Ryzen 5 2600 SLOW MOTION!!!

[bond fire]

I HAVE A GTX 1660 WITH A RYZEN 5 2600 AND EVERY TIME I SPAWN A SLIGHTLY BIGGER SHIP THAN A QUITE SMALL ONE, THE GAME RUNS LIKE ON A MOON AND LAGGS!!!
PLEASE OPTIMIZE THE HECCIN GAME FOR AMD!

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

This is because your processor cannot keep up with the load.

It's not a question of whether or not it's optimized for AMD or Intel (though it often is a question of fixing awful AMD architecture's issues, speaking as a programmer...), because such optimizations largely don't exist.

Some creators make their creations so that they do not really care all that much how it runs in-game. It's more of a showpiece, or "the best it can be" regardless of performance. It's preferable to have this instead of something like strict block limits that artificially limit creativity.

There's also the fact that the creative island in particular has some physics issues associated with it. Try spawning the creation in an alternative location, such as the other large dock.

[Arc]

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

...because such optimizations largely don't exist.

Different instruction sets between some CPU families (AVX2/AMD debacle in MATLAB comes to mind) is basically your optimisation, and if you want to go manually to low-level optimisations you can design your engine around an architecture (see Xbox One ESRAM usage, or Ryzen's large L3 cache, etc.).

That is if we talk on broad spectrum of workloads indeed, some cannot really be changed from how they work or what they need.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Originally posted by Arc:

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

...because such optimizations largely don't exist.

Different instruction sets between some CPU families (AVX2/AMD debacle in MATLAB comes to mind) is basically your optimisation, and if you want to go manually to low-level optimisations you can design your engine around an architecture (see Xbox One ESRAM usage, or Ryzen's large L3 cache, etc.).

Well, yes, but to the extent of my knowledge this isn't used in game engines. At least not in Unity, Cryengine or UnrealEngine. I know i've had to kick around certain scripts and lower tier stuff to make it work with AMD before, so something, somewhere doesn't translate well.

[bond fire]

Originally posted by Arc:

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

...because such optimizations largely don't exist.

Different instruction sets between some CPU families (AVX2/AMD debacle in MATLAB comes to mind) is basically your optimisation, and if you want to go manually to low-level optimisations you can design your engine around an architecture (see Xbox One ESRAM usage, or Ryzen's large L3 cache, etc.).

That is if we talk on broad spectrum of workloads indeed, some cannot really be changed from how they work or what they need.

So youre telling me that this top notch budget cpu cannot handle a blocky game? THIS cpu can handle GTA 5 AT VERY HIGH SETTINGS!

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

GTA 5 is basic elementary stuff with little going on processor wise and it's awfully optimized on all ends. With the buoyancy calculation, you could run 3 or 4 GTA 5's side by side if GTA 5 was half as optimized.

Don't compare games to games that they have very little in common with.

PS. Also there isn't 10 minute load times just to enter a basic lobby, so there's that.

[Stinger]

Also, how many physics-heavy blocky games do you know of, that don't perform like ass? Space Engineers especially becomes hell if you do anything vaguely sizable, sorta like this game but without an excuse as good as "buoyancy calc is actually really hard"

[Arc]

Originally posted by GamingYorkYT:

..

As for your "AMD optimisation" comment, Intel still holds single-threaded performance crown so it is going to be better for this game in particular due to Physics thread being what it is.

It is rumored that Zen3 will match current-gen Intel's CPU lead in this aspect as Zen3 has both higher IPC and higher clocks than Zen2.

There is no way around the fact and it does not mean that the game is not optimised.

[LostWithaMonkey]

Same. its just lag lol

[DanDanAttack]

I have no idea what your issue is. I have an AMD FX-6300 and it runs the game good enough for me. I don’t see insane lag or moon-like motions when I spawn stuff at the creative island. I mean I’m not spawning the titanic or anything. Mostly medium sized rescue type vessels

[HardlyLivin]

Originally posted by DanDanAttack:

I have no idea what your issue is. I have an AMD FX-6300 and it runs the game good enough for me. I don’t see insane lag or moon-like motions when I spawn stuff at the creative island. I mean I’m not spawning the titanic or anything. Mostly medium sized rescue type vessels

At this point, I've seen a lot of people complain about the games optimization, and in some cases those people are running better rigs than me. And as Ra pointed out, I only see sim speed issues when I have a large train going through a tunnel or spawning some of my most complex ships at the large islands or the creative island.

I have an FX-8350 cpu and a GTX 1080 gpu and I'm running the game on maxed setting, aside from motion blur which I keep off. When I do spawn some of my more demanding ships, my sim speed is only down for the moment that the ship is in the spawn area. Once I move the ship about twenty+ meters away the sim speed goes right back up.

And as I said previously, that's only on the large islands and the creative island, while the smaller islands don't give me any problem.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

For comparison, my most obscenely complex creation, from both the physics and programming standpoint slams my i5 to run at 40 phys ticks / s in the creative harbor. It has 22 different LUA scripts, of which only 4 are used in any way for monitor displays.

More or less all communication and wiring in that ship is through composites because of size necessity due to networks of microcontrollers that read, interpret, and write to what essentially is a central, spinal nerve of the ship.

All that, and from the outside it's really unassuming, and only takes about 45% or so of the creative island's harbor. It's not down to how big or small it is, you can make the game lag by going completely overboard :)

[HardlyLivin]

Originally posted by Ra-Ra-Rasputin:

For comparison, my most obscenely complex creation, from both the physics and programming standpoint slams my i5 to run at 40 phys ticks / s in the creative harbor. It has 22 different LUA scripts, of which only 4 are used in any way for monitor displays.

More or less all communication and wiring in that ship is through composites because of size necessity due to networks of microcontrollers that read, interpret, and write to what essentially is a central, spinal nerve of the ship.

All that, and from the outside it's really unassuming, and only takes about 45% or so of the creative island's harbor. It's not down to how big or small it is, you can make the game lag by going completely overboard :)

Exactly my point when I say "demanding ships". It seems to me that lots of logic and moving parts equals more lag. I bet if I gut all logic, custom doors, elevators, and cranes out of my most complex ship it wouldn't lag at all. In fact I know it wouldn't, because I did exactly that (same ship older variant) . And keep in mind this ship is almost the length of the large build box.

[DanDanAttack]

I was gonna upgrade from my FX-6300 and 8gb of ram to a Ryzen 5 1600 with 16gb of ram so I’m pretty jacked to see how much better it is gonna be.

[Jorg Hammond]

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RUN GTA5 AT VERY HIGH SETTINGS!
(Please show me the door now.)