I don't see why..

[Ice]

Medieval Dynasty is 8GB min and 16 Max.

This doubles those values and its the same exact graphics. That amount of memory for something so little either means this is heavily unoptimized or something sketchy is going on underneath.

I can run ARK on max settings with view rendering double that of recommended amounts and only go as high as maybe 4gb of usage. This takes 6GB on the lowest settings.

Optimize your game it doesn't need that much usage.

[Morri]

1st day EA is bound to be not fully optimized yet..

[Ice]

Originally posted by Morri:

1st day EA is bound to be not fully optimized yet..

But DOUBLE that of which should be required? That doesn't sound or feel right.

[Morri]

I dunno. It's a different engine, it might need more? Map will eventually be bigger than MD, so it might need more for that too? They plan to incorporate more features, more building limit etc where eventually it'll need more to run fully optimized?

[Revenholm]

Problem is Direct x12 Directx11 would use less Resources the Game runs with 8 gig of Ram i testet it but expect around 30 Fps.
It would be nice to get Direct x11 Support.

[SwordsOfTheSouth_Toplitz]

It is Unreal Engine 5.

[Artifysical]

RAM != VRAM

[Jin Yoichi]

Originally posted by Ice:

Medieval Dynasty is 8GB min and 16 Max.

This doubles those values and its the same exact graphics. That amount of memory for something so little either means this is heavily unoptimized or something sketchy is going on underneath.

I can run ARK on max settings with view rendering double that of recommended amounts and only go as high as maybe 4gb of usage. This takes 6GB on the lowest settings.

Optimize your game it doesn't need that much usage.

i don't see why, you're complaining about memorie size... get higher SSD storage?

[Thandius]

Unreal Engine 5 has much higher requirements, so even optimization will only do so much.

Now whether it was a good idea on the dev's part to actually use UE5 for this kind of game at this point in time is an issue one can have differing opinions on.

Considering the graphics in both games look pretty much the same to me, as others have remarked as well, I have formed my opinion on that.

That aside, the decision is in the past and we can either now live with it or decide not to purchase the game.

[🎮AliveSince1961🎮]

UE5 is very heavy. I have Satisfactory which has been updated with UE5 and you can see the difference but it's so much bigger. The patches are 20gb+ and the global illumination takes a lot more resources.

The first thing I did was to reduce to 60 FPS max. and turn the shadows down a notch.

So far, the game is running well and hasn't had any freezes or crashes. Only loading the game takes longer. Good thing that I upgraded my PC to an SSD.

CPU i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz
GTX 1660 SUPER VRAM : 6143 MB
RAM: 16291 MB
Windows 10

[Antika60]

Originally posted by 🎮AliveSince1961🎮:

UE5 is very heavy. I have Satisfactory which has been updated with UE5 and you can see the difference but it's so much bigger. The patches are 20gb+ and the global illumination takes a lot more resources.

The first thing I did was to reduce to 60 FPS max. and turn the shadows down a notch.

So far, the game is running well and hasn't had any freezes or crashes. Only loading the game takes longer. Good thing that I upgraded my PC to an SSD.

CPU i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz
GTX 1660 SUPER VRAM : 6143 MB
RAM: 16291 MB
Windows 10

Win 10, AMD Ryzen 5 3600 16 GB GTX 1080. 3 SSD im PC und eine davon ist nur für Spiele.
Und ich habe es auch so gemacht wie du, gleich einige Veränderungen vorgenommen.

Bin von "Episch" herunter auf "Hoch" gegangen und bisher läuft es bei mir auch recht gut. Nur das Laden und beenden des Spiels dauert auch bei mir ein wenig lang. :)

[🎮AliveSince1961🎮]

Meins funktioniert auf allen epischen Einstellung, aber es gibt ein paar Orte, wo, bevor ich die Bäume schneiden gibt's das Spiel verzögert wird. Selbst bei 30 FPS, zeigt es und Einstellung der Schatten auf hohem Niveau löst das Problem.

[Antika60]

Auf episch hat es bei mir weitgehend auch funktioniert aber da wo viele Bäume sind gab es dann schon mal leichte Verzögerungen/Einbrüche. FPS fielen von 54 auf 30 herunter.

Und dennoch konnte ich mich dafür noch recht gut fortbewegen, was ich erstaunlich fand, in WWD hatte ich da anfangs mehr Probleme, da ging es runter auf 5 FPS was sich natürlich bemerkbar machte. Daher habe ich zur Sicherheit Anpassungen vor genommen und bin bis jetzt weiterhin recht zufrieden.

Aber ich kenne das auch von ARK dass da wo viele Bäume sind, die FPS etwas fallen...im Schnitt jedoch bei mir so um die 60 liegen. Bei weiten Flächen mit wenig Bewuchs steigen sie da dann aber auch schon mal weit über 100 FPS an. :)