Beta branch for the release patch?

[Flydo]

8 hours ago, Nightinggale said:

I disagree with that statement. People don't count equally. In fact there are two tiers of people on the forum: players and mod creators. The key difference is that a steam workshop full of well working mods helps to sell more copies of the game. A forum full of players with some idea about what to do about the game they already paid for will not provide new income.

I disagree too, but please don't forget the beta players helping the dev from the beginning to find most bug as possible, they re a big part of the community and they do a lot of hours on ONI, not only to play (it's not really playing when the game crash every minutes but that helping dev). ONI won't be like this with all the idea, bug, exploit find, etc since few years

[Gurgel]

14 minutes ago, Flydo said:

I disagree too, but please don't forget the beta players helping the dev from the beginning to find most bug as possible, they re a big part of the community and they do a lot of hours on ONI, not only to play (it's not really playing when the game crash every minutes but that helping dev). ONI won't be like this with all the idea, bug, exploit find, etc since few years

The thing is, Klei wants a good product, I am pretty sure this is much more than "just a job" for most or all of them. And beta-testers for free means they can save a lot of money and put that into development. Sure, they still will be doing quite a bit of testing by themselves, but some of the things people here find are truly astonishing. They also get free feedback on what people like and do not (to be filtered with a critical eye) and on what works and does not work. 

Hence this is not about who "counts", this is what they get out of the deal and that is pretty good is my impression. This is not something they do in order to be nice to us, it is something they do because it works. It is still possible that we will only get a shortened or no beta, after all the have to get this thing ready in the next two and a half weeks. A feature that is not implemented yet or known to be defect will not get any good feedback they can use. They will currently be doing triage as to what they can still get done for release, what they can get done a week before and what they can get done earlier and then decide when/if they can do the preview and what to put into it. 

[RonEmpire]

I'm starting to get worried about the release.

We really need some sort of  final test on the Late Game Performance Lag problem.

I would hate to see this game drop in reviews because of the lag issue.

Would be nice to have a final test by the community those with experiences to reach to the late game  or those with large cycles to load up their saves.

[Gurgel]

35 minutes ago, RonEmpire said:

We really need some sort of  final test on the Late Game Performance Lag problem.

And what then? Do you think they can re-engineer the core of the game in 2 weeks?

Klei are not new at this. They pretty much know what they are doing. So relax.

Also, while some complain loudly, most seem to not have that lag problem.

[Lutzkhie]

a 3 week beta test could suffice for the 3 new biomes

[Daxterr]

This thread is amazing. 

 

10/10 would read again

[SamLogan]

If you search new experience pending the next patch, you should try this mod : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1683446877

To obtain this results, here's the settings :

With some new lights :

- Decor lights : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1732501619

- Alarm : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1728587598

- Ceiling Lights : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1729794261

It's inspired by the ONI's first concept gameplay :

And some players imagine more gameplay around the dark mode :

 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

7 hours ago, Gurgel said:

And what then? Do you think they can re-engineer the core of the game in 2 weeks?

Klei are not new at this. They pretty much know what they are doing. So relax.

Also, while some complain loudly, most seem to not have that lag problem.

You can't of course just improve performance overnight on a massive scale. However, should the game be released with a massive memory leak, and we did have those in the past, then I feel the complaint is going to be justified.

There is no huge issue at the moment regarding lag IF you are using an intel processor. We saw that in the benchmark thread. Low end CPU's performed relatively close to high end CPU's. However, there was one AMD processor in it and that got hit quite hard.

All of the complaints and worrying might be for naught and the game gets released in pristine shape. I sincerely hope that will be the case!

[Sasza22]

10 hours ago, Gurgel said:

Also, while some complain loudly, most seem to not have that lag problem.

Most people don`t play a base longer than 500 cycles. Many players didn`t ever build a rocket, yet they are satisfied with what the game offers to them. The lag problem starts to be really severe at around 1000 cycles. I have to say i never played a base for that long (my record is around 800). It`s entirely possible most people don`t have the lag problem beacause most people don`t reach the part of the game where it would affect them.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

I did use that same argument yesterday. However, reflecting a little bit more: space is a BIG part of the game and thus is significant. The ones desiring to use that part of the game, should be allowed to do so in a good FPS environment.

 

I'm not sure how it runs nowadays. I am basically waiting for the release because I skipped out on QoL3 already and starting something new now is not going to be very useful. And after that, it'll probably be 2-3 weeks realistically before I get to space.

[bambalad]

3 hours ago, SamLogan said:

If you search new experience pending the next patch, you should try this

I tried your settings and don't get it. Can't play because nothing is intractable.

[Gurgel]

5 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

There is no huge issue at the moment regarding lag IF you are using an intel processor. We saw that in the benchmark thread. Low end CPU's performed relatively close to high end CPU's. However, there was one AMD processor in it and that got hit quite hard.

That was mine. But you are misinterpreting the numbers. While I have low FPS, I have very good playability, i.e. no lags, smooth scrolling, etc. It seems that 20 fps on AMD is much, much better than 30 fps on (some) Intel. 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

1 minute ago, Gurgel said:

That was mine. But you are misinterpreting the numbers. While I have low FPS, I have very good playability, i.e. no lags, smooth scrolling, etc. It seems that 20 fps on AMD is much, much better than 30 fps on (some) Intel. 

Yes, it meant you have good framerate stability, and probably having less highs and lows overall. I think due what kind of game it is, 20 fps is not that much of a burden. Still, 20 FPS is not that great either for a developer to put forward to the public. And you massively notice the difference between a fresh cycle 1 game, and a cycle 2000 game (even for me the fps difference is that huge I get motion sickness when starting a cycle 1 colony right after doing a game on roughly 30 FPS!).

Maybe they should cap the FPS for the launch (by default; player should be allowed to remove the cap). Not for performance reasons, but to have the game run on same FPS throughout your game and to get a more even experience.

[Nightinggale]

10 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

That was mine. But you are misinterpreting the numbers. While I have low FPS, I have very good playability, i.e. no lags, smooth scrolling, etc. It seems that 20 fps on AMD is much, much better than 30 fps on (some) Intel. 

That's most likely because fps is not really the best measurement for playability. Instead what is actually needed is max time between frames. Say we have two computers. Computer A has 40 fps and B has 33 fps. A has an average of 25 ms between frames, but it mostly delivers a frame every 20 ms, but once in a while it spends more than 50 ms on a single frame. Computer B has an average of 30 ms between frames and it maintains around 30 ms without jumps.

The result is that A has 40 fps with a stuck frame for 50 ms while B has 33 fps and frames are stuck for 30 ms. A will appear as more shuttering and less playable. Measuring fps alone will not catch this type of shuttering.

Even though I measured a low of 50 fps, I could still tell that occasionally a frame was stuck for way longer than it should be and longer than other frames. It's entirely possible that I got 49 frames at 55 fps speed and then one frame at 10 fps. That gives a total of 50 fps, but that single frame really stands out in the gaming experience.

[Gurgel]

1 hour ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Yes, it meant you have good framerate stability, and probably having less highs and lows overall. I

Ah, ok. My mistake. 

1 hour ago, Nightinggale said:

That's most likely because fps is not really the best measurement for playability.

Exactly. It is easily measured, but it does not tell most of the tale. Now, I am not blaming anybody for trying this as a measure, making good measurements is hard. Probably the best we have is subjective playability and that is, you know, subjective.

[Sebastiangperez]

22 hours ago, Junksteel said:

As sad as it is, I think the word "today" in the sentence is a bit off...

I remember that they released the beta branch on Thursday ... or i'm wrong ?

[Chaoticlusts]

16 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

You can't of course just improve performance overnight on a massive scale. However, should the game be released with a massive memory leak, and we did have those in the past, then I feel the complaint is going to be justified.

Maybe not on a massive scale but there should be noticeable improvements from all the metrics being collected for bug reports and such being turned down once it's a release candidate, given all those are just more cpu cycles which is the real bottleneck. I know on the testing branches they'd pointed out at various times that performance would drop as those were dialled up further (all for a good cause :))

 

10 hours ago, Gurgel said:

That was mine. But you are misinterpreting the numbers. While I have low FPS, I have very good playability, i.e. no lags, smooth scrolling, etc. It seems that 20 fps on AMD is much, much better than 30 fps on (some) Intel. 

I've seen these comments a few times I think people need to be more specific than AMD and Intel.  Zen(and Zen+) closed the gap significantly on Intel and while they do still have the raw single threaded lead it's not on every processor and it's nowhere near as big as it was.  Zen2 is looking like it'll at least reach parity if not potentially give AMD an actual single threaded lead.  Meanwhile I'm running an old 2500K (overclocked to all hell) that handles the game pretty well but does start to choke late game if I do anything too silly, so that's an Intel processor but obviously not a terribly recent one.  I'm interested to see how the launch candidate goes, might be the push I need to jump on Zen 2 in a few months, waiting for Zen3 next year is tempting though.  2500K really had/has legs, 8 years heavily overclocked and counting 

[goboking]

17 hours ago, SamLogan said:

Now I really want a deep sea biome.

[blacknight7890]

33 minutes ago, withers said:

Oh wait, never mind.  It isn't released.  I just lied to you.

go commit die

[Gurgel]

2 hours ago, Chaoticlusts said:

I've seen these comments a few times I think people need to be more specific than AMD and Intel.  Zen(and Zen+) closed the gap significantly on Intel and while they do still have the raw single threaded lead it's not on every processor and it's nowhere near as big as it was.  Zen2 is looking like it'll at least reach parity if not potentially give AMD an actual single threaded lead.  Meanwhile I'm running an old 2500K (overclocked to all hell) that handles the game pretty well but does start to choke late game if I do anything too silly, so that's an Intel processor but obviously not a terribly recent one.  I'm interested to see how the launch candidate goes, might be the push I need to jump on Zen 2 in a few months, waiting for Zen3 next year is tempting though.  2500K really had/has legs, 8 years heavily overclocked and counting 

Nope. Intel has issues with software using multiple cores. It leads to stuttering and brief lockups. AMD does not, even older AMD. This has nothing to do with per-core performance.

[minespatch]

On 5/10/2019 at 5:57 AM, SamLogan said:

And some players imagine more gameplay around the dark mode :

I remember drawing that.

[bambalad]

Whats the point of overclocking these days now when they ship processors with safety mechanics that throttle you when overheating. I'd rather have a smooth experience where I always stay below that threshold. Screw multiple cores for single processes anyway, it's borderline pointless, I'm all about the ghz.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

40 minutes ago, bumbaclad said:

Whats the point of overclocking these days now when they ship processors with safety mechanics that throttle you when overheating. I'd rather have a smooth experience where I always stay below that threshold. Screw multiple cores for single processes anyway, it's borderline pointless, I'm all about the ghz.

Overclocking is a bit of a complex operation. I for instance also have a better heat sink keeping the processor cooler, hence keeping the processor from throttling (and more important from literally burning up). Depending on your own setup and the processor itself, you can do some minor overclocking without hitting the temperature limit. It will not bring a whole lot, but it is free performance on the table.

 

Granted though, Intel chips are increasingly more difficult to overclock. This is because of the older 14nm architecture being exploited and pushed to the limit on stock settings. The i7-9900K for instance is notorious for needing a lot of cooling. The next generation AMD ryzen chipsets will have a lot more margin again.

[Nightinggale]

43 minutes ago, bumbaclad said:

Whats the point of overclocking these days now when they ship processors with safety mechanics that throttle you when overheating. I'd rather have a smooth experience where I always stay below that threshold. Screw multiple cores for single processes anyway, it's borderline pointless, I'm all about the ghz.

The point is to get a faster computer. If you look at the benchmark thread you can see that I gain 2 fps in the average score by going from 4.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz. It's not great, but it's certainly more than nothing.

When a CPU gets too hot, it will slow itself down to cool and then it can run at full power again, overheat and slow down etc. The average speed of while doing so is usually lower than what can be gained from setting the speed to avoid overheating. This means you are right that overclocking into thermal throttling is a stupid idea.

The key is to throttle the CPU not based on temperature, but by power usage. Add better than stock cooling and set your CPU power to max whatever you measured your cooling can handle and still keep the CPU at a reasonable temperature. I have throttled mine to be max 80 C during stress test on all cores. Within this power usage I can play games relying on single core performance where I then can get a stable 4.7 GHz.

The stock speed is 4 GHz, which gives me 41.7 fps on the benchmark savegame (centered on home base). Precisely the same setup when running at 4.7 GHz gives me 47.3 fps. Minimum framerate increased from 30 to 35. Clearly there is something to gain from overclocking if it's done right.

[Muggins]

If anyone has ever had an important deadline for anything ever then it should be quite easy to imagine the general atmosphere in the Klei studios these weeks. For any of the coders/artists/animators/sound-designers currently reading this whilst hyperventilating from the dirty side of a locked toilet-stall door, I just want you to know that you've got this!!...you can do it!!...we believe in you!!! Now get back out there, Champ and give it hell!!!