Decreasing supersampling seems to improve the fps immensely for my system

Sparrow

Sparrow
I resloved my framerate issues by switching Supersampling from 2x to 1.5 or 1.25,
previous with 2x I had 15-30fps in Stations, now with 1.5 I got 60fps, and with 1.25 more than 60fps, all other setting to ultra.
I'm running the game at a RTS 3060TI and Ryzen 7300X.
The setting seem to have more impact to the graphic performance in Odyssey tahn in Horizon.
The bloom setting I decreased to medium to get a more horzion like lightning, but contrast is still more dark then horizon. For the neutron stars I cant't find a solution. Except for the connection issues to the servers, I''m now happy for me with Odyssey. It has indeed potential.
 

alexzk

A
Super sampling is multiplier for resolution in final 2D.
1st scene is built in 3D for resolution set, then resulting 2D picture is scaled by supersampling.
....so u would need 2x if your game resolution is 1/2 of monitor resolution.

Also you can try back effect, set resolution to half then super-sample by 2x, which means it should be half of 3D math.
 

milljm

M
I get where @Sparrow is coming from. I've been messing with every graphical setting for hours. There is a strange non-correlation with decreasing resolution and upping supersampling. One would think dropping to 1080p, and then increasing supersampling by x2, you would end up with something similar in performance as if you simply used 1440p and supersampling 1x.

But this doesn't seem to be the case. With what @alexzk states however, it is starting to make sense why I might not see what I originally expected to see. Regardless... I have found my sweet spot for my aging 1080ti. Having supersampling at .5x, with a 4K resolution (yes, I have a 4K display). And every setting set at ultra. Including enabling SMAA (which I normally leave disabled in favor of upping resolution). This gets me 60FPS when down on planets, in the SRV, and disembarked. There are rare occasions when this dips below 60FPS. I also have not tested this scenario in ground combat.

When in space, I can increase my supersampling to 1x and remain at 60FPS @4K resolution. No manner of tweaking other settings seems to alter FPS other than a few frames worth here and there.

Where I run into interesting observations, is with certain angles of view while on a planet. I can almost run 4K with supersampling at 1x... But only if I am not viewing approximately 45 degrees down at the ground. Its so weird. Modifying the height has no effect. Just the angle. Meaning I can be staring at only dirt if I am close enough to the ground, and still be receiving ~30FPS. Change my angle just a little bit... now I get 60FPS. But if I only increase my height, so now I am seeing rocks, hills, mountains... still 30FPS (so what gives with viewing the ground at 45 degrees? Reflections?). I should make a video about it, to describe what I mean. No discernible change of geometry appears on the screen when I jump from 30 to 60 as I adjust my viewing angle. Not sure what is causing this.

But like @Sparrow, I have finally found something at which makes Odyssey graphically enjoyable. It's been a battle.

I should note, that I began this adventure after deleting my graphical settings folder, just as described on other forums as a possible fix.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
Sparrow said:
I resloved my framerate issues by switching Supersampling from 2x to 1.5 or 1.25,
previous with 2x I had 15-30fps in Stations, now with 1.5 I got 60fps, and with 1.25 more than 60fps, all other setting to ultra.
I'm running the game at a RTS 3060TI and Ryzen 7300X.
The setting seem to have more impact to the graphic performance in Odyssey tahn in Horizon.
The bloom setting I decreased to medium to get a more horzion like lightning, but contrast is still more dark then horizon. For the neutron stars I cant't find a solution. Except for the connection issues to the servers, I''m now happy for me with Odyssey. It has indeed potential.
Click to expand...
You have a similar system to me but for me the issue was never stations, where I now get 60fps. It's on the planet and specifically during CZs that my frame rate plumets. And let's be clear here, we both have way above the recommended specs and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect that system to cane a game that has the 1060 as it's recommended spec.

So I still think Fdev have work to do.
 

Sacman

Sacman
Confirmed ... setting supersampling to 0.75 at 2560x1440p on my gtx1080 does indeed help ... i am getting around 60 fps!
 

Sparrow

Sparrow
Ydiss said:
You have a similar system to me but for me the issue was never stations, where I now get 60fps. It's on the planet and specifically during CZs that my frame rate plumets. And let's be clear here, we both have way above the recommended specs and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect that system to cane a game that has the 1060 as it's recommended spec.

So I still think Fdev have work to do.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, Fdev has a lot of work to do, it's hard tweaking around to get an accepatable perfomance with a lack of possible features. Antialiasing is also a point I'm not happy with on some things it seems to work well at others, like orbital lines, it's not present. But, I can play and I have the hope that Fdev is getting it fixed with the time.
 

Agrar Therenus

Agrar Therenus
Sparrow said:
I resloved my framerate issues by switching Supersampling from 2x to 1.5 or 1.25,
previous with 2x I had 15-30fps in Stations, now with 1.5 I got 60fps, and with 1.25 more than 60fps, all other setting to ultra.
I'm running the game at a RTS 3060TI and Ryzen 7300X.
The setting seem to have more impact to the graphic performance in Odyssey tahn in Horizon.
The bloom setting I decreased to medium to get a more horzion like lightning, but contrast is still more dark then horizon. For the neutron stars I cant't find a solution. Except for the connection issues to the servers, I''m now happy for me with Odyssey. It has indeed potential.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, you are decreasing game resolution. At 1.00 compared to 2.00 you are quartering how much pixels need to be rendered (because it is x2 on both axis).

You didn't actually resolve you framerate issues, you simply massively reduced the IQ of your game.
 

Xious

Xious
Agrar Therenus said:
Well, yes, you are decreasing game resolution. At 1.00 compared to 2.00 you are quartering how much pixels need to be rendered (because it is x2 on both axis).

You didn't actually resolve you framerate issues, you simply massively reduced the IQ of your game.
Click to expand...
wait... what is that about IQ?
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
I changed mine this morning from the default 1.25 to 1 and it makes quite a difference again. Go to .65 and all runs on 60 FPS, but it looks daft, for obvious reasons.
I barely see a difference going from 1.25 to 1, and it again gets things smoother, for as long as it takes to get a real fix.
 

photomankc

photomankc
Sucks to have to drop mine to 0.75 on a 4K TV to get livable framerate. Now the 'improvements' from the last update robbed me of 5 to 10 of those FPS.
 

stereoBear

stereoBear
Vandaahl said:
I changed mine this morning from the default 1.25 to 1 and it makes quite a difference again. Go to .65 and all runs on 60 FPS, but it looks daft, for obvious reasons.
I barely see a difference going from 1.25 to 1, and it again gets things smoother, for as long as it takes to get a real fix.
Click to expand...
1.0 is the default (internal render resolution = 1.0 x displayed resolution)
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
stereoBear said:
1.0 is the default (internal render resolution = 1.0 x displayed resolution)
Click to expand...
You sure it is?
I removed my graphics settings folder at the release of Odyssey so all my settings got defaulted.
I haven't change it since.

(I know what super sampling does, but that as an aside :)
I changed it to 2x and halved my resolution just to see what that does)
 

CMDR X

CMDR X
With my 44" TV, 1 meter in front of me @4K, I notice zero difference in AA above 1.25 SS.
Don't wreck your GPU unnecessarily. Just sayin'
 

dm06

dm06
Vandaahl said:
I changed it to 2x and halved my resolution just to see what that does
Click to expand...
The interesting thing I have noticed that FPS with .5 sampling on 2560x1440 is not equal to FPS with 1 sampling and 1280x720 (the latter value is greater)
That I find strange at least. I would expect them to be equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom