Hows performance after patch 11 ?

That and I've seen that other games blend LODs together as they change so it's more subtle and not just an instantaneous transformation between 1 frame to the next.
LOD have always been an issue with ED. At least for as long as I played. While it's even more buggy with Odyssey, if I'm honest, there was issues in Horizon with it. Planets had all sort of weird stuff happening when you get closer, from "square" of land changing to "blurry go away" as you moved closer. Those issues haven't changed, but more have been added to it.
 
Last edited:
When did this happen? As long as I can remember there have been a maximum of 12 NPCs on each side.
Sorry, I didn't actually count but on the video the amount of NPCs actually engaging in combat seemed very much reduced/sparsed... maybe a new mechanic to delay respawn... have to double check that and get back to you on this matter, mate.
 
Sorry, I didn't actually count but on the video the amount of NPCs actually engaging in combat seemed very much reduced/sparsed... maybe a new mechanic to delay respawn... have to double check that and get back to you on this matter, mate.
Obviously depends on settlement layout, but I haven't noticed any changes since release. There are two groups of 3 NPCs on each side when the engagement starts and I haven't noticed any changes in the dropship frequency either.
 
A couple of things to point out though... seemed Frontier reduced the number of NPCs in these CZ by at least half and I get most load on my GPU during "night time" combat.

I can't say I've noticed any reduction in number of NPCs at CZs.

Something about night battles make them run faster on my system, while staying CPU limited. GPU load might be higher due to all the lamps in use and corresponding increase in directional shadows.

LOD have always been an issue with ED. At least for as long as I played. While it's even more buggy with Odyssey, if I'm honest, there was issues in Horizon with it.

Flying the trench at coriolis starports is a good way to see problematic geometry LODs at work in Horizons (or even pre-Horizons).
 
From 30 to 40, it is.
33.3% better.
33.3% better sounds great, but not so great when it's only 10fps better. 33.3% better when the baseline is say, 100, is 133. But 33.3% better than say, 9, is only just under 12.

Percentages are often a very misleading metric because it hides the raw numbers.
 
Also, you are a mad lad to run Odyssey 4k with a 1080. With my 1070ti I run 1080p and it's still too low when it comes to FPS.
Haha, that's on Oddy, not on the player. ;)
I tried EDO at u3 stage, then the tutorial ran at 16-20 FPS for me - actually I didn't find that too bothersome while dong non-combat on foot stuff.
Didn't listen to the instructor, so I skipped the tutorial quite soon. In space the I think I got 60 FPS most of the time, if not all the time. Didn't land on any planets and swithced back to EDH after one jump, as I found both System & Galaxy Maps appalling downgrades of EDH ones.
Oh, the important stuff: 4770K & 980ti @ 4k.
 
33.3% better sounds great, but not so great when it's only 10fps better. 33.3% better when the baseline is say, 100, is 133. But 33.3% better than say, 9, is only just under 12.

Percentages are often a very misleading metric because it hides the raw numbers.

It's not the percentages that are misleading here. 10 fps is a much bigger deal when one is getting ~30 than 33fps is when one is already getting ~100.

It's why my focus is largely on minimum frame rates. I'm pretty discerning/picky about smoothness, and I would gladly trade 100fps at the high-end of what I see for five more frames per second at the low-end, because it would improve the overall experience. I don't really need 400fps in SC, but I would really like to not drop below 60-70 in a CZ.
 
It's not the percentages that are misleading here. 10 fps is a much bigger deal when one is getting ~30 than 33fps is when one is already getting ~100.

It's why my focus is largely on minimum frame rates. I'm pretty discerning/picky about smoothness, and I would gladly trade 100fps at the high-end of what I see for five more frames per second at the low-end, because it would improve the overall experience. I don't really need 400fps in SC, but I would really like to not drop below 60-70 in a CZ.
If Odyssey was significantly prettier than Horizons, I would be willing to accept some performance hits. This not being the case, I'm still disappointed in the lack of progress since release.

But, like you, if I have to make a choice, I still prefer performance over visual fidelity. If Odyssey allowed me to run on Low settings and hit 120 FPS in any scenario, I wouldn't even be that fussed about it.
 
But, like you, if I have to make a choice, I still prefer performance over visual fidelity. If Odyssey allowed me to run on Low settings and hit 120 FPS in any scenario, I wouldn't even be that fussed about it.

~60 fps at the low end is where I start spending on eye-candy. The problem with Odyssey, beyond the relatively low performance overall, is that it it's so CPU limited that I can barely reach that target, which makes the graphics settings almost moot, aside from the jaggies everywhere. And fixing the antialiasing (without losing detail that is the price of multi-stage scaling/bluring) requires so much supersampling that no extant GPU can handle that either.
 
As a personal rule, on pc :
-everything below 30fps is bad to unplayable
-30-60fps is poor
-60fps is average and what I aim for
-120fps is good and what I hope to have
-everything above 120 is luxury and I don't see the difference anyway.
 
Top Bottom