I noticed how the gameplay this week wasn't lagging at all. However, the climbing animations aren't that great right now. However, I know that the climbing animations will improve in the coming months.
Optimization question to the devs (poor performance during gamescom)
- Thread starter BernyMoon
- Start date
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
Soooo ... I’ve just pulled the trigger and got myself the Deluxe edition of Planet Zoo! 
Hence the question of performance gets quite relevant for me, too.
However, the heading of my question is a different one:
As the space on my SSD is getting a little bit sparse (and I don’t want to delete games I still enjoy), I have to decide whether to install the game on said SSD or fall back on the additional hard drive.
Does Planet Zoo benefit from a SSD installment? Is there a lot of in-game-loading going on?
Or is the slower hard drive just as fine for an enjoyable gaming experience?
Maybe Planet Coaster owners have some experience on this matter, as Planet Zoo probably behaves quite similar?
Hence the question of performance gets quite relevant for me, too.
However, the heading of my question is a different one:
As the space on my SSD is getting a little bit sparse (and I don’t want to delete games I still enjoy), I have to decide whether to install the game on said SSD or fall back on the additional hard drive.
Does Planet Zoo benefit from a SSD installment? Is there a lot of in-game-loading going on?
Or is the slower hard drive just as fine for an enjoyable gaming experience?
Maybe Planet Coaster owners have some experience on this matter, as Planet Zoo probably behaves quite similar?
All games benefit from SSD, (sometimes textures can loading while gameplay and you'll feel that stutter if you dont have enough ram or vram). But with all Drives, always leave 20% free space.
RAM (16 GB) and vRAM (GTX 980ti with 6GB) should be fine, I guess.
Those 20% free disk space are a concern, though. That's tough!
Thank you for your recommendation!
P.S. What I meant with "... benefit from a SSD installment ..." was more meant as "deliberate and frequent loading during a game session with no relation to available RAM" (what I think Elite: Dangerous does sometimes when jumping to new systems). In this case, a large enough memory (which I hope I have) won't help; in contrast, a fast instsallation device does quite a bit.
Last edited:
SSD only speeds up initial loading. It doesn't affect performance at all. It may speed up other small parts of the game depending on how the assets are loaded from disk and streamed into and out of memory. But it doesn't mean you can increase graphics. In declining order of importance, you only need to worry about GPU > CPU > RAM. The better the GPU, the faster the game can render its frames; the better the CPU, the better the performance of the simulation and the more guests can be simulated at once (and also increases rendering performance for the draw calls, but to a lesser degree than the GPU); and the better the RAM, the more data can be held in memory for the CPU to access.
16 GB RAM and a GTX 980ti is borderline I'd say, depending on your graphics settings. It's fine for most games, but more lower mid-end for games such as this. Largely depends on the CPU, due to this being a simulation-heavy game.
16 GB RAM and a GTX 980ti is borderline I'd say, depending on your graphics settings. It's fine for most games, but more lower mid-end for games such as this. Largely depends on the CPU, due to this being a simulation-heavy game.
This is depressing. This is the PC I bought for VR (Elite Dangerous).
But okay, this was three years ago. I will probably have to consider an upgrade.
Last edited:
WingardiumLevicoaster
Volunteer Moderator
Technically it's not the same if it's older. It just has the same name.
I think you can get away with the RAM, and perhaps even the GPU (a 10 series might be better of course, but as it's a 6GB TI variant I'd say it's still fine), but it really depends on what CPU you have.
The final version should be more optimized. It would be good if players of all ages didn't have to have a beefed up PC to run this game. Much of the blame could be put towards Directx11. If the game ran on Directx12, it would run more smoother. Nuff said.... Directx12 utilizes more efficiently more than just one of your CPU cores, where as Directx11 only can utilize one CPU core to it's full potential. Intel has helped by releasing the Intel Core i9-9900k CPU, which has a high clock speed of 5Ghz with 8 cores 16 threads. I've played Planet Coaster have even had the game when it was in Alpha. And from my results from Windows 10 Task Manager and MSI Afterburner, I'm seeing one or two of my cores at 70-95% and the rest of my CPU cores at 10-20% utilization, just because it's a Directx11 game. Planet Coaster got a lot of criticism for lag and performance no thanks to Directx11. There has being optimization improvements to PC. But there's only so much improving you can do with Directx11. When Zoo Tycoon came out when I was a kid, you didn't need a beefed up or high end PC to run it. But since Planet Zoo is a "piece by piece" game like Planet Coaster, it will be quite easy to run into lag as players will, and they will.... build a bigger zoo.
I don't think its worth them upgrading to DirectX 12 yet. While it would give a slight performance boost, it would not be massive. They've also got to think about their player base. DirectX 12 is only available on Windows 10, so if they were to make Planet Zoo using DirectX 12, it would only be available to Windows 10 users. There are still a large amount of users that have not switched to Windows 10, many still use Windows 7. Obviously they want to get the game in the hands of as many users as possible, so using DirectX 12 would not be a smart move at this point in time.
Yes, and those AAA games probably have a much larger budget and dev team than Frontier does with Planet Zoo. DirectX 11 in most cases is easier to code with, and if they wanted to add support for DirectX 12, it would require a load more work. And I don't think all the extra work would be worth it, as I said, it wouldn't give a massive performance boost unfortunately.
I hope they have support for both because I have DX12, I found out, since I have Windows 10. I got my pc last year before I found PZ. Would that mean I can't play what I bought?? OR.. how does that work?
Last edited:
You also need to make sure you have a GPU that supports dx12.I hope they have support for both because I have DX12, I found out, since I have Windows 10. I got my pc last year before I found PZ. Would that mean I can't play what I bought?? OR..
But dont worry, you can play even if the game is only dx11,
Okay good. I was worried for a moment.. haha Seems my GPU supports DX12 as well.
"Many".
Googling only gives me a list of 52 games. For sure there are more out there, but looking at the massive amount of games that are released every week, surely you would expect a higher number.....
Dx12 is overrated IMO.
I'm confused with all this spec talk...
Can someone make this simple for non-tech savys like me?
Can someone make this simple for non-tech savys like me?
Buy an expensive computer, and you should be able to run the game satisfactorily.
DX12 allegedly gives better performance than DX11.
That's all you need to know.