PC Optimization ??????

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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?

7d2d map gen load.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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.

 
Back
Top