How much can you build?

[Cowboy]

Let say i want to build 20 bases and have them all connected by corridors no matter where they are at in the game. Or if i want to build one big ass base. Is there a limit to how much you can build?

[󠀡󠀡]

Originally posted by Archon:

Originally posted by DiscipleofYahweh:

and tune in next week for when the game finally loads...

hahah epic

I don't suppose you know what the max depth is on the Cyclops is do you? I finally found the parts and made one. XD

Now to find the power cell charger. >.>

[Archon]

Originally posted by DiscipleofYahweh:

Originally posted by Archon:

hahah epic

I don't suppose you know what the max depth is on the Cyclops is do you? I finally found the parts and made one. XD

Now to find the power cell charger. >.>

depends which module you use mk1, mk2 or mk3, all that info can be found on the wiki, located here http://subnautica.wikia.com/wiki/Cyclops_Pressure_Compensator

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Twilight:

You can't connect bases by the way. When you start building a base and lay down its first foundation, it is not necessarily aligned to the first foundation of another base somewhere else in your map.

I guess you have to go for the 'big ass' base approach you mentioned.

Actually you can connect bases. I connected two however the more you build as mentioned earlier the more lag the game picks up. I would imagine at some point it would just crash.

[Novaturien]

Never ever build your base going from one biome to another, you'll break your game and pretty much render it unplayable unless you enjoy a disgusting lag fest

[Novaturien]

Originally posted by Padeon:

you cant build endless big bases. At a certain point, the game starts lagging because of the amount of objects. I tried to build a straight line from the Aurora to the spawnpoint (lifepod) in a fresh creative mode.
The builder started frame lagging, when i was 300 meters away from the lifepod. The more I build, the longer it took to build a single object.
it stops lagging when i stopped building tho.

I don't think thats the problem. I think its more of the case that the fact the bases are built over such a large area, it forces the game to load any biome the base cuts through. This happened to a streamer named Vinesauce who built his base from safe shallows and into the purple mushroom biome, that killed his fps and despite getting rid of that mushrom base soon after, the game never recovered and ultimately he couldn't play that save no more

[󠀡󠀡]

Originally posted by Novaturien:

Originally posted by Padeon:

you cant build endless big bases. At a certain point, the game starts lagging because of the amount of objects. I tried to build a straight line from the Aurora to the spawnpoint (lifepod) in a fresh creative mode.
The builder started frame lagging, when i was 300 meters away from the lifepod. The more I build, the longer it took to build a single object.
it stops lagging when i stopped building tho.

I don't think thats the problem. I think its more of the case that the fact the bases are built over such a large area, it forces the game to load any biome the base cuts through. This happened to a streamer named Vinesauce who built his base from safe shallows and into the purple mushroom biome, that killed his fps and despite getting rid of that mushrom base soon after, the game never recovered and ultimately he couldn't play that save no more

So the moral of the story is we do not need to build a cross biomes or near a biome border

[Amanoob105]

I once built from the floor of the floating islands zone a tower of about 5 coridoors wide to the ocean surface, in creative (d'uh, lol).

It lagged the c**p out of my game and I kept finding bits of it missing up and down it that just poped out of existance when I wasn't near them.

While I don't think there's a limit on what you can build I do think there's a limit on how much you can make before you can't even play that save anymore.

I was trying to make a way to get solar power to my base down there. And as I was making it, it just sort of....Grew out of control....

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Child of Promise Galatians 4:28:

Originally posted by Novaturien:

I don't think thats the problem. I think its more of the case that the fact the bases are built over such a large area, it forces the game to load any biome the base cuts through. This happened to a streamer named Vinesauce who built his base from safe shallows and into the purple mushroom biome, that killed his fps and despite getting rid of that mushrom base soon after, the game never recovered and ultimately he couldn't play that save no more

So the moral of the story is we do not need to build a cross biomes or near a biome border

Seems less a moral about player "need", and more a moral to beware the terrbile optimization at this time.

In b4 "three months!"

But yeah I can imagine that shredding a save, did you know (at this time, at least in experimental) that every time you load a save, it stops to copy/paste a full sized copy of that save into ProgramData?

Kind of explains why loads takes so long for people when it's not just reading saves that are easily 1-2 gigs, it's stopping to copy/paste up to 2 gigs worth of stuff on top.

