Optimization and Lagg

[UniMag]

I mean, the thread starter complains about hitting 40 FPS on a filled park on a four years old graphics cards and a midrange CPU? That's quite an achievement in terms of optimization and proves exactly the opposite of what the thread starter tries to state!

So shouldn't we be allowed to question how this is possible when some of us have much higher spec hardware and are getting far worse FPS?!?

 

[Joël]

So shouldn't we be allowed to question how this is possible when some of us have much higher spec hardware and are getting far worse FPS?!?

Community members are allowed to discuss and give their opinion about anything related to Planet Coaster as long as it follows the Forum Rules and Guidelines. This implies that discussions should be done in a friendly way and not with use of passive-aggressive language.

 

[LN]

So shouldn't we be allowed to question how this is possible when some of us have much higher spec hardware and are getting far worse FPS?!?

Let's say it is hard to describe why that is.

You can have the best of the best but if you roam around websites which are like "not for the fainted heart" you can get a lot of mess on your desktop which "might" effect performance, as well as all sorts of "speed up" programs which actually don't speed up anything.

Some of us record their gameplay maybe? Can also be a factor which decreases performance.

I like the music in Planet Coaster, but sometimes I want to listen something else and put on Spotify. Well, I should not do that if I am bothered by performance, because it eats out a large chunk of what Planet Coaster actually needs.

And I don't believe that Frontier isn't doing anything about it. But as most people already said, performance could improve, but it will be in small steps which are hardly noticeable for some of us while others get more than 1 fps improvement after an update.

Yes, you are free to raise the question, there is however no clear answer to that at the moment.

 

[VACkillers]

I'm not sure how many objects (how do I see this information)?

I'd say between 7000-11000 guests on average. I have closed the parks and get a few extra frames but nothing spectacular.

Here are 3 of my parks (I'll post a link to my latest which is almost complete this evening) - it would be really interesting to see what anyone else can run these at and what hardware they have just to see if some problem at my end is causing the poor performance: -

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=819881648&searchtext=the+kings+wood

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=848905274&searchtext=grand+lands

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=838942420&searchtext=adventure+hills

P.S. I can't recall my graphics settings (apart from things like shadows, water on low) but doesn't make any difference anyhow, even if I play in 4K.

I just tried The Grand Lands. It had 12k not 8-10k Guests in the park lol (which I feel is too many for any machine today) but I benched it anyway.

7 FPS / CPU Load 70-80% / RAM Usage 62% / GPU Load 38%

Specs:

AMD FX 8320 @4.2ghz
16GB DDR3 1866 RAM
MSI GTX 980 OC (latest nvidia driver)
Windows 10
1920x1080 res all maxed settings except shadows on medium.

I'm guessing this is the park you run at 10FPS on? This doesn't bode well for Ryzen CPUs because your 5930k CPU should waaaaay outstrip mine, but a difference of 3FPS is negligible at best! 10k guests really aught to be the max limit though. I obviously have a CPU bottleneck here, but thats my findings none the less.

 

[UniMag]

I just tried The Grand Lands. It had 12k not 8-10k Guests in the park lol (which I feel is too many for any machine today) but I benched it anyway.

7 FPS / CPU Load 70-80% / RAM Usage 62% / GPU Load 38%

Specs:

AMD FX 8320 @4.2ghz
16GB DDR3 1866 RAM
MSI GTX 980 OC (latest nvidia driver)
Windows 10
1920x1080 res all maxed settings except shadows on medium.

I'm guessing this is the park you run at 10FPS on? This doesn't bode well for Ryzen CPUs because your 5930k CPU should waaaaay outstrip mine, but a difference of 3FPS is negligible at best! 10k guests really aught to be the max limit though. I obviously have a CPU bottleneck here, but thats my findings none the less.

Hi.

Thanks for testing one of my parks and yes, 12,000 guests is a LOT. I'll try and find time this weekend to either empty the park or reduce down to something like 2,000 to see what gains I achieve.

 

[VACkillers]

Hi.

Thanks for testing one of my parks and yes, 12,000 guests is a LOT. I'll try and find time this weekend to either empty the park or reduce down to something like 2,000 to see what gains I achieve.

No probs! I loved the design of the park and just wanted to see what FPS I got... I think the last couple of patches might have taken a slight performance hit as I remember getting about 9FPS in a park that was completely jam packed, but it had 14k people in it.... It's still interesting to see what people get!

 

[musicjoe12]

Yeah it is a good game, my park capacity is 8,000 and its bad, but whenever i close the park its stable, i think that frontier are over complicating lines of code when they are simpler ways of writing it. I mean come on you know its bad when the game takes advantage of your cpu.

 

[Marnit]

[...] i think that frontier are over complicating lines of code when they are simpler ways of writing it. I mean come on you know its bad when the game takes advantage of your cpu.

As a programmer I just kind of have to ask.

What on earth do you mean with that?

I have no clue...

 

[Chems]

Yeah it is a good game, my park capacity is 8,000 and its bad, but whenever i close the park its stable, i think that frontier are over complicating lines of code when they are simpler ways of writing it. I mean come on you know its bad when the game takes advantage of your cpu.

You forgot your sarcasm tag..