Planet Coaster needs a Better Optimization in game
- Thread starter FamouZ
- Start date
Another "this game is not optimized"....[rolleyes]
This game is actually very well optimized. You can't expect to run this game at a constant high FPS. You have unlimited creativity so it's going to slow down at some point.
Optimization does not mean more FPS either you know.
The game's limit is the use of dx11 and it's draw calls.
There have been countless threads where this has been discussed to death, you should probably look some of them up
Optimise your PC then [tongue]
I've subscribed to this coaster last night.
Even with the massive amount of effects and (moving) objects it was fairly descent on my i5-6500 / gtx1050ti.
Was still getting between 10-20 fps which was a lot more then expected. It was not as much as a slide show as I would expect.
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1197198727
That's pretty optimized to me.
Epic coaster btw.
[video=youtube;IZnl2-FqQic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZnl2-FqQic[/video]
Even with the massive amount of effects and (moving) objects it was fairly descent on my i5-6500 / gtx1050ti.
Was still getting between 10-20 fps which was a lot more then expected. It was not as much as a slide show as I would expect.
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1197198727
That's pretty optimized to me.
Epic coaster btw.
[video=youtube;IZnl2-FqQic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZnl2-FqQic[/video]
Last edited:
To be honest, if there's so many threads it's resulting in you pointing it out, perhaps there is a problem with perceived FPS expectations of this game.
On my OC'd i5 2500k to 3.7GHz, 8GB RAM and GTX 960 I'd like more FPS on my 24,500 object park with 0 guests. Right now I'm at 24FPS... 0 guests... Can't imagine what will happen when I allow 2,500 guests in.
The expectations exist because of the system requirements. There are computers far and away above the "recommended requirements" that are running this game like ass when the parks get full. I've said before and I'll say again that Frontier should have tempered people's expectations on how the game will run, and to not do so is basically a lie of omission. If you can't get 26fps on a big park with 5000 guests, then either change your requirements or limit people's creativity a little bit. It's not up to the customer to play test your already released game to see if it actually works or not; we should have just received an honest set of requirements rather than the marketing distortion field they've applied to this and every other aspect of the game.
If people claim to have beasts of machines there is most definitely something wrong with the machine itself or its contents and not about the game.
How come my game runs perfectly fine when I don't even meet recommended requirements. Or maybe its me because I'm not to demanding.
The OP just randomly complains about optimization without even saying whether he meets minimum or recommended requirements.
Last edited:
The i5-2500k is an old processor from 2011. So the user should optimize. Also it has no hyperthreading. Only having 4 cores 4 threads instead of 2 threads per core which is common with more modern processors.
8GB DDR3 also only meets the MINIMUM requirements for Planet Coaster. Especially when Windows uses 2GB of that even on standby and when you play larger maps on 1080p high or ultra, it's easy to reach 4-6GB RAM usage. So again, user needs to optimize.
I'm able to play this game on 1080p ultra on my park with moderate scenery, 22 rides and 6k people and achieve 24-40fps.
My specs:
6th gen Intel Core i7-6700k (stock speed of 4.2Ghz [turbo, not overclocked]). Skylake class.
EVGA GTX 1070 SC overclocked to 1888Mhz.
16GB DDR4 2400 HyperX RAM
1TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD
However if you have a good PC even, the more you add, the laggier it will get. A GTX 1070 is better than a GTX 1060. A main reason why people think it's poorly optimized is it has Directx11, which does not properly utilize ALL of your CPU cores. Directx12 fixes this, but only a few million people use it with Windows 10.
8GB DDR3 also only meets the MINIMUM requirements for Planet Coaster. Especially when Windows uses 2GB of that even on standby and when you play larger maps on 1080p high or ultra, it's easy to reach 4-6GB RAM usage. So again, user needs to optimize.
I'm able to play this game on 1080p ultra on my park with moderate scenery, 22 rides and 6k people and achieve 24-40fps.
My specs:
6th gen Intel Core i7-6700k (stock speed of 4.2Ghz [turbo, not overclocked]). Skylake class.
EVGA GTX 1070 SC overclocked to 1888Mhz.
16GB DDR4 2400 HyperX RAM
1TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD
However if you have a good PC even, the more you add, the laggier it will get. A GTX 1070 is better than a GTX 1060. A main reason why people think it's poorly optimized is it has Directx11, which does not properly utilize ALL of your CPU cores. Directx12 fixes this, but only a few million people use it with Windows 10.
Well here's the tickler, you've got the 2nd most modern CPU in the higher class (i7), you have the 2nd most powerful consumer GPU which you've also overclocked, you've got extremely fast RAM and twice the average amount and likely have the game installed on an SSD.
And yet, you still get framedrops under 30FPS. On 1080p.
I understand, the game is demanding, people use 80 small rocks to make one rock wall because the developers haven't made a rock-wall asset, loads of other examples like this. Yet you have a top-tier gaming PC (it's not ludicrous spec, but it's top-tier) and you still dip under 30FPS on a rig that most likely plays 4K games at a higher FPS.
That's not a glowing endorsement to me...
Why does it always has to be more than 30 FPS?
Is there some law for games that demands that if the recommended requirements are met that I do not know of?
Your expectations(demands) where/are to high.
Last edited:
I don't know if its just my computer (its getting a few years old now) but I swear the game used to run better for me. I played the entire career, had parks with about 4,000 guests and my frame rate would be decent 30s up until around 3,000 guests then fps would drop. Now recently I tried building a park and had only a few hundred guests and my frame rate was dropping. This makes the menus/UI less responsive, meaning I have to repeatedly click things and wait for anything to happen. Its a big draw back for me and makes everything take forever to do, but I plan on getting a new computer soon
Last edited:
Well, there is a reason that 24fps exists as a minimum standard for film. Anything lower and you really really start to notice the difference between smooth and clunky as heck. I don't agree with it needing to achieve buttery smooth 60 fps on recommended specs, but one should at least be able to achieve a standard that's existed for 60 years with a PC costing over £1000. It really isn't unreasonable. I understand that you're happy to go lower, but a lot of people aren't, otherwise these threads wouldn't KEEP cropping up.
There is always room for improvement. Devs know it too, they themselves said there are some things they are working on and are not ideal. They also promised they will optimize the game even more in the future. Saying this game is very well optimized is wrong then, because if it was well optimized, devs wouldn´t have to work on this side of the game.
People saying it´s game with limiteless creativity, that´s right, we can expect the game to become laggy at some point, sure. But there simply is something wrong. My park doesn´t have too many buildings and scenery, yet it lags ( and it gets inbearable when I hit 10-12 k people). When park closed, it keeps the same FPS and when deleting buildings, it doesn´t recover too. So I would say there is something wrong then. Because if I empty my park again, I would expect fps to go back to normal. When I get PC installed again, I might upload my park so devs can take a look at it.
I also stand by that UI is not optimized. item lists take some time to load sometimes (parkitect had the same issue and they addressed it). Frontier did great job though, just hate people saying it´s all fine, because it isn´t yet. And if we won´t tell them, then it will be harder for them to improve things. I´m hoping for UI getting some love with this update and that it will finally get reorganized and faster. I would love to at least hear some more info about their CPU scaling thing, because I´m curious how it works and depending on that, I think it might help to get game running smoother for some people.
People saying it´s game with limiteless creativity, that´s right, we can expect the game to become laggy at some point, sure. But there simply is something wrong. My park doesn´t have too many buildings and scenery, yet it lags ( and it gets inbearable when I hit 10-12 k people). When park closed, it keeps the same FPS and when deleting buildings, it doesn´t recover too. So I would say there is something wrong then. Because if I empty my park again, I would expect fps to go back to normal. When I get PC installed again, I might upload my park so devs can take a look at it.
I also stand by that UI is not optimized. item lists take some time to load sometimes (parkitect had the same issue and they addressed it). Frontier did great job though, just hate people saying it´s all fine, because it isn´t yet. And if we won´t tell them, then it will be harder for them to improve things. I´m hoping for UI getting some love with this update and that it will finally get reorganized and faster. I would love to at least hear some more info about their CPU scaling thing, because I´m curious how it works and depending on that, I think it might help to get game running smoother for some people.
Agree 100%
You are kidding right, 30 FPS was the standard for home gaming back in the mid 90's while top end Arcade machines were at 60 FPS. Anything in motion like on a coaster in 3D with 30 FPS is not smooth (it's perfectly fine while building but not that smooth for fast motion) and it's why VR has such requirements of 90 FPS otherwise it causes motion issues for the user.
actually classic 2D sprite consoles like Snes/Genesis ran at 60 fps, it was only 3D games that brought the standard down to 30
Well no point in comparing 2D when the discussion is obviously about 3D rendered games, hardware simply wasn't powerful, cheap and small enough to sell in retail at the time for 60 FPS 3D gaming.
Were those sprites really drawn/rendered at 30/60fps? I don't know of any sprite game (besides modern ones) that actually had high frame rate sprites that pushed out 30/60 frames for their animations. I remember RCT1 had low frames for their sprites and RCT2 increased them but not at 30/60fps. At that time, it was a little controversial to make a sequel that essentially looked exactly the same so Sawyer pushed the fact that he increased the frames for the sprites but I don't think they were animated/rendered at 30fps and that was released in 2002.
Last edited: