I saw the graphics in that video and i found it very impressive how much detail they packed into this game. I'm not surprised at all that it's demanding. What is less impressive is that all those details is on "low" setting. This is one of the things i think they've fumbled a bit. Low should look bad, not good. Either High looks absolutely stunning or there is very little perceivable difference.
DXWarlock wrote:
It should be better, I fully agree on performance from what this is.
But also other side of the coin, no individual assets is system demanding, but 10,000s of them all being tracked, changing, and updated is. Not just civilians. But cars, buildings growing/changing, roads, trees, visual nubs like bushes, and fire hydrants, and trash etc. all adds up.
It should run better than this release of it does no doubt. But saying when looking at one building it doesn't look all that highly detailed ignores the fact there can be 10,000's of those mid-ish detailed buildings, people, cars, bushes, trees, particle effects from trucks and buildings at once on screen.
I agree. People will get a rude awakening after optimizations are done. Game will run better, but for some it'll run just a bit better.
I feel they went the route of the last one. Where low is really slightly above medium, and everything else is high or ultra regardless of settings.
As in low isnt as low as you expect, because it barely looks any different than high or ultra other than shadows aren't as far out in the distance, and textures LOD sooner is all.
Like they made the theoretical 'sliders' can go from 1-100, but the settings only move them between 50 and 100.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
The target is 30fps because of the nature of the game, (arguably) there are no real benefit in a city builder to aim for higher FPS (unlike a multiplayer shooter) as a growing city with inevitably become CPU bound. What matters more with this type of game is to avoid stutters, and have responsive UI.
For that reason, our simulation is also built around an expected update rate given 30fps. However, it does not hurt to get 60 fps as it can contribute to better visuals in relation to temporal effects so while our target is 30fps, we don't intend on limiting or stopping the optimization work just because we reach it on recommended hardware, we just don't believe there would be a long term benefit in setting the target to 60fps, especially because we face rendering challenges both from close up and far distances
Maybe
I didn't expect more than 30-50 in it. in Skylines 1, any town over like 100k people I didn't get more than 30. So Didn't have any expectations that I could run this one full out for my system, at 1400 ultrawide at 144 fps. Hell getting 60 in this one would have been a welcome unexpected surprise.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
It's so weird devs are pushing hardware these days while a midrange GPU like a 4060TI, hardware that is not good enough to run some poor optimised games without issues is, still costs around 500 euro's (for a card that's about 5 years behind in performance btw)
So they expect you to buy a 1500 euro GPU and replace that every 2-3 years to play their shit.
Never even played a Skylines game but the title of the news post caught my attention
Just moving a mouse around at 30FPS feels like shit though, who's up for that on PC? Even 60 is kind of iffy these days, especially when you come from ~120 in a different game. It's crazy how poor optimisation is getting.
I personally dont think its the devs that are shit/lazy. Its they are making ambitious games (we keep demanding) that tech hasn't caught up with. Well maybe a mix of both, but more the latter than the former.
ANY large scale sim game seems to be overly ambitious for what midrange hardware can handle since 3D became the standard. Long ago sprite based large scale games was fine. But No one wants simcity 4, or sprite based RTS games now a days.
For example good luck anyone playing Total War games on midrange stuff at later/larger scales. Or 3D 4x games later in the game with massive amounts of units. Or any Civ game that is 3d engine late game.
So think the pie chart on shit performance is more filled with what we are asking it to do, and each next version needs to do 'more' so we are willing to buy it. So they push what we have now can do until it barely runs 'acceptable..I guess' on 3-4 year old hardware.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I disagree. If almost every game these days wasn't an unoptimized piece of shit I might agree with you. Problem is, you see it too often, regardless of genre, engine, whatever. People either don't know, or don't care to optimize these days. You even see it when changing graphical options. The fucking sliders do nothing. Most of them barely change the visuals from low to ultra and you might get 5 extra fps. There is something inherently wrong in how games are made.
And at the end of the day, them being to ambition if it would be like you say is still a problem. If you're game is struggling to hold 30 fps on high end machines then there's a serious problem with what you're doing.
*adding the obligatory pre-emptive: Back in my days, devs knew how to make games!*
@Kezmark
Not sure what games you play that regardless of genre, engine, whatever you are struggling to get 30fps on.
Rarely do I not get 120+ on my high(ish) end gear. Either it's a rare actually shit made game. Or something like VR racing at full vive pro2 res per eye, or MSFS with everything on max that doesn't.
or the standard sim game where I go "how many units/items/troops/citizens can I have before my PC shits the bed"
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Doesn't have to run on 30fps to be an unoptimized piece of shit, the whole 30 fps bit was specifically aimed at Cities. Now currently, on my new laptop, most everything runs well.
Let us see, a game like Starfield was struggling at 40 fps with massive stuttering, regardless of settings on my old 3060 laptop, a laptop that I could play CP2077 on everything maxed no rt 70+fps at 1080p. CP is more open, looks better, I mean wtf ? Again 60+fps on RDR2 on that laptop, another game that looks much better then starfield and again is more open and all that... Explain to me how a load screen simulator that looks shittier, ends up running worse?
Lords of the fallen, haven't tested on the old laptop, runs at 160+ fps at 1440p on new one, can still see it is poorly optimized and it runs like shit for a lot of people on worse rigs. Most people have nothing close to my i9 13980HX and 4080 laptop. Just cause it runs on high end hardware doesn't mean the rest is optimized.
Everything that has been said about Alan Wake 2 isn't encouraging.
Now same with Cities Skyline.
This is all released or to be released in the last 2-3 months. Only game I can say ran well was Lies of P, but it isn't like that is pushing some graphical boundries, but the game knew what it needed to do and you know, looks good enough. Oh and Armored Core I guess also ran well. Again smaller games/studios in both cases.
That is 4 out of 6 games I played/planned on playing in a 3 month span that are/look to be poorly optimized.
Oh maybe a difference in genre is the reason. Nothing you listed, is any games I have played or owned
For me, AAA games have always been "Yep, they will run like shit, get 4000 patches, run less like shit and not worth the hassle".
But I still stand by its not totally because of incompetent devs.
- Its partially because of the demand the end users want of "All the features, more depth than ever, and visuals that better make me instantly orgasm when I start the game".
- Partially because large games like that is mind boggling more complex than older games but end users expect time turn around of new version in the same timespan.
- Which leads to the partially because AAA game companies usually slam the dev team with horrible work hours, demands, and timelines they can't meet because bottom line is more important than customer retention.
Usually the devs are not to blame, its who manages them and makes the do crunch time and "make 100% of the game in 50% of the time you need".
Blaming the actual programmers for the game being like shit. Is like blaming your mechanic you car runs like shit because you demanded you drive it out at 2pm, get in the car and try to leave, when he said it would be ready at 5pm.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I'm fairly sure most devs are actually to blame these days.
Games may be more complex but the tools are also much better these days, so that excuse in and of itself is just silly to me. And of course you need crunch when people want 4 weeks to write 10 lines of code.
So somehow only big game devs are shit? The indie, smaller devs are immune to this universal rule of 'now-a-days' devs?
Somehow the sorting of the devs is magically the big games hire all the shit ones, and the rest of game companies hire the good ones?
Is that part of the interview process at Big game companies? "Are you a shit dev that doesn't care? Yes? Well you are hired. We dont hire caring programmers"
And the managing parties at all the big companies that dictate dev time schedules have NOTHING to do with it. Its purely the shitty 'devs of our time' that lost that magical gusto somehow only the 'devs back in the good ole days' had. What are the odds of that?
I feel a "My generation, best generation for [X]" trope rolling out its carpet here.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
No, but big companies have significantly more devs, so the ratio of good/bad devs is worse. It probably gets even worse since most big companies are in very "woke" regions of the US, so you get more political hirings instead of merit based. You also probably have less of a connection with the people when hiring for a 300 person team vs 20, it just isn't the same thing.
You also just have too many people with ideas and it just becomes a frankenstein of design by committee, the code is also probably harder to manage with so many people working on it. Often times devs know that half of them will get fired by the end of the project so probably drag things on and put minimal effort to keep it going for longer.
You also have less exposure in general to all the smaller games and probably don't end up seeing some of the problems, also they tend to not generally be the most graphically intensive games and tend to be cheaper, which you know, makes it easier to excuse certain issues.
So it probably is a lot of things that just add up to this pile of shit.
And yes, it is also a generational problem, but not really, it is more cultural then anything. People are very conflict averse these days, and that isn't good in a creative environment. They are also more reluctant to take risks and responsability, and you see it in other areas as well, its not just game development.
So yeah, just started the game, and on a 13980HX/4080 laptop, on just a basic map with nothing built it goes sub 30 fps with everything on high and 1440p ...wtf is this??
Have to set it to 1080p to get 60 fps on an empty map...
Not sure. I got 7900x/4080 and I hover between 105 and 115 on empty map on high at 3440x1440:
Not great, as my cap is 144, so it's not even hitting that on empty map. But 30 fps sounds really wrong. Something not right with it for it to be that low for you.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Not sure. I got 7900x/4080 and I hover between 105 and 115 on empty map on high at 3440x1440:
Not great, as my cap is 144, so it's not even hitting that on empty map. But 30 fps sounds really wrong. Something not right with it for it to be that low for you.
Disable Dynamic Resolution Scaling and see that fps drop to 30 on yours as well. Cause right now you're rendering everything at 720p and fooling yourself. Either that or you're lying since even a 4090 can't run this game at more then about 30fps on 4k, or about 60 at 1440p.
Disabling Depth of Field Mode does take me to around 50fps from 30 on 1440p high, which I dunno why that is a thing..
Last edited by Kezmark on Tue, 24th Oct 2023 18:51; edited 3 times in total
Disable Dynamic Resolution Scaling and see that fps drop to 30 on yours as well. Cause right now you're rendering everything at 720p and fooling yourself. Either that or you're lying since even a 4090 can't run this game at more then about 30fps on 4k
https://i.imgur.com/hilSyTJ.png
made a link as to see the image had to make a large screenshot with the settings and dynamic off, couldn't see the steam FPS counter text if I shrink it.
It dropped from 105-115 ish to 85-95 ish
Dunno. I have no reason to lie...why would I lie?
I dont make money off the game, or work there. And prefer to say it runs bad if it did on here. Only like 20 of us left. Be honest with those 20. No reason to try to win points over by lying about a silly game on a site no one gives 'internet points' to anyone on anyway
Doesn't run good, empty map should hit 165 (thought I had monitor set down to 144, guess I changed it back to 165 some time back). 85 is shit for empty map. I Expect to be down in the 20s for a full, busy, enjoyable map
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Dunno man, a 4080 is better then a 4080 laptop gpu, but it ain't double the fps better, so I dunno. Maybe the gamepass version is worse, either way, I am not playing this in this state. There is nothing there graphically that warrants my gpu being used at 95%. This is beyond stupid. CPU at 10-15% utilization, basically doing nothing, which makes sense on an empty map. But yeah even with depth of field off, 50 fps ain't it at 1440p. Can only imagine how bad it gets once you have even a small town.
No its not double laptop for sure. I cannot say what the difference is either.
Not saying it runs well. Was expecting better than that on empty map for both of us. I will play proper tonight when I get off work and see how bad it tanks once actual citizens,move into a town in a city sim
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
you hurr kafot
you hurr kafot
