Optimization ??????

[Hachiko]

 

I play this game since the beginning, I think it's amazing what the game has become, the addition of so many contents, new textures, etc ... But in the past I remember that it didn't take more than 5 minutes to generate a map, today I lose 20 minutes (this is the minimum) but I've been up to 56 minutes generating a map! The problem is not my computer, video card or processor, my computer meets the maximum requirements of the game. Until alpha 15 the game ran at more than 50 fps with everything at maximum, now at alpha 19 it reaches 24 fps IN MINIMUM CONFIGURATION it is already a lot, and I really feel that I spend all the requirements just generating the map, but still yes, I feel that the game can be better optimized, since there are a lot of crashes within the game, I play other games with a lot of action, better graphics, and I don't have the crashes found in these alphas today ... It's just a tip ... loving this game, and it has been great to keep up with its development, but these current optimizations are discouraging me from continuing to play!

[7daysexpert]

yeah i do agree but if i can run it on my PC then anyone can

 

Operating System
    Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz    61 °C
    Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
    4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
    Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International)    66 °C
Storage
    465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA)    39 °C
    465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA)    45 °C
Optical Drives
    HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
    High Definition Audio Device

[Fox]

Get an SSD. Takes less than 15 seconds for me to generate a new map. The reason it takes so long is because it's generating a lot of content, not because it's poorly optimized or anything like that. This is one of the few games out there that greatly benefit from SSD performance, not just for loading maps either, it helps to minimize certain stutter issues as well.

 

Also, plz don't try to compare this game to other games, this game is nothing like most other games. This is a voxel world with each block having it's own calculations for various things and render settings. Games like Call of Duty or Tomb Raider or even CyberPunk are all static world based games, like playing on a single block with no calculations (which is far easier to render, which is why they're able to make the graphics prettier).

 

And you claiming your computer isn't the issue is your opinion. Unless you can prove it by posting detailed specs of your hardware, we have nothing to go by, and I won't be taking your word for it, especially if you don't even have an ssd.

 

 

On 2/1/2021 at 11:13 PM, 7daysexpert said:

yeah i do agree but if i can run it on my PC then anyone can

 

Operating System
    Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz    61 °C
    Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
    4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
    Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International)    66 °C
Storage
    465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA)    39 °C
    465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA)    45 °C
Optical Drives
    HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
    High Definition Audio Device

I highly doubt the game runs well for you even on lowest settings as you don't even meet the bare minimum requirements for the game.

[7daysexpert]

@Fox it runs ok and i do have it on lowest possible settings

[meganoth]

10 hours ago, Hachiko said:

 

I play this game since the beginning, I think it's amazing what the game has become, the addition of so many contents, new textures, etc ... But in the past I remember that it didn't take more than 5 minutes to generate a map, today I lose 20 minutes (this is the minimum) but I've been up to 56 minutes generating a map! The problem is not my computer, video card or processor, my computer meets the maximum requirements of the game. Until alpha 15 the game ran at more than 50 fps with everything at maximum, now at alpha 19 it reaches 24 fps IN MINIMUM CONFIGURATION it is already a lot, and I really feel that I spend all the requirements just generating the map, but still yes, I feel that the game can be better optimized, since there are a lot of crashes within the game, I play other games with a lot of action, better graphics, and I don't have the crashes found in these alphas today ... It's just a tip ... loving this game, and it has been great to keep up with its development, but these current optimizations are discouraging me from continuing to play!

 

Yes, less graphics fidelity makes for less hardware requirements. But the game is getting optimizations all the time and this will continue until release. For example map generation will likely improve greatly in A20.

 

While the game is still in alpha it is normally very stable. One reason you might experience crashes at the moment is a memory leak in the game which makes it crash after a specific time for some people. In my case with 16G RAM in a mulitplayer game it always happens after about 4 hours and I better restart before then. If it happens to you always at the same time after starting the game it could be the reason for your crashes as well. You could also peek at memory usage while playing to find out whether the game continually uses more memory.

 

If not and you still use a normal hard disk then Fox's advice is highly recommended. Or simply wait for the release of the game.

 

PS: There are no maximum requirements. There are only minimum and recommended requirements and in the case of 7D2D they were set up 7 years ago. And do not look realistic anymore (this is just my personal opinion). 

