low FPS because of bad GPU Usage?

Comments

• WastelandJoe USAUSAUSA Join Date: 2016-07-05 Member: 219591Members

  July 2016

  I'm having similar problems with FPS
  
  My specs:
  CPU: Intel Core i7 4770K
  GPU: GTX 760-Ti
  RAM: 16 GB corsair XM3 ddr3-1600
  
  I have the game installed on a samsung EVO SSD
  
  my cpu load is under 2%
  No idea what my GPU load is, I'll check next time
  
  its chewing through my ram though, takes up between 5-8 GB,
  
  The FPS I am getting on minimum settings is unplayable.
  
  the game started out perfect but as I explored and built bases everything bogged down
  
  there's a huge performance drain somewhere.
  
  
  
  

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Tyr07 Join Date: 2012-11-25 Member: 173208Members

  July 2016

  I have no problems yet but I'm running an 8350 - 8core 4ghz, 980 TI. I do get stutter though and no idea why, but overall frames are good. How big is your base? I'm curious if I'm going to run into that issue myself.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• EnglishInfidel Canada Join Date: 2016-07-04 Member: 219533Members

  July 2016

  Stutter is usually from the game loading up new areas. It loads them as you reach them so you get a chug.
  
  The PC I'm using is very similar to OP's. R9 255 with 8 gig RAM. Yet for me the game runs as well as you can expect on recommended settings.
  
  I was playing on max settings but the RAM bloated so much it was unplayable after 10 or so minutes. On recommended I can play for hours with no issue.
  
  The cyclops causes me massive frame rate drop, however. The game is not optimised well yet.
  
  Also, don't screw around with the terrain because that seems to make a big difference in my experience. The more digging, the worse it gets.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Fidjet PR Join Date: 2016-07-13 Member: 220161Members

  July 2016 edited July 2016

  i dunno the game runs smooth at all times for me except for the initial map loading and my specs are way inferior to you guys
  
  first gen FX 8320 OC'd at 4.2 Ghz
  8GB 1600 mhz RAM
  1 SSD + 1 HDD had the game on both and there was no diference in performance asides from the initial map loading taking about 3 minutes longer on my HDD
  R9 280x GPU
  990FXA-UD3 mobo

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• DagothUr Florida Join Date: 2016-07-12 Member: 220125Members

  July 2016 edited July 2016

  As far as I can tell the game has serious memory bloat issues. Meaning that I can start with a clean 60FPS but with every new piece of stuff that I add to my seabase, be it room, furniture, plants, anything, the more my FPS drops until eventually I hit this 1-2 FPS point where indeed it becomes unplayable.
  
  My guess would simply be that they need a more efficient way to store positions of things. A snap-to system for indoor item placement would be the first place I'd start. Ladders have fixed placement points, as do giant aquariums - why not do this for everything? It would probably take less memory for the game to remember presorted slots than trying to remember exact X/Y/Z positions of every single sign, locker and flowerpot down to the exact pixel. Plus it would simply look more organized by default.
  
  Memory loading in generalyl is kind of sluggish overall, too. In a Seamoth I can easily outrun the game's own ability to render terrain, turning the entire map in sandy plains until I decide to slow down and let the loading catch up with where I am. That might just be my own system at fault, however, as this can happen even when I first start.
  
  But yes, there is a definite rapid decay in performance as things are added. By the time I've finished even one small base (5 rooms, tops) I'll probably already have lost half my FPS. What makes it so confounding is that performance loss remains even when I'm all the way on the literal edge of the map, staring at the endless drop which is the map edge. Not so much as single piece of flora within visual range and yet the entire game is still running as if I was staring at a three story aquarium inside a base the size of the Taj Mahal.
  
  And that screams "MEMORY LEAK" like nothing else. My guess is that the game is honestly trying to keep literally every single player placed item loaded into RAM at all times, regardless of whether or not you're actually looking at it or even if you're within a thousand meters of it. It would be far more efficient to rewrite the entire engine to:
  
  1) Duplicate the core map files into the savegame folder. It may already be doing this but,
  2) Write player placed objects and terraforming changes directly to this duplicate file on the hard drive and then
  3) Dump all that crap from RAM when not in use.
  4) Buffer parameters to only save around once every 5 minutes or 256mb of changes so long as the Builder tool is equipped to avoid needless HD fatigue.
  
  Note: I don't mean do the Bethesda thing where you make a "main" and then let player actions "mod" things in some sort of convoluted priority tree. No, I mean dupe the map file entirely and then change that dupe file whenever the player does something. That way you're not loading layers of crap for no good reason. Just one file with all the data. It may be a bit slower than the clean-slate fresh start of the game feeling, but it won't get all bogged down so easily later on.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome