So, frame-rates since the patch, how are yours?

[RyuStaar]

Hmmmm - i will try that. I was meant to - i just need to find the path again.

For you ( and anyone else that is curious) try deleting everything inside this folder ( 1 more time haha)

C:\Users\YourUserName\AppData\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics

and then give it a whirl if you haven't post update 8 yet

 

[CMDR Von Abrahart]

For you ( and anyone else that is curious) try deleting everything inside this folder ( 1 more time haha)

C:\Users\YourUserName\AppData\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics

and then give it a whirl if you haven't post update 8 yet

Done - got 10 ish more frames on high - yay - still chugging on flames a little but much better - but for a ‘modern’ game its not too much to ask for a consistent 60fps during gameplay

 

[RyuStaar]

Done - got 10 ish more frames on high - yay - still chugging on flames a little but much better - but for a ‘modern’ game its not too much to ask for a consistent 60fps during gameplay

You are definitely not wrong, however there seems like there might be light at the end of tunnel, they are actually making progress now

 

[the100thmonkey]

I tried the game on my laptop (specs below) earlier after basically not touching the game on that machine since launch. I only walked around the concourse and the hangar, but performance was much improved in those places - up from 30-40 fps to averaging just under 60. I didn't try anything else, but I was, needless to say, impressed by the improvements on mid/low-end mobile hardware.

 

[Mogen Teras]

I don't have any other games nor even benchmarking software that runs as poorly as Odyssey on my computer regarding performance, so it's tough to compare it.

If most of your other games run far far better than Odyssey, is that not a good comparison?

I have a LOT of games in my Steam library so I can get a good feel for what ranges are considered "normal" for my hardware setup. Death Stranding for example, my fps range is 85-120 ish on 1080p max settings; absolutely drop dead gorgeous open world game. Witcher 3, 90-130fps, 1080p max settings. No Man's Sky at 1080p Max settings is 55-90 with their new scenery setting they added early 2021 (which they explicitly said is aimed at higher end newer hardware).

So generally I can expect 60fps at the LEAST, and triple digits in a good scenario.

EDO on the other hand is like 25-55 in any scenario that isn't deep space. Compared to the rest of my game library, that's comparison enough for me to say the game runs very poorly.

To contradict myself a bit, sometimes it isn't just about what framerate is "comfortable" for a user; it's also about what framerate you are getting relative to the hardware you have and what that hardware gets on average in other games. Like...hmm, imagine buying a Ferrari, but the transmission won't shift past 1st gear so you can't go any faster than 60-70km/h. If you live in NYC, then that's technically perfectly fine since you never reach that speed on your daily commute anyway. But every other Ferrari has a working gearbox and can blaze past 200km/h if given the opportunity.

 

[WR3ND]

If most of your other games run far far better than Odyssey, is that not a good comparison?

...

What I meant by tough to compare is to explain it to people in a way which adequately shows how poorly it runs on my computer. For example, one might say as slow as a tortoise or as fast as a hare, but that assumes you have a tortoise or hare for comparison. Well, Odyssey runs at 30~35 FPS while Horizons runs at 230~260 FPS. Yes, Horizons runs over seven times faster than Odyssey on this computer. Some people might look at that and see 35 FPS and think that's not bad for a console game or maybe something else runs like that for them or similar, but that takes it out of context.

The Unigine Superposition benchmark, which does not use SLI that I'm aware of and from what I can tell, while their earlier benchmarks Heaven and Valley do, runs on this computer at an average of about 88 FPS, minimum FPS about 67, and max about 124, using DirectX, full-screen, 1920x1080, 8K optimized shaders, high texture quality, depth of field on, and motion blur on.

I mention this in part because Odyssey apparently does actually use SLI, only I think Frontier must have forgotten about supporting and testing it, so it ends up running even worse.

Anyway, it seems we're in similar boats, so we understand each other at least.

Cheers.

 

[DANgerous25]

Not sure if anyone cares about VR any more but the frame rate in space is still unplayable for me on my high end system (5950X / 6900 XT / SSD / 128GB / HP Reverb G2) with all the same resolution and settings as Horizons where I get a consistent 90fps. The only way I’ve fixed to an acceptable level it is by lowering the resolution per eye significantly and cranking up the HMD quality; however the clarity and smoothness is still not comparable to Horizons. If I turn off VR, I get 90fps+ on ultra/high for everything, in space or on foot. So only VR is broken for me, which is a shame because VR is so awesome in the cockpit!

 

[Mr T]

What I meant by tough to compare is to explain it to people in a way which adequately shows how poorly it runs on my computer. For example, one might say as slow as a tortoise or as fast as a hare, but that assumes you have a tortoise or hare for comparison. Well, Odyssey runs at 30~35 FPS while Horizons runs at 230~260 FPS. Yes, Horizons runs over seven times faster than Odyssey on this computer. Some people might look at that and see 35 FPS and think that's not bad for a console game or maybe something else runs like that for them or similar, but that takes it out of context.

The really strange thing about Odyssey though is the lack of FPS doesn't seem to correlate with what hardware you have. Some people with low end PCs are getting similar FPS as high end PCs, although it isn't that consistent through the spectrum.

 

[Terry Daniels]

Not sure if anyone cares about VR any more but the frame rate in space is still unplayable for me on my high end system (5950X / 6900 XT / SSD / 128GB / HP Reverb G2) with all the same resolution and settings as Horizons where I get a consistent 90fps. The only way I’ve fixed to an acceptable level it is by lowering the resolution per eye significantly and cranking up the HMD quality; however the clarity and smoothness is still not comparable to Horizons. If I turn off VR, I get 90fps+ on ultra/high for everything, in space or on foot. So only VR is broken for me, which is a shame because VR is so awesome in the cockpit!

Same here - Valve Index, tried again this weekend because of all the positive noises about performance but space was actually juddery for me (tho weirdly flying across a planet and driving on it was pretty smooth). I didn't play with the settings but found one of the Colonia bridge megaships so parked up there for now (the Omega nebula?) Concourse was still shocking and when I reboarded the ship the frames tanked (which has happened for me since the release of Odyssey - always had to restart the game).
Well, 15's my lucky number so maybe by then...

 

[Ziljan]

Concourses much better - almost always 60, used to be 30-60 depending on how much glass was about.
Flying near planet surfaces seems the same as before - around 50.
CZ up to 50-60 from 30-40 earlier, wandering around the buildings afterwards also seemed generally good. A couple of dips to 30 but nothing worse and only briefly.
Space still 60, was 60 before.

Still not quite as consistent as Horizons but a big improvement on previously for me.

Ground CZs: 58-60
Loading screens: ~30-55
Everywhere else including settlements and station interiors: 60 FPS.

Last small patch seems to have made the crucial difference. Still needs more optimizing, but it's finally at a level where it's optimized enough to be steady (ish) FPS.

 

[Mogen Teras]

Anyway, it seems we're in similar boats, so we understand each other at least.

Cheers.

Indeed we do. Same conclusions, just different ways we frame it.

 

[RooksBailey]

Even though I've just upgraded my rig, I find myself playing EDO on Geforce Now. I just like that service too much. Plus, I wanted to know if I could recommend GFN as an alternative platform to play EDO to people who are struggling with framerate issues.

Anywho, I've been putting EDO through its paces on that service and discovered that even the powerful server farms of nVidia struggle with settlements. Results I've seen (same as my local hardware settings: all high running at 1080p capped at 60hz):

Space: 60 fps steady
Station concourses: after a brief (5-15 sec) dip to 45fps as assets load, frames return to 55-60.
Baren moons: 60 fps steady
Surface settlements: 28-45 fps, depending on the settlement, with an average of around 35 fps.
Medium CZ: 32 fps

I was actually surprised to see settlements perform so poorly on GFN when the rest of the game is running well. But there is good news here because FDev has polished up the rest of the game from what I can see (in terms of performance). If they can get settlements running better - and they clearly will have to for a console launch as the last gens don't have hardware anywhere near what GFN is running - EDO should be in a good spot.

As for recommending GFN for EDO: well, 3/4s of the game runs fine on that service. Planetary settlements and medium CZs, while playable, don't run well though, a surprising result as I've seen GFN chew up and spit out games far more demanding than EDO!

FYI

I have yet to check planets with atmospheres. I"ll try that tonight.

(As an aside, I found one unique benefit of using GFN for EDO: the poor anti-aliasing doesn't seem as bad! While it will still make your eyes bleed, I think the video compression tech that GFN uses helps with AA a bit.)

 

[Barking_Mad]

Biggest issue for me is that I can't get equality with graphics quality and framerates across the different aspects of the game (space, stations, planetary hubs, surfaces) without going into the settings and altering them if I go to one of the aforementioned areas.

60fps in space means 30fps on the ground, but that leaves surfaces on approach to planets looking a mess until I get closer to landing.

 

[CMDR Bausell]

I play on a 3070. I’ve entirely stopped seeing the drop to near-zero framerate when first arriving at a settlement occupied by scavengers. All the more I can ask for.

 

[Mogen Teras]

I play on a 3070. I’ve entirely stopped seeing the drop to near-zero framerate when first arriving at a settlement occupied by scavengers. All the more I can ask for.

The bar the community is setting for Odyssey is deeper than the Marianas Trench.

 

[Mogen Teras]

Biggest issue for me is that I can't get equality with graphics quality and framerates across the different aspects of the game (space, stations, planetary hubs, surfaces) without going into the settings and altering them if I go to one of the aforementioned areas.

60fps in space means 30fps on the ground, but that leaves surfaces on approach to planets looking a mess until I get closer to landing.

Same. Turning things down to get "acceptable" performance in settlements means that deep space gameplay looks like rubbish. The framerate gap between the two zones of gameplay is frustrating since I have massive headroom for maximum supersampling in space and orbital POIs, but I have to turn everything down and reduce my render resolution on planets just to get a measly 35fps.

And that's all with hardware that exceeds the "recommended spec." And yes, this is all after Update 8. I wish the community would still keep a critical eye on this instead of applauding a "boost" from 25fps to 40fps, otherwise FDev will just do what they do best and say "good enough" and leave it as is.

 

[SexyCat]

My own experience so far is that planet surfaces minus any settlements nearby have gotten a little better, at small settlements a truly miniscule improvement when on foot (so small that i wonder if it's my imagination) but every other location, largely the same as before. At a settlement i can just about scavenge for things, but couldn't really have a firefight. My buggy is still the worse method of experiencing low frame-rates, and still gives me motion sickness from the 'clash of the titans-esque' stop motion effect. This patch then not much use to me, but i have been hearing other people say they've noticed improvements, how's it been for you?

No change in FPS for me as far as I can tell.

 

[Ydeirt]

Not good enough for me. 20-40 fps in settlements and stations with occasional fps dips for no reason. Also now when trying to park in a stations its worse than before, lot more stutters, fps dips and low fps and all off this happens in mostly low graphic settings.

Ryzen 5 2600
Rx 580 4gb

 

[taniwha-qf]

for no reason

There is ALWAYS a reason.

 

[Ydeirt]

There is ALWAYS a reason.

Reason being not quite optimized ofc which is obvious, idk anything other than that.