Because numbers are not the be-all and end-all of performance evaluation. If the game is playing with fewer obvious hitches and hiccups, is smoother and more responsive than before, better-looking and with fewer graphical anomalies, then there is an obvious rise in performance. Numbers and benchmarks can be useful but in the end it all comes down to the playing experience, and that is a lot more subjective, and often more in-depth, than a comparison of frame rates.
Talking about imagining things, did the shadow parameters suffer another hit or did they stay the same in U11? My shadow quality is set to High on average and the mail slot grill thing casts a noticeably uglier shadow than before (or perhaps this was introduced earlier and I somehow didn't notice it before).
out of interest whats your rig , I get 40 fps to 50 fps in space , I have an onboard gpu amd athlon 3000g 8 gig ram , so even any gpu you would and should have better FPS .
The shadow on the grill of the mail slot used to have some LOD popins, but now even up close it stays a rather blurry mess.
care to share which options you are playing on? medium or high? i'd like to try
even on high settings in space , I get 40 fps , 1280 x 768 , at native resolution , 1920 i get like 20 in space , so I suppose that'd explain alot , still though , lowering the resolution some should improve fps alot with not much visual loss , also I disabled spot shadows which helped in settlements and the concourse , went from 10 fps to 20 / 25 fps
After another four or five hours of play including populated daylight settlements and skimming planetary surfaces looking for graphical anomalies, I'm happy to report no change from yesterday, just smooth, consistent, and for me, much improved, gaming. I cannot attribute this to my rig, which is average at best, or to my settings, which are Ultra modified by a few personal choices and some Nvidia recommendations. Wanna call it EDO Voodoo, it's as good a name as any.
In an effort to assuage the numerically dependent, I've attempted to enable GeForce Experience's performance tools, but for some reason I get this:
Why would the top three parameters, including the FPS reporting, be considered "Not Applicable"? This is the first time I've tried using this particular GeFEx tool (their recording app works fine for me btw), so it's more than a little puzzling, should be straightforward but of course, it isn't. Any suggestions? I'm not enough into FPS worship to search out, download, and install a different app since this one is already available if I can just get it to work properly.
Thank you! I did dig around for a toggle, but I guess that is buried somewhere in Controls and I did not turn over that particular rock
.That's all well and good, but raw numbers are the unequivocally best way to get a frame of reference for performance changes or improvements. "fixed performance" for one person could mean "finally getting a stable 30fps" whereas for someone else, "fixed" would mean "never goes below 60." Without the raw numbers, we have no idea who has what standard, which in turn means "performance is unchanged/improved/worse" are pretty meaningless to anyone else.
Well i mean Yamiks has video proof of his tests, and has plenty of result charts of his benchmarks, and all you have is a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Even if what you say is true, why should I believe you?
), Odyssey is the expansion I expected, at least in performance and graphics. The Mission-based gameplay is just too shortsighted, and ExoBio could use some depth, but since I'm still flying a bunch of very cool spacecraft in a gloriously beautiful universe (which does not hold a candle to the real thing, but it's good enough for a game), I can live with those weaknesses.I.will post my 3d mark score.
