Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
What does "it shows signs of heating" mean exactly? Which component gets too hot, the CPU or GPU? Could you maybe share the actual temperature?
In general, a graphics card (or a CPU) gets hot if it has a high load. If the cooling is sufficient, this isn't a problem at all, since these components are capable of handling that. If the computer gets too hot so it turns off, this indicates there is an issue with the cooling, irrespective of the application you ran.
If this only happens with RW, this means you did not run any other game that is as demanding as RW.
If it's the graphics card that's getting too hot, you can reduce the GPU load by reducing the graphics settings. The new version uses a relatively high setting by default, so it makes sense to reduce it a bit in this case. Especially things like "Volumetric Lights" and "Screenspace Reflections" have a big impact on peformance, same goes for the view distance and especially the detail distance.
You could also set up a frame limiter - this will artificially limit the max fps and therefore the GPU load. To set up a frame limit, open the console and type "maxfps" with the desired value (for instance, if the new version runs on average with 60 fps, you could set the frame limit to 40 to take some load off the GPU).
OS Install Date: Dec 31 1969
I think you are on the really old version of Windows....... time to update lol
first your mainboard is underspec (cooling) to "support" a 9600K max power demand (heating up very quickly).
with only 900p you are high likely reach more than 100fps with the GPU.
Performance issues are lag/stutter; you don't have a performance issue as you stated only "heat" so you have a "temp" issue which isn't as you said "sign of" which can be 1° also.
If you don't want that the HW works to it's best than you have to limit FPS like red said with v-syn or other.
Thank you, all.
So if the temperature goes to 60° when playing the new version (as you've mentioned), this is absolutely fine. Unless you have a very good air cooling system (or a water cooled system), it's difficult to get a lower GPU temperature anyway (but as mentioned, there is really no need for that, since 60 or even 70° are perfectly fine for a GPU).
If you get such a high framerate, it's to be expected to have a high GPU load in such a graphically demanding game. This is one of the reasons why many AAA games are frame limited by default.
In the Java version, a framerate of 200 doesn't matter that much: The Java version was limited to 200 fps by default, so without this limiter, you would maybe get 300 fps or even more -> so with a 200 fps cap, the GPU does not have a full load [because it could render with 300 fps, for example, but you only request 200 fps]). However, if you remove the frame limiter from the Java version, you will get exactly the same situation (high GPU load and high temperature). You will even get the same situation with a basic 2D game without any frame limiting: Maybe it runs with 1000 fps or even 2000 fps then, and unless it's CPU bound at this point, you will get a high GPU load.
Nevertheless, you should really enable the frame limiter. The frame limit is set to 100 since the latest update, but AFAIK it was still set to 200 in the december demo (and this update does not override any previous settings, so this 200 fps limit may still be active in your case). We will expose the frame limit setting to the menu in the next hotfix, but in the meantime, you can enable the frame limiter by typing "maxfps" into console (e.g. "maxfps 80" to limit the FPS to 80). Alternatively you can enable VSync, as suggested by @Huperspace - this limits the framerate to your monitor refresh rate.
I would never buy a i5 to play video games.
While I have your ear: We are strong believers in the Rising World idea - and love the dream of having a complete world to explore, build & have adventures. It's why we have invested so many hours & dollars into this experience.
However, I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it. I'm afraid in trying to make the best, most artistic, representation of Rising World, the end result will be out of touch for most of us. You go with what you are doing; I'm not asking you to change anything. However, I have to adopt a "wait & see" attitude, because I doubt we will get there.
I have to disagree with what you said in the last paragraph. Red has done a great job so far with the update and I am not really sure why you think the end result will be out of touch for most of us........
But it's also important to keep in mind that even a GPU load of 100% isn't necessarily a problem, graphics cards are made to handle that ;)
Could you elaborate on that? ^^ Do you refer to the higher system requirements of the new version? Or do you have any concerns that the gameplay may suffer?
The higher requirements, which are still a mystery since all we have to go by are the requirements for the Java version, shut out many players & potential players. Unfortunately you or anyone else will never know how many, since they silently vote with their feet. Not everyone can afford to update equipment to meet higher requirements; not everyone is willing to undertake the learning curve to adapt to the higher requirements.
With that in mind, you can add the complexity of game play which grows with each passing year. There is not fixed game play; it evolves. Ex: planting crops was a bonus at first, but now players want to have a more interactive experience with gardening, food growing, cooking, preserving, etc. It takes computer power to enhance a more interactive experience, But, if the game's graphics already take up much of the computer power, the requirements for a more interactive game will be over the top.
It's why I mentioned American Trucks & Farm Manager: both games have great graphics - very visually appealing -, and provide a deeply interactive experience. Both games are virtually "bug free." Both games have a strong following.
Somehow, Rising World needs to find a middle way to be able to incorporate everything and be within the grasp of the average person with average equipment and average knowledge. Honestly, I don't see Rising World heading in that direction - for now.
Our old test rig has a GT 1030 (with a passive cooler!) and an 11 years old AMD Phenom II X4 955 (which was definitely not a high end CPU when it came out), and the new version runs fine on low settings with ~ 40 fps.
This is certainly true. However, according to our survey for the new version, only 5% experienced major performance issue. According to the Steam hardware survey (we do have access to the data specific to RW players), the majority of users has a rig which is capable of running the new version.
This is definitely true!
Sorry, but this isn't true: Offering an in-depth crafting system, farming system or cooking system really isn't a matter of your hardware performance. We're no longer in the 90s, stuff like that consumes little to no processing power.
The only thing one could argue that still consumes a certain degree of processing power is AI, but again, this isn't a major problem nowadays on multi-threaded hardware.
Apart from that, your GPU performance does not really matter for these features, since most of these computations are done on the CPU.
