The FPS isssues.. Explained

[aCruV]

Hello everyone

I am writing to ask if anyone else has encountered optimization issues while playing the game, I am sure you are.

The GPU usage remains between 70-80% on Ultra settings, and even when I lower the settings, the FPS remains the same. This is due to very poor optimization, and it seems that lowering the settings does nothing to improve FPS.

I believe it is important to report this issue to EndNight Games and bring it to their attention. Therefore, I would like to encourage all of you to share your experiences and comments on this matter.

Let's work together to bring this issue to the attention of the developers so that they can work on a solution as soon as possible.

[Помоечка кормит]

I play on 1070 i5 4570 and 16 RAM, I know that the processor is a bottleneck, but at low 35-45 frames I'm waiting for the optimization of the video card, it is loaded by 60-65 percent

[VeinySnickers]

Originally posted by aCruV:

Hello everyone

I am writing to ask if anyone else has encountered optimization issues while playing the game, I am sure you are.

The GPU usage remains between 70-80% on Ultra settings, and even when I lower the settings, the FPS remains the same. This is due to very poor optimization, and it seems that lowering the settings does nothing to improve FPS.

I believe it is important to report this issue to EndNight Games and bring it to their attention. Therefore, I would like to encourage all of you to share your experiences and comments on this matter.

Let's work together to bring this issue to the attention of the developers so that they can work on a solution as soon as possible.

I always like reading these posts to see where people find workarounds and something I am noticing is anyone running a 30 series or 40 series NVIDIA card is having FPS issues. I and many others running a 20 series cards are getting 100 fps on high settings.

Multiplayer host does have a fps drop of about 20 frames I noticed due to probably acting as a server host. That will be buffed out or dedicated servers will be added. Maybe its something I just am thinking and seeing, I dont know lol.

[ZombieHunter]

Games are not going to run at refresh rates of 144 or 165 every single time. That is simply not possible for most games. All you can do is run at your max refresh, set Windows to your max refresh and then let the game render as much as it can up to that refresh.

There is more going on in a game than rendering. Far more. Everything takes cycles. A certain body of work has to be done within a certain time frame. And there is no way around that. It was just before that refresh was 60 hz and most CPUs can certainly maintain that. But above that gets into sketchy territory. So at 144 Hz you might get 80 to 90. Still great performance but not your refresh. I'm not sure we will ever reach the point that games can consistently reach 144 Hz. We already have multiple cores, liquid coolers and so on. Short of using multiple CPUs onboard I really don't see this changing anytime soon. There is only so much work that can be done by any given CPU in a time T. 144 Hz is around 6 ms per frame. That means the CPU and code has 6 ms to get everything updated and handled before a frame is rendered. The is almost the default resolution of the Microsoft multi-media timer and it is extremely fast. The default lock failure period is 5ms if two threads try to access the same resource at the same time. You are talking about some crazy numbers here.

[kirkyeehee]

This is what needs to be made for threads giving constructive criticism. Not people coming here whining and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the game being unfinished, but people troubleshooting and trying to help each other figure out where the issues lie and even what hardware limitations there might be.

Stuff like this can help the devs know where the most work needs to be done to improve performance infinitely faster than people coming in and saying, "Game unfinished POS that only gives 143 FPS on ultra with a 4090!"

This is the sort of thing I like to see when I purchase a game in early access and the community actually gives helpful feedback so the developers can more quickly identify and fix underlying issues.

To go a step further, you can also provide logs when crashes and whatnot occur that can help them identify issues that you may not even be aware of as well. Which can be found in
C:\Users\username\AppData\LocalLow\Endnight\SonsOfTheForest

[Dini]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Games are not going to run at refresh rates of 144 or 165 every single time. That is simply not possible for most games. All you can do is run at your max refresh, set Windows to your max refresh and then let the game render as much as it can up to that refresh.

There is more going on in a game than rendering. Far more. Everything takes cycles. A certain body of work has to be done within a certain time frame. And there is no way around that. It was just before that refresh was 60 hz and most CPUs can certainly maintain that. But above that gets into sketchy territory. So at 144 Hz you might get 80 to 90. Still great performance but not your refresh. I'm not sure we will ever reach the point that games can consistently reach 144 Hz. We already have multiple cores, liquid coolers and so on. Short of using multiple CPUs onboard I really don't see this changing anytime soon. There is only so much work that can be done by any given CPU in a time T. 144 Hz is around 6 ms per frame. That means the CPU and code has 6 ms to get everything updated and handled before a frame is rendered. The is almost the default resolution of the Microsoft multi-media timer and it is extremely fast. The default lock failure period is 5ms if two threads try to access the same resource at the same time. You are talking about some crazy numbers here.

You should check out playstation ports and then revisit your statement. Games clearly that have time spent into optimization will give expected results. (the game running buttery ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ smooth at 2k/4k maxed ultra)

[ZombieHunter]

Originally posted by Dini:

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

Games are not going to run at refresh rates of 144 or 165 every single time. That is simply not possible for most games. All you can do is run at your max refresh, set Windows to your max refresh and then let the game render as much as it can up to that refresh.

There is more going on in a game than rendering. Far more. Everything takes cycles. A certain body of work has to be done within a certain time frame. And there is no way around that. It was just before that refresh was 60 hz and most CPUs can certainly maintain that. But above that gets into sketchy territory. So at 144 Hz you might get 80 to 90. Still great performance but not your refresh. I'm not sure we will ever reach the point that games can consistently reach 144 Hz. We already have multiple cores, liquid coolers and so on. Short of using multiple CPUs onboard I really don't see this changing anytime soon. There is only so much work that can be done by any given CPU in a time T. 144 Hz is around 6 ms per frame. That means the CPU and code has 6 ms to get everything updated and handled before a frame is rendered. The is almost the default resolution of the Microsoft multi-media timer and it is extremely fast. The default lock failure period is 5ms if two threads try to access the same resource at the same time. You are talking about some crazy numbers here.

You should check out playstation ports and then revisit your statement. Games clearly that have time spent into optimization will give expected results. (the game running buttery ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ smooth at 2k/4k maxed ultra)

Buttery smooth is relative. What was the frame rate? I'm talking basic computer science here. Work has to be done to update the game. Much of this will not be done in 6 ms. This is why it will not maintain 144 FPS. In fact I would argue there are zero games on the market right now made within the last 5 years that will maintain 144 FPS at 2K flat across all scenes and all areas.

The old idea of maintaining the refresh rate of the display only applied when the refresh was 60 b/c that is 16.6667 ms and most processing can be done in that amount of time. 144 Hz is 6.94 ms per frame. 165Hz is 6.06 ms per frame. No game is going to be able to constantly maintain 144 or 165 without dropping into 100 or 120 or even lower.

[Scorpion]

Same problem here, with rtx 4090 at 4k
when it rains it gets to 60 fps (with dlss perf/quality ,doesnt matter fps still the same)

Also when im loading the world the screen goes blank for 1-2 sec , does this happen to you aswell ?

[Horror]

5950x and 6800xt all ultras on my end, zero issues. Game runs great

[Falonious]

RTX 3060ti, have no issues at all, yet playing no one survives I lag and freeze regularly. Go figure?

[Seiro]

Originally posted by CheeseGoblin:

The version of DLSS included with the game is from 2021. Upgrade it to the more recent versions and you'll notice an improvement

The DLSS in the game is extremely questionable, as to whether or not it's even there.
Game seems to run better without it, and the visuals don't seem to be effected at all, either way.

[Anbidian]

Given most peoples experience so far, mine cant really be described as all that bad... i am running:

Core i5 10400
16GB 3200
RX 6400 (yes i know, THAT one. Slim PC setup)

im getting anywhere between 25 - 45 fps on either ultra low, low or medium settings. there is little difference in frame rate... what kills mine is stutter. if i stand still, frame rate is stable, but panning the character around causes horrid stuttering. But it is playable... kind of.

[SlimPaul7]

Yeah it's pretty bad. I have a decent pc (ryzen 2600, 16gb ram 2400 mhz, rx 6600, ssd nvme) and while it's not the greatest thing ever, I had no problems playing demanding games like Dying Light 2 or Hogwarts Legacy at 1080p/60 with high/ultra settings.
I simply can't play SOTF, it wildly fluctuates between 30 and 60 fps, has a lot of awful dips into the 10s and a lot of stutter, and changing from high to ultralow doesn't change anything, except for ♥♥♥♥♥♥ graphics. It's broken

[kgkong]

This game is a lot more CPU heavy, and as another user pointed out and explained about frame time and CPU bottlenecking, most users are having stutters from 2 reasons.
1- Early Access: There are some things the game calculates that can be optimized and smoothed out still.
2- The CPU is bottlenecking because it's not an efficiently designed CPU for multi and all core processing. Could be that they're low core counts, or just older, slower CPUs, and potentially memory.

Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series CPU are alright at multi-core. They do it better than most of the common Intel CPUs, but there's other areas these CPUs lack in and were improved upon in the physical design to the 3000 and 5000 series Ryzens.
Intel CPUs 11th gen and older are all basically single core CPUs, no matter how many cores they have. They have feature sets that help with multi-core and all-core processing but they don't do it efficiently in the slightest. 12th Gen is notably better but the e-cores are entirely inefficient. 13th Gen is substantially better.

But you'll get the best all-core and multi-core CPUs with the Ryzen 5000 and 7000 series.

On top of this, the bottleneck for CPU can be induced through memory, small page file, HDD instead of SSD or using an SSD with a slow read/write rate. Slow system RAM or limited RAM capacity as well. When this is the case, you can increase Windows paging file and total virtual memory allocated to the system to help improve memory related performance that might be causing CPU bottlenecks.

[•✪ GMan79 ✪•]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC-rbMr-icQ

[OmgDaNinja]

Originally posted by KingGorillaKong:

This game is a lot more CPU heavy, and as another user pointed out and explained about frame time and CPU bottlenecking, most users are having stutters from 2 reasons.
1- Early Access: There are some things the game calculates that can be optimized and smoothed out still.
2- The CPU is bottlenecking because it's not an efficiently designed CPU for multi and all core processing. Could be that they're low core counts, or just older, slower CPUs, and potentially memory.

Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series CPU are alright at multi-core. They do it better than most of the common Intel CPUs, but there's other areas these CPUs lack in and were improved upon in the physical design to the 3000 and 5000 series Ryzens.
Intel CPUs 11th gen and older are all basically single core CPUs, no matter how many cores they have. They have feature sets that help with multi-core and all-core processing but they don't do it efficiently in the slightest. 12th Gen is notably better but the e-cores are entirely inefficient. 13th Gen is substantially better.

But you'll get the best all-core and multi-core CPUs with the Ryzen 5000 and 7000 series.

On top of this, the bottleneck for CPU can be induced through memory, small page file, HDD instead of SSD or using an SSD with a slow read/write rate. Slow system RAM or limited RAM capacity as well. When this is the case, you can increase Windows paging file and total virtual memory allocated to the system to help improve memory related performance that might be causing CPU bottlenecks.

1 More reason to add why its so CPU heavy is because of DX11 and its CPU overhead.
They do have Vulkan depot so heres hoping in future we get better API.