Yes, this was posted earlier in the thread - sadly didn't give me any boost and I'm still at 15fps and probably saying goodbye to Elite.
was there an optimisation pass at all?
- Thread starter Drokks
- Start date
There are obvious performance issues when landing on planet bases. During regular space trips, I have steady 60fps, landing on a planet, far from settlements dips to 45-50 FPS, both of which I find playable, but landing on a base, the frame rate dips to below 30, at worst near 20. Odyssey clearly lacks optimization.
For what it's worth, my fairly trashy* PC started to have a much easier time over the course of yesterday. When I first logged in (or rather, when I first eventually managed to get into the game) I had a pretty choppy experience through the tutorial, and despite dropping my graphics down to low I was having a pretty rough time moving around inside stations too. Alongside that, I was having trouble getting into any of the customisation menus - trying to customise a suit was taking so long that it would eventually give up and time out, and I also couldn't manage to get into the ship customisations to rename a ship that I'd forgotten I'd bought pre-Odyssey.
However, about a couple of hours in, as the servers became a bit more stable, I was able to access those customisation menus, and I began to see a little bit of an FPS increase as well. Nothing amazing, just a bump of 15-20, but it was enough to take me from constantly in the red (~20) to consistently in the yellow (~40) while moving around inside stations, and I was able to dial my graphics up to mid (and bump the textures back up to high) and maintain that. I'm tempted to go back in and redo the tutorial, and see if combat is any better for me now.
I'm not going to pretend this obviously proves some sort of connection between server load and people's framerate issues (I'm sure it doesn't), but folks who were having a really rough time of it yesterday might want to pop in with their graphics on low/mid and see if that's made any difference for them. I guess when your FPS is low to begin with, the small amount of effect from server issues is much more noticable?
(* GTX 1050 Ti, i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz, 16 GB RAM)
However, about a couple of hours in, as the servers became a bit more stable, I was able to access those customisation menus, and I began to see a little bit of an FPS increase as well. Nothing amazing, just a bump of 15-20, but it was enough to take me from constantly in the red (~20) to consistently in the yellow (~40) while moving around inside stations, and I was able to dial my graphics up to mid (and bump the textures back up to high) and maintain that. I'm tempted to go back in and redo the tutorial, and see if combat is any better for me now.
I'm not going to pretend this obviously proves some sort of connection between server load and people's framerate issues (I'm sure it doesn't), but folks who were having a really rough time of it yesterday might want to pop in with their graphics on low/mid and see if that's made any difference for them. I guess when your FPS is low to begin with, the small amount of effect from server issues is much more noticable?
(* GTX 1050 Ti, i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz, 16 GB RAM)
Ooh! Burn!
I had the very same
I'm watching the launch stream on Twitch and you can tell even on stream that the game runs like crap because the stream is 60fps but they've either capped the game to 30 or it simply won't run any faster.
Elite Dangerous 2021.05.20 - 17.23.14.04-00.05.16.709-00.05.45.340-1
Watch "Elite Dangerous 2021.05.20 - 17.23.14.04-00.05.16.709-00.05.45.340-1" on Streamable.
In starports I get 100% GPU usage and on the planet surface the usage stays around 50%. This is plain stupid and obviously something is wrong in the game.
Ryzen 5 2600 + GTX 1060 6GB - literally recommended specs.
Went through GPU driver update and resetting graphics options (by deleting the files) and it doesn't change anything
This is definitely CPU bottleneck and explains why lowering graphics settings doesn't improve.
Mr Swainey
Banned
Utter shambles
I won’t be able to say for certain until tonight, but the half hour or so I played before work was a dramatic improvement over what I saw during the Alpha. My computer’s about seven years old, and doesn’t quite meet Odyssey’s recommended specs. During the Alpha, I got about 20 FPS on the concourse with graphics set low... at 1080p. This morning, I was able to return to my monitor’s normal 1440p resolution, and bump up the graphics to a mix of medium and high, and still get about 40 FPS.
Not enough for VR, I’m sad to say, but I was pleasantly surprised nonetheless.
Not enough for VR, I’m sad to say, but I was pleasantly surprised nonetheless.
The ryzen 2600 is about comparable to an i7-8700k, and is the recommended, not minimum, CPU, coincidentally enough, Jackul's graphics card is also the recommended spec, so I think more of the blame has to go to Frontier than to @Jackul
I'm not familiar with that overlay. What are the two "mem" readings under the GPU utilization and temp?
That on an RTX 3080/3090?
Sounds plausible, but I have no intentions of unkilling Windows Defender or any related superfluous security features to see if they crap up my system.
It's not.
10:34 is fairly shocking and explains a lot.
Yes, this is all FDev fault, it should work flawlessly on Ryzen 2600 but it doesn't contradict the fact of CPU bottleneck in that particular case.
When I run Odyssey in pancake, I can run everything in ultra, absolutely no problems. When I switch to VR, I have to drop my settings to Medium VR, otherwise I get very poor performance. In Horizons, I can run everything in VR at or near Ultra, with few exceptions, such as Bloom and Shadows. I would usually set both of those at medium. o7
I'm not meaning to bicker with you, but it's interesting that we have a player whose PC is right on the nose of the "Recommended" specs, I wonder if they run anything like MSI afterburner that can trace CPU/GPU usage in its graphs for us to pour and see where the bottlekneck is?
I was doing some testing earlier and I was able to find areas where GPU utilization would dip into the 50s at a 1440p internal resolution (in this case 1080p with 1.5x SS), ultra settings, without any logical core being loaded past 64%.
Hmm, it means something really wrong with this game. GPU and CPU are both not fully loaded. Bad in-game timings, race conditions etc. or IO?
Actually none of logical cores shows 100% usage because OS switching execution between logical processors all the time, you need to set affinity that the switching doesn't happen.
So it means that CPU can still be a bottleneck.
Yes. This doesn't strictly mean that something isn't CPU or GPU, just that not all available cycles are being used...something is forcing execution to wait. The video analysis of the alpha that was posted earlier suggests some sort of depth buffer overhead problem, which, from my limited understanding of the potential issues could be responsible for what I've observed.
One thing it's not is an I/O problem; that's negligible.
I tried all sorts of affinity combinations (not allowing the second logical core on a physical core to be used, using one CCX, using one core per CCX, etc and so forth):
It's simply not using all available cycles unless I squeeze all the threads into a very small number of logical processors.
I think the game is waiting around while it spends most of each frame testing and updating the depth buffer. Whatever hardware this is dependent on is evidently becoming bottlenecked before all cycles are used.
Edit:
Another one, simulating 1440p (with 1080p 1.5x SS) ultra. Approaching the settlement never maxed out any core or the GPU. I thought system memory latency could have been an issue, but the game doesn't seem very demanding in this regard...never going above about 7-8% of the bandwidth HWiNFO can reach in bandwidth limited tests. So, I'm inclined to suspect it's the GPU's caches/memory that's being hammered. GPU memory controller usage only gets to ~50%, but thats still very high for a game and I don't think it includes cache usage.
Videos are still processing, so they are hard to see right now, but they'll eventually be 4k60 when YouTube gets around to it.
Last edited: