Recommended Specs accurate?

[TARS]

Are the recommended Specs on the Storepage accurate or just the common Lie?
With accurate i mean do we get atleast 60 FPS on 1080p with the recommended Hardware?
My Rig: Radeon 590 SE
Ryzen 5 2600
16 GB RAM
Win 10
SSD
Is anyone playing with a similiar Setup and would like to share his experience pls?

[¥aeko]

Originally posted by TARS:

With accurate i mean do we get atleast 60 FPS on 1080p with the recommended Hardware?

In an empty area, maybe, but not in more active systems. (I cant keep constant 60 fps on a 3700X even in areas where I didnt cause a huge mess.)

It also heavily depends on your own actions, but my personal opinion about the system requirements is: way too low (the CPU part especially).

[TARS]

Originally posted by ¥aeko:

Originally posted by TARS:

With accurate i mean do we get atleast 60 FPS on 1080p with the recommended Hardware?

In an empty area, maybe, but not in more active systems. (I cant keep constant 60 fps on a 3700X even in areas where I didnt cause a huge mess.)

It also heavily depends on your own actions, but my personal opinion about the system requirements is: way too low (the CPU part especially).

Yeah thats just exactly what i expected. Thx for your input!

[YouTube.com/StoneLegion]

Sadly yeah I don't think a weaker system even Minimal Specs would be too fast later game. Even for casuals like me using the best of the best, you start to see weakness later on during the game. At least I would recommend no DLC's so you can keep down the amount of sectors.

[Darllock]

You also need a degree in computer engineering along with a super pc to get stable fps, That said when you eventually get it running well, It is a masterpiece, good luck.

[TARS]

Nah im done with those Companies that are not honest about their Games. To hell with them

[trooperrob]

It does depend on how many sectors you play with (how many DLC) and how late the game is.
The more sectors, the more ships, and later game the CPU has to cope with managing an awful lot of stuff. Some of my games became unplayable but that might have been weeks of in game time.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64-bit) or higher
Processor: Intel i5-4590 3.3GHz or AMD equivalent
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780/970 or AMD equivalent (Vulkan support required)
Storage: 15 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (64-bit) or higher
Processor: Intel Core i7-6700 or AMD equivalent
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1070 or AMD equivalent (Vulkan support required)
Storage: 20 GB available space

Tell me where in those specs it says you will reach a sustained 60 FPS? What lie was told?

Where do you pull that 60 FPS from. Many AAA games are playable at 30FPS and only a handful actually need 60 FPS to be playable. So perhaps the question is What lie do you OP believe?

That argument has been made too many times and is a fallacy in most games. As others have said the FPS you get will be a combined result of your system ie motherboard; CPU; GPU; Heat control; and play style. In some sectors you are very unlikely to get 60FPS in others you might.

My main machine is currently an i7 3700k at stock speed; 32Meg RAM [DDR3] An Nvidia 2070 Super 8 Gig, generally on Ultra. System temp is held at about 37C

Once the game is playing in a throttled form FPS will drop but otherwise I've seen plenty of 60 FPS. But, when you cause CPU throttling or GPU throttling the FPS will drop, just the same as many AAA games that suffer with CPU bottlenecks and thermal throttling on their GPU

Oh and I might as well add I have only ever run the game on 2560x1440 and more recently on 3840x2560 on a 27 then 29 inch screen with high dot pitch that would certainly expose any unwanted artifacts.

[¥aeko]

Technically... we arent even talking 60 fps here... (OP asked for it, yes, but it aint going to happen with that CPU, at least not reliably... And the GPU... yeah, no.)

Any reasonably sized fight between the AI factions will make the CPU the OP has crumble under the load, getting below 30 easily. (I know, because I once had a 1700X, and it pooped its pants when PAR and HOP went after each other while I was in system. iirc, I had 17 fps or so, and that is without me doing anything or having anything in that system.)

And that is without the player having done *anything* - its literally just the stuff that happens in any new savegame.

Originally posted by mmmcheesywaffles:

MINIMUM:
Tell me where in those specs it says you will reach a sustained 60 FPS? What lie was told?

That is kinda the standard for "recommended" at 1080p - therefore people expect that.

30 fps at 1080p for the minimum, 60 at recommended but not max settings, and from there it goes to the moon.

[Captain Canard]

Originally posted by TARS:

Nah im done with those Companies that are not honest about their Games. To hell with them :lunar2019coolpig:

If you are serious about this game, you might want more than two opinions, in a forum where a lot of angry folk live, before throwing the game away without even trying it. Steam gives you two hours to test it - not enough time to know if you like the game from a play perspective, but plenty of time to see how it works on your system.

Of course if your only reason to buy this game is so you can create a fleet of 10,000 ships and space stations the size of a small moon, then you should definitely pass on X4 and perhaps try X3 instead (though good luck with that UI).

[mmmcheesywaffles]

Originally posted by ¥aeko:

That is kinda the standard for "recommended" at 1080p - therefore people expect that.

30 fps at 1080p for the minimum, 60 at recommended but not max settings, and from there it goes to the moon.

Yes and I remember when magazine reviewers [you know, those paper things oft written by incompetent; unqualified; inexperienced 'journalists' first started posting those claims as though they were factual.

Sorry, for the rant. I despise those incompetents who lied just to sell their opinion. Too often they judged a game on its Demo and didn't even have the decency to revise when the game was launched.

Optically few people need 60 FPS. 30 FPS is far more realistic and more easily achieved.
I've always been a very fussy viewer as my peripheral vision is higher than 'Pilot Vision'
First thing I do with a game is max out the graphics and see what I can get away with. I have extra cooling set to cut in when the system needs it and with no less than 8 Noctua fans running at near silent I can avoid most thermal bottlenecks leaving my CPU to max its cycles.

I am confident that if I were to modernise my system it would keep to higher than 60 FPS far more than this 12 year old machine

By example when I was running the benchmarks for my 2k based system I ran a 3 Gig card factory overclocked with a 384 bus [iirc]

Nearly 8 years of hot running finally took its toll last year and I had to upgrade to the 2070 super. What made my machine able to beat off competition all those years was the quality i7 CPU and that bus width. The lower system temperatures and that bus width meant that CPU cycles were handled well by the CPU and the GPU could handle all the demands I made of ti.

I've clocked up a lot of game-time in CPU hungry games. When my old 2k GPU failed I priced up a replacement kit and soon realised I could not afford it. I must admit I was shocked at how much I would need to buy to even match what I was getting with this old system. [nearly £4000]

There are or have been too many 'experts' in this forum ready to tell us all what some spotty kid spouted in 2005 o... oops nearly started ranting again!

Anyway thankfully this forum is now graced with several more competent gamers who understand enough of the old hardware to see what needs changed to make it really outperform [not just in benchmarks] in our games.

I dare say some of those 'new' guys are actually fossils like me who managed to keep working through their middle age and are now at least semi retired and able to properly play a game or two. Then waste a few hours typing in this Forum. Illness made me retire too early.

[¥aeko]

X4 simply is "SpEcIaL", since its so old. (This game pre-dates all the fancy things like mesh-shaders etc.)

The game is limited by its main-thread, and then the player has mostly no limitations. I have savegames that can (and proven to do so) push the fastest cpus we currently have to the limit, so, yeah - the system requirements for this game simply mean: "it launches, and kinda runs".

Everything in this game is relative, and nothing regarding this will change until a future game.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

Originally posted by ¥aeko:

X4 simply is "SpEcIaL", since its so old. (This game pre-dates all the fancy things like mesh-shaders etc.)

The game is limited by its main-thread, and then the player has mostly no limitations. I have savegames that can (and proven to do so) push the fastest cpus we currently have to the limit, so, yeah - the system requirements for this game simply mean: "it launches, and kinda runs".

Everything in this game is relative, and nothing regarding this will change until a future game.

I disagree.

The majority of CPU cycles are taken up by the OS. It is the OS that allocates those valuable CPU cycles NOT the game.

True the game asks the system to provide certain results and in the process the OS holds operations until it can allocate the needed cycles. The more you can shift wholly onto the GPU the faster the operations so new CPU cycles can be released faster.

So when the hardware and OS can share more CPU cycles faster THEN the games will run better too. It is more a matter of bus width; CPU speed and GPU data handling that does not need more CPU cycles.

[TARS]

Saying its a Lie might be too harsh(im pretty sure that Devs/Publishers are very well aware of this Issue) but im not playing this kind of Game on 30 fps or less.
Thats why i was asking and thats what the Forum is for.
Who i beliefe and If i try the Game myself in the future is completely up to me. For now, i save the Time and Money.

[¥aeko]

Originally posted by mmmcheesywaffles:

I disagree.

Great, then lets agree to disagree... this would not lead anywhere anyway.

[Captain Canard]

So I guess that means I can unsubscribe from this thread now.