Performance?

[Cursed_Handus]

Have their been any performance improvements in the last few months?

[babba]

11 minutes ago, Cursed_Handus said:

Have their been any performance improvements in the last few months?

On the players computer side ( by slotting in a new cpu ) or on Klei`s side

[Cursed_Handus]

2 minutes ago, babba said:

On the players computer side ( by slotting in a new cpu ) or on Klei`s side

I have an i7-10750. It should be good enough to run this game reasonably well in the late game.

[babba]

16 minutes ago, Cursed_Handus said:

I have an i7-10750. It should be good enough to run this game reasonably well in the late game.

i710700-i710800 is ok

I can only tell you my experience during this ONI year, some Klei light speed improvements...

Lets say FPS +10-20%  -10% FPS for new content

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/201837/intel-core-i710750h-processor-12m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz/specifications.html?wapkw=10750h

If I had that mobile processor I would deactivate Hyperthreading, play with wall-plug mains power and make sure the clock is running permanently fast.

In, lets say 2 years, some cpu update from the i710750 would rock with ONI

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html?full

Inspiring and creative "PC Case" build

[avc15]

1 hour ago, Cursed_Handus said:

Have their been any performance improvements in the last few months?

Are you on a spaced out cluster or a classic cluster?

Classic cluster was added back in as a nod to the community since it was so frequently requested, but there's a very compelling reason why the moonlet clusters perform way better. It's because each separate simulation goes in a different context (thread).

If you're using a classic cluster you've de-optimized the game, yet, I see people almost universally choose classic first for some reason. (probably the moonlet clusters seem intimidating, and, klei put classic as the "first" option at game creation)

[cpy]

1 minute ago, avc15 said:

Are you on a spaced out cluster or a classic cluster?

Classic cluster was added back in as a nod to the community since it was so frequently requested, but there's a very compelling reason why the moonlet clusters perform way better. It's because each separate simulation goes in a different context (thread).

If you're using a classic cluster you've de-optimized the game, yet, I see people almost universally choose classic first for some reason. (probably the moonlet clusters seem intimidating, and, klei put classic as the "first" option at game creation)

No it does not, it all runs in single thread. Stop telling lies. There are no multiple maps running in multiple threads only one big map running in one thread. The only difference is how much you see at once and rest is hidden in black bar zone.

[avc15]

13 minutes ago, cpy said:

No it does not, it all runs in single thread. Stop telling lies. There are no multiple maps running in multiple threads only one big map running in one thread. The only difference is how much you see at once and rest is hidden in black bar zone.

"I am sorry, this is not correct. I know there was lots of discussion about this possibility before and during alpha, but it turns out to NOT be the case!"

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I suppose I conflated speculation from before alpha with a belief I had seen this stated somewhere official. Kinda unfortunate they didn't go that route.

[cpy]

10 hours ago, avc15 said:

"I am sorry, this is not correct. I know there was lots of discussion about this possibility before and during alpha, but it turns out to NOT be the case!"

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I suppose I conflated speculation from before alpha with a belief I had seen this stated somewhere official. Kinda unfortunate they didn't go that route.

I'm pretty sure I speculated about this and you read that. Because I was hoping for split maps running in their own threads and you'd be able to have much larger colony, but we got lazy programming of just making one big lazy map and squirt black boxes all around.

It also might be our fault too since we already bought early accesses and gave them money prematurely so they will be like, meh we already got the money, what can they do now right?

[WhiteWind36]

10 hours ago, cpy said:

There are no multiple maps running in multiple threads only one big map running in one thread. The only difference is how much you see at once and rest is hidden in black bar zone.

A proof of that is well seen when you have free camera mod, when you zoom out (after some recent update) and turn on harvest tool you can see all plants through out all uncovered map in every asteroid...

And yes, when you uncover enough of the map the performance goes down significantly. On spaced out moonlet cluster I noticed performance drop when fully explored 4 asteroids... Now it's already hard to play because of how bad FPS is... Don't have FPS counter, but would say it somewhere between 0 and 5...

[avc15]

14 hours ago, cpy said:

 one big lazy map

one map doesn't automatically rule out the different areas being run by different threads, if they can't interact with one another. There is neutronium in between, and the only things that cross the boundaries are rockets, teleporters, and supply teleporters, right?

Did we ever hear from anyone official on this, one way or the other? Or, did anyone actually study the way load shares across threads as the player builds on more moonlets?

But I digress, this topic isn't about multi threading. If I did that I'd take it to a different post.

Quote

A proof of that is well seen when you have free camera mod, when you zoom out (after some recent update) and turn on harvest tool you can see all plants through out all uncovered map in every asteroid...

this also doesn't provide proof that the different simulations don't run in different threads. It *does* suggest that some major function (say, draw code?) is possibly held over from the original single-threaded design. I originally wrote out here an explanation of how that could happen under the hood, and still have different moonlets in different contexts, but it was a long pedantic block of text. I'll leave that out for now because it's also maybe hopeful thinking.

The kind of scrutiny this needs, is to compare load balancing across threads in a network of medium bases across many moonlets, vs. load balancing across threads in a comparable mega-base on a classic start.

[babba]

I think there is a variety of problems or things to consider:

- It is a small development team

- The game has not been designed from the beginning with ( lots ) of multi-core support

- There may be engine limitations

- There may be limited time or monetary schedule for a major push on core/threading experiments

- If certain things would be allocated to other cores, players may not have sufficient cores or the game crashes when core(s) lock up

- A major push may make the game unplayable and unstable for a certain duration of time

- The games min spec is 2 cores

- Consumer players may show up with 2-128 cores over the next years, it is a marketing competition of writing a big core number on cpu packages

- Players don`t have the knowledge/motivation/interest/time or money to get the most out of 2-4 of their cpu cores

-------------------

On the plus side:

+ Klei seems to have the monitoring/development tools and experience to improve the game performance over time

+ With the new competition between AMD, Intel and Apple we may see faster cpu`s which will runs the game at double the FPS in, lets say 6 years

+ If Klei works further years on the game, they surely will continue to try to improve the game speed every year, hopefully without too many player crashes

+ Interested players can optimize their own computer system to get more ONI FPS out of their system. Optimizing a computer for ONI automatically provides a great player system to feed 3d game graphic cards at the maximum, for other 3d game titles.

Touch wood, would be great if I can play a save game longer than 3 months. I`m hoping for this since 4 years. Probably wont happen...If more DLCs come

[Primalflower]

9 hours ago, cpy said:

I'm pretty sure I speculated about this and you read that. Because I was hoping for split maps running in their own threads and you'd be able to have much larger colony, but we got lazy programming of just making one big lazy map and squirt black boxes all around.

It also might be our fault too since we already bought early accesses and gave them money prematurely so they will be like, meh we already got the money, what can they do now right?

How many cores does your computer have? I never understand this argument when you consider there are like 7 or 8 asteroids in the game. 

Even if i am wrong on this or get the answer of "well, the outer asteroids could run on the same thing because they are kinda small" i still wish literally every single message ive seen of you wasnt coated in venom towards the developers and anyone who happens to enjoy the game in spite of performance issues far into the game.

[Niil945]

Just for reference here's my specs:

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 Core

64 GB ram

Radeon RX 570 (waiting til prices drop to upgrade this so I know this isn't great)

In spaced out by once I have the bulk of the starting asteroid cored out saves start taking a couple seconds. Performance decreases from there with each asteroid. I settle. In my last game (just started over so no performance updates since I stopped playing that one) I had the main and 4 other asteroids fully automated and cored out and several other asteroids visited and most of what I needed done there (water planet I had farmed all the graphite, neutronium planet I gathered enough to mass produce thermium). At that point saves were taking ~10 seconds or so resulting in me changing the saves from every cycle to every 5 and then every 10 cycles. Constant stutters and occasional crashes if it froze up while I was doing something big. Lots of performance issues still that become glaringly obvious once people get to mid game and beyond.

[Orzelek]

19 hours ago, Primalflower said:

How many cores does your computer have? I never understand this argument when you consider there are like 7 or 8 asteroids in the game. 

Even if i am wrong on this or get the answer of "well, the outer asteroids could run on the same thing because they are kinda small" i still wish literally every single message ive seen of you wasnt coated in venom towards the developers and anyone who happens to enjoy the game in spite of performance issues far into the game.

If game was capable of running sim and AI on multiple threads then it would be up to OS scheduler to ensure they get their time slices on actual CPU cores.
I do think that people that are asking for more parallel sim are those that build big bases and have the CPU's to do that. Any recent CPU will have at least 4 cores/8 threads and people that build gaming rigs will have more (12/16 threads easily).
If you take a look at benchmarks thread it gives nice overview of interested parties