why is subnautica so demanding in the gpu department?
hugothesilverdragon
canad Join Date: 2015-11-30 Member: 209620Members
canad Join Date: 2015-11-30 Member: 209620Members
Comments
My graphic cards is a gtx 460 overclocked. The only area I see any graphic lag is in the big mushroom forest. I renders in slow, but does render after a few second. I find myself slowing the seamoth down to a stop and let the card catch up, LoL taking time to smell the roses, umm mushrooms hehe
The mushroom forest biome is indeed a deadly place when u lag alot. I once had a very bad experience there that involved a poor seamoth. I was scouring the place in an almost dead seamoth (like 6% heath left if i recall) and i was going faster than my card could generate terrain and eventually some mushroom piece got rendered right as i was passing thru it ........ as it materialized my poor seamoth got exploded instantly and i was left stranded in the middle of the place lol. