******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******

Dicehunter said:
And what's with the lack of graphical options ?
Click to expand...

Dicehunter said:
a pre-release game.
Click to expand...

That's why...

wengole said:
I've not played much AC since it was first released, but tried it recently and it's unplayably slow on my rig

AMD FX2 8250
Gigabyte GTX 560 (probably the culprit)
8GB RAM (also maybe the problem?)

Looking to buy a EVGA 970 GTX in the next couple of months. Anyone running something similar able to report decent performance?
Click to expand...

I've got a 780 and it works ok for the most part only the hanger (also AC when theres loads of stuff on screen) is laggy but im only in there for a few seconds at most, 970 will do great.
 
It's just the default Cry Engine optimizations, that's why it doesn't run well (Kingdom Come runs the same) . After the latest update, I see that vRAM usage spikes over 3GB.

I think people keep forgetting what an alpha (unfinished game) means.
 
Last edited:
Calin Banc said:
It's just the default Cry Engine optimizations, that's why it doesn't run well (Kingdom Come runs the same) . After the latest update, I see that vRAM usage spikes over 3GB.

I think people keep forgetting what an alpha (unfinished game) means.
Click to expand...

It's not that people forget it's that people expect semi decent performance even at low resolutions for the prices this company is charging, Instead of making more ships they should concentrate on performance for a while.
 
Performance isn't something that's done this early in a development cycle, yes they could improve it a bit especially for the areas they want actively tested e.g. Arena Commander, FPS etc when done but for other areas like the hangar there's little point.

Doubt they'll bother until we're into beta though, they're more interested in netcode and stability.
 
Dicehunter said:
It's not that people forget it's that people expect semi decent performance even at low resolutions for the prices this company is charging, Instead of making more ships they should concentrate on performance for a while.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy these posts as they just lack any real thought.

1) The game is still at least 18 months away from completion, the stuff thats currently there will likely change drastically over that time. Why waste talent, time and money optimising so early on?

2) There are many different teams working on many different aspects of the game, ship designers, artists etc... are there to do just that, design and create ships.

3) Most expect it to be what it is, a very early alpha module of a much bigger game, only daft folk expect a fully optimised game so early on.

4) It looks consideribly better than Elite Dangerous which i have and think it looks bang average, the ships are awful and lets not forget there is hardly any exterior view and what we do see of the outside is low polly.

I'm not even a fan boy of the game, I have this and Elite, at the moment neither do an awful lot for me game wise. Elite is an empty game that lacks anything worth while doing. Nether are currently installed.
 
Dicehunter said:
I played elite dangerous pre-release and that had a butt ton more options better performance and roughly on par graphics, Just lazy coding until they hit their next few million in crowd funding.
Click to expand...

Elite Dangerous is only half of what Star Citizen is, that's why.

ED has been released already, SC has another 2 years of development.
 
The elite dangerous engine was built from the ground up and was already ready prior to their crowdcrowd funding campaign. Star citizen was at a much earlier point in its life cycle when it hit crowdfunding. He's right a little more thought needs to be put into it. It's pre-release and pre - alpha. I'd you wanted a finished game with flawless performance then you chose badly with your gold code.
 
Looking to upgrade graphics card and monitor in the coming months, but can't decide whether G-Sync or Ultrawide would be more of a useful feature. Seems you can't have both (at least not in my budget).

From what I've heard G-Sync would make high action games seem more smooth, but I feel the ultrawide would give benefits to Star Citizen especially, due to more immersion (I'm probably never going to afford a Oculus - and I've tried a DK2 and wouldn't use it as a daily tool)

Anyone got any recommendations?
 
Dicehunter said:
Don't start with bs like that boy, Keep it civil and respectful at least.
Click to expand...

He only spoke the truth, you're the one having trouble keeping 'it civil'. It's pre-release, those options will be added along with tonnes of other things in due course. If the current state bothers you, uninstall it and wait until it's closer to what you want. Simples. Complaining about a work in progress is just daft unless it's some core gameplay feature you feel is going the wrong way.
 
wengole said:
Looking to upgrade graphics card and monitor in the coming months, but can't decide whether G-Sync or Ultrawide would be more of a useful feature. Seems you can't have both (at least not in my budget).

From what I've heard G-Sync would make high action games seem more smooth, but I feel the ultrawide would give benefits to Star Citizen especially, due to more immersion (I'm probably never going to afford a Oculus - and I've tried a DK2 and wouldn't use it as a daily tool)

Anyone got any recommendations?
Click to expand...

How about AMD ? Jury is still out on adaptive sync though , on paper it looks good/comapable to g-sync.

There do seem to be some good choice of monitors that support adaptive sync too just around the corner from what I've read. So it looks though you might have to do some research into the pair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom