What would you like to bet the roadmap is vague and uninformative?
When can we expect performance optimizations?
- Thread starter Bortas
- Start date
I'm running on Ultra (too stubborn to change settings) at 1080p with a 2070 Super and a 3700x and in on foot combat zones and some settlements, my framerate hits mid-40s which is pretty jarring for a game that can easily hit 100+ everywhere else. I can't really imagine running this on my old I-7 and 1070.
I was running a nice 25fps at a settlement today until my CPU overheated and shut my PC down.
Well, problem is... graphic settings and fps aren't even consistent. Experimented a bit more today, and to my surprise, when I launched the game, I was getting around 50-60 fps in Full HD, sitting in my cockpit in a Coriolos station, which was quite OK for me.
Then, to see, how much it impacts FPS, I switched Supersamling from 1.5x to 2x, which was the setting I used in Horizons, because of the non-functional anti-aliasing in ED... game looks like crap with 1x... even 1.5x doesn't look very good, but acceptable at least. As expected, FPS went down to 40. So I switched it back to 1.5x... didn't change anything else... you would expect it to go back up to 50-60, wouldn't you?
But no... it went down even further, to 30. I mean what? How are we supposed to find useful quality settings with weird stuff like this happening? Had to restart the game to fix that, but as you know, starting up the game takes quite a while.
And why can't they implement a functional anti-aliasing, so we don't need to mess with supersampling in the first place? Other games can do it, but in ED anti-aliasing never worked. Was hoping they would finally fix this with Odyssey, but apparantly not. Problem is, without supersampling Odyssey looks worse than Horizons with 2x, despite the higher quality models and textures, because the insane amount of aliasing ruins everything.
Then, to see, how much it impacts FPS, I switched Supersamling from 1.5x to 2x, which was the setting I used in Horizons, because of the non-functional anti-aliasing in ED... game looks like crap with 1x... even 1.5x doesn't look very good, but acceptable at least. As expected, FPS went down to 40. So I switched it back to 1.5x... didn't change anything else... you would expect it to go back up to 50-60, wouldn't you?
But no... it went down even further, to 30. I mean what? How are we supposed to find useful quality settings with weird stuff like this happening? Had to restart the game to fix that, but as you know, starting up the game takes quite a while.
And why can't they implement a functional anti-aliasing, so we don't need to mess with supersampling in the first place? Other games can do it, but in ED anti-aliasing never worked. Was hoping they would finally fix this with Odyssey, but apparantly not. Problem is, without supersampling Odyssey looks worse than Horizons with 2x, despite the higher quality models and textures, because the insane amount of aliasing ruins everything.
I have a modest system. 1660ti / i7 6700k / 32 gigs of ddr4. 1080p 60hz monitor, fps capped at 60.
Horizons 60 ultra all day at 1080p.
Odyssey ultra half terrain slider bar and low shadows. 45-60 fluctuating in space stations. 30-50 Settlements, 30 looking at fire. 50-60 planet surfaces. 60 constant in space and ship combat.
Pretty happy whith performance for alpha release but I have a feeling with optimizations in the next few months (Culling?) My feet fps will be back up to sixty and can put shadows back up.
I saw horizons launch bog my 970 GTX to really increased performance after a couple years and at Horizons end run ran fluid for me.
Given time I have no doubts Oddy will be better. Stop thinking normal release and start looking at it as alpha beta. Its a long road.
Horizons 60 ultra all day at 1080p.
Odyssey ultra half terrain slider bar and low shadows. 45-60 fluctuating in space stations. 30-50 Settlements, 30 looking at fire. 50-60 planet surfaces. 60 constant in space and ship combat.
Pretty happy whith performance for alpha release but I have a feeling with optimizations in the next few months (Culling?) My feet fps will be back up to sixty and can put shadows back up.
I saw horizons launch bog my 970 GTX to really increased performance after a couple years and at Horizons end run ran fluid for me.
Given time I have no doubts Oddy will be better. Stop thinking normal release and start looking at it as alpha beta. Its a long road.
You're close to my setup. I'm getting roughly 80fps inside interiors, about 100-120 in exterior space. There are slight drops in fps when closing in planets, or illuminated places. But in general it never drops lower than 80fps. Specs:Could you please show us your graphic settings ? I run an RTX 3070 with and AMD Ryzen 7 and having all set to high I barely run to 60fps while in stations, which is pretty low when you have a 165hz display for example
Gainward RTX 3070
Intel i7-10700k
G.Skill RipJaws V, 32gb@4.000Mhz(overclocking needs to happen in BIOS)
1TB Samsung Evo 980 SSD M2.2
I'm using a 850W Power supply unit from Seasonic I believe, can't exactly remember, and I'm not at home. I'm also running on absolutely no case light, or additional nonsense you'd get in computers nowadays. The mainboard is a MSI Z-490 A-Pro. I specifically took that mainboard because it has high specs, but almost no connectors for USB, light and whatnot. Also, Windows 10 Pro, Gaming Mode turned on. Running on Steam and Nvidia overlays enabled, and also running 6 additional 3rd party apps, and my Antivirus enabled(G-Data).
Edit: Oh yeah, obviously forgot the most important info. I'm running everything maxed out on Ultra, and I'm using a custom Nvidia profile which has everything maxed out, where it is reasonable, as well. The Monitor is a HP 1920x1080 running on 144Hz. It has a AMD profile enabled, which, to my surprise, makes the monitor run better than any other profile, despite me having a Nvidia system.
Last edited:
months at least. they are gonna be doing that all the way up to console launch
al ready did everything possible, also changed the stock chinesium case fans to noctua and agressive fan control scheme
Have you checked it recently? Because I have an RTX2080 laptop and while 144 fps is certainly possible most of the time, definitely not everywhere (specifically not in rings).
According the the internet (not always trustworthy!) <https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#how-many-fps-do-people-see> for instance, maximum visual rate is 13ms (approx 75hz).
So playing it at 144 fps is a bit of overkill. Your not able to see half the frames the poor card is rendering for you.
I'm having success with Odyssey with a 1080, on an SSD, at 1920x1080. It plays smoothly enough to shoot those pesky NPCs.
So playing it at 144 fps is a bit of overkill. Your not able to see half the frames the poor card is rendering for you.
I'm having success with Odyssey with a 1080, on an SSD, at 1920x1080. It plays smoothly enough to shoot those pesky NPCs.
I think the roadmap will be about the fixes.
You should go tell all those e-sport FPS players that they are all doing it wrong.
Also, shooting at npcs as a measure?
Lmao
What I find hilarious is how people with RTX 3000 series GPUs saying "performance is great" as they get frame drops into the 50s at a mere 1080p.
Even a 3070 should be DESTROYING this game at 1080p, never mind a 3080 or 3090. And yet we have people with these cards only just staying above a mere 60fps at 1080p saying "runs great!".
Even a 3070 should be DESTROYING this game at 1080p, never mind a 3080 or 3090. And yet we have people with these cards only just staying above a mere 60fps at 1080p saying "runs great!".
theres a huge difference in passive visual reception and interaction where you have input lag. In fast paced fps action depending on your eyes you can see difference between 60fps 75fps and 100fps - at least I can
A 3090 should be destroying this game at 4K to be honest. Do people still use 1080p? It's tiny
When i was a young lad, and we had those old CRTs, I could def see the flicker at 60Hz. At 75Hz it was rock solid, which sort of goes with the internet info.
The race for more frame rate always reminds me of old audiophile magazines in the 80s, where they obsessed over the last db from record players. Once you get past a certain point, you can't hear the difference. This article captures the essense of the audiophile obsession https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/nov/29/lost-in-music-the-world-of-obsessive-audiophilia
The race for more frame rate always reminds me of old audiophile magazines in the 80s, where they obsessed over the last db from record players. Once you get past a certain point, you can't hear the difference. This article captures the essense of the audiophile obsession https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/nov/29/lost-in-music-the-world-of-obsessive-audiophilia
In the CRT days I could easily tell apart 75 Hz from 85 Hz, so what?
Not to mention VR. If I can squeeze 90 fps out of my GPU, it's already a very perceptible improvement over 80 fps. Anything below that is outright trash.
Last edited: