Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
its crazy how other peoples games don't crash... they must have another version of the game...1.02.83 I think it is...
Let them focus on bug fixes and improvements, and the FPS optimization (which honestly isn't high on the list of priorities once the FPS is within a reasonable range) will happen. This Dev team is highly active and on top of it. This isn't a PVP game and honestly I personally have never had issues with FPS and I play on max settings myself.
I think an important distinction needs to be made on this topic. Hitches and performance degradation still exist in the game in a noticeable and frustrating way. There are factors outside of hardware that are impacting performance for people. The same high end system can have wildly different performance results for two different people, and this has made reporting/investigating/fixing particularly difficult.
Performance has improved noticeably over time. Of that, there is no doubt. However, that doesn't mean it's at an acceptable level currently. The day this game can be locked at 60 FPS without noticeable deviation or degradation, I would call the performance 'fixed'.
People saying "Oh well I can run it on ultra with 60FPS, so the game is fine!" are equally as unhelpful as people saying "FPS sucks, trash game!" because neither address the problem of why, which only the devs will be able to answer.
I do believe these devs will be able to achieve an acceptable level of performance for this game, in time.
I think if they made batteries it would make all other power obsolete.. they would have to either massively reduce the solar power output or make battery storage small and expensive to balance it. Which I'd be fine with.
And if Battery appears, it will be necessary to process all this in real time. And in order to do this in such a way that it all does not cause excessive load + multiplayer synchronization, you need to write the appropriate code.
No, the major problem with solar is that the power system isn't designed for "sometimes" power sources. All power producers except solar are just always running, and all power consumers just constantly consume, they don't dynamically reduce their power when they're not being used (and only a few, like the furnace, can even be turned off directly). The entire power system is designed where you have some generation capacity, and you keep your consumption under that, so power sources that only sometimes work break that significantly.
That's especially the case because we lack a means of easily turning off sections of the grid (like a power switch, our only option is to delete a cable), and we have no ability to control which facilities get taken offline when the power drops below consumption. The point of batteries would be two-fold, first to cover for relatively brief usages above generation, and to allow for more dynamic power generation systems. For example, batteries would let them make the wind turbines provide variable power (similar to how wind turbines work IRL, where potential power output depends on wind speed), because batteries would exist to smooth out the generation.
You're likely correct that they'd have to adjust some of the power values to avoid trivializing it, but I actually don't think solar would be on that list. Solar's output, as a percentage of the solar cycle, depends on your location, relative to geographic obstructions, but in practice, a solar panel plus however many batteries it takes to store half a day's solar output would total to roughly half a solar panel's peak output, or ~2500. That's actually pretty balance, considering the output of turbines, and is still below the water wheels and half the output of a bio generator.
Then you have the unfinished maps. All of them. Even on icarusintel, there are caves marked as 'Unfinished'. So lets add rustic benches! There are many other problems, too long to list actually with this game. To make things clear, I game on a i9, 3070 rtx and 32GB DDR5 at 1080p res. So many other games like Cyberpunk for example, run at an average of 120fps.
With all of that said, I or the average user posting a comment here, is not responsible for developing a game, either because we have real life jobs, dont have the time or expertise to develop a game on our own. It's why we pay a competent dev team to do that for us. You're not playing icarus for free so like with everything bought in life, you have an expectation of the product you're purchasing. If this dev team is not capable of fixing its own code because they dont know how, then they're not capable of making this game any better in terms of actual improvement ever.
I wonder why some get good FPS while others get bad FPS. Although they did do major improvements too, attempt at least to solve the major problems for it.
What do you pay me if i show you my own recordings without your "lags and crap fps" bs? I have a 2070 (nonSuper) while i record with OBS on the SAME computer with 60fps in not the worst render quality and i dont have those huge drops except when i traveling on my moa with high speed in a straight line...
ok, it isn't ultra everything, but you know.. im old enough to learn how to setup my game to look good without low fps. ;) There is a thing in the game, called "Settings" you can do things in there and not just put everithing to ultra...
Wierd i know... but dude... the menu is a thing!