Does there exist a more poorly optimized game?

[DaLagga]

So I significantly exceed the recommended requirements (i5-3570k, 8GB RAM, GTX 960) and while the game ran well at the start, it's running like a dog now. In fact, it's virtualy unplayable with framerates that top out at ~30fps with constant stuttering and dips into the teens and single digits. The more I play, explore, and build my base the worse it gets and it's so bad now that it literally hurts my eyes to play it.

I tried deleting the cache file as some suggested but that only helped a tiny bit and only for about an hour. As it stands, this seems to be the most poorly optimized game I've ever played. Even Ark: Survival Evolved runs at 60+fps most of the time on medium settings on my system and that game is notorious for being one of the most poorly optimized games in existence today. Big AAA titles like The Division or Battlefield 1 are easy as hell to run by comparison (consistent 60+ FPS on high settings with both games on my system).

In short, I know it's Early Access, but there's no excuse for this. When Ark runs like a dream compared to your game, you know you've messed up. It doesn't even make much sense either seeing as how at least in Ark the draw distance is absolutely massive but this game never has to render more than ~100 meters around the player due to the fact that you can't see very far under water.

Edit:
And for the record, it's not even a memory issue as I checked several times while playing and the highest RAM usage I saw topped out at 2.7GB.

Edit 2:
It's also most likely not a GPU issue either seeing as how dropping my resolution all the way down to 480p didn't improve performance at all.

[Artek [General]]

I don't know to be honest. I play with minimal settings and the game works better than i expected.
By which i mean i can play at all, i thought 10 FPS would be my curse.

I've seen it lagging on powerful computers of certain youtubers though, but only when the map is loading. I don't know, they probably could imptimise it a little better. The problem right now is that in game you can have things spawn inside each other multiple times which obviously leads to issues.

Like... There's that one wreck that can spawn 5 times in the same spot and you will have to cut through 5 very same doors to get inside.

And no. Early access IS an excuse for this. We are play-testers. Our job to say that something is wrong and they will try to fix. I reccomend to tell your specific RIG setup. Maybe its simply conflicts with the game somehow, just like a certain motherboard can cause a glitch in Dark Souls 3 where all enemies leave their hitbox at their spawn point and wonder off without them.

[Zemecon]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818789065

[Aracanthus]

Originally posted by Zemecton:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818789065

This, for now.

An optimization update is coming. Hang in there!

[Artek [General]]

Originally posted by Zemecton:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818789065

He already did that, said helped only by a bit.

Originally posted by DaLagga:

I tried deleting the cache file as some suggested but that only helped a tiny bit and only for about an hour.

That's the thing about this "fix" - its a temporary solution and you will have to do this again and again until devs will figure out how to give us a more permanent one.

[Coffee Fox]

Originally posted by DaLagga:

So I significantly exceed the recommended requirements

Originally posted by DaLagga:

i5-3570k, 8GB RAM, GTX 960

Well, I wouldn't say 'significantly exceed' - The GTX 960 is a low end card, and that I5 is an Ivy Bridge from 2012. Not really top of the line hardware. Also, 8GB of ram is kind of the minimum these days, so nothing really special there.

[Artek [General]]

Originally posted by Coffee Fox:

Well, I wouldn't say 'significantly exceed' - The GTX 960 is a low end card, and that I5 is an Ivy Bridge from 2012. Not really top of the line hardware, and 8GB of ram is the minimum these days.

Not everyone on the planet is 5000$ rich you know

[Coffee Fox]

Originally posted by Artek General:

Originally posted by Coffee Fox:

Well, I wouldn't say 'significantly exceed' - The GTX 960 is a low end card, and that I5 is an Ivy Bridge from 2012. Not really top of the line hardware, and 8GB of ram is the minimum these days.

Not everyone on the planet is 5000$ rich you know

Only costs 150$ for an I5-4690K, and throw 180$ at an RX480. Building a good system isn't that expensive these days.

Well, relatively. It's a different story if someone doesn't have much income.

[bobidog]

My pc similar i5-3570k, 8GB RAM, GTX 960
Game work 140-146 fps. Vertical sync enabled to always keep stable 60 fps. Why do you have problems?
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=835395326

[Zemecon]

This game does not need significantly high functioning hardware. I have an NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and at one time Subnautica ran fine with it. It was only when I started playing again with the Bones update last November that I noticed a lot of lag.

Save your money and wait for the lag and all of these crashing issues to be resolved in a later update.

[Cannibal Holiday]

I'm playing on an FX-8350 with 16 gig of RAM and an 8 Gig GTX 1080, from an SSD, and I get lots of popping and stuff even on low detail. Sure, it's unoptimzed. But, as peope say, this is still early access, and this is an amazing looking game.
I played it for nearly 15 hours straight yesterday and it didn't crash until I was exiting to desktop from the menu. That's pretty darn solid :)
(I'm guessing the crash was from not cleaning up objects as it was discarding them)

The UI could use work in VR as well, but again, early access. This is probably one of the most polished EA titles I've seen so far, along with Astroneer and Darkest Dungeon.

[BlackWater]

Yes, its called space engineers.

[Artek [General]]

Originally posted by BlackWater:

Yes, its called space engineers.

Mine would be Watch Dogs for PC.
I got a free version of the game for purchasing new GTX 760 video-card and that game was so poorly optimised i couldnt play it at all. Or my PC just sucked.
Yet i can play Subnautica semi-fine... Its not 60 FPS, but at least its playable.

[DaLagga]

Originally posted by Zemecton:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=818789065

Thanks for the link, but as I said, I already tried it and it didn't help much at all. I did notice however that when I deleted the cache the file size was over 1.7GB and after playing an hour it's now at 250MB. That seems outrageously large to me. For example, my save file for Fallout 4, in which I have over 200 hours played, is only 18MB in size and that game has tons of objects, NPC's, etc. to track in a save file. On the plus side, the game hasn't crashed at all for me while playing, even if it does crash every single time I click the button to exit the game.

Originally posted by Coffee Fox:

Originally posted by DaLagga:

So I significantly exceed the recommended requirements

Originally posted by DaLagga:

i5-3570k, 8GB RAM, GTX 960

Well, I wouldn't say 'significantly exceed' - The GTX 960 is a low end card, and that I5 is an Ivy Bridge from 2012. Not really top of the line hardware. Also, 8GB of ram is kind of the minimum these days, so nothing really special there.

Everything I listed does exceeds the recommended requirments and a GTX960 is by no means "low end". Seeing as how the game recommends a GTX 550Ti, my card absolutely curb stomps the requirement. As for my i5 being a few years old, CPU technology is dead in the water these days so that doesn't mean much. So long as you own an i5/i7 it doesn't matter much in games, especially if you're overclocking. Back 10 years or more ago a 4 year old CPU would have been considered archaic but these days that's just not the case.

Finally, I doubt having 8GB or 64GB of RAM makes even the tiniest bit of difference in this game seeing as how, as I said, the game never exceeded 2.7GB of memory usage while I was playing. In fact, I was th inking about getting another 8GB a few months ago but after reading up on it there doesn't seem to be any real point seeing as how almost no games benefit from having more than 8GB these days.

Originally posted by BlackWater:

Yes, its called space engineers.

Not even close. On medium settings I can still get 50-60+ FPS on planets with dramatically less hitching and stuttering than I get in Subnautica.

[slxpress]

Artek, when I'm paying for a product instead of someone paying me, it's not my job to do anything.

That said, everyone, including OP, should know what they're getting into when they choose to buy a game in early access. We're only playtesters to the extent we choose, but we do enter into the situation knowing the game isn't finished, and that should be part of our acknowledgement for the state of the game. It's been like this for two months as they've added content, but haven't cleared the bugs out, yet.

I do like the theory of the wrecks stacking on one another whenever you save as part of the issue. There's another long thread on the first page detailing a more limited fix for the crashing issue. I tried that in my most recent playthrough, and surprisingly enough, it's worked pretty well. But there's still plenty of lag. I'm just not bothered by it as much as others as long as the game doesn't crash to desktop.

[Cougarific]

It looks like they've completed removing deformable terrain on the Experimental branch, which - as predicted - has improved performance across the board.

Expect the game to run significantly better after the Experimental version moves to Stable with the next update.