Tarkov runs 60-90 FPS for me on a mid-high end 30 series/5th gen ryzen PC (max settings 1440p). ED:O gets an average of 45 fps in a CZ. What would be trolling is imagining that ED:O performs well ...
Just something I've noticed between FDev Streamers and "Regular" Streamers
- Thread starter Martin1970
- Start date
That is amazingly poor, how is your PC in Star Citizen?
I'm ok though...
ETA: I usually play with FPS locked to 120 (1440) - EDO isn't stable at 240.
I do remember the times when a surface CZ could drop to single digit FPS - before they stopped calculating every path on the whole body, and that was normally on bodies with multiple extraction settlements.
Last edited:
I don't play SC and it would be irrelevant anyway.That is amazingly poor, how is your PC in Star Citizen?
[...]
I do have it, even at 1440 it hits at best 45 FPS on my PC, and mine was built to play games! (R9 5900X, 6900XT, DDR4 4000, G4 NVMe, etc)
Irrelevant? Not really, you give a FPS value without reference to your own PC build - currently EDO appears to be running at around 60 - 70% the speed of Horizons for me and others in the group with who I play, but it may be that we have reasonable hardware and are the exception.
ETA: I did have issues on the release and some of the earlier updates of EDO where performance, even on quite reasonable hardware (I upgraded last December) was abysmal, in comparison to other titles, much of the optimising the Devs have done has had a very positive result (mostly) in addressing the early issues. No, Odyssey doesn't perform well, but it is no longer dreadful. Although I do, quite seriously, doubt that any significant increase in performance is likely to result from future updates - but I'd like to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
It was a GTX 980 (non-TI version). My old rig is also almost identical to the CEO's, which surprised me when I learned of it, so I was kind of puzzled by why people were complaining about the framerate during the ALPHA. But then again, I'm old enough to remember when anything above 20 fps was considered luxurious, so I may be biased.
That being said, my old rig can now handle VR High in normal settlements, though I had to step it down to VR medium if there's fire and smoke. But I suspect that I may be benefiting from the fact that I have a machine that is almost identical to the CEO's, and any IT department worth their salt would make sure that they have a testing rig identical to their CEOs home machine. Which probably explained the anomalous performance I was getting.
My new one, which has an RTX 3060, I designed specifically to handle what I considered the likely bottlenecks in EDO and Star Citizen. I've been keeping it in VR Ultra for three updates now. I don't care what the true frame rates are, so long as they're stable enough to play in glorious 3D, and not have to switch to monitor when on foot.
is that they are not stable or in space, in horizon 120 fps with drops of 20 only 20 fps maximum in an AX zone, now shoot a thargoid and they go from 75 to 25 in 1080p, now I put it in 4k with FSR in ultra and it looks better and at most I go down to 50 with 4 simultaneous thargoids with smoke etc, both tests same configuration except the FSR obviously, in 1080p it makes you want to vomit, in 4k it looks better than native 1080pIt was a GTX 980 (non-TI version). My old rig is also almost identical to the CEO's, which surprised me when I learned of it, so I was kind of puzzled by why people were complaining about the framerate during the ALPHA. But then again, I'm old enough to remember when anything above 20 fps was considered luxurious, so I may be biased.
That being said, my old rig can now handle VR High in normal settlements, though I had to step it down to VR medium if there's fire and smoke. But I suspect that I may be benefiting from the fact that I have a machine that is almost identical to the CEO's, and any IT department worth their salt would make sure that they have a testing rig identical to their CEOs home machine. Which probably explained the anomalous performance I was getting.
My new one, which has an RTX 3060, I designed specifically to handle what I considered the likely bottlenecks in EDO and Star Citizen. I've been keeping it in VR Ultra for three updates now. I don't care what the true frame rates are, so long as they're stable enough to play in glorious 3D, and not have to switch to monitor when on foot.
At the "recommended" spec I can now get a consistent 40 FPS at 1080p if I turn some of the graphics settings down (most importantly, as much FSR sub-sampling as I can stand without making the text unreadable). Often it'll run higher than that (in space it gives a solid 60 without challenging my hardware), but that's the floor for ground CZs and other more intensive surface environments.
That is certainly a lot better than it was at launch, where getting above 30 in any surface environment was rare and CZs might run at about 15 - but equally, still suggests that their "recommended" spec is set too low: new players expecting the recommended spec to give good performance are going to continue to be disappointed.
Update 13 is supposed to include more optimisation, so maybe that'll help.
That is certainly a lot better than it was at launch, where getting above 30 in any surface environment was rare and CZs might run at about 15 - but equally, still suggests that their "recommended" spec is set too low: new players expecting the recommended spec to give good performance are going to continue to be disappointed.
Update 13 is supposed to include more optimisation, so maybe that'll help.
The struggle was real but i think we come away today appreciating what we have and how we make it work and make do.
100%
FPS will be bad, computers used will be very, very powerful. Show either one and they risk offending someone. Pretty much everybody up to speed on this already I would think yes?
So this issue becomes, FDEV, why don't you do things that would put a microscope on your flaws? Hmm where I did lay the thinking cap?
So this issue becomes, FDEV, why don't you do things that would put a microscope on your flaws? Hmm where I did lay the thinking cap?
Definitely the minimum and recommended specs were really Off at launch, and they're sort of Off even now
However, seeing that even a SteamDeck can get about 20fps in a ground CZ (running a combination of medium+ settings) - i'd say that complains about performance are a bit moot now
with computational logic it should go to 60 max or minimum 30 all in low, is it capable of running elden ring among others and you say that the performance issue is debatable?, the fact that the deck does not exceed 20 fps is something of insult
For you... so anecdotal experience is ok when it suits the argument to knock Odyssey? Fair enough, my son played Tarkov on his machine that gets around 60fps relatively stable barring the known blips areas in Odyssey but was telling me that his framerate would drop to 15fps slideshow in Tarkov. Hmm...
Additional Edit; You have also moved the goal posts as your attempted rebuttal does not address my point, which effectively remains that your example actually counters the argument which you and others have used to knock Odyssey, by proving that performance is not an absolute factor in whether a game is popular, or successful, or enjoyable. If it were the case, no-one would be touching Star Citizen with a barge pole, would they? Though that example more evidences the fact that marketing hype works more than anything else, it's the 'fake it till you make it' poster child of the games industry.
Last edited:
I thought this thread was going to be a "the difference is, fdev's streamers dont know how to play their game, but other streamers do" type of thread. With some clips of CM's screwing up what should be basic things in the game and everyone privately laughing uncomfortably because it's at least some attention and effort on fdev's part.
you can back to back compare against horizons still since that has not yet been "upgraded". There's still plenty to complain about performance wise about odyssey. Especially if you do VR and play mostly in space. as opposed to surfaces where performance was never really awesome to begin with.
One of the more fun aspects of odyssey is it's random performance drags that occur for seemingly no reason during gameplay. Looking in certain directions will result in different performance even if what you're looking at doesn't seem to contain anything different than what you were just looking at, and these drags in performance persist for long periods of time sometimes, even if you return to the original position. You may be looking at decent 90fps VR performance one moment and then without really doing anything or having any additional content in your instance, it suddenly drops to 60 ....and may later return to 90 and etc. And regardless of what it's hitting, it's using more power to do it than horizons did, while giving you similar if not the same visuals and content.
The only thing that makes complaining about performance in odyssey moot is the fact that fdev isn't going to make it any better.
you can back to back compare against horizons still since that has not yet been "upgraded". There's still plenty to complain about performance wise about odyssey. Especially if you do VR and play mostly in space. as opposed to surfaces where performance was never really awesome to begin with.
One of the more fun aspects of odyssey is it's random performance drags that occur for seemingly no reason during gameplay. Looking in certain directions will result in different performance even if what you're looking at doesn't seem to contain anything different than what you were just looking at, and these drags in performance persist for long periods of time sometimes, even if you return to the original position. You may be looking at decent 90fps VR performance one moment and then without really doing anything or having any additional content in your instance, it suddenly drops to 60 ....and may later return to 90 and etc. And regardless of what it's hitting, it's using more power to do it than horizons did, while giving you similar if not the same visuals and content.
The only thing that makes complaining about performance in odyssey moot is the fact that fdev isn't going to make it any better.
Well… 20 fps might be fine for us old fogies, with our poor reflexes and lower standards. But what about those young-uns, with their lightning fast reflexes? They need 120+ FPS just to be competitive! 8ms reflex times, not 50 ms!
I'm one of the older ones, and I find ground combat significantly harder below 40 FPS.
I was going to say the same thing.
When Odyssey first released I was getting about 25 FPS on foot. I had to hit the bricks anytime a fight broke out. The framerate was just too low to be able to respond to threats; there's just too much missing information when the framerate is that low -- too much added latency, both between the computer just running poorly and your brain having to manually stitch together what is happening in this slideshow that occurs before your eyes.
I've been playing Ody since release. Initially, low FPS (<20) also meant lots of stutter (I assume the CPU couldn't keep up).
Lately though (at least since U12), low FPS no longer means lots of stutter. I've had CZs lately where I was getting sub 20 fps and it was smooth...it was 20 fps but it was smooth, and more importantly, I was still able to be effective against the AI.
Just act as though my single reply about a specific comparison that I can personally verify is the only piece of evidence to suggest that ED:O performs like dog crap, especially in CZ's and starport interiors.
Ignore the tons of negative reviews on Steam. Ignore the fact that Consoles were cancelled because performance wasn't good enough. Ignore the fact they are still doing large amounts of optimisation a year after release. Ignore the fact that the minimum and recommended specs were essentially lies. Ignore the fact that many content creators have either moved on or have diversified their content massively because of the poor quality of Odyssey.
I spoke to an ED streamer on stream a couple months ago and they said the views they were getting for Elite are at similar levels to what they were getting in the maintenance years, forcing them to diversify content. Not really a good look after the biggest content drop in the games history just a year before.
If the game performs perfectly and the content is of good quality then why does the the multi-varied evidence of player reviews, critic reviews, content creator viewing figures, player numbers, growing distain towards the development of the game (based on many polls done by tens of thousands of people on YT and other social media) suggest otherwise. Common sense should tell you the answer, but I guess I have to really spell it out that the game doesn't run well and the content is lacking (in either quality or quantity or both).
I'm not here to say you shouldn't stop worshipping the game. Do what you like. Just be truthful about the performance of the game.
Connectivity and FPS are not connected. The reason for those FPS drops in DCS world is ostensibly poor optimization of rendering information taken from other clients sharing the same worldspace as you. Plenty games have no significant FPS impact from multiplayer. Mileage will vary from game to game, and it's most certainly the exception rather than the rule that DCS world has that kind of issue.