when I first got this game for console I was excited and liked it despite it feeling incomplete and super crashy/glitchy. I can't afford a good gaming pc as much as I'd like to switch over to it but its also disappointing to see the videos of how great it is for pc and how incomplete it still continues to be for console. I wish the developers would show some tlc to the console gamers. Can funpimps please make the console version better? I know it couldnt be as great as pc but still. Its sad owing an incomplete game and if I would've known it wouldnt get good updates for console I never would've bought the game when it came out.
PS can we get better updates to console??
- Thread starter captkirk
- Start date
Old Crow
Hunter
These, as I understand it, are restraints placed by Sony and Microsoft, not the Fun Pimps.
Riamus
Hunter
Unfortunately, consoles have limitations. That's always been true ever since the first console. PC has a lot more options for having better hardware, removing many of the same limitations if you have a current PC. That isn't likely to ever change until/if console gains the option to allow users to upgrade the hardware. Performance gets improvements with most updates. However, most major performance updates have already been done. Most remaining optimizations are going to be more minimal and often limited to specific things, so may not even be noticed by most players. If a performance issue is related to something that they can do something about, you might see improvements (the jerky behavior with vehicles was a problem with the camera and was something they could fix, for example). So if you are lucky, whatever specific issue you're experiencing may be improved at some point. But for most optimizations, you aren't likely to see significant changes, I think. And keep in mind that the console gets the same improvements as PC, so you aren't being ignored. It's just that consoles aren't as powerful as PCs, especially for a game that is CPU intensive rather than GPU intensive like this game.
That won't change. Save games are large and worlds are large, especially when you play on a larger map. Some console players have had around 2 games active at once. But that requires a decent setting on chunk resets as well as playing on smaller maps and not making significant changes to the map. Save sizes increase with every change to the map - mines, destroying block, building, etc. The more changes you make, the larger the save. And unfortunately Sony and Microsoft limit the space that a game can use for saves. Your best option is to have a PC or dedicated server host the game as that will keep a lot of the save/world space off the console.
It's literally the most asinine idea. Not even a CD worth of space?
Old Crow
Hunter
It is what it is. Like Riamus said above, consoles aren't quite as powerful as a PC when it comes to games that are more CPU intensive.
Krunch
Refugee
Ive had shoes thrown at me by the DF test team for suggesting this, but I feel 5 entirely new swappable biomes would be awesome DLC. If only 5 are in play at a time, single players could choose at map preview generation, and server multiplayer would just require the DLC for servers with any DLC biomes loaded. Im sure there are things Im not cosidering, but this would be useful for console players
Space4Ace
Hunter
I was already getting some shoes ready as I was reading this post... Just kidding!
Krunch
Refugee
Another solution might to use smaller maps and code in proper map teleport from biome to biome. Empyrion does this for SP/MP, its just hopping from small map to small map, no wonky transitions, consistent deco throughout map.
Last edited:
Can you give examples of what you mean with "incomplete"? AFAIK any limits on console are either because of the limited hardware or requested by Sony/MS. As Riamus said you get the same updates as PC players.
I don't get it. Can you explain how that would be useful for the OP?
This one seems like a good idea though.
Space4Ace
Hunter
PC, PS5 and Xbox series X/S all get the same content from the same updates. Some bugs can turn up and create problems on a platform, but it usually gets reported and fixed in a later update.
The only difference is things like the number of players, the size limit for the map and a few other things. Without those limits, the console version would barely be playable.
Remember also that people with lower end PCs do suffer from some of the same things and have to bring settings down to be able to run the game at a decent FPS average.
Lax
Survivor
I play on Xbox Series X. When you first create a new game, there is a setting called "Chunk Persistence". The setting can be toggled from small to medium to large.
If you select "small", the size of your saved game will be much smaller. Use this setting along with smaller sized maps and you can have between 3-4 saved game worlds at the same time.
Before trying this make sure any older versions of saved game worlds have all been deleted to free up space. Also make sure all your saved game worlds are all at the current version/build.
If you select "small", the size of your saved game will be much smaller. Use this setting along with smaller sized maps and you can have between 3-4 saved game worlds at the same time.
Before trying this make sure any older versions of saved game worlds have all been deleted to free up space. Also make sure all your saved game worlds are all at the current version/build.
Krunch
Refugee
I don't get it. Can you explain how that would be useful for the OP?
This goes with my 2nd suggestion, but also speaks to the issues with console save game space. 2,4, and 6k maps are great for performance and file size, but you cant cram too many biomes in without causing issues with traders. Now if you run with those size maps and can use teleports, that means more, smaller maps. If you are using only say 2-3 biomes or even just one, you could theoretically add biomes through update or through DLC.
I paid $15.00 for this game on special I dont know how many years ago. Im a modder, and DLC skins or armor do not appeal to me in general, but more unmodded vanilla extra biomes do!
I come from the versions pre-Microsplat, when biomes were wide open. Thats not practical now, it just isnt. Extra biomes and blocks, fauna, the more of those things you can silo and then load in part with other biomes that you mix and match (up to 5 per map) the more console people can get a hold of, the more moddable you make cnsole versions once we get Workshop.
Console is never going to get Darkness Falls or Rebirth as they exist in PC, and we all realize that. But I feel the extra variety that DLC swappable biomes would add for crossplay would give players and modders a lot more options for biome and even textures to be swapped in and out to make tons of variations, while not overloading the game by trying to add everything at once.
Thanks for the explanations. I see a few problems here: You seem to suggest that the savegame would be less big if instead of seamlessly going to other biomes they were separately loaded as you teleport into them. That would actually save memory, i.e. RAM, but not space on the savegame.
Unless he uses fewer biomes, but then he breaks vanilla as there is a fixed progression. Sure, this could be changed as well, but that flexibility comes at the cost of another say 6 months of development. And the OP can only reap the advantages if he uses less biomes than the typical PC player, i.e. playing an incomplete game. It seems to me that isn't what he wanted.
I haven't tested 2k maps. Are there problems with trader placement? I.e. I would have (naively?) thought that even on such a small map size there is enough space for one trader per biome and the game enforces that. And you only need one trader per biome, so what are the issues you are talking about?
Riamus
Hunter
I think it would actually increase total save game space. Even if the maps themselves total the same space (they might not), if you are moved to a new map, you are likely to start new mines and build more things rather than going back and forth like you might do in a normal map. Every change increases the save size. So I think for most people, the overall save size would increase.
Krunch
Refugee
Take a few other things into account. If you look at .raw file sizes, its not simple multiplication for height map sizes. Sure when you take the data created from players living in the map digging etc, the file size will increase, but I think at that point you need to account for 2 other things, overall performance and actual player usage.
Like you, Ive made literally thousands of these and released more than I can count, and the one thing Ive noticed in almost every single case since the beginning is this. Players eyes for big maps are much larger than their stomachs. Players will generally only tear up and really use about 30% of a map, they may explore and cherry pick the rest, but you could almost set your watch to how predictable this is.
The larger the group, the larger the area, but not dramatically so, still ends up being around 1/3 of 6-10k map. I think even you figure what the average player save/meta data per map, and then take into account that 4, 4k maps are equal file size of 1 8k, I think you'll probably end up with better performance and same or less save space, but with multiple smaller maps than can be swapped in and out from workshop as singles or map sets.
From the perspective of good map making in 7d2d and aesthetics, I know from making maps, esp hand made maps, once you get 10K and larger, you either have to import POI sets to fill all that space, or you just end up with duplicates and large samey cities. I understand the natural player love for open unexplored space and the possibilities it puts before them, but I really feel like this can be achieved by loading from 4k to 4k map, with 2k and 6k mixed in for things like 2k boss maps and 6k multi play maps.
For the space of a single 16k height map raw, you get 16, 4k maps. If i split that same 16k height map up into 16 playable maps that players could traverse in every direction via teleport, there is no question youll get much better performance, and definitely higher height map utilization per 4k section. By loading 5 or so maps in at a time, then optionally adding or removing individual maps, you really full use of the total height maps and more space for individual biomes to naturally fit and border other biomes with better transitions. This is all academic, just some ideas and thoughts.
I can see it going something like this down the line and i think they could pretty easily gear something like this to rwg, even cooler you import a giant custom map and it cuts it into 4k maps.
Ahh. If I read you correctly you just postulated in a new feature to have savegame parts dynamically downloaded on demand from whatever cloud space there is to the client.
One problem at least comes to mind: On PC savegames are too big for the steam cloud, so it isn't even used. As the savegame in the cloud doesn't get smaller with your idea I doubt it would be enabled on PC. All that massive work would only benefit console. I don't think this would sit well with PC players.
Krunch
Refugee
Think about this as a baseline to keep consoles able to keep playing the same game as on PC. PC would not be restricted by this, more this would be an option. Also if its done right, the maps can still be contiguous, but with short loads in between. 8 or 10k maps could also be made contiguous for even larger overall map play.