You really cannot compare these games with a game like RW. This would only work if we replace the dynamic world with a static, pre-defined world, and prevent the user from building custom stuff except certain pre-defined elements and pre-defined positions. There aren't many games you can compare RW with (from a technical point of view). Maybe 7d2d, but even in this case, RW has different requirements (building works a lot different, and in general, players are able to create structures consisting of a lot more building parts, so this is something that needs to be taken into account).
Moving to a new engine meant we also wanted to get the latest bleeding-edge tech. We wanted to make sure the game will still be appealing in a few years. Things like Raytracing also plays a role in this regard (it would be a useful feature in RW, since we could achieve beautiful global illumination with it).
Unitys built-in renderer (where 99% of the games out there are based on) is obsolete and outdated, and it will no longer receive new features. It would still allow us to achieve better graphics than in the Java version, but it would be "state-of-the-art" (and in a few years it would again look a bit dated).
The only other option would have been Unitys URP (the counterpart of the HDRP), but it was originally made for mobile platforms and lacks many important features (for instance, it cannot handle more than 8 lights, and even realtime pointlight shadows were just added a few weeks ago).
Things would be a bit different if we decided to use Unreal though, since Unreal offers a unified renderer. The good thing is that Epic is also a game developer (unlike Unity), so it's to be expected that they make better decisions than Unity. However, back when we started moving to a new engine, Unreal had no support for TextureArrays unfortunately (which is a crucial feature for RW), so that wasn't an option for us back then.
A real alternative would have been to turn RW into a low-poly style comic game, that seems to be quite popular these days and that would even run on a mobile device. But that's not really the type of game we wanted...
Neither Steam, nor you, nor I will ever know how many people turn away from more complex games with higher requirements. [Ex: Steam will never know how many games I turn away from because they are overtly violent.] Players want something to fill a void, not something to invest in. Rising World has the capability to satisfy the needs of a broad community - those willing to invest their time & energy in the experience and those which only want a reprieve from the mundane stresses of life.
The Middle Way doesn't have to be a "low-poly style comic game," but it does have to give room for a broader base of followers to experience and enjoy at their own level. There is no guide book to find it; it has to be felt.
Rising World was on the right track once; it can find it again - of that I do not doubt. Look at the screenshots from the Java version: incredibly detailed complex towns, complex castles, replicas of famous areas, artwork of all kinds, working farms and also simple structures.
How long will people wait until this can done again?
:-) Peace
And of course only a fraction of people who own RW actually participated in our own survey. The result can still be considered representative, but there is a chance that a lot of people who were experiencing performance issues were so disappointed they didn't even filled out the survey.
But if this is true, it's a bummer, because things would certainly be a bit different if the majority of people in the survey mentioned they had major performance problems.
But at this point, we can only rely on our survey data and Steams hardware survey - and according to this, the vast majority of players has hardware which is definitely capable of running the new version.
But even if the hardware requirements were lower, there is always someone who can't run the game. Even in the Java version there were a lot of people complaining about performance issues...
There is one aspect you need to take into consideration with the new version: It's not only designed with modern graphics in mind, but also with a high degree of scalability. It does some upfront work which has some base overhead, but after that point, the scalability is a lot better compared to the Java version.
Example: On lowest view distance, I get almost 400 fps in the Java version on my rig (GTX 980). On max view distance (50/21), I get around 70 fps. If I override the max values and double the view distance (100/42), I only get around 10 fps (which is already unplayable for me). If I increase the view distance further, the situation gets a lot worse and the game eventually crashes.
In the new version (shadows disabled to get a comparable result with the Java version), I "only" get ~ 200 fps on lowest view distance (a lot less than in the Java version). If I set the same view distance as the max distance in Java (13/5, since view distances are calculated a bit different, but that equals to 50/21 in the Java version), I get around 120 fps (this is already better than in the Java version!). If I double that view distance (25/10, which is equal to 100/42), I still get almost 90 fps.
So for comparison, the Java version had much better performance on empty scenes, but fps dropped significantly once the scene got a bit more complex. The new version already has much lower fps on an empty scene, but you lose a lot less fps if the scene gets more complex (a view distance of 100/42 was still playable with almost 90 fps, while the Java version struggled with 10 fps).
This is what I mean when I talk about scalability. With good hardware, you will get better performance in the new version than in the Java version (at least on high view distance and/or complex scenes) - with better graphics ;)
The downside is that the base overhead is much higher, so low end hardware even struggles on lowest settings =/
The graphics are brilliant in the game and as a developer you have done the right thing by providing the options in the settings to run the game with Very High Graphics qualities going down to Very Low Graphics quality.
I run the game at the Very High Graphics settings as I have a high end pc and I just test loaded the game with very low quality graphic settings. With Very Low Graphics settings the game still looks great...... you have 4 levels of graphic settings which should allow even people on low end pcs to play the new version of Rising World.
With the pandemic, people around the world were being forced into isolation so they updated their home entertainment which included their gaming pcs, X-boxes or Playstations.
In America alone in 2020 the sales of mid-range or high end gaming pcs reached 32 billion dollars with people upgrading. Imagine how many people around the world upgraded to mid or high range pcs last year.
Yes there are gamers who cannot afford to upgrade to mid or high range gaming machines.... but they should still be able to play the updated Rising World on lower graphical settings.
I have flown pc flight simulators for over 30 years and not once have I been able to play one of them at the flight simulators higher end settings..... I have always had to turn down the graphic settings so my pc could handle the flight simulator.
There are a huge number of people playing Rising World on Very High settings. If players have issues playing at the higher settings, all they need do is turn down the high graphic quality to a setting their graphic card can handle.
This is the better option rather than changing the entire look of the game to play only mid to low level graphic quality where you then lose customers who like playing only high quality graphic games.