Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Not optimized? REALLY?

Discussion in 'General' started by jozsefsz, Aug 2, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    A few months ago, I built the Death Star with a large, developed interior, working Super Laser (aka Overkilled Gravity Gun), and a middle-sized hangar for TIEs or a Lambda Class Shuttle. Of course, I've had around 0.6 SimSpeed and around 20 to 30 FPS. I was playing with everything on minimum or medium.

    So you could ask: "Why am I so impressed? These stats are terrible!"

    After 2 Major Updates, bringing nothing but mostly Optimizations and a few bugfixes, I revisited the world, where I built this huge beauty. Here comes the BOOM: My SimSpeed is stuck beyond 1.0, it is mostly 1.05, but never below 1.0. My FPS is constant 60 FPS without ANY drops. I was playing with everything maxed. If one single person says this game is NOT optimized, I don't know what I'm going to do...

    KEEN, you made the Emperor proud. Most impressive. Keep it up! You came a loooong way since first release, and I hope it continues. I fall in love with this game every single time.

    In case you don't believe what I just said, go ahead and try it for yourselves:

    Death Star: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=892056891

    One last note: Minecraft runs WORSE. That surely means something.
     
    • Like Like x 8
    • Friendly Friendly x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    672
    cool :) I never play with any mega sized things so I never notice but it's good to hear. Should help when I finally get into mega sized fleet battles.
     
  3. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    I'm pretty sure those are possible by now. Maybe a tiny bit more optimizations for SimSpeed and it'll be perfect.
     
  4. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    672
    I tried playing online a month or two ago and got a bunch of bugs.....the one that made me quit was me getting stuck on my connector. But it needs to both run well and work and they're getting the run well part done. Nice thing about fixing the runs well part first is that it works for everyone playing singleplayer as well.
     
  5. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    The "works well" part is a different story, which is because it is still in Beta. If we could only play it, let's say in 2020 as a fully released game, we most likely wouldn't even know about most of these bugs we hate so much right now. Same goes for Multiplayer. Honestly, Singleplayer is 98% playable. What it really needs in Singleplayer is balancing and polishing current features, since most of the things work properly. Only its Multiplayer needs more work to be able to handle 64 players survival servers, running as smoothly as Singleplayer do. That would be a dream came true for me.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    mfw Glorious optimization blesses SE meaning more play time and less waiting time.
    and mfw continued when wheels got better. i cannot explain how happy that makes me
    so hopefully these dancing skeletons is sufficient
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,830
    Optimization is better compared to a year ago. However, it starts to rapidly unravel when you're flying a larger ship in an atmosphere, even at 5km or 15km. This is on single player with an i7 around 3.8gHz (4 core) and a Titan Black graphics card. I've yet to try it out on a server.
     
  8. Home Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    So you really want to tell me, all the bugs, crashes, poor FPS, 80% not working features, missing crucial features and lack of block variety are only problems in multiplayer? Wow, I gotta try singeplayer.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  9. FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    Missing 'crucial features' and lack of block variety ( in your opinion ) has absolutely nothing to do with game optimisation, which was what the OP was talking about.

    Poor FPS in single player is really down to your own computer in most cases.I don;t have a mega rig, and I find no problem at all with FPS in single player. Multiplayer can be subject to a whole lot of other factors and is not so reliable.

    Bugs are part of development. Complaint is fair about long running bugs that have not been fixed.....but new bugs are part of ongoing development. Change something in code, and expect unexpected side effects. I am also curious as to what the other 80% of features are that are not working. I have issues with rotors and pistons, but the majority of the released game-play elements seem to work for me. Flying, collisions, welding, grinding, refineries, assemblers, ore generation, planets, warp drive, gravity, thrusters, medbays, connectors, conveyors, landing gear, spotlights, cockpits, HUD, etc. etc

    Sure, some of it does not work how I would like, but it works in the way Keen meant it to.

    The only thing I would question with the OP around sim speed and FPS is what happens when you try to move the Death Star. It's great to build massive stations, but the true test of the game engine is when you try to move something that big and complex!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    The Death Star is in constant move, because the hundreds of gyros and thrusters can't balance perfectly the Super Laser. It is so slow, that you would barely notice it, like 0.01m/s. It is not built as a Station, but as a Large Ship, so it features movement by default. I didn't test it with max speed, but I don't think it would be much different.

