What the hell is going on 1.0?

[Clyoan]

rtx 4090 i9-13900k RAM ddr5 5600 mhz a youtuber making a video of it got worst the game than better named guns nerd and steel

[D.A.R.K.]

Here... During the Alpha 20 TFP was using Unity Version 2020.3.x (this is Unity 5), the most updated version of the Unity is the 6000.0.7f1 (Unity 6), this means updating the Unity version would probably bring better performance, BUT probably would bring a lot of development issues. It looks like for TFP isn't worth to update right now.

https://7daystodie.fandom.com/wiki/Unity

https://unity.com/releases/editor/archive

[D.A.R.K.]

Originally posted by Wolfy6:

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

We are in Source Engine 2.5? 2.6, don't remember, it's better.
Unreal Engine is 5.4 if I'm not wrong.

I don't know the newest version of the Unity Engine, neither which one 7DTD is running. Someone said that they could do better if they updated Unity, maybe this could be the key, but even updating the engine could bring some complications to the game, and I think this isn't on top of TFP priority list.

Honestly, their best bet is to focus on making the game how they want it to be while on the side making sure it's not a broken mess and playable and then do all that engine updating and ♥♥♥♥

Yes. 100%

[Noxsa]

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Originally posted by Dark Phoenix:

Source engine 10 years ago used an ancient version of havoc, and a lot of cheating to make stuff look good.

EP2, those buildings that explode...thats just an animation. Not sure what its like these days, as valve seem to forget that they can release games.

We are in Source Engine 2.5? 2.6, don't remember, it's better.
Unreal Engine is 5.4 if I'm not wrong.

I don't know the newest version of the Unity Engine, neither which one 7DTD is running. Someone said that they could do better if they updated Unity, maybe this could be the key, but even updating the engine could bring some complications to the game, and I think this isn't on top of TFP priority list.

updating to the newest engine version, so seeing how long they took to get to version 1.0 of the game, sooooo that's an other 10years for the port to newest engine version then eh.
performancewise, you can't polish a turd. its the nature of the beast with this type of game "voxel based deformation" always going to be bad for performance the higher you go with textures and model quality.

maybe Quantum pc is the solution to R performance problems.

[AmberGamingDE]

Kinda fun watching a Dev "troll back" in here xD

[Crashtian]

Originally posted by AmberGamingDE:

Kinda fun watching a Dev "troll back" in here xD

moderator. Admin, but not Dev ;)

[Dark Phoenix]

Developers have (Developer) next to their name.

[D.A.R.K.]

Originally posted by Crashtian:

Originally posted by AmberGamingDE:

Kinda fun watching a Dev "troll back" in here xD

moderator. Admin, but not Dev ;)

What?

[Sharkbait]

Originally posted by YourFatMom:

Originally posted by Shurenai:

It's important to take note that Streamers are not simply running the game; They're running the game, encoding the Stream, running many other programs that help manage their stream, often also writing a backup copy of the stream to disk, and more besides.

If, for example, historically they normally got maybe 30-40fps from the game and now they're getting 50-60, That's a marked improvement. You see what you consider bad performance on screen, but to them, It's improved despite the workload they're dumping on their PC.

2 PC setup, doesn´t matter AT ALL. This argument is so invalid. Like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Originally posted by Hobbes:

Originally posted by Noxsa:

always laugh when i read the that you can see 200+ fps and over, its impossible your eye's YOUR EYE's can't detect past "30-60 fps" ITS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. but people still claim they can.

I'm going out on a limb here and I'm too lazy to dive into it right now. But I seem to remember your EYE has no issue with higher FPS, it's your BRAIN's ability to process that's bottlenecking us.

Which gives a miniscule amount of credibility to the reasoning that while you can't straight up SEE the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS it's not impossible that you can "feel" it.

Having said that, I largely agree with your point there definitely is a point of diminished returns and it isn't nearly as high as some FPS geeks imply it is.

Assuming a decent baseline FPS performance personally I find stutter or variation much more tiring to deal with than the actual number.

7D2D has always been lacking in performance, but most open world (Voxel) crafting survival games have similar challenges and there is not a chance in hell I would want to give up the voxel aspect or building system to improve performance. I never got on well with games like The Forest, or even to a lesser extent Ark because the building is just boring to me. Enshrouded actually has some voxel elements and decent building and runs really well on my system, too bad the game is a bit shallow.

The issue probably is the drops and not the framerates within themselves. 60 in a game like this is okay, if its consistent. 100 or 60, it doesn't matter. The issue is when the drops happen and going from 100 to 60 for a quick moment is noticable. and while we probably don't see it super clear, like one would from 60 to 20. It is for sure felt as you describe it.
And I'm not convinced that we don't see more than 60fps. I heard about it but it did sound like an experiment with a very small testing pool. And personally, after I got from 60 to 144, going back to 60 it feels and looks off, less clear.

I djust my settings and I play on my own dedicated server that I run on my other computer, which helps a lot with performance.

[simon]

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Originally posted by simon:

Dont know why lots of people are so convinced UE5 is the answer to every game problem.

Because it is.

There's only two reasons to use Unity:
01. Unity is simple an easier to learn and master, so if you are new it's the best choice.
02. If your game is simple without graphic complexity, like puzzle games.

If you are looking for physics, you go Source Engine, it's the best one for physics, FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE, you go Unreal. You, being against Unreal, won't make Unreal bad. Actually, Unreal is the literal best game engine there is in the world right now, anyone who will start a new game should be thinking about unreal before going anything else.

But its not. Nanite and Lumen do not work well with Voxels. Have you ever used a game engine to make anything because your reasons for why people use Untiy are very wrong. Im done arguing as you dont seem to know much technically (your comments on the source engine are bizarre) so its pointless.

[D.A.R.K.]

Originally posted by simon:

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Because it is.

There's only two reasons to use Unity:
01. Unity is simple an easier to learn and master, so if you are new it's the best choice.
02. If your game is simple without graphic complexity, like puzzle games.

If you are looking for physics, you go Source Engine, it's the best one for physics, FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE, you go Unreal. You, being against Unreal, won't make Unreal bad. Actually, Unreal is the literal best game engine there is in the world right now, anyone who will start a new game should be thinking about unreal before going anything else.

But its not. Nanite and Lumen do not work well with Voxels. Have you ever used a game engine to make anything because your reasons for why people use Untiy are very wrong. Im done arguing as you dont seem to know much technically (your comments on the source engine are bizarre) so its pointless.

Being wrong hurts feelings, it's part of life, you aren't always right.
Since you don't want to argue, don't reply, bye.

[Sharkbait]

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Originally posted by simon:

But its not. Nanite and Lumen do not work well with Voxels. Have you ever used a game engine to make anything because your reasons for why people use Untiy are very wrong. Im done arguing as you dont seem to know much technically (your comments on the source engine are bizarre) so its pointless.

Being wrong hurts feelings, it's part of life, you aren't always right.
Since you don't want to argue, don't reply, bye.

Didn't the TFP mention this some time ago that the choice for Unity was specifically becuase it handled voxels better than other engines at that time?
And aren't a developer kind of tied to the choice of engine once they release or put a game up for EA?

[Noxsa]

Originally posted by Sharkbait:

Originally posted by YourFatMom:

2 PC setup, doesn´t matter AT ALL. This argument is so invalid. Like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Originally posted by Hobbes:

I'm going out on a limb here and I'm too lazy to dive into it right now. But I seem to remember your EYE has no issue with higher FPS, it's your BRAIN's ability to process that's bottlenecking us.

Which gives a miniscule amount of credibility to the reasoning that while you can't straight up SEE the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS it's not impossible that you can "feel" it.

Having said that, I largely agree with your point there definitely is a point of diminished returns and it isn't nearly as high as some FPS geeks imply it is.

Assuming a decent baseline FPS performance personally I find stutter or variation much more tiring to deal with than the actual number.

7D2D has always been lacking in performance, but most open world (Voxel) crafting survival games have similar challenges and there is not a chance in hell I would want to give up the voxel aspect or building system to improve performance. I never got on well with games like The Forest, or even to a lesser extent Ark because the building is just boring to me. Enshrouded actually has some voxel elements and decent building and runs really well on my system, too bad the game is a bit shallow.

The issue probably is the drops and not the framerates within themselves. 60 in a game like this is okay, if its consistent. 100 or 60, it doesn't matter. The issue is when the drops happen and going from 100 to 60 for a quick moment is noticable. and while we probably don't see it super clear, like one would from 60 to 20. It is for sure felt as you describe it.
And I'm not convinced that we don't see more than 60fps. I heard about it but it did sound like an experiment with a very small testing pool. And personally, after I got from 60 to 144, going back to 60 it feels and looks off, less clear.

I djust my settings and I play on my own dedicated server that I run on my other computer, which helps a lot with performance.

i have an 144hz monitor and next to it is an old 60hz both connected to the pc, i played a game window mode and placed it in half on half, half the game on the 144hz and other... you get it eh.

other then that the two halfs not connect strait because of resolution diff, "wat was not the test anyways", i could not see the diff, i know for a fact that my 60hz can't show me 144hz and the game was running at 144fps, yet i could not notice the diff, both where smooth movements no stutters... like i said and many others, you think you see the diff because your brain KNOWS there is a diff, that's where you get the "feeling" from too, if you strongly see the diff, that's your brain telling you because it knows there should be a diff. (sadly your brain telling you ain't acurate, because it can't see it)

BTW they have done loads of testing on how much the human eye can see, the speed of what we can see gets measured by the speed r brain reacts to a visual stimulus.
ofc, one human is not the same as other, health, condition of the eye / brain all takes part, that's why i said your eye's can see past 30-60. someone here said it perfectly, R brain is not fast ehnuff to process fast fps. we sadly have r limits.

[Jay]

Reading what you write gives me a headache. Pause for just a few seconds before you post, reread what you wrote, and ask yourself "Does this actually make sense to people above the age of 14?"

[D.A.R.K.]

Originally posted by Sharkbait:

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Being wrong hurts feelings, it's part of life, you aren't always right.
Since you don't want to argue, don't reply, bye.

Didn't the TFP mention this some time ago that the choice for Unity was specifically becuase it handled voxels better than other engines at that time?
And aren't a developer kind of tied to the choice of engine once they release or put a game up for EA?

Yes and no. Yes, 10 years ago, Unity was better than Unreal at this point.

No, developers can update their game to any engine at any moment, there's no law or contract that stops them from changing engine during development, and after releasing.

[Noxsa]

Originally posted by D.A.R.K.:

Originally posted by Sharkbait:

Didn't the TFP mention this some time ago that the choice for Unity was specifically becuase it handled voxels better than other engines at that time?
And aren't a developer kind of tied to the choice of engine once they release or put a game up for EA?

Yes and no. Yes, 10 years ago, Unity was better than Unreal at this point.

No, developers can update their game to any engine at any moment, there's no law or contract that stops them from changing engine during development, and after releasing.

wrong, it was not better it was CHEAPER to develop on and it was easier "not sure about the easy part though"