Is DX12 support even a possibility for the future?

[Joël]

This is a game. I hope you realize casual player will hardly play this game the way it won´t cause lags. Developers are supposed to design the game the way players don´t need to think about optimization. The only limitation here should be the number of objects, however, in PC, you must care about how you place objects. You know, most people don´t understand this stuff.As I said many times, this is wrong and whole building system could have been done in different ways and I believe even less HW expensive and easier to use.As for leaks, I cannot. I unninstaled the game and I honestly won´t install it anytime soon.However, it definitely is not allright if game lags even when park gets closed, guests are gone and all PbP structures are deleted.... So the problem is somewhere else, clearly.As for the simulation, if it´s that complex, ok, but why having this complex simulation if there is bscly no gameplay? PC is mainly sandbox building game, it´s lacking on management side and therefore, I think simulation should be also simplified in favour of better optimization.

I know that Planet Coaster is a game. Based on what I've seen in the community, most players are enjoying it as a game. [happy]

For as far as I can see, and I have seen quite a few examples, casual players have no problems playing Planet Coaster and most of them are not having issues that cause lag. Casual players don't use the high amounts of scenery that some of the power players (master builders) are using, for example. See Luuknoord his comment above this reply for another example of a casual player.

You are saying that your opinion is that Planet Coaster should have been developed in different ways when it comes to the building system. Based on your reply, you want a building system that has a limit on the amount of objects. Such a limit would be a severe restriction for creativity and would limit a fundamental feature of the game that makes Planet Coaster 'Planet Coaster'.

I am sure that - based on past comments from developers - the developers have done everything within the technological limits to date to ensure that the current building system uses the available system resources as efficiently as possible and with a performance cost as low as possible, just like the rest of the game, while still providing an enjoyable game for casual players as well as power players.

I am not familiar with the issue that you describe regarding performance issues with a park in which you have removed all scenery and guests. Instead of blaming your issue on leaks of which you haven't provided any further information, I would suggest that you either post your issue in the Tech Support forum section or contact Frontier Support directly, in order to get your issue resolved.

 

[mr.sugar]

...Based on your reply, you want a building system that has a limit on the amount of objects...

No, I said there could be system that would use less objects. I mean for the same object, it would use less pieces than current PbP. that is not a limitation...Developers comment on many things (and also they ignore a lot of questions here on the forum). I don´t want their comments, I want to see some changes for better in temrs of gameplay and optimization, instead of new rides. and paid DLCs. I was ok, but when I look back, during the year, not much changed for the better except additions of the ride. There are still critical problems with tools and honestly, I thought they would fix things such as horrible selection tools within the first year. That tool itself is a nightmare to use, let alone when you get low FPS

 

[LN]

No, I said there could be system that would use less objects. I mean for the same object, it would use less pieces than current PbP. that is not a limitation...Developers comment on many things (and also they ignore a lot of questions here on the forum). I don´t want their comments, I want to see some changes for better in temrs of gameplay and optimization, instead of new rides. and paid DLCs. I was ok, but when I look back, during the year, not much changed for the better except additions of the ride. There are still critical problems with tools and honestly, I thought they would fix things such as horrible selection tools within the first year. That tool itself is a nightmare to use, let alone when you get low FPS

But what is wrong with the selection tools?

The only thing I can think of is a lack of copy/paste function when selecting multiple items.
Still low FPS looks to be an issue on your side.

 

[Joël]

No, I said there could be system that would use less objects. I mean for the same object, it would use less pieces than current PbP. that is not a limitation...Developers comment on many things (and also they ignore a lot of questions here on the forum). I don´t want their comments, I want to see some changes for better in temrs of gameplay and optimization, instead of new rides. and paid DLCs. I was ok, but when I look back, during the year, not much changed for the better except additions of the ride. There are still critical problems with tools and honestly, I thought they would fix things such as horrible selection tools within the first year. That tool itself is a nightmare to use, let alone when you get low FPS

You said;

The only limitation here should be the number of objects, however, in PC, you must care about how you place objects.

Which would mean a limitation (restriction) for creativity.

A "system that would use less objects" is something else. In theory, such a system could improve performance of the game when used instead of the current system. However, if you want to use the "less objects building system" to create an object that has the same visual appearance as an object made with the current building system, then you would need to use pieces that have predefined shapes in order to bring down the number of pieces required to create that object.

Take a custom made lamppost for example. You can create all sorts of custom lampposts in Planet Coaster with the in-game building and scenery pieces. If you want to bring down the number of pieces that a lamppost is made of, you would either;
1) have to merge certain pieces into predefined shapes to get the same lamppost (with the same visual appearance), or;
2) have to replace multiple pieces with a single piece that may look similar, but not exactly like the original.

Using predefined shaped (merged) pieces instead of currently available pieces (option 1) could be efficient for this specific lamppost, but if those predefined shapes were to be in the game instead of currently available pieces (in order for the "less objects building system" to work), then those predefined shapes would be a limitation for creativity, because those pieces wouldn't work for a lot of other creations.

Replacing multiple pieces with similar looking single pieces (option 2) would also mean a limitation for creativity, because while it might look similar, it won't look exactly like the original lamppost created with the current building system.

xyphic has written a nice post about an alternative that has been briefly discussed before on the forums. It includes the idea of allowing the player to 'bake' groups of objects into larger, immutable, objects.

 

[mr.sugar]

You said;Which would mean a limitation (restriction) for creativity.A "system that would use less objects" is something else. In theory, such a system could improve performance of the game when used instead of the current system. However, if you want to use the "less objects building system" to create an object that has the same visual appearance as an object made with the current building system, then you would need to use pieces that have predefined shapes in order to bring down the number of pieces required to create that object.Take a custom made lamppost for example. You can create all sorts of custom lampposts in Planet Coaster with the in-game building and scenery pieces. If you want to bring down the number of pieces that a lamppost is made of, you would either;1) have to merge certain pieces into predefined shapes to get the same lamppost (with the same visual appearance), or;2) have to replace multiple pieces with a single piece that may look similar, but not exactly like the original.Using predefined shaped (merged) pieces instead of currently available pieces (option 1) would be efficient for this specific lamppost, but if those predefined shapes were to be in the game instead of currently available pieces (in order for the "less objects building system" to work), then those predefined shapes would be a limitation for creativity, because those pieces wouldn't work for a lot of other creations.Replacing multiple pieces with similar looking single pieces (option 2) would also mean a limitation for creativity, because while it might look similar, it won't look exactly like the original lamppost created with the current building system.xyphic has written a nice post about an alternative building system that has been briefly discussed before on the forums.

The system I mentioned wouldn´t have to replace the PbP. I´m mainly speaking about walls, roofs, floors. Why have one side of the building composed of 6 wall pieces instead of one?

Ah, we are looking at the game in a way of "how it should have been done".So it's better to say: "The way the game has been designed it is well optimized.""If they would have designed it in another way it MIGHT have been better performing and easier to work with".We don't know if it would have been better optimized because it was never designed that way.

So yea, you cannot say the game is well optimized, because you cannot say if it can be better with different design or not. And design is part of the optimization. you design the game also with optimization in mind. If you don´t do that, you are bad developer.

 

[LN]

The system I mentioned wouldn´t have to replace the PbP. I´m mainly speaking about walls, roofs, floors. Why have one side of the building composed of 6 wall pieces instead of one?So yea, you cannot say the game is well optimized, because you cannot say if it can be better with different design or not. And design is part of the optimization. you design the game also with optimization in mind. If you don´t do that, you are bad developer.

So you are now saying the game wasn't optimized before they started and never would be because of decisions made prior to development?

This is getting weirder and weirder.

 

[mr.sugar]

So you are now saying the game wasn't optimized before they started and never would be because of decisions made prior to development?This is getting weirder and weirder.

In my opinion, current system is not ideal in terms of gameplay and optimization. I´m sure about the gameplay part, there is possibility of flexible system that is not as tedious to use as current system...And I overally think they made some decision bad for optimization besides this. For instance already mentioned coasters which are devided too much. Instead of 1, we have 3. Hopefully this is getting partialy fixed with the car swapping in the coming update.

 

[Chems]

Those who experience lag in PC should perhaps check their internet connection.

 

[Joël]

The system I mentioned wouldn´t have to replace the PbP. I´m mainly speaking about walls, roofs, floors. Why have one side of the building composed of 6 wall pieces instead of one?So yea, you cannot say the game is well optimized, because you cannot say if it can be better with different design or not. And design is part of the optimization. you design the game also with optimization in mind. If you don´t do that, you are bad developer.

Did you take the time to read some information about what game optimisation means, such as this article from PC Gamer that I have linked before?

Like Luuknoord said, you are now talking about "how the game should have been developed" and are providing suggestions about how that should be done.

As it stands, the game in its current state is well optimised. Of course, there are suggestions about improving game performance and ease of use, but that is something else than game optimisation.

Back to those leaks that you've mentioned: please contact Frontier Support so that those leaks, if they exist, can be fixed.

 

[tyczj]

The system I mentioned wouldn´t have to replace the PbP. I´m mainly speaking about walls, roofs, floors. Why have one side of the building composed of 6 wall pieces instead of one?So yea, you cannot say the game is well optimized, because you cannot say if it can be better with different design or not. And design is part of the optimization. you design the game also with optimization in mind. If you don´t do that, you are bad developer.

You clearly have no idea what optimization means if you think a design decision is directly related to optimization, they are not even close to being related.

You decide in a direction you want to go and find the best way to go about it as efficiently as possible (aka optimization)

 

[gregorburns]

In my opinion, current system is not ideal in terms of gameplay and optimization. I´m sure about the gameplay part, there is possibility of flexible system that is not as tedious to use as current system...And I overally think they made some decision bad for optimization besides this. For instance already mentioned coasters which are devided too much. Instead of 1, we have 3. Hopefully this is getting partialy fixed with the car swapping in the coming update.

Sounds like you would be the perfect person to help fix some of these issues you mention, if you are interested in joining the team, try having a look here: https://www.frontier.co.uk/careers . I've heard from some reliable sources that it's a great place to work, and you can help to improve the game dramatically with the outstanding subject knowledge you have demonstrated in this thread. Good luck. [up][happy]

 

[FutureFear]

That´s not what I´m talking about. I´m talking about it could have been designed with easy to use tools that would also lower amount of used objects. A perfect example could be fences for instance. At this point, yopu have to place them as single object, piece by piece (or even in worse case, place one piece of fence build off several other pieces). If we had "click and drag" tool, it would lower the objects the fence is build off. Same goes for walls. If there was system "click and drag", similar to the sims, it would be easier to use and could be more optimized along with a lot of other pros (instead of having hundreds of object in the menu having just few variants of plain walll where player would then apply texture).

I'm not sure if there is anything easier as an axis point to move 3D objects around, but as far as my knownledge goes i can't come up with one... (graphic designer talking here)

The amount of objects actually doesn't matter in planet coaster, what does matter are the amount of triangles/polygons (building blocks of a 3D object), the amount of textures in use (and their resolution), lighting on the objects, shadow calculations, moving/ motion calculations, and ofcourse PARTICLES!!! (all special FX in planet coasters are particles) ,...
Those are the things that "slow down" your system not the object -> a 3D rendered object is rendered (almost) instantly untill you add texture,light,shadows,... in any 3D program (3dsmax, c4d, blender, maya,...)
Within games we get graphic options to adjust some of these...
So if you have to place 1 large fence, wall or anything else or place them piece by by piece it won't make a difference in "performance" if they have exactly the same amount of detail in the end.
Like some already mentioned, making that fence or wall one big piece does limit our creativity, it would make planet coaster not planet coaster...

The menu for selecting, browsing for an object could indeed use some redo on UI and UX, certainly if they will add more new objects.
But's that one for the suggestion section on the forum... I guess.

Just sayin, if you don't like building fences, you could use the integrated non changeable path fences itself.. no need to build just click it on or off...

 

[En Anu]

It´s not about hardware. Software must be written to utilize it.... And that´s the problem. If they made decision about DX12 YEARS ago, then they should have think about it that it will probably get more spread....

This is why I mentioned Planet Coaster 'The Sequel' lol as due to bad planning they will in time need to incorporate the DX12 model as it roles out and becomes more stable/popular.

This is why I have not played for months now as we need the changes to optimize the game allow other cores to help with the multi tasking further and build those emense parks full of life and a good management system of course