    As for Home's comment:
    1. Bugs - You just Quoted as I said: IT IS BETA!
    2. Crashes - It happens 1 in a thousand times. So rare it is almost non-existent. Also you just Quoted as I said: IT IS BETA!
    3. Poor FPS - What do you expect from a game that can offer this much? Outstanding physics, visual effects and feature list... Sell that old N64 and get an actual PC for 500$ which is actually a really cheap PC.
    4. 80% Broken Features - Are we talking about the same game? Or you just don't know how to use 80% of the current features?
    5. Missing Crucial Features - Yep, let me correct myself at [4.]: You don't know about 80% of the features, that already in the game. If you need water, play Subnautica or Minecraft. Although in Minecraft you will have less FPS if you have "poor FPS" in SE.
    6. Lack of Blocks - I'm not saying to mod the game, because I myself hate modding the game, but if you can't wait for the in-development blocks, then go ahead and mod it. Of course a key word was mentioned in the Quote you did: IT IS BETA! You would get all the blocks if it would be only available on full release, but where's the fun in that?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    just install a gravity drive to get it up to speed quickly.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    :D I meant the "idle movement" as slow movement :D Actually it is quite fast if you use the thrusters on your own will. It also has a LARGE amount of Jump Drives :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Home Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    I didn't want to offend you. I mainly responded to your statement that "singleplayer is 98% playable and only needs balancing and polishing since most of the things work properly." I know it is in beta, I know it is Early Access, I expect major and minor problems with the game and I expect it to not be feature complete.

    That is why I believe your statement with "singeplayer 98% playable" is horribly wrong because so many things are missing or not working. Also I believe the game plays like an early Alpha and should never be labeled Beta.

    2. Crashes - Then you may be more lucky than me, I crash usually atleast 1 time everytime I play the game. And yes, I expect this aswell as bugs, but considering the loading times in this game, I spent a whole lot of time reloading and am annoyed of permanently lost inventories (I also often have to reconnect because of multiplayer bugs / sync issues / whatever).
    3. I don't see outstanding physics? Maybe it got oustanding physics in the destruction department, I don't know because I don't like destroying things. Coming from the builder perspective, I don't see any outstanding physics, so this cannot be something that kills my FPS. I also extremely disagree this game has good graphics. And I don't buy a new PC, my PC should be able to handle it. And I am not talking about empty worlds here. There the FPS are fine. I am talking about when you get a half decent base OR ship built your FPS are going to die. The FPS drop over time is too extreme, it seems like there is no occlusion technique involved whatsoever. A sandbox game where you are limited to build tiny things and only a handful of tiny ships, is doing something wrong in what should be its core competence.
    4. I give you that, maybe I am just not competent enough to use the features. I don't know how use rotors or pistons without breaking things, I don't know how to make wheels acting like wheels and not like a bouncy ball on a 10 tons vehicle, I don't know how to use the hand brake to make the vehicle stand still and I don't know how to build ships that don't explode or move spastic in various and uncontrollable directions, I also don't know where I can find planets because everything I see is one giant landmass of nothing with a few trees planted of it.
    5. Subnautica is garbage that I won't play, MinceCraft is not Sci-Fi, has no space, no engineering and controls and graphics that are an absolute catastrophe. I heavily disagree on your statement MineCraft would give me less FPS, in fact a few years ago on my old PC (therefore much worse one) I could build a gigantic town without any problems.
    6. I know it is beta. Here again, I said this because your opinion is this game is "98% playable" in singleplayer, I wouldn't call it that if too much content is missing.
     
  14. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    You did not offend me, it just hit me like an arrow to the knee. :D
    The lack of content does not affect the playability of a game. A game can be 98% playable even if it has lack of content (which is not the case in my opinion. I find the amount of features almost acceptable).
    I agree, that Multiplayer needs more work, but I stated that as well, so no disagreements on that.
    Pistons and Rotors are mostly buggy in Creative, because of copy-pasting. In survival they are working like a dream, because you can't copy-paste there. Also, if you don't lock your Rotors and Pistons and they "explode" then it is completely your fault. Moving parts are usually very fragile in real life too. They break/bend easily on big hit or large excursion.
    Wheels can be set to be very useful. I just managed to build a very interesting design and it works like a dream. Try small grid wheels on large grid vehicles.
    The game looks very nice in my opinion. Looks better than any other space survival currently.
     
