots of scripts that are less optimizable for their actions - but also probably a lack of deep optimization of some aspects for the PC Port.

The demo at least runs fine on my 970gtx/intel4790k/SSD from 2015, at mostly high settings/medium shadows/1080p.

I do remember BenXC seeing what looked like hitching from scripting or something in his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbkRLM3Kw

So, it may be an AMD thing with the latest drivers, which have had a few mentions in this forum.

[Kai]

Originally posted by TheKinkySlinky:

considering the ps4 performs about the same in the same built up islands so frankly this port is lazy. and not well optmized.

I know this game wasn't optimized on PS4 to begin with and can totally see it lagging a bit in some of the busier Buildtopia maps on PC. But I doubt the PS4 could keep up with 30-40 fps on medium settings in those maps. Unless the maps in question aren't actually those insane builds. Not even kidding, in some popular maps from the notice board and ones recommended from Youtube videos, including my own creation, the fps on my Pro dipped down to a point where I can roughly count the number of frames each second. The frame stuttering was that obvious.

With a budget card like 1660Ti if this game on PC runs 30-40 fps on ultra in some of those crazy maps it's still a luxury for people with overly ambitions projects had put up with the PS4 version.

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Kai:

Originally posted by TheKinkySlinky:

considering the ps4 performs about the same in the same built up islands so frankly this port is lazy. and not well optmized.

I know this game wasn't optimized on PS4 to begin with and can totally see it lagging a bit in some of the busier Buildtopia maps on PC. But I doubt the PS4 could keep up with 30-40 fps on medium settings in those maps. Unless the maps in question aren't actually those insane builds. Not even kidding, in some popular maps from the notice board and ones recommended from Youtube videos, including my own creation, the fps on my Pro dipped down to a point where I can roughly count the number of frames each second. The frame stuttering was that obvious.

With a budget card like 1660Ti if this game on PC runs 30-40 fps on ultra in some of those crazy maps it's still a luxury for people with overly ambitions projects had put up with the PS4 version.

i would not call the 1660Ti a budget card its 450 dollars in Canada where i live the budget card is the 1650 or 1050Ti those are around 100 to 250 cad. as the 1660Ti is a 50 percent performance jump over the 1060 6gb. But the problem is i run some insanely demanding games at ultra settings without fault hitman 2 shadow of the tomb raider Metro Exodus high to ultra 60fps Ac Odyssey verrry poorly optimized i can still push it to 60 on a mix of high and very high barring athens which cripples even the 9900K.

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

Originally posted by TheKinkySlinky:

your also forgetting a PC is a much more powerful platform. my specs should have no issues running a built up world. Hell minecraft java runs better in giant worlds and sticks to 60fps at a 20 chunk render on my rig with a 128x tex pack

Quite true!

That said, Java Minecraft is basically visual origami with a fairly small number of textures and scripts, despite the Java underpinnings.

There's a lot more visual processing in this particular game, and lots of scripts that are less optimizable for their actions - but also probably a lack of deep optimization of some aspects for the PC Port.

The demo at least runs fine on my 970gtx/intel4790k/SSD from 2015, at mostly high settings/medium shadows/1080p.

I do remember BenXC seeing what looked like hitching from scripting or something in his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbkRLM3Kw

So, it may be an AMD thing with the latest drivers, which have had a few mentions in this forum.

the game runs fine till i go to one of those built up islands that is where performance is not meeting what we should expect from a pc game the game is not using all 6 cores of my cpu properly it is hardly pushing my gpu and only using 6 gb of my 16gb of ram yet these built islands are stuck to 30 to 40fps the game should be taking advantage of the horsepower i have but this port being shoddy means its just ignoring things and not pushing the pc harder to get to 60fps.

[Legion]

Doesn't need 60+FPS. Less entitlement. More play.

[Ryan Fenton]

It's still a valid complaint.

That said - user generated content always has the possibility to reduce performance. That's WHY the limits were placed on objects - but even within those limits, enough scripting going behind the scenes with enough objects, and even if the GPU can keep up fine with the graphics... the timing of all those scripts is going to cause the CPU to slow frames little by little.

The same thing happens with the Neverwinter Nights games, mods with modern games, even Minecraft with enough stuff in a zone. Chugging is kind of a factor with user generated content at some point.

But that's also why the first line of this post is "It's still a valid complaint" - because it is fair to want 60 FPS.

Conflicting wishes are valid to conflict with eachother for what they each want. Different viewpoints value different things - and that's good. They each have a want and a story they seek.

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

It's still a valid complaint.

That said - user generated content always has the possibility to reduce performance. That's WHY the limits were placed on objects - but even within those limits, enough scripting going behind the scenes with enough objects, and even if the GPU can keep up fine with the graphics... the timing of all those scripts is going to cause the CPU to slow frames little by little.

