To be fair though, glass door is a bit of a skewed metric. You have to think, the only people who would be leaving a review there are people who are no longer there, the only people who leave a company are those who either left happy or left upset, happy people dont leave reviews. Negative word travels much faster.
A graphic engineer found the cause of low FPS: rendering/culling
- Thread starter RealPuPpEt
- Start date
That would explain why Horizons is in good shape, but Odessy is lacking the behind the curtains tweaks.
I wonder if we can find out who's left the company since Horizons lol... they must be laughing.
Especially if they asked for a higher salary and didn't get it.
Yeah exactly but the reviews include some of the current employees too and for balance some are really good saying there's a spirit of movement forward in the company and how good they are at looking after their workers and overall good opinion of the CEO. I did mention that it would only inform people who read it better not negatively give them a perceived impression, that's the problem with context imparting implied bias. I merely said it would give further insight. I trust others to use their own good judgement like you were doing just then.
I'm fairly stupid when it comes to graphic engineering, but even I was able to deduce the culler wasn't properly implemented simply by observing the dramatic difference in frame rates based simply on your altitude. A difference of 5 or 10 meters while on foot can tank the FPS by 30-60%.
But the question is, if this is universal to the software, why are some people with much weaker hardware not having issues?
But the question is, if this is universal to the software, why are some people with much weaker hardware not having issues?
That's not always true - many companies incentivize people to leave positive reviews on Glassdoor
I lowered my super sampling from 1.0 to 0.85, seems to have stabilised the frame drops now for me and allowed me to up other settings. 1060GTX.
so you are downsampling your 1080p output to.. 965? Yikes.
I think..supersampling is a way to change resolution AFTER it was calculated & projected to 2d view.
So if I'm correct, then you could set 9nn x 540 resolution then super sample it by 2x. which will do 1080p 2d picture, but less calculations in 3d as it was 540p there.
...however, almost impossible to cut panels when it is up-scaled, because tool moves in bad resolution 3d.
Not ideal i agree, but allows me to play without those terrible frame drops i was getting before hand.
It's not.
Supersampling changes the rendering resolution, and then the image is adapted to the native resolution, so downsampling means less work for the rendering (i know because i have to downsample to get reasonable fps in settlements with odyssey)
edit: i'm probably using wrong terms here. what i meant for downsampling here, was to set supersampling to lower than 1, which it's probably formally wrong because the rendered image is then upscaled
Last edited:
Hm ..then something is broken, because when I set 540p resolution doing 2x SS, I get 1080p final image
Very informative
If that is what they did - then yes it would beggar belief: but in effect that is not what FDEV did - The Alpha code was an early Branch (Early Mid March), so the code branch that we saw in Alpha was never released. Game fixing bugs were fixed in Alpha and duplicated into the release branch, and development was continuing into the Main branch all through Alpha. So in effect Alpha was a different game and not what was released.
The only thing that they had two weeks to fix was game breaking and major bugs found in Alpha Phase 4 - Bugs (and much else bssides) from Phases 1 to 3 had a lot more time to be rolled together.
The real situation is a lot more complex than a simplistic single timeline view that the ALpha and release dates might suggest. You need to look at the whole time and code branching.
Supersampling is what goes on 'behind the scenes'Hm ..then something is broken, because when I set 540p resolution doing 2x SS, I get 1080p final image
If your display resolution is 1920x1080, then SuperSampling of '1' generates the scene at 1920x1080.
If your display resolution is 1920x1080, then SuperSampling of '1.5' generates the scene at 2880x1620. This is then downsampled to fit the 1920x1080 display resolution.
If your display resolution is 1920x1080, then SuperSampling of '.5' generates the scene at 960x540. This is then upscaled to fit the 1920x1080 display resolution.
Downsampling allows for a higher quality image, as it's better to throw away information, then try and make it up. However, your system is doing more work, so render times are longer (lower FPS).
Upscaling allows for a faster render time, as it's not doing as much work (higher FPS). However, the quality is lower, as the lower resolution image has to be 'blown up' to fit the output resolution, in other words, your system is making up pixels where no pixels exist. Just like your TV does when trying to put a SD or HD programme onto a 4K screen.
edit
If I understand your comment correctly, you have a 1920x1080 panel, and you're telling Elite to generate a 1920x1080 scene, throw away the information down to 960x540, and then your panel is upscaling back to 1920x1080.
And my case is - screen is 1080 while I set game resolution 540
And basically I see no difference with game resolution 1080 x 1 scale except 540 game is a bit faster.See edit - you may not be able to see a difference, but if you were to compare the images side-by-side, the upscaled 540 SS2 will be blurrier than the native 1080 SS1. If you're happy with the trade-off between FPS and Image quality, then that's what matters!And my case is - screen is 1080 while I set game resolution 540