 

[Fox]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

While the game is still in alpha it is normally very stable. One reason you might experience crashes at the moment is a memory leak in the game which makes it crash after a specific time for some people. In my case with 16G RAM in a mulitplayer game it always happens after about 4 hours and I better restart before then. If it happens to you always at the same time after starting the game it could be the reason for your crashes as well. You could also peek at memory usage while playing to find out whether the game continually uses more memory.

 

PS: There are no maximum requirements. There are only minimum and recommended requirements and in the case of 7D2D they were set up 7 years ago. And do not look realistic anymore (this is just my personal opinion). 

I read a lot about memory leaks and crashes relating to that but myself and my sister have never seen it. I don't know if it's just a setting we were running, lack of mod use, play style or just luck but I host my dedicated server (on a separate PC) and back when I only had 16GB of ram on my gaming rig, I would play for several hours at a time and never once had a crash, and task manager never once showed the game using more than 7.5GB of ram.

 

And I totally agree with there being no max requirements. Even ppl with the best money can buy still struggle a bit with 1440p and can't really manage 4k.

[meganoth]

12 minutes ago, Fox said:

 

And I totally agree with there being no max requirements. Even ppl with the best money can buy still struggle a bit with 1440p and can't really manage 4k.

 

Even if PCs were not struggling with 7d2d: Maximum requirements usually make no sense, for any modern game.

 

Even the very first doom can be played with the best hardware today and all that happens is that the CPU waits for most of the time or generates >1k FPS. A max req. would only make sense for antique games who actually had upper hardware limits because they depended on constant frames per second and waited in "do nothing" loops. And those loops had maximum values that were not enough for modern machines.

 

[Liesel Weppen]

12 hours ago, 7daysexpert said:

yeah i do agree but if i can run it on my PC then anyone can

Like 2 years ago i donated 3 similar PCs to random people, because my employer wanted to get rid of them.

They were even slighlty better, because of E8600, and one of them was even a Q9xxx-something with 8GB.

 

14 hours ago, Hachiko said:

Until alpha 15 the game ran at more than 50 fps with everything at maximum, now at alpha 19 it reaches 24 fps IN MINIMUM CONFIGURATION it is already a lot, and I really feel that I spend all the requirements just generating the map, but still yes, I feel that the game can be better optimized

Arguing about performance but not even naming your system specs disqualifies yourself for any further discussion.

Yep, the minimum requirements might have increased, but the specified system requirements have never been updated. However, the game also does neither look nor play like whatever early alphas you have played. That such changes also do change system requirements should be obvious.

 

BTW: You can still go playing A15 if that still runs fine on your system and if you are happy with the graphics and gameplay of that version. However wanting more but not accepting increased requirements, is somehow... @%$#ed? Where should the required capacity for improved and advanced mechanics and graphics come from?

 

But since it is another new member to the forum, i guess he just created an account to put his rant off and was never interested in any advices anyway.

[Roland]

We only take optimization questions seriously if they include 7 question marks. You were so close.

[Ti2xGr]

3 minutes ago, Roland said:

We only take optimization questions seriously if they include 7 question marks. You were so close.

When will you start cramming in tons more content while simultaneously making it run super great on my Meh system??????? Oh, and can I get a free copy of your game for my buddy???????

[BFT2020]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

Even if PCs were not struggling with 7d2d: Maximum requirements usually make no sense, for any modern game.

 

Even the very first doom can be played with the best hardware today and all that happens is that the CPU waits for most of the time or generates >1k FPS. A max req. would only make sense for antique games who actually had upper hardware limits because they depended on constant frames per second and waited in "do nothing" loops. And those loops had maximum values that were not enough for modern machines.

 

Yeah I experienced that before.  I had this great modern warfare navel simulator game that I enjoyed playing so much.  I kept the game and eventually got to a computer where the game was simply unplayable.  It wasn't because of graphics issues or not able to run; the game itself sped up to the point that you would hear the warning of a missile launch and then half a second later you get hit - no change of engaging countermeasures.  What's the good of having a ship with the Aegis system if a puny gunboat can attack and sink your destroyer milliseconds after you detect them on radar  😉

 

I could have probably found emulators to show down the computer speed so the game could still run, but decided that it was simply time to retire the game.

[JCrook1028]

14 hours ago, Fox said:

Get an SSD. Takes less than 15 seconds for me to generate a new map.

SSD alone is NOT going to give you 15 second map generation times. Simple fact.

[Fox]

3 hours ago, JCrook1028 said:

SSD alone is NOT going to give you 15 second map generation times. Simple fact.