The same thing happens with the Neverwinter Nights games, mods with modern games, even Minecraft with enough stuff in a zone. Chugging is kind of a factor with user generated content at some point.

But that's also why the first line of this post is "It's still a valid complaint" - because it is fair to want 60 FPS.

Conflicting wishes are valid to conflict with eachother for what they each want. Different viewpoints value different things - and that's good. They each have a want and a story they seek.

when i have more demanding games running better than DQB 2 something is wrong if the game was maxing out my cpu and gpu i would be like well its a demanding game but it is not even taxing my system so its ignoring the capabilites of my system and delivering subpar performance in the case of large builds which is kind of the point of DQB 2 That would be like if building a giant city in minecraft tanked your fps on a good pc it would be awful.

[Legion]

Fair to want, sure. Required? No. There's no reasonable requirement to have to have 60+FPS on any game, regardless of what it is. That's called overkill. That also said, it's pretty shoddy to swear off a game because you don't get what you want, even if it works [perfectly] fine without what you want.

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Nomadic:

Fair to want, sure. Required? No. There's no reasonable requirement to have to have 60+FPS on any game, regardless of what it is. That's called overkill. That also said, it's pretty shoddy to swear off a game because you don't get what you want, even if it works [perfectly] fine without what you want.

60 fps is the base standard for pc players in any game. If i am playing my ps4 i expect 30fps locked or 60fps locked depending on the game if it fails to meet either i wont buy it. On pc i expect games to be able to use my hardware to achive a average fps of 60 or locked 60 no drops below 50.

[Ryan Fenton]

I think that you're both right.

60+FPS should be expected for gameplay purposes. That's valid to want that for a modern computer.

And the developers did balance for that for the most part - but also as you mentioned, it's user generated content. There's no way developers can test and balance for user generated content.

The ones on the Buidlers board literally compete for who can make the most impressive-looking creation - which in most cases means the most complex and interesting interactions.

In most games, worlds are pared down so that they CAN run at 60 FPS. Objects spread out so no locations have too much complexity, other than what is needed to be impressive.

User generated stuff has none of those obligations - and indeed is judged based on NOT being simple in most cases.

See the logistical problem?

And if the developers limited creation to only what COULD show at 60 FPS, there would be much more of a stink.

So, your complaints are valid - but there's several layers of logistics that cause this particular issue, that I think are going to be issues with user-generated stuff for a long time, across all games that have it, unless they severely limit them.

[TheKinkySlinky]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

I think that you're both right.

60+FPS should be expected for gameplay purposes. That's valid to want that for a modern computer.

And the developers did balance for that for the most part - but also as you mentioned, it's user generated content. There's no way developers can test and balance for user generated content.

The ones on the Buidlers board literally compete for who can make the most impressive-looking creation - which in most cases means the most complex and interesting interactions.

In most games, worlds are pared down so that they CAN run at 60 FPS. Objects spread out so no locations have too much complexity, other than what is needed to be impressive.

User generated stuff has none of those obligations - and indeed is judged based on NOT being simple in most cases.

See the logistical problem?

And if the developers limited creation to only what COULD show at 60 FPS, there would be much more of a stink.

So, your complaints are valid - but there's several layers of logistics that cause this particular issue, that I think are going to be issues with user-generated stuff for a long time, across all games that have it, unless they severely limit them.

Minecraft you can build insanely complex worlds i have seen the entirety of kings landing rendered and built and running on a mid range pc. The devs of DQB2 have access to these builds they should be like how do we optimize this i waited for the pc release because sub 30 fps was not acceptable even on a console for me and i get the pc version to find out the game is not programmed well enough to take full advantage of my pc and runs at a very underwealming 30 to 40 fps in large player builds.

[Ryan Fenton]

Yeah - but there's still definitely minecraft combinations that can cause hickups on almost any PC.

The bigger thing is probably the scripting. That is, what causes in-level logic to do stuff. That is, when you place blocks, having them act as a room, all the little triggers acting behind the scenes add up.

Builders has a more of those scripting triggers than Minecraft needs. Some of those trigger after time - but many of them trigger every single frame. Builders has more objects in its game, that can be made to do more things.

The game logic waiting for that CPU logic to finish before allowing other stuff can cause lags in frames.

Its blocks are also somewhat smaller compared to the camera, meaning more tend to be seen at once.

Something that can be avoided in the game maps, but not as much with user stuff. And there's more opportunity in the design of Builders for those to add up to framerate

Even Skyrim can easily cause a high-end PC to crawl with enough mods and scripting.

You can't optimize around the classic 'halting problem' of running code you can't predict.