Optimise, optimise, and then optimise even more...

[andyKCIUK]

So, I'm 360hrs into the game and I simply cannot go any further... 13fps is not something my old eyes are too keen on. My 10600K usage is around 50% with one core at 80% and the rest of them at 40-50%. My RX6800 is chugging steadily at 40%. Looking at this forum, upgrading CPU is not really the solution. The game is fun, but the low performance is just too much for me to handle. I need to give up. It's a shame as I love the game.
Devs, please focus on improving the performance instead of adding new stuff...

[Coops]

For comparison, here is my system
i7 9700 @4.6 GHz Temp 65 deg C
RX 6800 XT GPU load 68% ave; fan speed 60% ; Temp 53 deg C; driving 32" monitor at 2560 x 1440 AND 2x 24" monitors @1920 x 1200
32 GB RAM
Adrenalin software shows 56 FPS ave currently with 6000 solar sails in orbit.
I am on my 9th playthrough and just upgraded from a RX 5700 to 6800 XT
The 5700 was doing fine at 1920 x 1080 on a 27" monitor

Why upgrade? Birthday present to myself as I just turned 70. Old eyes as well.

Take from that what you will. I have not had problems with low framerate

[andyKCIUK]

Yes, I had constant 144fps at the beginning too. Then it occasionally started to drop to 60fps on busier planets only to come back to 144 once I was back in space. Now, it's 13-16fps no matter where I am. You see, the framerate drops as you progress and develop more and more planets. I now have at least one planet per product and a quite a few spheres too. I've already spent 360hrs on one game only, so things are rather busy in my little cluster. It shouldn't be like this though with such a vast space we have been given to play in, not to mention the free CPU and GPU resources my PC has still left. Something is not optimised enough in this game and that is a shame. I wish I could go on for another 400hrs without starting a new game from scratch...

[Zaflis]

Coops eredeti hozzászólása:

56 FPS ave currently with 6000 solar sails in orbit.
...
Take from that what you will. I have not had problems with low framerate

Yeah with those specs it does sound like game is very poorly optimized. 6000 sails should be a low amount still, and you can't even get stable frames?

But yes the low performance of this game is 1 of primary reasons i've been playing other games.

If you can't have 4 dyson spheres and 20 planets at least half full of factories and still not get 60 FPS then it's not optimized.

[thenonsequitur]

This is what ended my game for two playthroughs. The first time it was my several spheres with hundreds of thousands of solar sails that did me in.

The latest playthrough where I ran into this problem I only build 1 sphere and no solar sails at all (only frames), specifically to avoid the biggest performance bottleneck. This extended things a while, allowing me to build a larger factory. But eventually I hit a performance wall once my factory reached a certain scale and I just couldn't stand the low framerate anymore.

I'm not sure if there is a hardware solution to this, or if the game just needs more optimization to be playable beyond a certain scale.

[bun E]

does it really get that bad?

[Bluemoon_19]

Bunni eredeti hozzászólása:

does it really get that bad?

If you build massive then yes but if you just intend to finish the tech tree and get the mission complete message you will be fine. I managed to get about 2,000 white science a minute and my first gen ryzen could still provide about 110 UPS (you need 60 ups for the game to run at real time)

[andyKCIUK]

I ordered an I7-12700F together with a new mobo this morning which should be delivered by the end of next week. I will report back if that yields any improvement. Two cpu generations up, more cores, more speed... I really hope this will bring up the FPS back.

[andyKCIUK]

Well, this is my performance screenshot after 380hrs:

https://ibb.co/4s5zBYv

33 UPS / 13 FPS ;(

[Palehorse777]

andyKCIUK eredeti hozzászólása:

Well, this is my performance screenshot after 380hrs:

https://ibb.co/4s5zBYv

33 UPS / 13 FPS ;(

I'm at 21 UPS / 11 FPS. Join the ever increasing club. I have a 5600X with 32GB RAM. GPU is not the issue it is the heavy load from the main logic and the dyson spheres on the CPU. It's also a little confusing since nobody is seeing their CPU's running near 100% only about 50% for whatever reason. Maybe the devs didn't want to turn your machine into a complete zombie. While I have much respect and appreciation for the 5 guys that are responsible for putting this amazing project together, This game requires a bigger team. I'm picturing 5 guys that haven't slept in a year and live in the office. BUT, If you guys can't optimize this cpu load you simply don't have a game. Maybe for some player that wants to build a little kitty factory but for anyone with a modest to higher ambition, sorry... this game is not for you! They must fix this game or it is just on very overhyped product. Seriously, the game studio touts this as a massive game but it really isn't. You can only develop a small fraction of the potential without suffering massive performance consequences. If you aren't experiencing problems then good. You still have a small enough factory and dyson sphere to maintain somewhat acceptable FPS. But since you get an achievement for a 50GW factory then you should be able to make at least that or somewhat bigger. My factory uses about 100GW of power my my dyson potential is 51TW. I'm on my second full play through (2 seperate clusters) and I have over 2000 hours on this game. I can't even play it anymore the performance is too bad. I have everything automated so I just let it run. Fix this game!!!

[Electric Donkey]

Palehorse777 eredeti hozzászólása:

BUT, If you guys can't optimize this cpu load you simply don't have a game.
...
Seriously, the game studio touts this as a massive game but it really isn't.
...
I'm on my second full play through (2 seperate clusters) and I have over 2000 hours on this game.

