So there shouldn't be different map sizes because some people can allegedly utilize the current large map and therefore the majority of players has to play with a half empty map?
Good Game, bad performance!
- Thread starter Tammy25
- Start date
So there shouldn't be different map sizes because some people can allegedly utilize the current large map and therefore the majority of players has to play with a half empty map?
To fix my problem, you tell me to adjust my zoo for performance, not my creativity?
I still have a slightly older map, everything smooth except for a self-created little hill in the middle. I only built 1/4 of the map, and I've built this zoo since it was released. And there the performance (In comparison to my newer one) is even worse, without big lakes and big mountains, with only a little hill!
Frontier Support 5.jpg
drive.google.com
And yes, there is a self-made crane in the middle. Doesn't say, that it eats up all of my performance.
Frontier Support 6.jpg
Frontier Support 8.jpg
Actually, the developers should try to optimize the game so that it works comfortably on every system. And no, where do I request a smaller map? I asked why they give us such a huge map? It would be better to have different sizes to choose from, as other games do. I don't know anyone, not even with a 20k € PC, who can play the game with a fully developed map of this size at full FPS. I also see all the streamers losing performance, most of them even have their settings on the lowest, or either build only one enclosure each for presentation, or only a tiny part of a map with enclosures and animals.
And what is a zoo game without animals and visitors?
And let's be honest, the game should encourage and demand creativity, but unfortunately at the expense of technology, which not everyone can afford. But some of them don't understand, so I won't touch the game until the developers finally make progress!
That's how long I've been playing JWE2 because it works perfectly on my system.
I can think of two possible reasons for a disappointing performance on that map:
- The paths are rather narrow which causes the guests to bump into each other all the time and clog the CPU. Make super-wide paths if you play with guests. Frontier decided to make guest flow a main game mechanic without giving use proper tools to handle them for some reason ...
- A detailed structure with lots of pieces in a small space need a higher performance than several less detailed structures that are spread over the map. How many pieces did you use for that crane
I don't give any more answers to people like you!
Last edited:
Yes, but at the beginning there was no tutorial on how narrow you can build and how you should optimize the paths.I can think of two possible reasons for a disappointing performance on that map:
- The paths are rather narrow which causes the guests to bump into each other all the time and clog the CPU. Make super-wide paths if you play with guests. Frontier decided to make guest flow a main game mechanic without giving use proper tools to handle them for some reason ...
- A detailed structure with lots of pieces in a small space need a higher performance than several less detailed structures that are spread over the map. How many pieces did you use for that crane
And i don't know how much pieces there are. But alone, he make no trouble ingame.
Every single time I'm amazed how people just tend to say, "Oh, I have a good pc and I don't care if others have problems! So no optimization, please! The poor developers." That is two class social thinking!
The game is unfinished and not optimized, and while some can play it, others should be considered too. So it would be no problem to program 3 different card sizes. It is possible! And I didn't compare the two, just noted that another game by the same developer managed one game, the other didn't and thought it was just because of the player's PC!
And you can also completely optimize a game, see other developers like No Man's Sky, who had created a completely different, working game.
Even Ark Survival Evolved managed to optimize it on DX12, so what are these comments for if you have no idea?
It was a stupid idea to write in here. The developers won't care, and there will be so many useless comments from fanboys / girls.
The crane might cause problems. I once build a roller Coaster structure in my zoo that consisted of lots and lots of objects. The game struggled with this. Every time i Came near the structure it started lagging and even crashed countless times while Building. This was in a zoo i just started.. so the game definitely struggles with builds that contain lots of objects.
I have no problems with this crane, i have a problem with this game. I have delete the crane, but the performance it stayed the same. So, this is a game, does not allow creativity, it forces normal gamers to think minimalistically. One stone too many and you need a CPU that is 200 euros more expensive. This is rubbish, the game was a dream game, but it turned into a nightmare because you have not allowed to do in it, what you can do with it. That's why Game Over Planet Zoo for me! That was my feedback on it, even if the developers probably won't read it. It's just an opinion of a confused, frustrated player like me or something.
Not all, as you can see from some of the example comments here. And the developers probably listen more to these voices than similar voices like mine.
No one has to play with a half empty map - just decorate lightly with trees and rocks or roads or just large habitats.
According to your posts, you have asked the devs for advice, you have not followed it, and you continue to have issues with performance - and now you complain about it.
Edit: no one is against further optimisation. Some people just recognise that:
A) it’s not as a easy as you seem to think.
B) Frontier already spend considerable time optimising the game.
Last edited:
Not everything in the world is black and white. People who have a different experience than you aren't automatically against you or are "fanboys". LN for instance wasn't even saying that the game shouldn't be optimized further, they were merely stating that demanding more optimizations is a hundred times easier than actually doing so. Again, not black and white thinking, just looking at the entire picture.
Whereas I agree with you that there is always room for optimization, as developers ( I'm not a Frontier developer btw, just a developer) we always strive to optimize our products as much as we can. However, even though you are right that it is theoretically possible to cater to a multitude of different machines with different specs, it doesn't automatically make it easy to do. Other games use other engines and face different challenges than Frontier does with their engine. You're comparing apples and oranges, whilst they're both fruits, they're still very different from each other.
These big near limitless sandbox type of games have always had issues with performance though, it's part of their nature. The moment you let people build their own things from whatever they feel like (especially small items), you lose a bit of control on the optimization. So yes, FPS drops are in this genre of game inevitable and part of it is in the hands of the user. Either you have a game with limits that limits everyone, or you have a game with almost complete freedom but at the price of having different performance on different machines. Neither of those are a good or bad choice, people have their own choice in what they want from a game.
Don't get me wrong. I understand your frustration, but it's not that Frontier doesn't listen to these things. If you go back through the update notes every update contains optimizations. In Koali, quite a big zoo, we have had better performance with each new update and faster loading times as well. And that map is almost filled to the brim with all kinds of big piece heavy buildings.
To sum it up, Frontier made the choice to give us a near limitless building experience, at the cost of FPS on less powerful machines. It's a compromise, and it's understandably frustrating for people who can't build as limitless as others, but it's the choice they made and it isn't necessarily a bad one. It's not a choice you should agree with and you can't be frustrated with, you are completely entitled to what you want out of a game, but at the end of the day, it's the direction they went in and it's unlikely that it's going to change.
Thats not exactly what I meant to say.
I most definitely dont have the best pc out there in terms of specs, not even close to yours. But I only play about 3 games on it (PC, PZ and F1) and nothing else.
I cant judge the amount of work that goes into this game, and I said they are surely still trying their best with optimizing the game, be it in small steps.
Edit: @Iben clearly stated what I meant in a perfect way, maybe I sounded a bit rude, sorry if it was offensive.
Last edited:
Same here. I think you said our systems were similar in a different thread, which means both are above the minimum requirements on all fronts. But I definitely find too many waterfalls and complex fountains etc. can make things laggy, and there is an intermittent button non responsiveness issue (clicking to select an animal or something does nothing sometimes) that seems to go away if I bump game priority to "high" in my task manager.
The issue with effects is better since I upgraded to 32 KB of RAM, but I'm still cautious with the special effects.
It's a bit of a catch-22 I guess. Folks want a gorgeous simulation game with great graphics, lots of stuff going on, and large maps, but even pretty good computers can get bogged down with it. Some other "CPU and RAM greedy" games I've played work better if you turn down the graphics settings. It's not as much fun to do this in a game that is so pretty, though.
Last edited:
But why don't I see any improvement in my first zoo, which I built at the time of release? Why is the FPS almost the same? After 2 years? And I'm not saying anything against large cards, but for people with smaller specs. you could also share smaller maps. They have even integrated the more difficult highmapping, why is it not so easy to create 3 different map sizes? I could then make a small, fine zoo and not have half or 2/3 of the map bare and empty. And it would definitely not have as much of a performance impact as a huge map.
And to @Iben, I've now seen more than 25 years of game release, and also a lot of where good games have been spoiled. I've long since given up hope of believing in good developers.
Yes, I'm just frustrated, I put this PC together at the beginning of last year and hoped I could play my favorite game better than before. It was an upgrade from the old PC in all of the games, but I still can't enjoy Planet Zoo.
And I hardly have any difference between the minimum graphics setting and the maximum, as my graphics card is bored in all scenarios, i.e. it is almost unused!
So, I appeal to the developers at Frontier to make different map sizes, that would be helpful for many smaller players! And maybe a little more optimization for the graphics card load, in favor of the CPU load.
(Even if it doesn't belong here, but thanks to my illness I only see black & white thinking in humanity anyway, but should not be decisive or an excuse for my way, just a small excuse for some of my words)
And to @Iben, I've now seen more than 25 years of game release, and also a lot of where good games have been spoiled. I've long since given up hope of believing in good developers.
Yes, I'm just frustrated, I put this PC together at the beginning of last year and hoped I could play my favorite game better than before. It was an upgrade from the old PC in all of the games, but I still can't enjoy Planet Zoo.
And I hardly have any difference between the minimum graphics setting and the maximum, as my graphics card is bored in all scenarios, i.e. it is almost unused!
So, I appeal to the developers at Frontier to make different map sizes, that would be helpful for many smaller players! And maybe a little more optimization for the graphics card load, in favor of the CPU load.
(Even if it doesn't belong here, but thanks to my illness I only see black & white thinking in humanity anyway, but should not be decisive or an excuse for my way, just a small excuse for some of my words)
While I can't speak for others, for me FPS/performance has been improved a lot since Day1.
Especially for my Day1 zoo.
(I have a 1050Ti 4GB, which is a good one for casual gaming).
That being said, i don't mind smaller maps etc. if that would help.
Maybe even a nice extra challenge for people who want to succeed in smaller maps.
You mentioned Ark Survival. I played that on a PC that didn't meet the minimal requirements but with the choices when you launch the game (like low memory) and further extensive graphic tweaks, you are able to play the game smoothly. (other launch options are useable as well - even able to switch to an older Dx version)
I believe minimal requirements are there for a good reason and someone who buys a game that doesn't meet those requirements - shouldn't complain (do your research)
Ark was poorly optimized but I think if you offer those options in other games as well, you give gamers an option to tweak the game.
Something that people didn't seem to discuss in this thread is that there are a lot of small maps.
Both the default desert and taiga maps are small, and some of the campaign maps are tiny. You can play on these ones.
A friend of mine has the highest end pc that you can get atm... and with the full map used (i mean.. frontier's slogan was: build the zoo of your dreams... so that means to him large with lots of details and animals etc...) and he still can't get more than 20 fps... Sorry but then there is something wrong with the game, since you can not do with what they advertise with when you have WAY better specs than the 'recommended' specs.
Others want to build less detailed large maps though - or even highly detailed ‘open range’ style zoos. It is inevitable that, if you want to very dense, high detailed builds you will suffer lag. That’s simply the way that games like this are. I have no issue with providing smaller maps to those who want them but the simple fact is that less powerful machines will have lower performance than more powerful ones. The limiting factor in how densely you can build is your machine’s specs - this is GREAT since it means that, as computers inevitably become more powerful over the years, the game will remain worth playing, as you’ll be able to take advantage of the better performance- I.e., this feature will result in the game having a substantially longer lifespan. What’s the alternative- that they build the game do that the least powerful machines can run it was well as better ones? That just results in a less good game with a shorter life.