I can only imagine how much worse that is for people without SSDs for their operating system, even when trying to install the game on a larger secondary drive in the first place.

Does anybody else know offhand about another game with gigs sized save files, that stops to make a gigs sized copy/paste of the entire save when you load it?

Honestly curious if this is common in the industry to go "Okay, time for your save to take up 4 gigs instead of 2 gigs of hard disk space when you load it", and people just don't notice because they don't usually watch their disk drive during gameplay.

I'm really hoping that no longer doing that to us, is part of the pre-launch optimizations alongside the promised solving of the known problem that is save file bloat. Because right now, 2 gig save files turning into 4 gig save files every time you load them, is quite the opposite extreme.

Maybe it's a temporary band-aid for performance assitance? I hope it's a temporaty band-aid, because "Stops to clone save file" is just going to be murder on many players, more so with secondary drives, and with the unfortunate fact you won't notice the problem until your save file is is more than two hours old.

[Novaturien]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Originally posted by Child of Promise Galatians 4:28:

So the moral of the story is we do not need to build a cross biomes or near a biome border

Seems less a moral about player "need", and more a moral to beware the terrbile optimization at this time.

In b4 "three months!"

But yeah I can imagine that shredding a save, did you know (at this time, at least in experimental) that every time you load a save, it stops to copy/paste a full sized copy of that save into ProgramData?

Kind of explains why loads takes so long for people when it's not just reading saves that are easily 1-2 gigs, it's stopping to copy/paste 2 gigs worth of stuff on top. I can only imagine how much worse that is for people without SSDs for their operating system, even when trying to install the game on a larger secondary drive in the first place.

Does anybody else know offhand about another game with gigs sized save files, that stops to make a gigs sized copy/paste of the entire save when you load it?

Honestly curious of this is common in the industry to go "Okay, time for your save to take up 4 gigs instead of 2 gigs of hard disk space when you load it", and people just don't notice because they don't usually watch their disk drive during gameplay.

While not as big, a single save of This War of Mine on the ps4 (not sure about pc) is around 500+mb. There is litteraly no reason for a game of so few resource intensive stuff take up that much damn memory. I miss the time when save files were no more than 10mb

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Novaturien:

While not as big, a single save of This War of Mine on the ps4 (not sure about pc) is around 500+mb. There is litteraly no reason for a game of so few resource intensive stuff take up that much damn memory. I miss the time when save files were no more than 10mb

Yeah, but does it stop to copy/paste the entire save file every time you load it?

I know big save files are a thing for some games. It's the shocking swerve of "Oh, and ALSO, it stops to copy/paste the whole thing every time you load it up" that brings it to a whole new level.

One that is quite unfortunate when it doesn't auto-erase the cloned save file when you close the game. Found a lingering 2.22 gigs of save data in the profiles temp folder I needed to throw Ccleaner at a bit back.

Remember kids. If you are wondering why it's taking so long for your save to load, and people just tell you to be patient/upgrade your rig... Well, even a great rig probably has a bad time copy/pasting 1-2 gigs of save every time you load your game.

More so if you've got your games installed on a much larger secondary drive, because LOL if you think burning the cash on a 2 terrabyte SSD is the standard a game with two generations back reccomended requirements should have (Which, you know. still would leave "OMG it's copy pasting 1-2 gigs every time I load my save")

[🦊 Hermit]

Would be fun if you were able :o Imagine being able to walk all the way from your lifepod to the lava zones without getting your feet wet...

[Nyello]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Originally posted by Child of Promise Galatians 4:28:

So the moral of the story is we do not need to build a cross biomes or near a biome border

Seems less a moral about player "need", and more a moral to beware the terrbile optimization at this time.

In b4 "three months!"

Ok I'm going to bite here. In almost every post about optimization/performance/or save file sizes you feel the need to bring up the whole "three months" jargon. Why?

I'm pretty sure many people have said time and time again (Devs and players alike) that the dates are tentative and people would be foolish to keep following the "three months" stand point.

Optimization isn't terrible. It's being worked on currently and people are already noticing improvements.

I'm also not sure where you are getting this "copy and pasting save files" idea. My game certainly isn't doing that. I would notice.

