ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy

  • Content Count

    674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

472 Excellent

About ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy

  • Rank
    Senior Member
...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Is there still progress being made in the base game regarding the abysmal FPS?
  2. I concur - keep the previous branch also active. I very much like the changes made, but the new update getting sorted will take a lot of time. In the meanwhile can prepare their bases in the old branch for the changes.
  3. But why. He had a smooth gaming experience on his old cpu yesterday before the update. Why then compromise further? I remember them scaling the maps down too - during early access when the game was still in development, not after the launch- but to me that would be not acceptable on a launched game. Of course, there are games out there that increased system requirements over the years. WoW comes to mind. However, those game with very significant updates that did justify that. Nothing on the update list justifies that performance hit. They are all point for point very good changes, but nothing in there justifies a performance hit.
  4. I do have to wonder why there is a performance drop for older CPU's on a LAUNCHED game. Is the update to unity 2020.3 causing this? You can't just expect people accept that. I agree a roll back for those people atleast as a temporary fix should be an option. The changes in the update list are significant updates, but nowhere close to being worth a potential performance penalty.
  5. I am currently on preview branch 438694. Is it advisable to not update for now?
  6. Me too. I am daily moving between 2 places, so it is nice to have that option now instead of constantly using an usb stick.
  7. I second that. I think given it is still early days, it's not really an issue that we for instance have to play with unfinished art or unrefined game mechanics. If bug and crash fixing pushes that backwards, then I can definitely cope with that. Just want to be able to try stuff out and give decent feedback. That's what testing is all about.
  8. For the record, I always agreed to have the water sieve a variable output. I even fully agree with a standard rise in temperature. However, a flatline base of 40°C and from there a variable output is shifting the balance too much to the other side. Also, I always believed that even though this was needed, additional or improved ways of cooling were also needed to compensate. The icemaker does not cut it, and with wheezeworts also somewhat nerfed, this will make cooling much more difficult. I think most experience players will be handly this, maybe even comfortably. However, do know new players will fail at this and maybe get extremely frustrated. Given the QoL updates were to make things easier for those players, I do feel this is nullifying to a degree the efforts made in QoL.
  9. I agree that the fixed temp is too much. It should just add heat, and the other cooling solutions should he bumped up.
  10. Yes. I'm just saying: you are effectively deleting heat, instead of displacing it like the aqua tuner.
  11. If I am correct, you are still deleting heat. It will just take more power per unit of heat deleted (or better said: it will take a fixed amount of power per deleted unit of heat).