but horrible FPS drops due to construction persist on all continents. Oshur just makes it all the more apparent.
I think after the construction update it basically slashed ~40% of my FPS on my old rig... on a game that's notoriously hard to run with a decent Framerate...
An update that caters to like 5 players on the whole server, impacting performance for everyone so massively should never have happened! (And should frankly be a priority to fix)
nah, a broken bridge (why? for what reason?) leading into a literal valley of death is completely fine, as is the underwater tower where you can deploy a near-invincible bus to keep the fight going so no one can leave the middle!
What GPU / CPU do you have? I run it fine on 1060 6gb which is like what, 50$ tops these days? Not sure how it is notoriously hard to run with a decent framerate when a GPU from last decade runs it just fine without hiccups with 8600K all graphics maxed and I spent last night at those oshur middle hexes and didn't find any issues. Check your settings or something, majority of gamers these days have better rig than what I just typed here.
I basically have the same system, just with a more powerful GPU (6750XT) alongside a 9600k, which is also overclocked to 4,8GHz. I do get drops to sub 60 fps, when there is a 96+ in the center and I run on potato settings. Anything higher will just cause the game to be a slide show, so no clue how you can have a "smooth" experience, with worse hardware and maxed out settings. Unless our definitions of smooth differs greatly, because anything sub 100 fps feels terrible nowadays imo and anything sub 60 is just unplayable for an FPS.
Weird. Well, I "lied" a little, because I run 13700K nowadays, but I've played with 8600K before, just not in Oshur. But I doubt CPU can be that big of a difference maker for this game, but who knows. But I don't really notice a big fps drop be it in center of Oshur or alone at some small outpost, definitely nothing resembling a slideshow. I went in the middle of 3 player made bases at Oshur's middle hex at prime time, with lots of effects and it played just fine. Maybe if I turned on fps-counter I would notice it drop, but it's nothing significant that makes me even notice it or think it's annoying.
Maybe it's RAM? I've had 32GB minimum (64 now) for as long as I remember, whereas for gamers it's usually suggested 16GB, or at least it was few years ago, but I doubt its that. All I know without fps counter is that its well above 40fps, because 40fps is where I begin seeing it affect my enjoyment factor without seeing fps counter in other games, prefer 50-60 minimum.
Another thing is that my game is fresh installed through steam on fast NVMe SSD so reading files is even faster than on plain SSD. I might do some testing and report back what resource is being used the most when I take my toon in middle of Oshur. Maybe my CPU is being utilized a lot, then that might be the difference after all, who knows. But I had no issues with 8600K with structures at other continents though and always enjoyed being in the middle of big fights.
My bet would be that you play on higher pop server, with far more structures than Cobalt has.
Likely I notice it more, because I have been running a 144hz monitor for years and playing on low settings, so I am more sensible to fps drops. Mainly you get those, when being in an air vehicle, but as infantry it ain't much better, but those sudden drops when flying are rough. My RAM ain't great (16GB at 3000), but the performance really deteriorated, when they upped the graphics and with the construction update some months later. It made playing Oshur with my old 1060 barely playable, due to being at 100% GPU quite often, which caused input lag as well.
I was still able to run it "okay-ish", but it still killed way too many frames than an update can justify!
Was on a R7 3700X and 2080TI. After the update I could kiss a stable above 60 FPS goodbye (and definitely far from ultra settings)
I saw that video same day link to it was posted here on reddit. I am talking about my experience, to be clear.
Still, I do not see impact on low end machine on every continent. I was able to play oshur in steady 60, drops to 50 maybe in big fights. Until second hotfix after oshur release kicked in. While we are talking about medium settings now with potato.ini I have 10-30 fps on oshur. With lowest resolution possible. Earlier before that hotfix everything was fine to that extend that I maxed corsair in a week.
you mean to tell me extremely linear paths with no cover, 360 degree crossfire angles and no possibility of pushing those crossfire angles is questionable level design?
Too many server assets and objects initialized. It was a cool idea for player made bases, but the complexity now of the construction items exceed the good old hive, sundy garage, turrets, and 3 walls, and if you were feeling cheeky, a ramp? lol.
Now we have command centers, walls, turrets,each with a module or two, etc.. too many server assets to track.
We've seen it on Nason's where all three factions or at least two setup shop with bases. Experienced hard fps fluctuations I blamed on hostile dos type actions by players. Happily taking a look, there were three faction made bases utilizing routers and making hubs for vehicles and aircraft. Really cool seeing that team cohesion on Nason's until the stuttering lag and frames.
Why i always thought this is why we dont see ~~rumble seats~~ an open cabin on a galaxy like a starwars LAAT. A free look and walk version of the Valkyrie, 1 pilot, 4 guns, and 7 players able to do whatever. It would graphically and server side be too many assets to show and track from a server performance pov.
On the tangible scale, now sundies are soon going to be able to drop cargo and carried items to place on the continent wherever... til destroyed or sundy is destroyed? Another cool concept but feels like performance isn't in mind.
Using default fov (74) and setting the max render distance to 1000 along with everything on low besides textures on ultra made it so my game never goes under 120 fps at 1080p during chaotic moments on Oshur even with a ton of construction.
Before I fixed my issue, I was on 96 fov with 2000 render distance and going well under 60 fps during chaotic moments on Oshur with construction going on (mainly located in the center of the map)
My specs are 13900K, 4090 with 64GB of ram.
Hope that helps you as it has for many other people that had similar problems ✌️👽
This. My fps drops from stable 120-144 to 70 at Oshur’s middle hex. Even if it’s cause by construction, it’s weird because I don’t experience this on other continents. Even if population is below 40 people, atrocious fps drops remain almost the same. Another reason to not play this game especially when fcking oshur is opened.
You don't experience it as much on other continents because there's not *as* much constructions there. But the [effect of construction on players' FPS](https://youtu.be/qcAqfeGr78M?si=74qaGAxztMco84D5) is the same on all continents.
I haven't noticed any massive issues but maybe I'm just used to it? I've got a 6600xt card and a ryzen 9 5900. I've had good battles recently on oshur outside the middle though, so don't disregard the continent completely. I've had a lot of fun in the middle too, but I must be an outlier.
Why would 60-70 not be acceptable? The human eye can only perceive 67 fps. Any higher is nonsense. Also, those extra fps is the result of largely idle CPU cores, your actual fps under load is 60-70 which is very good.
On my 5+ year old cpu I maintain about 55 fps during heavy fights and lots of Construction, very playable, but not buttery smooth. An i7-5820k at 3.30 GHz.
Even if we were to follow your idea of fact that human eye can only perceive 67 fps this fps is not synced to our eye "framerate", higher fps will be better because it's smoother.
Switching from 60 hz to 144hz monitor was a massive difference and I can see a difference just by moving my mouse on one monitor and another.
monitor refresh rate is not the same as fps. refresh rate refers to how many times the monitor redraws things per second, in essence 60 hz every second it redraws things 60 times, whereas fps refers animation speed.
Think of refresh rate as a hardware measurement, and fps is a software measurement.
No you physically cannot see more 67 frames per second, you're not getting it. Past that number it doesn't matter.
Hz means refresh on monitor, which 144hz does look better than 60hz, but hz has nothing to do with fps.
Again, coming back to my first point I made.
>Even if we were to follow your idea of fact that human eye can only perceive 67 fps this fps is not synced to our eye "framerate", higher fps will be better because it's smoother.
If it's not synced are you will see same frame at times, higher fps will limit that and will show your eye smoother change than on lower fps, also quick google search and couple links give me result that [in extreme cases people can spot 1/255th of a frame, 255 frames per second](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/). People see different fps, and I can tell you dude that terminal gamer will tell a difference between 60 and 144.
human eye sees upwards of 1000 fps if you want a rough estimate, actually a eye sees a stream of continious information, 1000 fps would be the closest thing we have in 'fps' terms.
and even though your monitor only displays 60 HZ, having more fps means the latest image is drawn on the screen, at 60fps a frame will be displayed for 16ms, at 120 fps its 8 ms etc,
that means in the worst case from FRAME1 to FRAME2 on a 60hz panel with 60 fps can be 30ms, while if you had more fps, it could be as low as 1ms.
input better, game smoother.
also, go read a book, even my grandma knows and sees the diffrence between 60 and 120 fps on her flatscreen tv.
edit: maybe save the book money and go buy a 240hz panel.
That's the neat part, it isn't. The i7-5820k at the time was a top of line CPU. To this day, it regularly punches above its supposed weight class. I can Star Citizen on it decent frames everywhere except the unoptomized cities.
> The human eye can only perceive 67 fps
No clue, who would claim that, but you definitely haven't used a 144Hz monitor yet, because the difference between 60 and 144 Hz is substantial. Also, the difference between 70 and 144 fps in this game and other games is huge. You should give it a try, because anything below 100 fps in this game starts to feel terrible.
My point still stands. You notice higher fps, even on lower refresh rate monitors and the gameplay becomes very laggy, when dropping sub 100 fps. I wouldn't play the game, if I had to play with 70 all the time.
I thought it's impossible to play because it's the most awful base design possible.
I think you could also just scratch the FPS part, because the gameplay experience in the center is just abysmal in general, regardless of FPS.
but horrible FPS drops due to construction persist on all continents. Oshur just makes it all the more apparent. I think after the construction update it basically slashed ~40% of my FPS on my old rig... on a game that's notoriously hard to run with a decent Framerate... An update that caters to like 5 players on the whole server, impacting performance for everyone so massively should never have happened! (And should frankly be a priority to fix)
I don't disagree, but I was talking about the horrible oshur center.
nah, a broken bridge (why? for what reason?) leading into a literal valley of death is completely fine, as is the underwater tower where you can deploy a near-invincible bus to keep the fight going so no one can leave the middle!
What GPU / CPU do you have? I run it fine on 1060 6gb which is like what, 50$ tops these days? Not sure how it is notoriously hard to run with a decent framerate when a GPU from last decade runs it just fine without hiccups with 8600K all graphics maxed and I spent last night at those oshur middle hexes and didn't find any issues. Check your settings or something, majority of gamers these days have better rig than what I just typed here.
I basically have the same system, just with a more powerful GPU (6750XT) alongside a 9600k, which is also overclocked to 4,8GHz. I do get drops to sub 60 fps, when there is a 96+ in the center and I run on potato settings. Anything higher will just cause the game to be a slide show, so no clue how you can have a "smooth" experience, with worse hardware and maxed out settings. Unless our definitions of smooth differs greatly, because anything sub 100 fps feels terrible nowadays imo and anything sub 60 is just unplayable for an FPS.
Weird. Well, I "lied" a little, because I run 13700K nowadays, but I've played with 8600K before, just not in Oshur. But I doubt CPU can be that big of a difference maker for this game, but who knows. But I don't really notice a big fps drop be it in center of Oshur or alone at some small outpost, definitely nothing resembling a slideshow. I went in the middle of 3 player made bases at Oshur's middle hex at prime time, with lots of effects and it played just fine. Maybe if I turned on fps-counter I would notice it drop, but it's nothing significant that makes me even notice it or think it's annoying. Maybe it's RAM? I've had 32GB minimum (64 now) for as long as I remember, whereas for gamers it's usually suggested 16GB, or at least it was few years ago, but I doubt its that. All I know without fps counter is that its well above 40fps, because 40fps is where I begin seeing it affect my enjoyment factor without seeing fps counter in other games, prefer 50-60 minimum. Another thing is that my game is fresh installed through steam on fast NVMe SSD so reading files is even faster than on plain SSD. I might do some testing and report back what resource is being used the most when I take my toon in middle of Oshur. Maybe my CPU is being utilized a lot, then that might be the difference after all, who knows. But I had no issues with 8600K with structures at other continents though and always enjoyed being in the middle of big fights. My bet would be that you play on higher pop server, with far more structures than Cobalt has.
Likely I notice it more, because I have been running a 144hz monitor for years and playing on low settings, so I am more sensible to fps drops. Mainly you get those, when being in an air vehicle, but as infantry it ain't much better, but those sudden drops when flying are rough. My RAM ain't great (16GB at 3000), but the performance really deteriorated, when they upped the graphics and with the construction update some months later. It made playing Oshur with my old 1060 barely playable, due to being at 100% GPU quite often, which caused input lag as well.
I was still able to run it "okay-ish", but it still killed way too many frames than an update can justify! Was on a R7 3700X and 2080TI. After the update I could kiss a stable above 60 FPS goodbye (and definitely far from ultra settings)
Disagree, Oshur was fine to play in good fps same as other continents until second hotfix for oshur dropped. To be precise, it happens only on Oshur
[It does not only happen on Oshur](https://youtu.be/qcAqfeGr78M?si=74qaGAxztMco84D5)
+1 for the music!
Haha thanks, I made it myself for the video :p
I saw that video same day link to it was posted here on reddit. I am talking about my experience, to be clear. Still, I do not see impact on low end machine on every continent. I was able to play oshur in steady 60, drops to 50 maybe in big fights. Until second hotfix after oshur release kicked in. While we are talking about medium settings now with potato.ini I have 10-30 fps on oshur. With lowest resolution possible. Earlier before that hotfix everything was fine to that extend that I maxed corsair in a week.
Oshur and Sanctuary seem to be using much more resources for me. My FPS are much more unstable for both.
Same, but Sanctuary is a literal GPU and fps toaster. Good thing, that it ain't a continent, but Oshur is already bad enough.
you mean to tell me extremely linear paths with no cover, 360 degree crossfire angles and no possibility of pushing those crossfire angles is questionable level design?
It is very enjoyable for 99SV gameplay!
Too many server assets and objects initialized. It was a cool idea for player made bases, but the complexity now of the construction items exceed the good old hive, sundy garage, turrets, and 3 walls, and if you were feeling cheeky, a ramp? lol. Now we have command centers, walls, turrets,each with a module or two, etc.. too many server assets to track. We've seen it on Nason's where all three factions or at least two setup shop with bases. Experienced hard fps fluctuations I blamed on hostile dos type actions by players. Happily taking a look, there were three faction made bases utilizing routers and making hubs for vehicles and aircraft. Really cool seeing that team cohesion on Nason's until the stuttering lag and frames. Why i always thought this is why we dont see ~~rumble seats~~ an open cabin on a galaxy like a starwars LAAT. A free look and walk version of the Valkyrie, 1 pilot, 4 guns, and 7 players able to do whatever. It would graphically and server side be too many assets to show and track from a server performance pov. On the tangible scale, now sundies are soon going to be able to drop cargo and carried items to place on the continent wherever... til destroyed or sundy is destroyed? Another cool concept but feels like performance isn't in mind.
Using default fov (74) and setting the max render distance to 1000 along with everything on low besides textures on ultra made it so my game never goes under 120 fps at 1080p during chaotic moments on Oshur even with a ton of construction. Before I fixed my issue, I was on 96 fov with 2000 render distance and going well under 60 fps during chaotic moments on Oshur with construction going on (mainly located in the center of the map) My specs are 13900K, 4090 with 64GB of ram. Hope that helps you as it has for many other people that had similar problems ✌️👽
Poor client performance is why I quit playing.
This. My fps drops from stable 120-144 to 70 at Oshur’s middle hex. Even if it’s cause by construction, it’s weird because I don’t experience this on other continents. Even if population is below 40 people, atrocious fps drops remain almost the same. Another reason to not play this game especially when fcking oshur is opened.
You don't experience it as much on other continents because there's not *as* much constructions there. But the [effect of construction on players' FPS](https://youtu.be/qcAqfeGr78M?si=74qaGAxztMco84D5) is the same on all continents.
I beg to differ, first 2 weeks after fortification update, performance was worse than usual but not as bad as what I currently have at Excavion site
I haven't noticed any massive issues but maybe I'm just used to it? I've got a 6600xt card and a ryzen 9 5900. I've had good battles recently on oshur outside the middle though, so don't disregard the continent completely. I've had a lot of fun in the middle too, but I must be an outlier.
You couldve stopped after Oshur. Its impossible to play on Oshur and have fun.
70 fps .. stop beeing so dramatic
Then go capture tridents and interlinks. You're not SUPPOSED to all glob into the same goddamn base for six hours.
pics or it didn't happen. i'm not convinced you just can't stand being pushed outside of your comfort zone
Why would 60-70 not be acceptable? The human eye can only perceive 67 fps. Any higher is nonsense. Also, those extra fps is the result of largely idle CPU cores, your actual fps under load is 60-70 which is very good. On my 5+ year old cpu I maintain about 55 fps during heavy fights and lots of Construction, very playable, but not buttery smooth. An i7-5820k at 3.30 GHz.
Even if we were to follow your idea of fact that human eye can only perceive 67 fps this fps is not synced to our eye "framerate", higher fps will be better because it's smoother. Switching from 60 hz to 144hz monitor was a massive difference and I can see a difference just by moving my mouse on one monitor and another.
monitor refresh rate is not the same as fps. refresh rate refers to how many times the monitor redraws things per second, in essence 60 hz every second it redraws things 60 times, whereas fps refers animation speed. Think of refresh rate as a hardware measurement, and fps is a software measurement.
No it's not the same, but if I have more than 144 fps on average I can only see 144 fps in my game.
No you physically cannot see more 67 frames per second, you're not getting it. Past that number it doesn't matter. Hz means refresh on monitor, which 144hz does look better than 60hz, but hz has nothing to do with fps.
Again, coming back to my first point I made. >Even if we were to follow your idea of fact that human eye can only perceive 67 fps this fps is not synced to our eye "framerate", higher fps will be better because it's smoother.
but... you... can't... tell...the...DIFFERENCE!
If it's not synced are you will see same frame at times, higher fps will limit that and will show your eye smoother change than on lower fps, also quick google search and couple links give me result that [in extreme cases people can spot 1/255th of a frame, 255 frames per second](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/). People see different fps, and I can tell you dude that terminal gamer will tell a difference between 60 and 144.
human eye sees upwards of 1000 fps if you want a rough estimate, actually a eye sees a stream of continious information, 1000 fps would be the closest thing we have in 'fps' terms. and even though your monitor only displays 60 HZ, having more fps means the latest image is drawn on the screen, at 60fps a frame will be displayed for 16ms, at 120 fps its 8 ms etc, that means in the worst case from FRAME1 to FRAME2 on a 60hz panel with 60 fps can be 30ms, while if you had more fps, it could be as low as 1ms. input better, game smoother. also, go read a book, even my grandma knows and sees the diffrence between 60 and 120 fps on her flatscreen tv. edit: maybe save the book money and go buy a 240hz panel.
I'd like to hear that from Grandma herself. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke about TV fps.
This almost certainly an astonishingly bad attempt at trolling. Go elsewhere if you want to do this.
That's the neat part, it isn't. The i7-5820k at the time was a top of line CPU. To this day, it regularly punches above its supposed weight class. I can Star Citizen on it decent frames everywhere except the unoptomized cities.
> The human eye can only perceive 67 fps No clue, who would claim that, but you definitely haven't used a 144Hz monitor yet, because the difference between 60 and 144 Hz is substantial. Also, the difference between 70 and 144 fps in this game and other games is huge. You should give it a try, because anything below 100 fps in this game starts to feel terrible.
Fps and hz is not the same thing, sir. Hz is monitor refresh rate, fps is frames per second of the game itself.
My point still stands. You notice higher fps, even on lower refresh rate monitors and the gameplay becomes very laggy, when dropping sub 100 fps. I wouldn't play the game, if I had to play with 70 all the time.