Planet Coaster needs a Better Optimization in game

[LN]

You are kidding right, 30 FPS was the standard for home gaming back in the mid 90's while top end Arcade machines were at 60 FPS. Anything in motion like on a coaster in 3D with 30 FPS is not smooth (it's perfectly fine while building but not that smooth for fast motion) and it's why VR has such requirements of 90 FPS otherwise it causes motion issues for the user.

Nope.

I'm not kidding, because I'm not desperate for 60 fps.

People expect to much., get less, get annoyed, and I do not feel sorry for them.

EDIT: Which does not mean people are not entitled to express their feelings and opinions.

 

[AusCleaver]

In the 90's some of the common video cards were only 32 and 64 MB, please list a couple of games from the 90's that were 3D and ran at 60 fps, let's not mention that they weren't running in HD either.

I get the game could use optimizing but jumping up and down and expecting 60FPS in a game with this scope is a little over the top, if it runs above 30FPS you should be happy. Also try not to use 100's of 1000's of objects. I see a lot of blueprints in the workshop that are built a certain way just so it can be made into a BP which ends up costing a few thousand more objects than what is really needed. Using the terrain tools can save a lot of objects that are either hidden or barely visible and can actually do a much better job in the end. If you use the workshop for a lot of your buildings you will soon run into problems with frames as most are bloated with objects that aren't needed.

It seems there's a pattern of players wanting to over use objects in their designs when they should be looking into conserving object counts and producing something that is functional and pleasing to the eye for others to use. In the end I doubt we will see a huge jump in frames unless the Dev's go for Dx12 and even then we still won't see huge jumps in optimization.

 

[danijami23]

Nope.

I'm not kidding, because I'm not desperate for 60 fps.

People expect to much., get less, get annoyed, and I do not feel sorry for them.

EDIT: Which does not mean people are not entitled to express their feelings and opinions.

Nobody complaining wants you to feel sorry for them, they want video game developers to stop it with this lie of omission nonsense. FD could easily have made the recommended requirements ridiculous but they didn't. They made them attainable and NOTHING but the world's most powerful consumer machines are capable of running this game at an (industry) acceptable rate of frames. They want to sit us on Coasters and have us laugh with glee at our beautiful creations, yet the best youre going to get is a flick book. That, to me, is absolutely not good enough.

I would have preferred some honesty so I didn't feel such a fool for supporting a developer in early access for a game I wish I hadn't paid for, developed on a pretense of features that simply don't exist. I couldn't even refund because I gave FD the benefit of the doubt and waited till the game's release before I made my decision. Alas the optimisation, QOL, actual gameplay never came, and now I feel frauded.

Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's what forum users think of me or what I'm saying; my discussion points and complaints are for the developers to respond to, but since they don't EVER respond properly to important criticisms my involvement in this game has been reduced to dropping by the echo chamber on the off chance that they actually addressed some of the major flaws of this game.which I paid money for.

 

[LN]

Nobody complaining wants you to feel sorry for them, they want video game developers to stop it with this lie of omission nonsense. FD could easily have made the recommended requirements ridiculous but they didn't. They made them attainable and NOTHING but the world's most powerful consumer machines are capable of running this game at an (industry) acceptable rate of frames. They want to sit us on Coasters and have us laugh with glee at our beautiful creations, yet the best youre going to get is a flick book. That, to me, is absolutely not good enough.

Who decides what is an acceptable rate of frames in this industry?

It's only the people themselves who make ridicoulos complaints and (might) be asking the impossible without even knowing.

 

[danijami23]

Who decides what is an acceptable rate of frames in this industry?

It's only the people themselves who make ridicoulos complaints and (might) be asking the impossible without even knowing.

Film producers decided almost 60 years ago that 24+ was acceptable because of the way human eyes actually work. Anything slower than 24 and your brain no longer decides to fill in the gaps. To many, this is unpleasant, nauseating, generally a poor experience. Some people don't see the effect as badly, and while I am astonishingly proud of them for overcoming such a genetic hurdle, this isn't about them, it's about everyone else.. Heavy motion games like FPS or racing games arguably need more (like 60) but we'll give management games the benefit of 24.

https://youtu.be/pfiHFqnPLZ4

There is a link that shows you different frame rates. Even though I prefer 60fps,you can CLEARLY see that 30fps isn't really appreciable enough to complain about. What you can also CLEARLY see is that 15 fps looks considerably worse, far worse in fact than any of the others by a factor of more than half. People who think that looks like ass are going to say "hey that looks like ass" no matter how much you don't see why.

 

[LN]

Film producers decided almost 60 years ago that 24+ was acceptable because of the way human eyes actually work. Anything slower than 24 and your brain no longer decides to fill in the gaps. To many, this is unpleasant, nauseating, generally a poor experience. Some people don't see the effect as badly, and while I am astonishingly proud of them for overcoming such a genetic hurdle, this isn't about them, it's about everyone else.. Heavy motion games like FPS or racing games arguably need more (like 60) but we'll give management games the benefit of 24.

https://youtu.be/pfiHFqnPLZ4

There is a link that shows you different frame rates. Even though I prefer 60fps,you can CLEARLY see that 30fps isn't really appreciable enough to complain about. What you can also CLEARLY see is that 15 fps looks considerably worse, far worse in fact than any of the others by a factor of more than half. People who think that looks like ass are going to say "hey that looks like ass" no matter how much you concern troll your way out of it.

So basically 30 FPS is okay? As is 24?
That's my zone and I feel fine with it.

Expecting more than 30 from PC is unreasonable.

 

[danijami23]

Yup! If I could get those frames with my specs I'd have one less thing to cry about. But unfortunately I can't, no matter how conservative I am with object placement. If I have anything approaching about 6,000 agents (objects and guests) then i get about 17fps. Considering my GPU is the o ly thing which doesnt obliterate the recommended I get bloody frustrated by it.

 

[mr.sugar]

Nope.I'm not kidding, because I'm not desperate for 60 fps.People expect to much., get less, get annoyed, and I do not feel sorry for them.EDIT: Which does not mean people are not entitled to express their feelings and opinions.

Some people can´t read (or don´t want to). Nobody is asking for 60 FPS here....

 

[LN]

Some people can´t read (or don´t want to). Nobody is asking for 60 FPS here....

Do I say so? I only state that I (ME, MYSELF & I) am not desperate for 60 fps. As the discussion was heading a certain way about how 30FPS was normal in the 90s and that even the arcades in the 90s had 60 fps and VR's even have 90 fps so it should be normal to achieve high fps rates.

I think you are the one that's a bit lost here.

 

[Lurker1]

over use objects in their designs when they should be looking into conserving object counts and producing something that is functional and pleasing to the eye for others to use.

Would be good to see a workshop stream that focuses on designs which are low object count but still look fantastic. There is a good challenge in keeping object counts low.

 

[OzzY13]

this is exactly why on those 'can my computer run PC?' threads i always recommended people go WAY bigger as even the 'recommended specs' would not be enough.

on a more productive note..... what kind of computer monitors are you guys (with low FPS issues) using? i say this because i think my FPS is lower than i think it should be, and i think it is my 22'' 1080p samsung TV causing a bottle neck. yesterday i saw a mega park on youtube that looked bigger over all and A LOT more 'scenery' (buildings with 1,000 pcs each to house 2 shops or even zero shops and they were getting similar FPS (20's) while i have very little 'scenery' items by comparison. i was tryng to make a huge park with little scenery to see how much bigger one can go by using terrain instead of scenery.

as another poster had mentioned, i tried deleting stuff and reducing guests and it made little difference. i first noticed it dropping drastically halfway through making steel vengeance. and continued to drop or be erratic since then. now i have stopped playing it because i dont think i can finish it because my FPS are dipping too low too often already. so i have been researching dedicated computer monitors for the last several weeks hoping to breath new life into the park.

has anyone played PC with G-sync and 144Hz yet?

 

[OzzY13]

also, i have seen youtube videos of people roaming around with more than 70FPS, mine fluctuates around 60 FPS with a completely empty park.

my computer is i7-7700k, 1080ti, 11GB ddr5Vram, 32 GB ddr4ram, ssd...... can using a TV effect my FPS vs. a monitor? will it make my park playable again?

 

[LN]

I don't have any FPS issues, I use a Samsung Syncmaster E2220 on a Gigabyte GTX1050ti

 

[Chems]

also, i have seen youtube videos of people roaming around with more than 70FPS, mine fluctuates around 60 FPS with a completely empty park.

my computer is i7-7700k, 1080ti, 11GB ddr5Vram, 32 GB ddr4ram, ssd...... can using a TV effect my FPS vs. a monitor? will it make my park playable again?

If you have 60 fps with those specs on an empty map you probably have a 60 hz monitor and vsync enabled. Switching to a different monitor does not make a difference (unless you change resolution in game).

 

[tyczj]

also, i have seen youtube videos of people roaming around with more than 70FPS, mine fluctuates around 60 FPS with a completely empty park.

my computer is i7-7700k, 1080ti, 11GB ddr5Vram, 32 GB ddr4ram, ssd...... can using a TV effect my FPS vs. a monitor? will it make my park playable again?

yeah as Chems said you have really good specs, I have a 2600k with a 1080 and v-sync off and on an empty park I typically get around 130-140 fps. I am sure with your specs you would get more

 

[AndyC1]

Hey everyone,

I've spoken about optimisation and Planet Coaster quite a bit before, so I won't repeat everything I've said about this in the past. Suffice to say we are still making optimisations, but there aren't any giant areas of optimisation remaining - the short answer is a game like Planet Coaster and it's piece by piece construction is a difficult task to tackle.

The topic of recommended and minimum specs is difficult, partly because we have people who play in many different ways. We set our minimum and recommended specs at what we believe to be appropriate levels. I'm aware some people will disagree with this, but we do have some data to work with. When we add a new set of scenarios to the game, we will produce what we consider to be a good solution to it - one that fulfills all objectives. We test these on our minimum spec machines (and sometimes on machines below our min spec too), where they must achieve a framerate of consistently greater than 20fps - in reality after map optimisation and code optimisation during an update the framerate these achieve is much higher . I know this is low, but quite frankly Planet Coaster isn't a twitch-gaming experience, and we believe you can still have a lot of fun with the game on older hardware.

We've done our best to make the game run as well as we can on lower spec machines, but we rely on users to be the limiting factor on performance. We strongly feel that throwing any kind of limits on object counts or complexity isn't really within the spirit of Planet Coaster. So we won't stop you building if your framerate hits 30fps - we leave you to decide what is an acceptable level of performance for your current plans. We also frequently test larger parks on a variety of machine specifications, and are always looking for the possibility to upgrade.

In summary, we're aware that you're not going to be able to build a massive park on minimum specs, but our recommended specs are broadly similar to the machines we develop Planet Coaster on here at Frontier, and we really feel you should be able to get a good experience on them.

Cheers

Andy

 

[Joël]

Thanks for the explanation, Andy!

 

[blobalbob]

There is always room for improvement. Devs know it too, they themselves said there are some things they are working on and are not ideal. They also promised they will optimize the game even more in the future. Saying this game is very well optimized is wrong then, because if it was well optimized, devs wouldn´t have to work on this side of the game.

People saying it´s game with limiteless creativity, that´s right, we can expect the game to become laggy at some point, sure. But there simply is something wrong. My park doesn´t have too many buildings and scenery, yet it lags ( and it gets inbearable when I hit 10-12 k people). When park closed, it keeps the same FPS and when deleting buildings, it doesn´t recover too. So I would say there is something wrong then. Because if I empty my park again, I would expect fps to go back to normal. When I get PC installed again, I might upload my park so devs can take a look at it.

I also stand by that UI is not optimized. item lists take some time to load sometimes (parkitect had the same issue and they addressed it). Frontier did great job though, just hate people saying it´s all fine, because it isn´t yet. And if we won´t tell them, then it will be harder for them to improve things. I´m hoping for UI getting some love with this update and that it will finally get reorganized and faster. I would love to at least hear some more info about their CPU scaling thing, because I´m curious how it works and depending on that, I think it might help to get game running smoother for some people.

All I can say is RCT3 was like this when they launched it. I've now played it on my current system and its improved but still lags if you try to build anything epic. I think people have forgetten the nightmare we had at RCT3 launch?

On a more positive note I watched the live stream with Andy and the others and the detail you are putting into the scenrio editor is awesome, well done!

 

[R315r4z0r]

I learned that my frame drops are due to CPU limitations rather than graphical ones.

I have a 1080ti and a pretty full park with 8,000+ guests that runs at the same frame rate regardless of if I set all the settings to Ultra or Very low. There isn't even a small difference in FPS between the two.

Not that I actually know what I'm talking about here, but it would be cool if there was an "analytical mode" that disabled all of the guests (rendering/pathfinding/observations/etc) and ran your park based off of statistics. Like you'd click on a shop and it would display an average rate of patronage, or view your management screen and see general numbers for how your park is behaving, without anything being calculated in real-time. Would that not ease up CPU usage? Because something like this would be more for the creative players rather than the park management players.

 

[Vanamerax]

I learned that my frame drops are due to CPU limitations rather than graphical ones.

I have a 1080ti and a pretty full park with 8,000+ guests that runs at the same frame rate regardless of if I set all the settings to Ultra or Very low. There isn't even a small difference in FPS between the two.

Not that I actually know what I'm talking about here, but it would be cool if there was an "analytical mode" that disabled all of the guests (rendering/pathfinding/observations/etc) and ran your park based off of statistics. Like you'd click on a shop and it would display an average rate of patronage, or view your management screen and see general numbers for how your park is behaving, without anything being calculated in real-time. Would that not ease up CPU usage? Because something like this would be more for the creative players rather than the park management players.

And then have an empty park with no visual guests? I mean, if you still want guests visible in your parks then the calculations will still have to be performed..