still no optimization?

[o,..,0]

haven't played for a long time

[Timotheeee1]

nope, the game is still very laggy

[Black_Rat]

Its laggy if you have a potato. i have no issues with my rig

[AlexMBrennan]

Its laggy if you have a potato. i have no issues with my rig

You don't have any issues because you die on cycle 5 and have to restart. You can expect performance to degrade massively if you get better at the game and start exploring some of the map.

[Froze 'n' Milk]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

Its laggy if you have a potato. i have no issues with my rig

You don't have any issues because you die on cycle 5 and have to restart. You can expect performance to degrade massively if you get better at the game and start exploring some of the map.

this. doesn't matter how good your rig is, the game is just resource intensive, and it gets this way the more mods you have installed. a potato rig probably get any mods tho, if they want to make it to later game. Also, you dont really need the game to run too well for it to still function and be fun...

[Alucard †]

Before BOFA my performance was really good. After BOFA it's garbage crawl. Some people reported the same.

Klei does know about it and tried to pin it down but its been a while and few updates ago since last official word about it.

Performance is still way worse than it was for base game at least idk about the dlc.

When or if they will fix it .. idk.

[Alucard †]

Originally posted by Black_Rat:

Its laggy if you have a potato. i have no issues with my rig

That's the weird part some people with good pcs and i7 or i9 cpus had issues after BOFA aswell so it's not your typical "hur hur potato pc" do some research before talking.

Do you really think ONI is more demanding than both Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2 combined?

[db48x]

Originally posted by ⎛ Alucard ⎞ ✟:

Do you really think ONI is more demanding than both Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2 combined?

Yes. You’re comparing a simulation game to games with AAA graphics. There’s no contest; the simulation game will always be more demanding on the CPU than any AAA title. At the same time, it probably doesn’t matter at all what graphics card you have.

[Alucard †]

Originally posted by db48x:

Originally posted by ⎛ Alucard ⎞ ✟:

Do you really think ONI is more demanding than both Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2 combined?

Yes. You’re comparing a simulation game to games with AAA graphics. There’s no contest; the simulation game will always be more demanding on the CPU than any AAA title. At the same time, it probably doesn’t matter at all what graphics card you have.

I am so sick of people who have no clue what they are talking about repeating this nonsense. This is ONI not a realistic quantum physics simulation that requires a Hal 9000 or SkyNet mainframe to run above 30 fps with mininal risk of disrupting space time continuum

No no no when people with i7's and i9's struggle and only after the merge update. There is something off within the game.

WHICH I REPEAT KLEI IS AWARE OF AND WERE TRYING TO PIN THE ISSUE DOWN.

I could run this game just fine in my 200 cycles base decently with 60 fps on slow speed and 50~ on fast. So explain this?

I have a pretty meh pc. That wouldn't be able to even launch RDR2 or Cyberpunk yet ONI worked really well before BOFA.

After BOFA update i get half the fps i used to have.

So no this game isnt this ridiculously demanding. There are just some "minor" performance issues after the merge that are being investigated and hopefuly eventually fixed.

[db48x]

Originally posted by ⎛ Alucard ⎞ ✟:

There is something off within the game.

I didn’t say that there wasn’t. I merely said that it is entirely expected for a simulation game to use more CPU than a non–simulation game.

I’m a software engineer myself. I know all about optimizations, and trading off between features and resources used. In fact I am currently working on just such a problem right now. A user has complained that a task is taking too long. This is not actually unexpected; the algorithm is O(n²), and this user has a very large data set, so their n is quite large; possibly larger than it ever was for any past user of the software. They’re trying to eat an elephant, and complaining about how long it’s taking :)

And yet I am still looking for ways to improve it, while not compromising the quality of the results. I have already found a way to shave a few percent off, so that instead of taking 100 hours they will only spend 90 or 95 hours getting the same result. That’s probably not enough to make them happy! I’m going to need to find something much more complicated before I can really bring the time down. Some way of simplifying the problem so that solving it can be faster.

How is this relevant to ONI? Well, when I look at ONI, I see a lot of compromises, a lot of ways that they have simplified the design in order to make the simulation faster.

The limitation of one gas per tile is purely there to make the simulation faster. If they tried to make it more complex, the game would run slower. If they made it simpler, there wouldn’t be much left to simulate. It’s tuned so that it provides an interesting game mechanic, while still leaving some time left over to do heat–transfer simulation at the same time.

The size of the simulation grid is quite coarse too. Making the grid squares half the size would mean 4× as many squares, but probably 16× as much computational cost.

Then there’s the fact that they only run the full simulation 5 times per second, rather than at the full 60fps. I don’t detect any frame stutter every tick, so I assume that they run a small part of the simulation during every frame. Or maybe they do the simulation entirely on separate threads from the graphics. Either way, that’s objectively good engineering.

Originally posted by ⎛ Alucard ⎞ ✟:

After BOFA update i get half the fps i used to have.

So no this game isnt this ridiculously demanding. There are just some "minor" performance issues after the merge tha are being investigated and hopefuly eventually fixed.

Yea, I agree that this sucks. Hopefully they can fix it!

However, please be aware that this issue does not appear to affect everyone. I had never played the game before that update, so I can’t do a before–and–after comparison. However, my current base is on cycle 500+ and still getting 50+ fps, so I would rank the performance as pretty great. If there’s a problem, then it’s not big enough to bother me. If they fix it, I may never notice unless I happen to read the changelog.

Performance can be different for different people due to our differing play styles (perhaps you have a more complex base than I do!), or our differing hardware, or even just the different software we have on our computers. I use Linux with a new Ryzen 5800X CPU and an old 980 Ti GPU, if that helps you compare.

[Alucard †]

Honestly everyone on the internet can claim they are software engineers.
Eh nevermind forget what i said moving on:

Sorry if i may have sounded a bit rude.

I just meant that when one can run a game fine on what can be considered "potato pc" in todays standards yet cannot even run 2 of the more demanding open world games.

That clearly by logic means that this game isn't more demanding than those 2 games.
Since my hardware won't allow me to run said games yet i can run ONI with pretty smooth fps and even with the fps issues after the merge update it still works and doesn't overload my poor pc. (It's not even fully utilized CPU wise)

[ventrix]

Originally posted by ⎛ Alucard ⎞ ✟:

Originally posted by Black_Rat:

Its laggy if you have a potato. i have no issues with my rig

That's the weird part some people with good pcs and i7 or i9 cpus had issues after BOFA aswell so it's not your typical "hur hur potato pc" do some research before talking.

Do you really think ONI is more demanding than both Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2 combined?

You can't compare it like this though. In this game you have possibly thousands of objects with their own live states that have to update and calculate every frame.
Even if you don't render them out of sceen, you still have to keep track of the state and calculate it.
So yes, it might just be more demanding on the script (=cpu) side than other games, no matter how much better they might look to you.

[Alucard †]

So does Minecraft yet it still runs better than a 2d game despite all the calculation it has to do for each block , biome and their states that are dependant on many factors like light , temperature , presence of other objects or entities etc. And also if you put redstone and command block contraptions into the mix which can do insane things like a fully working game within the game. Yea..

Also Noita is extremely cpu demanding as each and every single pixel .. yes PIXEL not block has physics. Still runs better than ONI currently.

None of this pointless arguing matters cause read my previous posts. This is a optimization issue after the merge not game being "super demanding op godlike simulation that can incinirate any PC"

Klei are aware of this and it most likely will be fixed at some point.

This happened before from what i seen in archived threads this game had optimization issues before like it has now that were eventually ironed out.
(Yea i bet people back then were also being like: "nah fam it's not bad optimization it's just this game is super demanding cause hur hur simulation." whenever someone brought up performance issues.)

I could literally run this game just fine with smooth fps and fairly big base on a meh PC (which cpu wasnt even nowhere near fully utilized either before or after the merge). Still can play it but fps is lower than before merge its why i stick with the official rolllback version while waiting untill this is eventually fixed.

[Aleddra]

Every rig has a bottleneck...
Sometimes it's the user.