If DSP isn't a real game, what would be the best way to describe what you were doing for those 2,000 hours? (Maybe a lot of that is AFK?)

I understand the annoyance of potential which is locked away due to performance constraints, but it's hard to countenance the claim that the game is broken or incomplete or not a worthwhile entertainment investment for this reason, when it takes most people 100+ hours to start feeling the pain.

If DSP had an unusual refund policy and allowed anyone to refund up to 40 hours in, would people really refund it if they knew they had at least another 40 to 60 hours of expansion they could pursue?

Optimization is usually something that happens near the end of development, though obviously in the world of Early Access that's not always tenable. It's also worth stating that there is some limit to what optimization can provide. Even Factorio will start chugging if you build enough.

Is there another multi-planetary factory simulator we can compare DSP to?

[Palehorse777]

"If DSP isn't a real game, what would be the best way to describe what you were doing for those 2,000 hours? (Maybe a lot of that is AFK?)"

Make no mistake! I have really enjoyed playing this game! It is one of the best building game out there (at least in early stages) and minus the horrible covey belt construction they have and a few other shortcomings.

Yes, lots of AFK!! The good majority of this game is spent watching your power increase and the factory that you spent so much time working on (several hundred hours) decrease. That's why it's not a good game right now. If what you build WILL eventually be destroyed by continuing to play the game then it isn't much of a game. You can't go back to your awesome factories enjoy your creation. The performance kills that so what are you left with? Only a star to twinkle in the Milky Way. That's it! So you spend lots of time building up that bright beautiful star in the sky - end of game-

I actually haven't 'played' the game for several hundreds of hours now. I'm just trying to complete my blue giant and another type o star (It's running on full automation- thankfully). I can't build anything else! Hear that Devs! I don't think I can finish what I have built due to the ever decreasing performance but if I can then I'll hang this game up. They are too busy making your mech look pretty and giving you a sandbox to play in.

This will probably be another Satisfactory that has an endless "early release" tagged to it that eventually just develops into DSP UPDATE#X.

[Tenzek]

Did something change in the last year? A year ago I played with 3 different Dyson spheres and expanded to have dedicated systems for producing the different research cubes, but I never knew there was an FPS issue. My computer is 3 years old and nothing special.

[Palehorse777]

Tenzek eredeti hozzászólása:

Did something change in the last year? A year ago I played with 3 different Dyson spheres and expanded to have dedicated systems for producing the different research cubes, but I never knew there was an FPS issue. My computer is 3 years old and nothing special.

Yes, a lot of really good updates. I've been playing since they came out with the very early access too. I'd say the Blueprints were the best but the stacking, painting and miner updates were very strong for this game development. But to answer your question. I don't honestly know. Before the blueprints there was not a reasonable way to make your factory big enough to probably see the fps reduction. I say reasonably for any of you that say "I did it!"

When you say you have 3 different dyson spheres are they maxed out? (ie 10 shells filled for each star). I think when I had filled 3 complete type 0 stars with 10 shells each I really started to loose my fps and realized I can't continue building whole planets shooting sails at every new type o star I had. So, I transitioned to my blue giant (about 10x the output of average type 0 star) and that's where I am. It's all I can do now really.

I do wonder if I could go back to the stars I've finished and delete the 15 thousand rail guns I probably have if that would help much. I only wonder because I'm not about to individually delete all of these. They need to make a mass delete paint brush or sponge that could make that a reasonable job IMO. Otherwise I don't think anybody will ever know. Unless you are a severe glutton for the punishment of monotony - like building huge factories before blueprints lol.

While I'm here being somewhat critical, I just lost 1K rockets/minute with one of the latest updates when they changing the value of the spinform crystals. I went from 4K/minute to 3K per minute production. Thanks Team DSP!! That should have been untouchable. You should have cemented that in before you went to early release! New players just beware that it seems nothing is off the table and all those hours you spend getting things efficient may be for naught.

[Operation40]

I know most people won't like this, but: the optimization is a lie! (mostly)

Sure, there might be some improvements they can make, but it's still a Unity game. A custom game engine could take things much farther but we're talking about a small indy shop here (afaik).

even with a custom game engine, no amount of optimization is going to let you expand forever -- there's always going to be some limit. imo -- it's perfectly reasonable for the game to only perform well for 1 sphere, and I don't think that makes it useless as a game (600+ hours here). I'm curious what others think a reasonable limit would be, before experiencing performance issues? -- 2 spheres? 3? 30? 300? the code driving this game isn't magic, there are going to be some limits regardless how much time the spend "optimizing"

[andyKCIUK]

Operation40 eredeti hozzászólása:

I know most people won't like this, but: the optimization is a lie! (mostly)

Sure, there might be some improvements they can make, but it's still a Unity game. A custom game engine could take things much farther but we're talking about a small indy shop here (afaik).

even with a custom game engine, no amount of optimization is going to let you expand forever -- there's always going to be some limit. imo -- it's perfectly reasonable for the game to only perform well for 1 sphere, and I don't think that makes it useless as a game (600+ hours here). I'm curious what others think a reasonable limit would be, before experiencing performance issues? -- 2 spheres? 3? 30? 300? the code driving this game isn't magic, there are going to be some limits regardless how much time the spend "optimizing"

I would understand that if either my cpu or gpu would be at 100%. As I've written in my OP, my cpu is at 50%. One core out of 12 threads is at 80%, the rest at 50% or less. So, something is not right. My GPU's usage is so low it's not even worth mentioning. There's definitely some room for improvement there.