Well i´ve tried everything i could think of, i7 16 gigs with GTX 970 and 4 gigs can drop down to almost 35. Not a big deal as it´s playable, just wondering how People with the same Hardware and highest Setting can get up to 70 FPS. You all a bunch of nasty overclockers? My graphics Card already heats up to 80 without overcloaking so i rather not dare trying that out tbh...
Latest nvidia Drivers, Geforce experience closed, triple buffering enabled etc... but 70 FPS? Not possible on a 970 it seems.
Latest nvidia Drivers, Geforce experience closed, triple buffering enabled etc... but 70 FPS? Not possible on a 970 it seems.
I did notice frame drops when I transition from Orbital Cruise into Glide mode and approach large settlements during Glide.
Once the Glide mode is complete though the game runs smoothly again.
Once the Glide mode is complete though the game runs smoothly again.
Same here, absolutely miserable ~37 fps around glide, otherwise 60, 1440p ultra v-synced. 4770K, 16 DDR3, Titan X, Win 8.1 x64, always latest driver with DDU clean-up. (Shrug) Could be worse.
I upgraded my 2 GB GTX 960 to a 4 GB GTX 970 today and as far as the drops during Glide are concerned, they were exactly the same for both cards. I believe this is more a bug with the game, rather than anything that better hardware will fix. To say the least, it seems like Horizons needs a bit more optimization in certain areas.
970 GTX here but slower CPU and less RAM, I get steady 60 FPS, even on planets on Ultra/1080p. Maybe you have Super Sampling enabled?
Interesting discussion about vram usage. I have a GTX 970 and everything maxed plus 1.5 ss I get between high 30's and 50 plus on the surface and it is very playable and stable. I use afterburner and my vram usage is over the magical 3.5gb for a 970 at about 3.6. I wonder how much, if any, that is effecting my fps.
Interested to hear from any other 970 owners on this..
Interested to hear from any other 970 owners on this..
Um. The "barren empty lands" that you talk about are actually realtime generated geometry based on scientifically sound geological processes. What's pushing your GPU isn't the poly count or texture detail, it's the computation required to generate that geometry. That being said, there are clearly optimisation gains to be made as the performance appears to have dropped in the last patch or two.
No super sampling, i double checked... only difference might be i run the game on ultrawide, so 2560x1080... maybe this little higher resolution is the reason? Didnt think so until now, because it´s just slightly more Resolution, but a 50% FPS drop because of that?
Would be great if other 970 users with ultrawide Screen could comment about their experiences woth horizons so far.
TD
Your GPU is rendering 33% more pixels than a standard 1920x1080 resolution. You shouldn't expect a 50% drop because of that, but the number might be higher or lower than 33% as there isn't a strictly linear relationship between resolution and FPS. I guess other things that might be having an effect are RAM speeds, GPU RAM and core clocks, etc. If your 970 is overheating it might be dropping its clocks to compensate. It'd be interesting to see a log of various GPU usage parameters to see if it's being maxed out or whether something else is bottlenecking it.
I think it's almost impossible that the 970 overheats. I am still in 0-fan mode at 60°C after 3 hours of playing elite dangerous. Without water cooling, just got my fans setup nicely.
EVGA 750 Ti SC, 8 GB DDR3, I5 3470. Playing at 1080P, everything on Ultra (apart from shadows which are at high, bloom - medium, no blur) Supersampling X 1.0, SMAA AA, Ambient Occlusion turned on
Usually around 40 - 45 fps in orbital flight and planet surface/canyon flying/bases. Never drops below 30 FPS in SRV. Solid 60 fps in space, SC and stations, dropping to ~45 inside hangar, no stutter.
One issue I'm getting is flickering shadows of my ship when landed and no shadowing on SRV sometimes
I was going to upgrade to 950/960 but no need at the moment. Think there's still optimisation to be done, as a lot of cards much beefier than a 750 Ti seem to be struggling.
Usually around 40 - 45 fps in orbital flight and planet surface/canyon flying/bases. Never drops below 30 FPS in SRV. Solid 60 fps in space, SC and stations, dropping to ~45 inside hangar, no stutter.
One issue I'm getting is flickering shadows of my ship when landed and no shadowing on SRV sometimes
I was going to upgrade to 950/960 but no need at the moment. Think there's still optimisation to be done, as a lot of cards much beefier than a 750 Ti seem to be struggling.
4GB HD 6990 here, so not in the Nivida camp, but still experiencing much the same issues as other folk. FPS drops around planets and even with terrain settings down to medium, the game is still choppy on the surface and not something I really want to risk flying my ships around. I've got 8GB RAM in my PC and a decent i5 2500 CPU. I'm on the older AMD drivers as well, given the problems folk have experienced with the newer ones.
I'm wondering if more system RAM might help upping from 8GB to 16GB, but given the game seems to be putting most of the pressure on the GPU, I doubt it would make much difference.
Very frustrating, as the game ran smoothly in 1.4.
