Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
May I ask what your settings are, resolution for example? I'm asking as a fellow 970-owner, but I get 30-50 FPS (with the occasional dip below) with a mix of high/epic, but with the resolution on 75-80%, sky on max, ground clutter on 50% and ground clutter distance (or whatever it's called) at 0%.
Branch? The master branch gets it the safe, slow way and official servers keep using that branch while there is an experimental branch that tests the big optimizations, where unofficial servers can run and test it? Factorio does the same for example, they usually have up to 10 different branches on steam.
Look at the quality of the recent patches, each one a disaster.
Optimization would greatly increase complexity and that is not a good idea given the fact that they are unable to fix many bugs in the unoptimized less complex version ...
I have just proven above that anyone can spit out hate and lies. That is the easy part. It takes a smart person to research and read to know everything WC is doing has been told to us in the past. It was said as the end comes near updates will slow to once a month. That had nothing to do with the DLC that had another team working on it. Companies never put all their eggs in one basket if they can afford it. if Ark was not doing as well as it is then no they should not have put out DLC. The fact is Ark is moving right along. Getting better all the time. They have gone off the road that was promised a long time ago. We have much more than we paid for at the start. I know I never paid more than 30 for this game. I have been burned by EA over and over. I have been lied to by companies. What I have not seen is any lies out of WC. All I see is them adding more than they need to. Then giving people with talent employment so that their talents can be shared by all.
Underwater looks cooler now =)
Full of it.
Dlc optimization patch for 19.99$
Constant bug fixxes subrsciption for 9.99$ a month
Take ideas wildcard ;) you released dlc in early access might as well start charging for that.
Hahahaahahahahahahahahahaah!
i heard the last patch made things a lot more optimized
If two Titan X in SLI can't run this game properly at 3440*1440, then yeah something is seriously wrong. This game doesn't exactly have the most awesome graphics, so whenever you decrease graphic settings enough, it looks really bad.
30 to 60 fps can be done even on a GTX660 at 1920*1080, but with those settings the colours will start to blur and the game will look like snot smeared over the screen. Except it's not even really 1080, because the game will by then have downgraded the actual resolution presented. It looks way worse than 1024*768. It kinda looks like the old Outcast. At least it had a gaamsav
The engine must have some serious issues if it can't make the game run well on the very latest GPUs.
IMO this game should run at a stable 60 fps at high setting, with a 970. That's considering how the game looks and the scope of the game.
I've noticed that the trees is a serious culprit in fps drops. Maybe the movement in the wind by large groups of trees? The sky was fixed a while back and no longer is an issue.
Currently I'd say a GTX1080 is required to get an even remotely acceptable experience.
Sigh....YES OMG.....YES. The devs have said it over and over. But not until near the end of the developement. You add all of the content and then optimize the game. It's like building a car engine. You don't tune the engine before you get the engine together. You build the entire engine, checking all the parts as you go and then once it's all built and in running condition, then you tune the engine until it purrs like a kitten. Here is one of the places the devs talked about this:
Jesse [Art Director] posted in A deep misunderstanding
Originally posted by blade.blaster56745:
Originally posted by jesse:
Guys nothing in the Expansion Pack was promised for the base game, not even the desert. We replaced the Desert with Redwoods and said as much in our community digests and Q&A's. Even the creatures, items and engrams are all-new and weren't slated for the Base Game.
The reason ARK is not done yet has nothing to do with optimization, it is because of all the features still on the list that we plan to ship in the base game before we optimize it, including End Game, TEK Tier, Final Boss + Ascension, dozens of more dinosaurs / creatures, and some technical features that we still plan to implement (such as Xbox Play Anywhere so PC and Xbox users can Cross Play and host Xbox servers on PCs, and some long-standing issues with middle-ware that are time-consuming to track down (trueSKY driver crash) or not ready to implement yet (DX12 in Unreal Engine).
The Expansion Pack and Cross-ARK transfer is a big technical checkbox that we can now mark as "implemented" and in need of balance. Meanwhile we're still working on completing the rest of the features.
you forgot to mention the game would be done by now if we hadnt listend to the community and decided to put in more stuff than originally intended becase we took your suggestions
Well that may be true, turns out it takes quite a bit longer to develop a game when it's live and generating all sorts of valuable feedback and feature requests from the community! Something that is developed far away from the perils of updating live servers might be more predictable in terms of its schedule. Maybe. ;)