I noticed that when playing on my other account on epic games I was getting far better FPS then what I was getting when I was playing on the steam version. Maybe it has somthing to do wtith cache of somthing but it was a pretty Significant FPS boost, and It felt Alot more stabe then what I was getting on steam as well, on steam sometimes my fps would just randomy tank into the 30s and 40s and get stuck at that frame rate so ill have to restart the game. Mean while on the epic games version I never had that issue. Not sure if anyone else has experianced this same conclusion as well.
I noticed the Epic games version of the game runs better then the steam version.
- Thread starter invadershock
- Start date
That would be rather strange unless the two different installs had different settings.
I checked my graphic settings they are set to the exact same graphic settings which is maxed out.
Heres the two speartate game folders, Ill send one of the graphic config folders as well.
IIRC they all share the same common folders for settings and shader caches in the user's profile.
If your Epic thing has less progress and you're in a smaller ship, right away you will see a better framerate.
Different planets can run at different framerates.
There is a pretty large caching element to this game. It's very significant. Both per-session and over multiple sessions.
Or it might not be caching exactly, but the game pre-computes things pretty heavily when you first get into areas for example.
Different planets can run at different framerates.
There is a pretty large caching element to this game. It's very significant. Both per-session and over multiple sessions.
Or it might not be caching exactly, but the game pre-computes things pretty heavily when you first get into areas for example.
The only things I can imagine being different are
- AppConfig.xml, AppConfigLocal.xml, and other XML files in the game directory (which you generally shouldn’t be touching anyway, and should be the same across launchers)
- Epic’s overlay vs Steam’s overlay.
You can transfer the settings from one to the other. They're largely the same other than for authentication where it takes longer to start via EOS for whatever reason.
Might you be running low on RAM, so that the overhead of having steam running has some impact?
In my case (running on WINE/Linux), there is a FPS drop if I'm running Chrome (Chromium) with many tabs open, it does take both CPU and quite some RAM.
In my case (running on WINE/Linux), there is a FPS drop if I'm running Chrome (Chromium) with many tabs open, it does take both CPU and quite some RAM.
Is your C: drive also an SSD? It shouldn't make that much of a difference -- I'd expect to maybe see shorter loading times rather than better frame rates -- but you never know.
Even if both drives are SSDs, Windows has been known to do odd things when it comes to allocating virtual memory across multiple drives. If I was really keen to highlight a difference between versions I'd start by moving or reinstalling the Epic version to the C: drive alongside the Steam version, which would take different drive characteristics out of the equation. But I appreciate that's a lot of effort for what might still be inconclusive results.
FWIW I have both Steam and Epic versions installed, both on the same spinning rust HDD and with a solid state C: drive. I don't remember noticing any performance differences between the two when playing Horizons, but since only my Steam accounts are upgraded to Odyssey I can't do any further meaningful comparisons.
Even if both drives are SSDs, Windows has been known to do odd things when it comes to allocating virtual memory across multiple drives. If I was really keen to highlight a difference between versions I'd start by moving or reinstalling the Epic version to the C: drive alongside the Steam version, which would take different drive characteristics out of the equation. But I appreciate that's a lot of effort for what might still be inconclusive results.
FWIW I have both Steam and Epic versions installed, both on the same spinning rust HDD and with a solid state C: drive. I don't remember noticing any performance differences between the two when playing Horizons, but since only my Steam accounts are upgraded to Odyssey I can't do any further meaningful comparisons.
Yes its on a SSD
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Did you test this in exactly same conditions? I.e. same ship, location, time and game settings on both accounts?
Or is it a sort of "general difference" altogether when just playing the game as you normally would?
Ill have to test them out in the same locations to see. Same ship ect.
That's my guess here. Either the overlay itself, or Steam (or an app triggered by Steam) is recording in the background to enable a highlight capture feature or similar.
OP never actually said the installs were on the same PC or different PC.
I know we all assume the same PC but....
I know we all assume the same PC but....
delete your GPU worktable on the steam version , this will force a shader cache reset , after this both installs will run the same , after a while the shader cache gets corrupted , especially in this game .
Also the fact that one install is on the same SSD as windows means that install will be slower than the other , as windows is always doing stuff in the background plus the Virtual memory accessing will slow things down , if you can fit both installs on the other SSD that will help
Also the fact that one install is on the same SSD as windows means that install will be slower than the other , as windows is always doing stuff in the background plus the Virtual memory accessing will slow things down , if you can fit both installs on the other SSD that will help