I'm wondering if more system RAM might help upping from 8GB to 16GB, but given the game seems to be putting most of the pressure on the GPU, I doubt it would make much difference.
Very frustrating, as the game ran smoothly in 1.4.
Horizons does much more with "dynamic" geometry than ED ever did. ED loads pre-created models of ships and space-stations and renders them. And it ticks over nicely with this.
Horizons takes that level of complexity i.e. a planetary port city, is as AS complex as a space-station. But around it you have landscape, all generated from procedural maps, created on the fly, visible off to the... horizon.
So now the GPU not only has to render fixed geo, it also has to generate it... So thats where Im guessing the compute grunt of the GPU comes in.
It sounds like a 980 is really required for anything over HD, at 60fps. I run a 980ti at 2560x1440 and get 60 fps solid. If I run at full res on my 4K screen, I get 30 fps on planets. It is what it is. This is a brand new card. But I'd honestly rather Frontier drive their engine to new tech, than old.
In spring next year nVidia have promised Pascal based cards. These are meant to have something crazy like 16x compute perfomance. So that, combined with drawing improvements should deliver 60+ fps at 4k.
So, if you are rocking a 670 card (my previous card) then a 2nd hand 980 will give a big boost. This is really perfect for HD or 2560 screens.
Or, wait a few months and buy a new Pascal card, and get insane perf. I'd wait, and get the Pascal card TBH, as I think MORE GPU perf will be required as we move towards the end of 2016. Think volcanic planets, and a gradual introduction of more geo and FX required to create atmosphere'd planets.
Horizons takes that level of complexity i.e. a planetary port city, is as AS complex as a space-station. But around it you have landscape, all generated from procedural maps, created on the fly, visible off to the... horizon.
So now the GPU not only has to render fixed geo, it also has to generate it... So thats where Im guessing the compute grunt of the GPU comes in.
It sounds like a 980 is really required for anything over HD, at 60fps. I run a 980ti at 2560x1440 and get 60 fps solid. If I run at full res on my 4K screen, I get 30 fps on planets. It is what it is. This is a brand new card. But I'd honestly rather Frontier drive their engine to new tech, than old.
In spring next year nVidia have promised Pascal based cards. These are meant to have something crazy like 16x compute perfomance. So that, combined with drawing improvements should deliver 60+ fps at 4k.
So, if you are rocking a 670 card (my previous card) then a 2nd hand 980 will give a big boost. This is really perfect for HD or 2560 screens.
Or, wait a few months and buy a new Pascal card, and get insane perf. I'd wait, and get the Pascal card TBH, as I think MORE GPU perf will be required as we move towards the end of 2016. Think volcanic planets, and a gradual introduction of more geo and FX required to create atmosphere'd planets.
Well i got it figured out for me at least guys, so gonna share what i did.
1. Deinstall Geforce experience... simply ending it is not enough, it tends to restart itself.
2. Enable triple buffering in the geforce control panel.
3. Disbale vsync...
2 and 3 already did a lot, but since i deinstalled geforce exyperience the lowest FPS i ever got was 54 in a big ring starport. So quite happy now with the performance, hope it helps others.
TD
1. Deinstall Geforce experience... simply ending it is not enough, it tends to restart itself.
2. Enable triple buffering in the geforce control panel.
3. Disbale vsync...
2 and 3 already did a lot, but since i deinstalled geforce exyperience the lowest FPS i ever got was 54 in a big ring starport. So quite happy now with the performance, hope it helps others.
TD
i know how it works
my problem was with people faulting the hardware rather than the software . which i saw in excess here
Mid range Pascal will be 1st to 2nd Quarter of 2016. The big Daddy Pascal like the Titan X varient will come at around 4th quarter (1 year). Seen it happen this way with GF 104/100 and Gk104/100 aka Keplar Architecture.
Last edited:
First time I loaded Horizons I flew down to a planet and my frame rates were horrible (GTX760 2GB). Turned out it defaulted the terrain settings to ultra/ultra. However even setting them to low/low on the fly gave poor frame rates.
upon starting the game today I found it had reset itself to low/high but frame rates were much much better. so I'm wondering if more people have misjudged effects of lowering settings without restarting the game, and upon restart their frame rates will improve a lot.....
upon starting the game today I found it had reset itself to low/high but frame rates were much much better. so I'm wondering if more people have misjudged effects of lowering settings without restarting the game, and upon restart their frame rates will improve a lot.....
a 980 FOR 60fps ? and sliders doing nothing to improve the fps on most cards . This game isnt near the graphical quality of allot of massive games , and even then my gtx670 can max them all out at 1080 . Its totally unacceptable to have a 960 or 970 to not be able to mantain 60fps at all times , it screams optimization , massive ones . If the said technologies are being used then they should also show , all i saw was avg looking landscapes .
the 6 and 7 series of the nvidia cards have crippled compute power since its not needed in games mainly , The gtx580 is substantially faster than both those lines when it comes to compute power . so i dont see why such a design was chosen in the first place and why isnt the cpu being taxed with this ?
Last edited: