Elite Odyssey Update 10 vs Launch Performance review

Frop

Frop
Always a great comparison with top of the line hardware, would be a bit misleading if I wasn't playing the game myself.

Untitled10.jpg
 

Morbad

Morbad
From these benchmarks you can tell that the more GPU limited the scene the more performance has improved, but the CPU limited scenes have generally only seen marginal improvements. Even where DTEA's frame rate has not improved because of a CPU limitation, GPU utilization has fallen, which is a clear indicator that the GPU needs to do less work to maintain similar frame rates in those scenes.

Also, what's often overlooked in these comparisons is the visual downgrades that go along with them. There are numerous examples of LOD changes and missing or toned down effects. Fire is the most obvious one I can think of but there are definitely others.


Frop said:
Always a great comparison with top of the line hardware, would be a bit misleading if I wasn't playing the game myself.

View attachment 290096
Click to expand...

The game in it's current state really wants a 6c/12t or 8c/8t, or higher core count CPU, while still being limited pretty heavily by the performance of the two fastest cores.

denispage said:
Makes me wonder about old gen consoles.
Click to expand...

GPU wise, they might be able to swing it (at the equivalent of 720p low-medium, with some work), but something would need to radically change to hold playable frame rates on a 1.6GHz Jaguar based CPU. Last gen consoles have enough cores to do ok, but the per-core performance is abysmal.

DTEA's 3950X is a Zen 2 part and is likely going to be holding 4.2GHz or better while playing Odyssey. Zen 2 also has very roughly double the IPC of Jaguar. If DETA's system is only managing a CPU limited 44fps average in CZs, the CPU in the PS4 is going to be CPU limited at about 8 fps average, maybe 10 if we are generous in our estimation of PC/Windows/D3D11 overhead. Performance needs to increase another 250-300% or so before anyone in their right mind would try to sell this for the original PS4.
 

CaptainPugwash

CaptainPugwash
Morbad said:
From these benchmarks you can tell that the more GPU limited the scene the more performance has improved, but the CPU limited scenes have generally only seen marginal improvements. Even where DTEA's frame rate has not improved because of a CPU limitation, GPU utilization has fallen, which is a clear indicator that the GPU needs to do less work to maintain similar frame rates in those scenes.

Also, what's often overlooked in these comparisons is the visual downgrades that go along with them. There are numerous examples of LOD changes and missing or toned down effects. Fire is the most obvious one I can think of but there are definitely others.




The game in it's current state really wants a 6c/12t or 8c/8t, or higher core count CPU, while still being limited pretty heavily by the performance of the two fastest cores.



GPU wise, they might be able to swing it (at the equivalent of 720p low-medium, with some work), but something would need to radically change to hold playable frame rates on a 1.6GHz Jaguar based CPU. Last gen consoles have enough cores to do ok, but the per-core performance is abysmal.

DTEA's 3950X is a Zen 2 part and is likely going to be holding 4.2GHz or better while playing Odyssey. Zen 2 also has very roughly double the IPC of Jaguar. If DETA's system is only managing a CPU limited 44fps average in CZs, the CPU in the PS4 is going to be CPU limited at about 8 fps average, maybe 10 if we are generous in our estimation of PC/Windows/D3D11 overhead. Performance needs to increase another 250-300% or so before anyone in their right mind would try to sell this for the original PS4.
Click to expand...
I remember there were a few raised eyebrows on the forum when they first said that ODY would be coming to PS4, and that it would run fine on our current PCs. If they had said at the time that ODY would only come to new gen consoles I don't think it would have caused a massive revolt, but now they will have some serious fire fighting to do, as if the botched release on PC wasn't enough.
This (for me) kind of explains the current radio silence, as they will be (tin foil hat on) avoiding console questions while preparing a nice new feature to go with FC interiors to distract as much as possible from their imminent announcement that ODY will only come to new gen consoles.

(I just got a second hand crystal ball at the local market ..)
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
The short of it is, the minimum specs for EDO are really real this time. In times past with ED and Horizons you could get away with it, while here with EDO they really are rock bottom and woe betide anyone who goes below them.
 

St0rmFury

St0rmFury
Rubbernuke said:
The short of it is, the minimum specs for EDO are really real this time. In times past with ED and Horizons you could get away with it, while here with EDO they really are rock bottom and woe betide anyone who goes below them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we all bought that into that... untruth by FDev.
 

CaptainPugwash

CaptainPugwash
This is a pretty good review of the difference between update 10 and horizons:
Source: https://youtu.be/qMsKUAGZF10

I don’t really agree that ODY planets are worse than horizons as the reviewer says, but in a high end system a VR headset is often using reprojection at 45fps instead of 90. The frame times are also generally about 40% higher in space than horizons, which I would say is still not acceptable, unless you want to factor in FSR or similar, but in general there is no clear ‘ODY graphics are better in general’ to justify lower frame rates.
We ain’t there yet ….
 

vifen

V
Thanks. I've been debating if I should get Odyssey for a while now and seeing improvements being made definitely tips the balance towards getting it.
 

MacIntoc

MacIntoc
[VR] CaptainPugwash said:
This is a pretty good review of the difference between update 10 and horizons:
Source: https://youtu.be/qMsKUAGZF10

I don’t really agree that ODY planets are worse than horizons as the reviewer says, but in a high end system a VR headset is often using reprojection at 45fps instead of 90. The frame times are also generally about 40% higher in space than horizons, which I would say is still not acceptable, unless you want to factor in FSR or similar, but in general there is no clear ‘ODY graphics are better in general’ to justify lower frame rates.
We ain’t there yet ….
Click to expand...
The landing moment is very interesting because you can clearly see that the FPS oscillates between 45 and 90. It really gives the impression that the surface collision detection alone divides the overall performance by 2.
 

zimms

zimms
MacIntoc said:
The landing moment is very interesting because you can clearly see that the FPS oscillates between 45 and 90. It really gives the impression that the surface collision detection alone divides the overall performance by 2.
Click to expand...
It would be really interesting to get a dev interview going into detail about Odyssey's engine. Maybe it would be easier to accept if we knew why Odyssey seems to only get 50% of Horizons' performance and why these changes were necessary.
 

Erei

Erei
denispage said:
That's a good point.
Makes me wonder about old gen consoles.
Click to expand...
Well, this post got its answer later on with consoles cancellation ! The answer was "not good enough for actual professionals like microsoft and sony to allow the DLC on their platform". No matter what the crowd of "30fps is totally fine !" keep saying.
vifen said:
Thanks. I've been debating if I should get Odyssey for a while now and seeing improvements being made definitely tips the balance towards getting it.
Click to expand...
It depends on your gear.
With a 1070ti, playing in custom with the most demanding/less optimized stuff reduced. With 60fps cap (120before Odyssey...)
Release :
Space (IE vanilla elite experience) : 55-60
Concourses : 40-60 (reflections were super badly optimized, looking at a window would drop the FPS drastically)
Empty planet : 40-50fps
Apparently this was worth dropping to 44fps. Occlusion culling is important kid !
20210729222938_1.jpg
Populated settlements : 40-50fps
CZ : ~30fps
Fire and special effect : 15-20fps


Nowadays :
Space : 60
Concourses : 50-60 fps
Empty planets : 60fps
Populated settlement : 40-50fps (will drop if I start a fight)
CZ : 30-40fps
Fire/effects : untested

Side note, I have a drop to very low FPS (15 or so) when I arrive at a settlement the first time (even crashed in one because of that), as if it's loading. It was introduced in one of the update, then promptly fixed, and it's back now.
Note that many youtubers have 3070+GPU and even Yamicks who had a similar gpu than mine (1080 I think ?) did upgrade. So unless you have top end stuff like them, it's difficult to compare.

Conclusion : while Odyssey improved in overall FPS, they still have the same issue once you get NPC with AI moving around. Yamicks argued it's a CPU issue in its latest video, with the game poorly allocating the stuff (it was all wizards words). And that'd be why the console was cancelled, their CPU works exactly like it shouldn't for how EDO works. It was all computer wizard words, so I kinda understand when I heard it, but can't really explain now.

Ironically, the "minimum" and "recommended" are both misleading on the steam store page. My computer is above recommended, and I have nowhere near a good experience. I have the "minimum" experience, honestly. I wonder if "minimum" is even playable.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
Anecdotally, performance has improved quite a bit for me since alpha. It's still not great in some cases. I still get the weird massive lag when returning to the docking bay sometimes in stations. I don't get the massive spikes in settlements now. They're mostly playable. There have been enough times now that I've been using my arc cutter and have thought to myself... "This is nice and smooth".

I don't think it'll ever be adequate in reference to the min/rec specs as advertised. But it's definitely a ton better now.
 

Urbanski101

Urbanski101
The performance for me is ok when playing the game, i.e. in space, on foot...it's acceptable given my hardware.

What is killing my rig isn't the game elements but the menu screens. Sitting docked at a station, my rig starts to heat up and the fans kick into high gear. If I then go into a menu like missions it gets much worse.

The worst are the concourse terminals, my rig is literally screaming at me and I'm trying to filter and pick a mission as fast as possible. The only other time my rig is under strain is in on foot CZs or during settlement fights & burning buildings.

Anyone have any clues as to why menus are causing such issues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom