Caporegime
Take care...???
Christ, I died in the first thirty minutes
You know the guy who you're playing can't remember everything, right?No Man's Sky - Procedural space game
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Take care...???
Christ, I died in the first thirty minutes
You know the guy who you're playing can't remember everything, right?
Nothing like throwing your toys out of the pram
It's a different game, and as you've pointed out a different engine. My system is definitely not high end and it plays it fine.
For a start,why have all that crap running in the background? It can't help matters. Have you tried it on a new install to see if it's the drive setup or partitioning? Could be a number of things.
When you first fired the game up, did you change it from default settings? If so, why?
Anyway, the choice is yours, comparing one game to another is pointless imo, particuapart if it's from different developers and engines, just because one game allows you to run it at max, doesn't mean every other game is going to let you do that
Throwing my toys out of the pram? I've given the game a good go, and the performance has been awful no matter what I've tried in terms of tweaking. I changed it from the default settings because it ran like a bag of ass. My system should be more than capable of running it at somewhat decent settings. It was a little better before the last patch but has totally fallen over since this last patch. I wasn't comparing it to Doom in terms of the game, but I was saying that the optimisation within the engine is far better because it actually uses my hardware to the full. You've missed the entire point of my post, but I guess you just saw red because I insulted the game that you like and you don't want to actually discuss it properly. Your first line in your reply indicates this perfectly.
My comparison was more to demonstrate that the game simply isn't using all of my available resources from the hardware, whereas Doom does. This to me indicates poor optimisation. And what's your point about all the crap running in the background meant to mean? That's all running but my system isn't being taxed. If everything was maxed out, then sure, you might have a point, but it isn't so that's not a factor.
I've tried to present an objective view on something, I've gone to the trouble of presenting evidence, and it's a blanket "lol you're full of crap because it's perfect on mine so you must be wrong" etc. There are loads of posts all around the internet from people experiencing the same issues that I'm having. It isn't just my system. I feel like because I've said something negative about the game, that you've responded simply because of that. Can't you take an objective view by looking at the resource usage and realise that something is clearly wrong with the optimisation within the game engine?
Soldato
@CHokKA That is pretty grim regarding the performance from your rig. I can't specifically offer any advice, I use Intel and NVidia with zero issues and no FPS dips etc, but I do note that those with an AMD rig, I assume they primarily refer to the GPU, are experiencing performance issues with this game, above and beyond that of what issues are generally there for some. I did note a post or two over in the Steam forums from those who have raised tickets with Hello Games and got a response back to say that they are aware of the AMD issues and are working with AMD to improve the situation.
This bit might be way of the mark but I read....
....haven't got a clue if the above is right or relevant.
Good luck but from what I understand if you can't compromise any more with your settings then it is down to Hello / AMD to resolve this one.
@DampCat I remember first starting this game and all that I did was die, several times over. I would stick with it but first watch several let's play YT vids from those starting the game to give you some ideas, or perhaps creative mode at first to get some idea of what is happening...?
This bit might be way of the mark but I read....
....haven't got a clue if the above is right or relevant.
Good luck but from what I understand if you can't compromise any more with your settings then it is down to Hello / AMD to resolve this one.
@DampCat I remember first starting this game and all that I did was die, several times over. I would stick with it but first watch several let's play YT vids from those starting the game to give you some ideas, or perhaps creative mode at first to get some idea of what is happening...?
@Vimes Dude, that's a most helpful response
That's the sort of response I was after, at least you've taken the time to look at the figures that I've posted and haven't blindly hit back at me saying my PC is rubbish and that it's only me, because those numbers certainly don't add up to a game using the hardware to the full. Thanks for your input In my search for answers, I hadn't come across that post on Steam, but I found a bunch of others on Reddit and other sites. Nothing that's had any sort of response like that though, so perhaps there's hope. I did, however, get the distinct impression that it was only those with AMD GPUs that were struggling.
@CHokKA Same issues here, and yeah from everything I've read it does seem to be an AMD issue, but as its been like this for so long I don't really have any hope that it will get looked at. I've spent a lot of time looking for solutions or trying to find out what settings I can change to improve things, but no luck. I'm persevering for now as its just about playable and I'm enjoying the game, but its a massive shame. I wouldn't mind so much if they actually listed some realistic system requirements, but i3, 8GB Ram and a GTX 480 or AMD 7870. Seriously....
I think its perfectly reasonable to compare, I can run most games well with them looking great, yet this game runs terribly. Yes they are made by different developers on different engines, but that's pretty much the point, this engine obviously isn't very good... And its not about expecting to be able to run at max, having old hardware I'm fairly used to having to dial down the settings, but with most games that actually helps, with this it doesn't seem to make any difference what I reduce.
comparing one game to another is pointless imo, particuapart if it's from different developers and engines, just because one game allows you to run it at max, doesn't mean every other game is going to let you do that
I think its perfectly reasonable to compare, I can run most games well with them looking great, yet this game runs terribly. Yes they are made by different developers on different engines, but that's pretty much the point, this engine obviously isn't very good... And its not about expecting to be able to run at max, having old hardware I'm fairly used to having to dial down the settings, but with most games that actually helps, with this it doesn't seem to make any difference what I reduce.
I've owned since launch, played a fair but back then and left it alone. Now after 15 hours on the Next update, i'm pretty much done. I've done loads of jumps, seen loads of different planets but it's just rinse and repeat in each system in terms of exploration and missions.
The potential of this is immense and I may come back if they do some significant updates. Did a bit of base building but seems ultimately pointless.
The lack of any real enemies or threat doesn't help either.
It's good for what it is and runs well and looks nice but there is no depth there at all.
The potential of this is immense and I may come back if they do some significant updates. Did a bit of base building but seems ultimately pointless.
The lack of any real enemies or threat doesn't help either.
It's good for what it is and runs well and looks nice but there is no depth there at all.
@mark43 Thanks for backing me up. It sucks that we're experiencing similar issues in the game, and that it's only really this game. What's your system spec?
At the end of the day, I know that my Ivy Bridge CPU is old, and as mentioned I've been considering an upgrade, but nothing that I play is really taxing it, except for this game, and the performance has been so terrible that it prompted me to investigate. Your point about it being reasonable to compare games to one another is spot on. Why wouldn't we do that when one game clearly runs better? It's not like I chose Pillars of Eternity or Surviving Mars for comparison. I mostly chose Doom because I knew that it supported OpenGL. It just happens that Doom is made by one of the best studios in the business, so they've optimised their game better for sure.
Whatever happens, I gave the game a try and I do find it a bit grindy and unhelpful at times. I was directed to get two technology modules from a space station. It didn't say how to get them, so I tried the technology merchant, you know, clue being in their name. Nope, they didn't sell them. So I then ran around looking everywhere. I eventually had to alt-tab out to look online, and then discovered that you either have to pay 60k for one on the market, or buy technology upgrades from the technology merchant, then destroy these and then hope that they have a technology module. The game didn't explain any of this. Like I said before, I don't want my hand to be held, but I shouldn't have to come out of the game just to figure out the next step!
@CHokKA I'm only running a 2500k, 290X, and 8GB RAM. Obviously that's really not great and I'm considering an upgrade, but as other games run well at 1080p while looking acceptable (I don't care that I can't max games out) then I haven't really felt the need to upgrade. The 2500k is obviously really old now, but when I asked for upgrade advice people suggested just stick with that and get a new graphics card. And that in itself is a tricky one, I'd rather stick with AMD for Freesync, but this isn't the first time a game has 'struggled on AMD', so half tempted to go Nvidia, though need to wait and see what the situation is with the new cards. Having said all that though, as other games run fine not sure I'm in any rush.
Caporegime
Tbh, it's looking like it's the AMD cards that have issues
Soldato
I had a 3570k at 4.5Ghz and then a 3770k at about the same. They were used with my 970GTX and then the 1070GTX.....
you can see the above (Atlas Pass 1.3 release) isn't using the Ivy Bridge CPU excessively but the 1070GTX did a brilliant job at giving me 60FPS at 1440p consistently.
I did not have an issue with either the 970GTX or 1070GTX, both played the game consistently well with the frame-rate.
IMO the issue is more to do with your GPU than having an IB CPU.
My 6700k at 4.7GHZ and 1080Ti at 1440p.....
....again showing that the GPU is loaded more than the CPU.
Yep, that's what I've been thinking all along. I could understand if my CPU was maxed constantly across all the cores, but the load on the AMD R9's GPU is so low that it's clearly not using much of it. Your post to the Steam forum describes perfectly what's going on. If the AMD GPU isn't able to be utilised fully because of a driver or other issue, then that'll explain why the performance is so low with barely much load on the GPU
Agreed. Though I think I'd word it, this game has issues running on AMD cards, rather than AMD cards have issues.
Caporegime
NMS graphics are cack considering how awful it's running for the graphics. Also, been using unlimited hyper drive, didn't realise there is multiple different drives so you can just zip around and explore where you want
Picked this game up recently after initially playing it at launch. The game has added a lot of content but its still hampered by the same issue.....the grind. I don't mind grindy games but this game just takes the fun out of grinding after spending hours walking around for certain rocks, plants etc.
I think my main issue is money, reading other people's posts and various web pages people have millions and millions ready to go, I've only gone over 1m once and that was farming eggs. Any tips on getting money quicker?
I've read that repairing crashed ships and trading them is a good way of upgrading quick. I've looked for crashed ships, not getting any luck. Always end up finding crashed freighters.....after fixing some of the cargo drops its just not worth the hassle. Is there some trick I am missing?
I think my main issue is money, reading other people's posts and various web pages people have millions and millions ready to go, I've only gone over 1m once and that was farming eggs. Any tips on getting money quicker?
I've read that repairing crashed ships and trading them is a good way of upgrading quick. I've looked for crashed ships, not getting any luck. Always end up finding crashed freighters.....after fixing some of the cargo drops its just not worth the hassle. Is there some trick I am missing?
NMS graphics are cack considering how awful it's running for the graphics. Also, been using unlimited hyper drive, didn't realise there is multiple different drives so you can just zip around and explore where you want
Yeh, Cadmium drive for Red Systems, Emril drive for Green systems and Indium for Blue star systems.
Caporegime
That's a bit weird, the starship enterprise didn't need a different warp drive to explore.
Soldato
All the crashed ships I've found have been at signal distress sites so far.
Doing missions from the agents on board the space stations makes you good money in the early game, the higher the rank you get the better missions they will offer which in turn leads to greater rewards.
Also getting a freighter is good because you can start running frigate missions which also bring in more money.
From these two I've made around 15 million so far, combined with farming the eggs from the abandoned buildings (not as profitable as it was a few weeks ago unfortunately).
After that farming, although nerfed very recently, is still a decent way to make money. You need to follow the base building quest line to get into farming.
Around finding crash ships, if you land on a planet and stick down a signal booster and insert a navigational data (You can buy these from various places), one of the frequencies it offers to scan will be for a distress signal which should lead you to a crashed ship.
I watched a guy yesterday on Twitch go from 57 million to 480 million for about 3-4 hours work. Was a chunk of grinding and he already had the blueprints for the items he needed to craft but it made serious money.
Caporegime
Yep, that's what I've been thinking all along. I could understand if my CPU was maxed constantly across all the cores, but the load on the AMD R9's GPU is so low that it's clearly not using much of it. Your post to the Steam forum describes perfectly what's going on. If the AMD GPU isn't able to be utilised fully because of a driver or other issue, then that'll explain why the performance is so low with barely much load on the GPU
Have you tried older driver versions outlf interest?
Bit of a pain to do I agree
Well, up until last night I was on an older driver so I figured I'd update it to see how that went, although it was only a month or so ago when I last updated so not that far back. It didn't make any difference though