EDO Update9: how is your performance?

Results
The same 30~35 FPS in the main menu hanger compared to 230~260 FPS in Horizons for me. 🤷‍♂️
It's nice that each update gives us some new content to toy with, but why, WHY can't FD fix this simple FPS issue? This should have been fixed on Update 2 at the very least. This is NINE updates now and this one "game is unplayable" issue is still here.

No, I'm not going to switch to SC in a rage-quit. I'd just like an answer to what is holding up this one fixable thing.
 
It's nice that each update gives us some new content to toy with, but why, WHY can't FD fix this simple FPS issue? This should have been fixed on Update 2 at the very least. This is NINE updates now and this one "game is unplayable" issue is still here.

No, I'm not going to switch to SC in a rage-quit. I'd just like an answer to what is holding up this one fixable thing.
I'm sure Frontier would like to have solved the FPS issue by Update 2 also... (every week that Devs are working on just 'fixing' is eating money)
As it is, even with 9 full updates and a few hotfixes performance leaves a lot to be desired - particularly when compared to Horizons.

Even ignoring that performance improvements have been gained by some imaginitive fixes, and by the incorporation of AMD's technology to provide some useful overhead for some, performance today is still poor, perhaps more noticable with higher end hardware which should be handling relatively simple graphics with ease, yet still doesn't give the 'boost' expected in general performance.

I'd guess that whatever issues that plague EDO are related to whatever version of COBRA it is built upon, perhaps it is a new version, as was rumoured, or spaghettified old, whichever - it doesn't appear to be progressing at all well if the target is to get the expansion working on the recomended hardware, plenty left to do there yet.

From comments made by posters with better knowledge than I, the port to Console will optimise the code for that hardware quite efficiently, first though the software has to be stable, so not quite there yet.
 
My rig (AMD Ryzen 5600X/3060 RTX/16 gb/1920 by 1080 60hz monitor capped, running the game on all high settings) continues to run fine. Starting with Update 8 and now continuing with U9, I maintain a steady 60 fps in space, on station concourses and at most planetary settlements (I occasionally come across one that knocks my framerate down to ~50 or so for a few seconds but then it recovers). So, going on my local hardware, the game runs fine.

However, I realize how fortunate I am to have been able to upgrade my rig, so I don't think using a new rig to evaluate the game tells the "typical" story. So, I have been making it a point to play Odyssey on Geforce Now because I think nVidia's hardware, while still robust, is closer to the average user. With that in mind I am disappointed to report that Update 9 still has a ways to go.

First, the good:
Space remains at a steady 60 FPS for me in all situations.
Update 9 has brought improvements to station concourses. With Update 8, station concourses ran pretty well and mostly maintained a framerate of 50-60, with only occasional dips into the ~45 range in certain spots/looking in certain directions. With Update 9, station concourses maintain a solid 60 fps 99% of the time. Definite optimization here!

Next, the bad:
Here, it is the usual suspect: planetary settlements. Seeing the optimizations for concourses, I headed off to a settlement eager to see improvement. Honestly, it might have gotten worse. The first settlement I hit on a thin-atmosphere world had serious performance issues on GFN. From the moment I entered orbital cruise, my framerate tanked from 60 to 45 to 30. When I activated automatic landing, I thought GFN was going to crash because the framerate hit 18(!) as my ship descended, then stuttered like mad - the audio even began to break up! - froze for a second or two, and then recovered to ~30 fps as I touched down. From there, the framerate remained at 35 even though I was looking at nothing more than sunlit barren land in the distance. When I disembarked, the framerate remained at 35 until I entered the settlement proper where it recovered to 45 for most of the time. The performance was overall so poor that I suspected maybe it was a problem with GFN. With this in mind, I made a return trip the following day but got the same results.