I never said it did, but I agree, processor speed also matters in load times.

[Liesel Weppen]

7 minutes ago, Fox said:

I never said it did, but I agree, processor speed also matters in load times.

Yeah, but some moderators here... i don't track usernames per post, so not sure if it is you or others... keep going to praise using an SSD as a magic bullet.

 

SSD has an effect in some scenarios, map generation sounds even plausible, but it does not increase fps noticably. Maybe it reduces some occasional drops, but thats it.

 

Me, ran 7d2d with A18 still from a freaking slow 5400rpm HDD and switched to a 3GB/s NVMe... Not. Any. Noticable. Difference during runtime. World loading time for sure. Effect on FPS... if even measurable... none.

[Fox]

1 hour ago, Liesel Weppen said:

Yeah, but some moderators here... i don't track usernames per post, so not sure if it is you or others... keep going to praise using an SSD as a magic bullet.

 

SSD has an effect in some scenarios, map generation sounds even plausible, but it does not increase fps noticably. Maybe it reduces some occasional drops, but thats it.

 

Me, ran 7d2d with A18 still from a freaking slow 5400rpm HDD and switched to a 3GB/s NVMe... Not. Any. Noticable. Difference during runtime. World loading time for sure. Effect on FPS... if even measurable... none.

Oh, no, I'm quite the opposite. Majority of games still don't benefit much from SSD performance and sometimes not at all. I definitely don't consider it a magic bullet. For the longest time, when SSDs were heavily overpriced, I was dead set against buying one / recommending one. Now that they're more affordable, I'd say it's worth having even just for the sake of loading Windows faster. However, for this game in particular, I do feel like it makes a huge difference in load times if you also have good hardware to support it. It also eliminates one of the stutter issues as well (does not affect fps... but maybe stabilizes frame times a bit like you said).

[myrkana]

On 2/1/2021 at 10:17 PM, Fox said:

Get an SSD. Takes less than 15 seconds for me to generate a new map. The reason it takes so long is because it's generating a lot of content, not because it's poorly optimized or anything like that. This is one of the few games out there that greatly benefit from SSD performance, not just for loading maps either, it helps to minimize certain stutter issues as well.

 

Also, plz don't try to compare this game to other games, this game is nothing like most other games. This is a voxel world with each block having it's own calculations for various things and render settings. Games like Call of Duty or Tomb Raider or even CyberPunk are all static world based games, like playing on a single block with no calculations (which is far easier to render, which is why they're able to make the graphics prettier).

 

And you claiming your computer isn't the issue is your opinion. Unless you can prove it by posting detailed specs of your hardware, we have nothing to go by, and I won't be taking your word for it, especially if you don't even have an ssd.

 

 

I highly doubt the game runs well for you even on lowest settings as you don't even meet the bare minimum requirements for the game.

an ssd isnt a key to generating maps faster. Me and my bf both have ssd's now and we both take awhile to generate still. Unless we use nitrogen and then its less than  minute. I nfact I've noticed almost no difference in play and load times since I switched to a new ssd.

 

 

[Fox]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:35 PM, myrkana said:

an ssd isnt a key to generating maps faster. Me and my bf both have ssd's now and we both take awhile to generate still. Unless we use nitrogen and then its less than  minute. I nfact I've noticed almost no difference in play and load times since I switched to a new ssd.

 

 

Like we already mentioned in other posts, SSDs don't work as well if your CPU can't keep up with it. I mean, I haven't actually officially timed it yet (because why would I?), but it definitely doesn't take more than that.

[eXSe]

Well, considering the fact that I can run it at max settings with 50-60 FPS (albeit on a wonky 1680*1050 resolution... because monitor ) on my rig (i5 4570, 8GB RAM DDR3 and GTX 1650 4GB GDDR6) I wouldn't call it that unoptimized... although world creation does make me want to chew my foot off.

[Vampirenostra]

Khem.... seems another fat troll thread, another of infinity))

[Hachiko]

On 2/2/2021 at 1:17 AM, Fox said:

Get an SSD. Takes less than 15 seconds for me to generate a new map. The reason it takes so long is because it's generating a lot of content, not because it's poorly optimized or anything like that. This is one of the few games out there that greatly benefit from SSD performance, not just for loading maps either, it helps to minimize certain stutter issues as well.

 

Also, plz don't try to compare this game to other games, this game is nothing like most other games. This is a voxel world with each block having it's own calculations for various things and render settings. Games like Call of Duty or Tomb Raider or even CyberPunk are all static world based games, like playing on a single block with no calculations (which is far easier to render, which is why they're able to make the graphics prettier).

 

And you claiming your computer isn't the issue is your opinion. Unless you can prove it by posting detailed specs of your hardware, we have nothing to go by, and I won't be taking your word for it, especially if you don't even have an ssd.

 

 

I highly doubt the game runs well for you even on lowest settings as you don't even meet the bare minimum requirements for the game.

 

Ok, according to my pc's specifications!

Operational system

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

CPU
    Intel Core i7 8700

RAM

16.00 GB

Graphics

GTX 1080 8 GB
Storage

512 GB SSD
HD 1T Sata III

[Fox]

Ignore this post... can be deleted...

[PoloPoPo]

15 seconds? Must be a joke.

 

SSD

Ryzen 5 3600

32 GB RAM

Radeon RX 5700 XT

 

I can play on really high settings without any performance issues at all but generating a new map (max size) takes something between 5 and 10 minutes. Always.

[Fox]

1 hour ago, PoloPoPo said:

15 seconds? Must be a joke.

 

SSD

Ryzen 5 3600

32 GB RAM

Radeon RX 5700 XT

 

I can play on really high settings without any performance issues at all but generating a new map (max size) takes something between 5 and 10 minutes. Always.

Well, since you called me out on it, I decided to officially time it this time using an actual timer. It generated the 8192x8192 map in just under 41 seconds and reloading the map took me 23 seconds. So while I did exaggerate a little as I didn't actually time it before, I wasn't off by that much.

 

EDIT:  Ok, I admit, I was wrong. I thought all maps generated the same way. I was so used to running dedicated servers that I failed to realize that there's a random generated world option which creates a world from scratch which I've never used before until just now. Given the fact that I only have an old Samsung 860 evo sata ssd, I imagine that added a bit to the time... but ya, mine came up to 16m14s to generate + 20ish seconds to load it up. I also took a screenshot of the issue... which is that none of the hardware is being used at all. SSD is completely idling most of the time, ram was at around 13.5GB used which is half my total, and the CPU total maxed out at 18% but most of the time sat at like 13% because it only used like 2 threads worth spread out across 4 threads.

 

So again, I admit that I was wrong and the devs do in fact need to do something about this as what's the point in demanding such expensive computer hardware to play the game on high settings if the game isn't even going to benefit from the hardware properly and force us to wait forever like console peasants?

[Ornias]

On 2/1/2021 at 11:13 PM, 7daysexpert said:

yeah i do agree but if i can run it on my PC then anyone can

 

Operating System
    Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz    61 °C
    Wolfdale 45nm Technology
RAM
    4.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 531MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
    Hewlett-Packard 3048h (XU1 PROCESSOR)
Graphics
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    DELL 1704FPV (1280x1024@60Hz)
    2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (ZOTAC International)    66 °C
Storage
    465GB Seagate ST3500413AS (SATA)    39 °C
    465GB Seagate ST3500630NS (SATA)    45 °C
Optical Drives
    HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22NS50
Audio
    High Definition Audio Device

 

You are running W10 on just 4gb of system memory? That's impressive. 

[SylenThunder]

On 2/2/2021 at 4:54 PM, Liesel Weppen said:

Yeah, but some moderators here... i don't track usernames per post, so not sure if it is you or others... keep going to praise using an SSD as a magic bullet.

 

SSD has an effect in some scenarios, map generation sounds even plausible, but it does not increase fps noticably. Maybe it reduces some occasional drops, but thats it.

 

Me, ran 7d2d with A18 still from a freaking slow 5400rpm HDD and switched to a 3GB/s NVMe... Not. Any. Noticable. Difference during runtime. World loading time for sure. Effect on FPS... if even measurable... none.

No, but if you're talking about quickly loading in large region files in a multiplayer game, SSD's are considerably more desirable than a slow platter. You need to get of your HDD high horse there.  As the game has progressed, region files have gotten smaller, so it's less impact.  Go back to a16, start a multiplayer game, build large buildings or make a dense map. Then get 3-4 people running around on vehicles and you'll see your performance tank because there is no way in hell the platter will keep up when it's trying to load multiple region files simultaneously and they're a gig or more each.

 

Now region files are much smaller, but you're still going to see some impacts when you compare a platter drive barely capable of 100Mbps transfer rates versus an SSD that's 7-30 times faster.