Come on guys, Oz asked nicely!
Sheesh and people wonder why mods get upset now and again ….
Sheesh and people wonder why mods get upset now and again ….
Have we been lied to?
- Thread starter SanguinemUK
- Start date
- Status
No that's not how it works.
It's slower because you are limiting your GPU for planetary formation. The scan has nothing to do with it. It takes a certain amount of frames or draw calls to generate a planets surface, this is how GPUs work, that can't be changed. Once that planet surface generation has been completed then surface POIs can be placed which probably takes milliseconds.
The surface generation probably takes the same amount of frames/Draw calls no matter what, let's say 1000. So if you are running the game with unrestricted FPS and its running at 300 FPS it will finish in 3-4 seconds. Someone running at 60fps it will take 16-17 seconds. On consoles running at 30fps it will 33-34 seconds.
It's all about surface generation and how many frames it takes.
The reason why I run at 60fps or 72fps is because I don't want screen tearing on my monitor or VR unit. It looks bad.
So with the FSS I don't wait, I use the new method, which works fine.
They can't fix it because it's impossible to fix. They can't generate planet surfaces instantly.
Anyway please reply in a private message, I don't want the thread closed down.
Last edited:
Well, this thread degenerated nicely...
Fair enough, so from what I can gather I think you're saying you think it's tied/coupled to framerate.
Which is exactly what I've been saying. 
Last edited:
It's not tied to frame rate. I just explained that.Fair enough, so from what I can gather I think you're saying you think it's tied/coupled to framerate.
Last edited:
![[VR] M4st0d0n](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/182/182772.jpg?1569064854){kind=avatar}
It's not uncommon in games for server ticks to sync with the client refresh rate. I bet the issue is far less complex than all this terrain generation doo-hoo stuff, and more like a technical debt a skeletal crew has to work around. POIs should have been designed with changes the FSS later introduced already in mind. Ironic to think people used to spot them because they took resource to load before.
You noticed my typo. I fixed it already.
It's nothing to do with server ticks. It's to do with planet surface generation which is done on your PC, not on a server.
I didn't notice any typo.
You described a complex scenario where a packet of work is done per frame, such that adjusting the framerate would result in less work being done, resulting in that work taking longer.
The end result of which means that geo scans would slow down if you lowered your framerate.
Meaning geo scans are tied/coupled to framerate.
Which seems the very obvious conclusion from your description, hence me not seeing the typo, but one you seem really reluctant to accept.
To be honest though at this point, if despite your own description describing the mechanism of their linking, and the obvious effect in game of changing framerate and seeing the change, you still want to pretend the tieing/coupling isn't there. Then I think it's fair to assume you are just wanting to argue semantics such that I'm always incorrect.
Last edited:
Discrete packets untied by system resources in sync with refresh rate sounds a lot like client data sent for a server tick.
Maybe people should try FSS with multicrew or in a wing and see how it all react.
Nope, that is not what I said. Reread it.
Which bit, that you fixed the typo?
You wil lhave to be specific because on rereading all I still see is your description of how work is done per frame. The obvious conclusion of which would be the rate of frames would then affect the rate the work is done.
I mean you've just tied work to frames so what else is there?
Last edited:
The main post. You are not understanding what I have written. Planetary surface generation will take a certain amount of draw calls. The power of your GPU decides how quickly those draw calls get sent to you.
What you want fixed is how all GPUs work, so maybe you should be talking to AMD and Nvidia.
No. My GPU hasn't changed, what changed was me setting the framerate in ED.
You seem to be saying is that GPU's tie the framerate to shader(?) execution and it is impossible to workaround this?
That unlike CPU/framerate, it is impossible to abstract GPU processing in such a way that it's not dependent on framerate.
Geo scan aside why does the framerate affect my mouse movement speed in the FSS?
GPU again?
Last edited:
And I have explained that.
Nope. Shaders are just a part of planet surface creation.
It's not just about framerates.
Frame rate effects your mouse movement in general.
See this is what I find so very frustrating.
Clearly no other game that I know have has this issue, where at high framerates the mouse is un-useable.
But your answer is carefully worded in such a way it says nothing and explains nothing, but just vaguely implies that all games may or may not have this issue.
It the sort of thing you'd hear from devs carefully coached by lawyers or perhaps the marketing department, so it then becomes very difficult to take your assessment that delinking the slow geoscan from framerate is impossible at face value.
Last edited:
I'm not being vague in the slightest. Sorry you feel like that.
Ugh... this is driving me nuts!
Frame rate is not the same as GPU utilization. Frame rate can be used as a shorthand for GPU utilization, relative to the refresh rate of your monitor or VR headset, but its not the same. Frame rate is how many frames per second your GPU can output to the visual device of your choice. GPU utilization how much of a graphic card's processing power is currently being used.
GPU utilization will affect frame rate, naturally. The more work a GPU has to do, the fewer frames it can churn out in a second. Elite: Dangerous' planet generation algorithm uses the GPU, rather than the CPU, to create a planet's surface. The amount of time it takes to generate the surface depends upon how much "free resources" the GPU has. A GPU that's able to output 300 fps to a monitor that refreshes at 60 hz is basically being used at 20% capacity. So it has a lot of "free cycles" to use for other things... cycles that are basically wasted on unused frames.
So why does a video card that has its frame rate capped at 60 fps take longer to generate a planet surface if that card is being used at 20% capacity? Because the purpose of frame rate capping is to artificially limit GPU utilization in order to reduce energy consumption, reduce heat, and/or reduce fan noise. Some people think it will also reduce screen tearing, but that's what v-sync is for. There are two ways to cap frame rates that don't involve 3rd party software: the video card, and the game itself. In the case of the former, the video card simply discards calls to the GPU if its too early to draw the next frame. If its the game itself, then it won't send calls to the GPU until its time to draw the next frame.
Given that frame rate capping does affect planetary generation speed, I suspect that like most modern games on the market, Frontier is using modern video cards' native frame rate capping ability in its Cobra engine. After all, why reinvent the wheel? But because they also use the GPU for surface generation, rather than the CPU, there's an unexpected side effect.
Frame rate is not the same as GPU utilization. Frame rate can be used as a shorthand for GPU utilization, relative to the refresh rate of your monitor or VR headset, but its not the same. Frame rate is how many frames per second your GPU can output to the visual device of your choice. GPU utilization how much of a graphic card's processing power is currently being used.
GPU utilization will affect frame rate, naturally. The more work a GPU has to do, the fewer frames it can churn out in a second. Elite: Dangerous' planet generation algorithm uses the GPU, rather than the CPU, to create a planet's surface. The amount of time it takes to generate the surface depends upon how much "free resources" the GPU has. A GPU that's able to output 300 fps to a monitor that refreshes at 60 hz is basically being used at 20% capacity. So it has a lot of "free cycles" to use for other things... cycles that are basically wasted on unused frames.
So why does a video card that has its frame rate capped at 60 fps take longer to generate a planet surface if that card is being used at 20% capacity? Because the purpose of frame rate capping is to artificially limit GPU utilization in order to reduce energy consumption, reduce heat, and/or reduce fan noise. Some people think it will also reduce screen tearing, but that's what v-sync is for. There are two ways to cap frame rates that don't involve 3rd party software: the video card, and the game itself. In the case of the former, the video card simply discards calls to the GPU if its too early to draw the next frame. If its the game itself, then it won't send calls to the GPU until its time to draw the next frame.
Given that frame rate capping does affect planetary generation speed, I suspect that like most modern games on the market, Frontier is using modern video cards' native frame rate capping ability in its Cobra engine. After all, why reinvent the wheel? But because they also use the GPU for surface generation, rather than the CPU, there's an unexpected side effect.
- Status