Poor performance

[soulgamer31br]

I have a laptop with a RTX 3060, i7 12700H and 16gbs of RAM, yet the game quickly falls down to 30 FPS the second any action starts going on, even on the very first mission. I had similar problems with the demo, but i expected the game to be more optimized now. Any ideas of a fix?

[Priestess No.1 Stalker]

it really utilizing ONLY 1 core
and if someone going to say that I play on notebook or low-end PC
here my spec
I5-13400F
RAM 32 GB
GPU RTX3070
window 11
with SSD installed
so my spec SHOULD get at-lest 60 FPS or above

[LoneWolf]

You are being dishonest as you stated it was a fact that I mentioned when it was you who provided the information - then said I provided it myself. So: you're either too stupid to understand what you yourself are writing OR you are dishonest.

' I stated that your CPU FACTUALLY has 10 cores, and that it FACTUALLY only uses 1 of those cores."
Yes, thank you! YOU stated it!

"I'm not being dishonest by saying 30 to 40 FPS is not playable. "
If I can play it at 40fps (the lowest fps required to realistically simulate real-life motion starting at approx. 23.97fps) without any freezing, lag, or other performance problems, then yes, it can play just fine at 40fps. So to say it can't because of fps means you are dishonest.

"that doesn't change the fact that you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO and it's below THE STANDARD." Being above 40fps is no standard. There is no such standard that exists or has been created. To claim there is this imaginary standard, which you arbitrarily defined, and then claim a game can only play fine if it meets the standard which you defined, is being dishonest.

[Reactive]

Originally posted by LoneWolf:

You are being dishonest as you stated it was a fact that I mentioned when it was you who provided the information - then said I provided it myself. So: you're either too stupid to understand what you yourself are writing OR you are dishonest.

' I stated that your CPU FACTUALLY has 10 cores, and that it FACTUALLY only uses 1 of those cores."
Yes, thank you! YOU stated it!

"I'm not being dishonest by saying 30 to 40 FPS is not playable. "
If I can play it at 40fps (the lowest fps required to realistically simulate real-life motion starting at approx. 23.97fps) without any freezing, lag, or other performance problems, then yes, it can play just fine at 40fps. So to say it can't because of fps means you are dishonest.

"that doesn't change the fact that you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO and it's below THE STANDARD." Being above 40fps is no standard. There is no such standard that exists or has been created. To claim there is this imaginary standard, which you arbitrarily defined, and then claim a game can only play fine if it meets the standard which you defined, is being dishonest.

23.97 fps is not ok for games because frame pacing is a thing. If you enjoy the game at 40 or 30 fps, that's totally great, but we all know that most PC gamers at least want to play at 60fps, or not even that, but the minimum that adaptive sync requires to work to avoid tearing and that kind of problems. The fact that devs didn't optimize their engine to use more than a single core is honestly ♥♥♥♥.

For me it is a little sad because I can't really enjoy the game the way I would like to, because I am used to higher frame rates. And it won't matter what CPU I buy because there aren't many CPUs with higher single core performance than a r5 7600x, and those that have still won't have enough capacity to run the game at consistent 60fps.

[soulgamer31br]

Guys, some of ya'll are missing the point. It doesn't matter that laptops are worse than PCs or whatever, the fact is this game is performing VERY badly for the type of game it is, the things it offers in terms of graphics/scale AND the settings it requires.

Like I and others have said, having the game run at 30ish FPS (which isn't ideal in the slightest tbh) when our rigs, Laptops or not, can run much more demanding games much better is nothing short of ridiculous. I've already refunded the game because of it, I'd rather spend the money on something else that runs better.

Also, I think it's important to note that I'm the one who said that the game only uses 1 Core, based on what I heard others here say as well. Also also, RTS games tend to be more CPU intensive and specially for a game that's frankly quite modest graphics wise, I'd say the CPU matters more than the GPU, hence it's all the more ridiculous that the game can't use multiple cores properly

[Malecite]

I'm running it on a 5900X with a 4090 and I'm barely getting 40 frames consistently at 4K. If nothing's happening it's around 80, but once the map opens up and battle happens the FPS tanks.

Its odd that it doesn't have any type of FSR, DLSS, or really anything.

I don't mind the FPS because it's an RTS and I'm pausing constantly anyways. But it does seem pretty poorly optimized.

[Reactive]

Originally posted by Malecite:

I'm running it on a 5900X with a 4090 and I'm barely getting 40 frames consistently at 4K. If nothing's happening it's around 80, but once the map opens up and battle happens the FPS tanks.

Its odd that it doesn't have any type of FSR, DLSS, or really anything.

I don't mind the FPS because it's an RTS and I'm pausing constantly anyways. But it does seem pretty poorly optimized.

FSR and DLSS have nothing to do with this optimization problem

[uSIHitMan]

fsr/dlss is only needed when gpu is at its limit. in cpu bound cases these are useless

[Vultan]

i have way worse speccs, 2060s and 3500 ryzen from 8 years ago or something. i run this 100 fps on high settings in 1080p.

have you tried removing bloatware. and disabled all heat/power throttling bs that laptops do?

[HAZZARD]

Originally posted by LoneWolf:

You are being dishonest as you stated it was a fact that I mentioned when it was you who provided the information - then said I provided it myself. So: you're either too stupid to understand what you yourself are writing OR you are dishonest.

' I stated that your CPU FACTUALLY has 10 cores, and that it FACTUALLY only uses 1 of those cores."
Yes, thank you! YOU stated it!

"I'm not being dishonest by saying 30 to 40 FPS is not playable. "
If I can play it at 40fps (the lowest fps required to realistically simulate real-life motion starting at approx. 23.97fps) without any freezing, lag, or other performance problems, then yes, it can play just fine at 40fps. So to say it can't because of fps means you are dishonest.

"that doesn't change the fact that you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO and it's below THE STANDARD." Being above 40fps is no standard. There is no such standard that exists or has been created. To claim there is this imaginary standard, which you arbitrarily defined, and then claim a game can only play fine if it meets the standard which you defined, is being dishonest.

Why don't you hurl some more insults and say "dishonest" for the millionth time? I'm sure I'll actually read what you have to say and agree with you if you do, as everyone knows getting salty and throwing crybaby tantrums at people always makes everyone listen to you, love you, and not find you to be completely insufferable.

[Big McLargehuge]

My fav part of all these performance posts (there's lots).. is that none of the devs have magically clicked on any of them and answered us.

I've seen them posting in other threads, responding to user questions. Boody' rough

[Priestess No.1 Stalker]

Originally posted by Big McLargeHuge:

My fav part of all these performance posts (there's lots).. is that none of the devs have magically clicked on any of them and answered us.

I've seen them posting in other threads, responding to user questions. Boody' rough

they did responding to this question in another threads that have like 60 comment and a lot of heated argument ....

[Big McLargehuge]

Originally posted by I alone am the honored one:

Originally posted by Big McLargeHuge:

My fav part of all these performance posts (there's lots).. is that none of the devs have magically clicked on any of them and answered us.

I've seen them posting in other threads, responding to user questions. Boody' rough

they did responding to this question in another threads that have like 60 comment and a lot of heated argument ....

A CPU related one? Oh snap, time to dig through the pile to find it - unless you happened to remember what was said?

[Big McLargehuge]

found the dev response regarding CPU bs, thanks for the heads up on their response, user "I alone am the honored one"


**** Dev Response ****

Edmon  [developer] 12 hours ago 
    
Hey guys,

We're working on the issues that have been reported, don't worry. You've been heard.

Lets keep things civil at all times please, there is a lot of hostility in this thread and if it continues, it'll attract warings.

Thanks.

[Vultan]

Originally posted by Big McLargeHuge:

My fav part of all these performance posts (there's lots).. is that none of the devs have magically clicked on any of them and answered us.

I've seen them posting in other threads, responding to user questions. Boody' rough

There are responses in other performance posts from the devs. maybe you missed them.

[Big McLargehuge]

Originally posted by VultanTV:

Originally posted by Big McLargeHuge:

My fav part of all these performance posts (there's lots).. is that none of the devs have magically clicked on any of them and answered us.

I've seen them posting in other threads, responding to user questions. Boody' rough

There are responses in other performance posts from the devs. maybe you missed them.

They replied once, from what i saw. But yes, ive already copied their response in the message above yours

*edit* didnt mean to sound shmarmy with that, i legit appreciate the heads up :)