  15. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    I've found in many games' communities these days.. 'not optimized' is mill-talk for "I have a potato, and running something unreasonable."

    Its supposed to be a Deathstar. Should run a clangdrive so when a small stray missile goes into an exhaust port, it causes a catastrophic chain reaction that causes so much destruction it blows apart, destroys every ship in a 1AU radius, shuts down the server, and blows a hole in the roof in my little house I made in Medieval Engineers.

    :clang:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    My experience says the opposite. Safety lock is like priming a clang detonator.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    528
    Not only this .... (the OP speak here only for a small amount of people i think, if i read the many negative views of optimization or stability in gameplay ..)
    Optimization would be an better FPS or more fluid game play (i realy dont say SimSpeed anymore, as even with displayed ServerSimSped 1.00 it can play non fluid or slow motion ...) with the SAME features/GFX as before ...but we have here archived this with an big bunch of removed/degraded Features ....
    > Drilling with an Drill block dont generate pices of ore/stone/ice anymore ...
    > Interaction with pices of ice/ore/stone/components, except pick up, is removed (stub it as example ..)
    > The LOD behavor is VERY aggresive .. make the GFX many times more wors as it musst be with correct LOD behavor - in 3D Shape quality and Texture Quality

    ...so sorry - with removing features that cost physic calculation or rendering time i see only very little room to say the game is "more" optimized ...... it is more worse from features and GFX, and as this run better .... but this would be not an surprise...
     
  18. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    Only if you lock it in an instable position. Also locking seems to be only an issue when I copy-paste stuff sometimes.
     
  19. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    indeed... I did this test a year ago and it was very laggy and the Sim speed was really bad. Today, same world but with 4 times more drills, 60 fps and Sim speed 1.0

    here I spam my video...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    Your video was one of the reasons I checked the Death Star again. I couldn't believe to my eyes, because I saw the first attempt of this mining rig and it was just laggy, but when I saw that you re-recorded it, I was amazed.
     
  21. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    oh well, I actually added 4 more diagonal rows of drills to that thing but I didn't recorded that. Yeah, the performance boost was very significant. although it broke so many things :/
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. UncleCletus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    30
    Optimization is definitely pretty good lately, in single player. However latency and sync in multiplayer gives a huge feel of lag that I wish were better.
     
  23. FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    I always struggled with drill rigs like this, getting the drills to advance slowly enough not to get the rotor head hung up
     
  24. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    What kind of server are you running?
     
  25. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    On a small group of friends (max 4) server, the game runs pretty nicely. No major desync, no major lag. On the other hand, I was on a server of 10+, where the SimSpeed was so bad that it was almost in negative numbers. It was months ago, and I didn't checked it lately. I can't wait for a time when we can happily play with 64 players with 1.0 SimSpeed in 75% of the time, no matter what. That would be so damned cool. :) I would surely rent a server for the EU players.
     
  26. Syncaidius Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    824
    Same here. It's fine with a couple of friends, but even then, if we start clamping too many moving things together or there's too much debris from a few EEM attacks, the sim speed tanks pretty fast.

    Keen are getting closer and closer to the MP we all dream of, so one day hopefully they'll reach the target of 64-players at 1.0 sim speed. Though personally, I'd be happy if it ran 16-players at 1.0. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  27. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    16 is quite a few for 3 planets and 3 moons. I want conflicts, where the bigger fleet conquers the icy moon for unlimited Hydrogen. Or a planet, where war is constantly raging for a huge Uranium/Platinum deposit. Where 10 players from your faction are constantly building battleships for the other 20 players of yours to fight your war. That would be soooo sick. :D With 16 players it would be a lot less exciting :( But it would do actually :p :D
     
  28. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    If you want raging wars, upping the player count will do nothing.

    16 players can be plenty if they`re correctly administrated and actually have a good reason to go to war.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. jozsefsz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    251
    For one battle, yes. But who would leave his base completely alone, while his army is distracted? :D Anyway, it would be nice. I could agree with even 16 players without any problems :) . 64 would be just simply perfect.
     
  30. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    Well, if it´s a matter of size, yeah, I´d definitely deviate towards more players, because sometimes bigger is better. Nonetheless, I´d prioritize other things first.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.