Update 2 Feedback - Performance, Lighting, Bloom, Textures, Visors

[BlackMaze]

The news bulletin doesn't say where to post feedback. The replies to the patch notes appear closer to "thank you" messages so I've decided to open a new thread.

My feedback appears to be in line with what others are experiencing:

First of all I experience no performance gains. Frames per second are still around:

• ~30 FPS at 1440p with a GTX 2060.
• ~45 FPS at 1440p with a GTX 2080ti.

Lighting contrast remains "broken" with dark stuff being extremely dark:

SRV emmisive paintjobs still look nothing like what they used to -- Colours are way too white and still display a lack of bloom:

From the cockpit view there is even less (none) brightness/bloom -- There is definitely a constrast issue depending on whether we're in the cockpit or not -- You fixed part of this with the skybox discrepancy between in-cockpit and freecam -- I fear this is the same issue:

Other SRV paintjobs are also still suffering -- All of the reflective materials are matt and look like a different colour -- The thumbnails do a great job showing "what they used to look like":

The classic heatsink glow on ships is also still missing, no changes have been made and the bloom is non-existant:

The flight suit now has a helmet option though there are no icons -- Don't rush it guys:

Other suits do not have an opague visor -- This is really unfortunate and ruins the possibility for cool screenshots and the Rebuy Unlimited machinima -- Can you confirm this is coming?

Finally -- All suits can be customised to use the undersuit of another type (example: Maverick can use a Dominator undersuit) though the flight suit is not available.

It would be great if we can also choose the flight suit undersuits because there are some excellent design choices there that would look great with the new suits!

 

[GroG79]

I think I have a 5-10 fps increase in settlements

 

[Chazzie]

I posted the same issue an hour or so ago - you just did it a whole lot better!

Not happy that emissive decals have lost their ‘glow’ and that FDev just listed it as ‘fixed’ in their patch notes for update 2, when quite obviously it’s not!

 

[sgurr]

With the same graphics settings on the same system between Odyssey and Horizons and comparing side by side sitting in my carrier hanger I get <2/3rds of the frame rate in Odyssey than I do in Horizons, it's an 80-100 fps drop.
Been to a non-atmospheric surface (away from a base) and no obvious change in fps there, it's closer to half what i get in Horizons.

Also, the paintjob which should be all reflective green (Stygian) is still mostly white.
in Odyssey:

in Horizons and what it should look like:

Edit: clarified where i was testing frame rate

 

[Old Duck]

With the same graphics settings on the same system between Odyssey and Horizons and comparing side by side I get <2/3rds of the frame rate in Odyssey than I do in Horizons, it's an 80-100 fps drop.

I think this should be part of any debate regarding which looks better - planets in Horizon or planets in Odyssey. Because even if planets do look better in Odyssey (something not everyone agrees on), do they look SO much better to warrant an 80-100 fps drop? I'm guessing not.

If consoles end up with an 80-100 fps drop, the game will be running backwards, LOL.

TL;DR - Odyssey is doomed, literally.

 

[hunvagy]

I think this should be part of any debate regarding which looks better - planets in Horizon or planets in Odyssey. Because even if planets do look better in Odyssey (something not everyone agrees on), do they look SO much better to warrant an 80-100 fps drop? I'm guessing not.

If consoles end up with an 80-100 fps drop, the game will be running backwards, LOL.

TL;DR - Odyssey is doomed, literally.

There should not be a 100fps drop, ideally. Or if there is, the requirements have to be reflected properly. And they can expect a lot of backlash. On the other thread I just saw that in 1080p it runs properly on a 3070. That is not a 1060 at all It doesn't even keep a stable 60fps on Ultra on my 2060, which is one generation younger then the 1060.

 

[[VR] James Constantine]

First of all I experience no performance gains. Frames per second are still around:

Lighting contrast remains "broken" with dark stuff being extremely dark:

Thanks, stopped reading here - all I needed to know. Back to Horizons...

 

[Daverain]

I can definetely see huge improvements to performance in starports and outposts. I also have seen improvements in settlements and surface ports.
However, on foot CZs still vary a lot, from 60 fps to 25.
Galaxy and System map load faster.
Also finally fires don't seem to make my computer go boom.

 

[Crank Larson]

Thanks for testing @BlackMaze - saves me the bother. I'll be in Horizons until my Iridium Gleam and planetside performance comes back!

 

[BlackMaze]

I can definetely see huge improvements to performance in starports and outposts. I also have seen improvements in settlements and surface ports.
However, on foot CZs still vary a lot, from 60 fps to 25.
Galaxy and System map also load faster.

I would love to know:
- What hardware are you running?
- What was your FPS on a planet in a non-CZ settlement?
- What is your FPS now in the same location?

Again for me, in that scenario, I am seeing no FPS gains.

 

[Old Duck]

There should not be a 100fps drop, ideally. Or if there is, the requirements have to be reflected properly. And they can expect a lot of backlash. On the other thread I just saw that in 1080p it runs properly on a 3070. That is not a 1060 at all It doesn't even keep a stable 60fps on Ultra on my 2060, which is one generation younger then the 1060.

I don't know what all those numbers mean (I miss the days when a 486 was the clear prede successor to the 386, and a Pentium II was obviously better than a Pentium). What I do know is that any computer than can run Microsoft Flight Simulator (the best looking planet simulation out there) with decent framerates should be able to run a game like Odyssey using decade old visuals with even better framerates.

There is just no, no, no, no, no way anyone will be able to defend these horrible Odyssey framerates to me. Not that you're trying, but there are some who are.

 

[hunvagy]

I don't know what all those numbers mean (I miss the days when a 486 was the clear predecessor to the 386, and a Pentium II was obviously better than a Pentium). What I do know is that any computer than can run Microsoft Flight Simulator (the best looking planet simulation out there) with decent framerates should be able to run a game like Odyssey using decade old visuals with even better framerates.

There is just no, no, no, no, no way anyone will be able to defend these horrible Odyssey framerates to me. Not that you're trying, but there are some who are.

Yeah, I had no problems with FS2020, not even when I yanked everything to max and fired up the always online topography. But I assume someone will be along shorty, to tell us that Microsoft is not an indie like FD, and that they don't have to simulate a galaxy, or whatever else todays flavour of apology is.

It doesn't run well enough for my taste, and looking at the patch notes, they know it too, and knew it for quite a while.

 

[askavir]

This performance optimization seems like a shot in the foot TBH.

I get only marginally better FPS (to be fair I already had reasonable FPS so it barely made a difference) but now assets load so slowly that I can see layers of meshes being drawn as I move... Sometimes they don't load at all. On top, anti-aliasing seems worse than it has ever been even at maximum settings, I see white artifacts all over the place.

As far as performance / visual quality balance goes, this patch was a serious step backwards.

 

[Crank Larson]

It doesn't run well enough for my taste, and looking at the patch notes, they know it too, and knew it for quite a while.

And I wish they wouldn't lie about fixing them in the patch notes when it's blatantly obvious they haven't. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that no-one in FD even loads EDO, let alone plays or tests it.

 

[Amy Pendergast]

I have a small increase in FPS as long as I don't stare through external windows in planetary concourses.
And if I do that too long my FPS even tank further and don't up anymore until I restart the game completely.

 

[Ydiss]

Every time I visit a WD or Neutron star system I shed a tear as I recall how pretty space used to be (they're the only systems where it looks how it used to look due to the overbright light source of the star).

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Finally -- All suits can be customised to use the undersuit of another type (example: Maverick can use a Dominator undersuit) though the flight suit is not available.

Can I add that the Artemis suit cannot use the default Dom/Mav undersuits.
Please add this to your OP

 

[BlackMaze]

Can I add that the Artemis suit cannot use the default Dom/Mav undersuits.
Please add this to your OP

-- This is a new bug right? I'm sure this wasn't the case before?

 

[sgurr]

I think this should be part of any debate regarding which looks better - planets in Horizon or planets in Odyssey. Because even if planets do look better in Odyssey (something not everyone agrees on), do they look SO much better to warrant an 80-100 fps drop? I'm guessing not.

If consoles end up with an 80-100 fps drop, the game will be running backwards, LOL.

TL;DR - Odyssey is doomed, literally.

I've edited my post above to be clear about where I'm looking at fps.

the <2/3rds fps in Odyssey was while sitting inside my carrier, there shouldn't be big rendering differences compared to Horizons yet it's an 80-100 fps drop (from 250+ in Horizons to 150-170 in Odyssey, I've got a high end card)

On a non atmospheric surface it's closer to 1/2 the frame rate in Odyssey compared to Horizons and that's without being close to a settlement where it really tanks.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

-- This is a new bug right? I'm sure this wasn't the case before?

Honestly, I'm not sure. All I know is that if you are modifying the artemis suit, and choose the undersuit, the default Dom/Mav undersuits don't appear as options.