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Lucki:

I'm also not sure where you are getting this "copy and pasting save files" idea. My game certainly isn't doing that. I would notice.

Well it quite literally does that for me, at least off in experimental.

When I load up a game, I can watch as my hard disk space shrinks as it clones the respective save file into C:\ProgramData\Unknown Worlds\Subnautica. With a brand new TempSave folder for the occasion that will delete itself when you close the program.

ProgramData is a hidden folder by default, but if you have save file that has seen any real use given how many of us see them grow to 1-2 gigs in size just from normal gameplay, you can see the dip in your hard drive space regardless.

Due to the fact it deletes itself when you close the program, it's very much a "You have to be paying attention to see it" sort of deal. (It copies everything about that respective save. even the save's screenshot folder)

Though there has been a time I noticed lingering hard disk space being eaten up, and running CCcleaner discovered the whole 2.22 gig copy of a save file off in the users temp folder even while subnautica was closed. I have a bug thread up for that particular quirk.

As per usual. 99% of the time I'm not mistake about these things, it really was doing what I said. Coming soon! Imgur links *Watches tempsave folder get created, hard disk space drop, and it take it's sweet time loading*

http://i.imgur.com/9bvfhyD.png

The "Created" timestamp is what really drives it home. 2 minutes ago, because it does this every time you load the game (In experimental, does it pull this in live?). Then it erases itself when you close subnautica (when it doesn't bug out at least).

It's not hyperbole kids, it's just that reality happens to be that extreme.

If Subnaitica isn't supposed to do that, it would be wildly prefferable for that to not happen to me every time I load a save.

If it is deliberate, than I am hoping at worst it is a TEMPORARY band-aid measure for performance optimizations, before they do the real optimizations.

Because "Take a 1-2 gig save file, then clone it every time someone loads their game" is going in the opposite direction of "Huge save files are a known problem, it will be fixed when we optimize for launch"

In b4 "Just clear your cache", because that doesn't solve the underlying problems of both save files reaching gig+ size in the first place, and the fact it's stopping to copy/paste one whenever I load my save.

Which I guess, just leaves "Well, now that it turns out you were not making it up... Uh, no fair critiquing an early access game in any way!". But I'm hoping you're not going to take that cop-out direction.

[Nyello]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Originally posted by Lucki:

I'm also not sure where you are getting this "copy and pasting save files" idea. My game certainly isn't doing that. I would notice.

Well it quite literally does that for me, at least off in experimental.

When I load up a game, I can watch as my hard disk space shrinks as it clones the respective save file into C:\ProgramData\Unknown Worlds\Subnautica. With a brand new TempSave folder for the occasion that will delete itself when you close the program.

ProgramData is a hidden folder by default, but if you have save file that has seen any real use given how many of us see them grow to 1-2 gigs in size just from normal gameplay, you can see the dip in your hard drive space regardless.

Due to the fact it deletes itself when you close the program, it's very much a "You have to be paying attention to see it" sort of deal. (It copies everything about that respective save. even the save's screenshot folder)

Though there has been a time I noticed lingering hard disk space being eaten up, and running CCcleaner discovered the whole 2.22 gig copy of a save file off in the users temp folder even while subnautica was closed. I have a bug thread up for that particular quirk.

As per usual. 99% of the time I'm not mistake about these things, it really was doing what I said. Coming soon! Imgur links *Watches tempsave folder get created, hard disk space drop, and it take it's sweet time loading*

http://i.imgur.com/9bvfhyD.png

The "Created" timestamp is what really drives it home. 2 minutes ago, because it does this every time you load the game (In experimental, does it pull this in live?). Then it erases itself when you close subnautica (when it doesn't bug out at least).

It's not hyperbole kids, it's just that reality happens to be that extreme.

If Subnaitica isn't supposed to do that, it would be wildly prefferable for that to not happen to me every time I load a save.

If it is deliberate, than I am hoping at worst it is a TEMPORARY band-aid measure for performance optimizations, before they do the real optimizations.

Because "Take a 1-2 gig save file, then clone it every time someone loads their game" is going in the opposite direction of "Huge save files are a known problem, it will be fixed when we optimize for launch"

In b4 "Just clear your cache", because that doesn't solve the underlying problems of both save files reaching gig+ size in the first place, and the fact it's stopping to copy/paste one whenever I load my save.

Which I guess, just leaves "Well, now that it turns out you were not making it up... Uh, no fair critiquing an early access game in any way!". But I'm hoping you're not going to take that cop-out direction.

This isn't happening in my saves. I am on experimental. The pc I play on is owned by my fiancé who I basically a tech wizard, he built it from the ground up. I wouldn't be surprised if he has some sort of setting on to prevent duplicate saves.

Again, why are you so angsty about the current fixes we have. For those not on console 1-5 gigs of storage is not a big deal and clearing the cache is a viable answer to the problem that people could have.

I wouldn't call what you do on these forums "critiquing". If anyone has any sort of issue you come in and spew things that have already been written. At this point I think you might just like to read what you type (kind of like a person who likes to hear himself talk). The "inb4" crap is getting old. Your overwhelming negativity towards the game is getting old.

You have no idea what Devs are planning to do with save files. None. But you will sit here and whine about how "well duplicating save files doesn't help it". We are still in EA. If it's still happening after 1.0 then you can complain about it. But again, even a person with limited storage on PC should not have any issues with a save file of 1-5gigs.

Here's the biggest kicker though, you just love to ignore certain parts of people's replies to you. So I will say again:

Originally posted by Lucki:

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Seems less a moral about player "need", and more a moral to beware the terrbile optimization at this time.

In b4 "three months!"

Ok I'm going to bite here. In almost every post about optimization/performance/or save file sizes you feel the need to bring up the whole "three months" jargon. Why?

I'm pretty sure many people have said time and time again (Devs and players alike) that the dates are tentative and people would be foolish to keep following the "three months" stand point.

Let's see if you can respond to this part of my reply.

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Lucki:

This isn't happening in my saves. I am on experimental. The pc I play on is owned by my fiancé who I basically a tech wizard, he built it from the ground up. I wouldn't be surprised if he has some sort of setting on to prevent duplicate saves.

Again, why are you so angsty about the current fixes we have. For those not on console 1-5 gigs of storage is not a big deal and clearing the cache is a viable answer to the problem that people could have.

I wouldn't call what you do on these forums "critiquing". If anyone has any sort of issue you come in and spew things that have already been written. At this point I think you might just like to read what you type (kind of like a person who likes to hear himself talk). The "inb4" crap is getting old. Your overwhelming negativity towards the game is getting old.

You have no idea what Devs are planning to do with save files. None. But you will sit here and whine about how "well duplicating save files doesn't help it". We are still in EA. If it's still happening after 1.0 then you can complain about it. But again, even a person with limited storage on PC should not have any issues with a save file of 1-5gigs.

Here's the biggest kicker though, you just love to ignore certain parts of people's replies to you. So I will say again:

Originally posted by Lucki:

Ok I'm going to bite here. In almost every post about optimization/performance/or save file sizes you feel the need to bring up the whole "three months" jargon. Why?

I'm pretty sure many people have said time and time again (Devs and players alike) that the dates are tentative and people would be foolish to keep following the "three months" stand point.

Let's see if you can respond to this part of my reply.

Huh. Well I wish they were enough of a tech wizard to elaborate on how to prevent the issue. I'm glad it's not happening to you, because it sucks. As unhelpful as only getting a "Well, it doesn't happen on someone else's computer that isn't even mine. But who cares anyways?"

As for "Ignoring select details" (Which seems more usually sent my way than anything).

Because saying "In three months before release" has always been pretty popular around here.

I'm hardly the only one to say it, and in fact I'm one of the people who say it the least overall.

But I'm saying it as a joke, instead of an excuse. Which is why it stands out to you, I guess. You don't seem to care about all the other people spamming that line seriously.

Most people parroting the "In X months before release" that never changes while the release date does, get real salty if you doubt it will happen in that time frame… And then still get salty when it doesn't, before turning right around to go back to saying "The roadmap sez!".

Even if this time around, seems the Devs really might actually make it this time. Guess we'll find out by November. In which case it's a sure bet 99% of the people who say "In three months!" will just continue buisiness as usual saying it for the next date if Release is bumped further, and just stare blankly when people try to explain to them why nobody belives them when they link the roadmap.