Last night I tried a different settlement on a dark, airless planet. Here, when I entered OC, my framerate again dropped from 60 to ~40, and tanked to ~28-35 on autolanding. Once on the concrete apron, the framerate again settled at 35 FPS, despite my view being nothing more than a lampost, a bit of concrete apron, and a dark, featureless landscape. I sat in my cockpit a bit and just watched the FPS counter. It was kinda interesting in that it went like this: 35-40-35-45-49-40-45-50-50-50-45-40-35. Again, this was with absolutely nothing being rendered on my screen but a lit lampost, etc. etc. When I disembarked, it was mostly the same as the other settlement ~45 fps or so. Playable, but again way below where it should be, especially considering that I think FDev has deliberately disabled antialiasing so as to not tank the framerate even more.

I was hoping Update 9 was going to be the one that finally made things right. Sadly, it hasn't. It just made me more frustrated. Sure, my local hardware can play the game just fine, but I know that if GFN is still struggling with performance like this, a lot of people are going to struggle too with their own hardware. That makes me disappointed for them.

Oh well, back to NMS! :)
 
Last edited:
Performance is ok after update 9. Not much change from update 8. However 9.01 is crashing to desktop for no particular reason more times today than in the entirety of playing Odyssey since alpha. It's shockingly bad.
 
Performance is ok after update 9. Not much change from update 8. However 9.01 is crashing to desktop for no particular reason more times today than in the entirety of playing Odyssey since alpha. It's shockingly bad.
Word. After 9.0 I literally could not enter ANY ground settlements without a CTD within 60 seconds. 9.01 has not changed this.

I essentially cannot engage with 3/4s of Odyssey specific content because it has a 100% crash rate any time I try.
 
I have just upgraded to a 6900 and will vouch for the comment that even on 'good' hardware EDO is still inconsistent.
The card arrived last Wednesday, so I only had a couple of hours in U8, not really enough time to see if there were improvements across the board, but even with this hardware 60 FPS isn't guaranteed in all circumstances.

Aside from momentary dips while loading, I now essentially only see less than 60 fps at 1440p ultra+ some outlier settlements and even then, only when using my custom shadow tables, which cost about 10% of my frame rate. 4k can dip a bit further, but is still generally over 60fps, except at those outlier settlements.

The floor for the CPU limitation I regularly encounter is 91fps on a ~4.8GHz Zen 3 part. This is annoying where I know the frame rate can be higher, but high enough to not be a deal breaker like being randomly stuck in the 40-50 fps range I regularly saw prior to U9.

Ryzen 5600X

Is still one of the faster CPU's out there, in terms of per-core performance and this goes a long way with the current incarnation of EDO.

serious performance issues on GFN

I believe the base GFN service is using Intel CC150 processors and a datacenter TU102 part that is somewhere between an RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti in performance. So, all the stuff about improving the graphics side of performance is largely moot on GFN. GFN's GPUs are just as fast, if not faster than, your local GPU, but the CPUs they allocate are considerably slower (that CC150 is a Coffee Lake with a fixed 3.5GHz frequency which makes it a solid 40% slower than your Ryzen). This would be well balanced for most games, but not EDO.
 
Is still one of the faster CPU's out there, in terms of per-core performance and this goes a long way with the current incarnation of EDO.
It also perfectly highlights the issues with the engine, since the 5600x is quite literally part of the fastest generation of Ryzen CPUs on the current consumer market. The fact that Odyssey somehow even brings that CPU to its knees is indicative of fundamental problems that continue to exist here
 
I believe the base GFN service is using Intel CC150 processors and a datacenter TU102 part that is somewhere between an RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti in performance. So, all the stuff about improving the graphics side of performance is largely moot on GFN. GFN's GPUs are just as fast, if not faster than, your local GPU, but the CPUs they allocate are considerably slower (that CC150 is a Coffee Lake with a fixed 3.5GHz frequency which makes it a solid 40% slower than your Ryzen). This would be well balanced for most games, but not EDO.
Thanks for explaining that! So, this sort of confirms the theory that Odyssey is CPU-bound and not GPU-bound then, right?

Edit: I just saw your post. Answered! :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for explaining that! So, this sort of confirms the theory that Odyssey is CPU-bound and not GPU-bound then, right?

You can certainly still be GPU bound if you throw enough eyecandy-heavy settings at the game, or have a weak GPU relative to your CPU. However, yes, in the current build, people are much more likely to be CPU bound, assuming the component choices they made for their systems were rational for a gaming setup.
 
I appear to have had a big performance drop in planet surfaces from update 9 to 9.0.1, but I’m not even sure, and that is half the problem: the game seems to take one step forward then two steps back. They are probably trying to do something difficult I.e render galaxy wide and inside rooms with the same engine, but maybe that’s not the issue at all, I know very little about game design. Even if we did get decent optimization by say April next year that would be a full years worth, compared to about 2 years dev time for odyssey. I sometimes wonder how many of the devs now doing optimization actually worked on the main expansion ..
 
I appear to have had a big performance drop in planet surfaces from update 9 to 9.0.1, but I’m not even sure, and that is half the problem: the game seems to take one step forward then two steps back. They are probably trying to do something difficult I.e render galaxy wide and inside rooms with the same engine, but maybe that’s not the issue at all, I know very little about game design. Even if we did get decent optimization by say April next year that would be a full years worth, compared to about 2 years dev time for odyssey. I sometimes wonder how many of the devs now doing optimization actually worked on the main expansion ..
Are you talking about just rendering planets in general or are you talking about rendering settlements?
 
i9 10850, 3080ti, 32GB ram, 2048x1080 native

144 fps in space and 80-110 on foot, stations usuall 100+ and settlements 80-90 with Ultra (no custom).

What I don’t understand, turned off AA and the game looks much better (there was a grainy look to it with AA, no AA is a much clearer, sharper picture) and my fps drops ~30 across the board (CPU under 50% and GPU 90-100%). I’m fine with the results, just seems odd to get lower fps and better picture with AA off.
 
Slight improvement noticed in settlements, though it should be noted MY performance was never really all that bad.

Simple specs: RTX 2060 6GB, 16GB RAM, i5-11400F, install on a secondary SSD as opposed to the primary with the OS. Ground CZs feel a little snappier? Which is always good for business. ^_^
 
What I don’t understand, turned off AA and the game looks much better (there was a grainy look to it with AA, no AA is a much clearer, sharper picture) and my fps drops ~30 across the board (CPU under 50% and GPU 90-100%). I’m fine with the results, just seems odd to get lower fps and better picture with AA off.

Sounds like you turned off FSR, not AA.
 
Sounds like you turned off FSR, not AA.
Had a chance to look at things and it appears I incorrectly assumed selecting OFF in the box next to AA was turning AA off. I’m rather ignorant on this stuff but am trying to learn, so what I think happened is I turned FSR off which means with no alternate method selected I am using super sampling for AA, which actually explains the reduced frame rate and increased frame quality.
 
Had a chance to look at things and it appears I incorrectly assumed selecting OFF in the box next to AA was turning AA off. I’m rather ignorant on this stuff but am trying to learn, so what I think happened is I turned FSR off which means with no alternate method selected I am using super sampling for AA, which actually explains the reduced frame rate and increased frame quality.

Turning AA off will actually disable AA. It's the supersampling type that I found suspect given your description, as EDO's implementation of FSR adds a fair bit of aliasing while increasing frame rate.
 
So we are pretty sure it's the CPU side of things... one application I have on my rig is Process Lasso, and I have EDO set to high priority with Bitsum highest performance powerplan (custom windows power plan comes with Process Lasso) as well as core parking disabled. It is a free software so maybe some people could try it and see if it helps?
5600x (PBO2)
1080ti
Installed on Nvme.2 ssd
3600 Mhz RAM clock with matching Infinity Fabric
resolution: 3440 x 1440p ultrawide mostly high settings and AMD FSR on ultra
The lowest FPS I get is ~50 at settlements (only some, and haven't tried CZ's on U9 yet)
Concourse : ~80-100
Space : 144 (monitors frame limit)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom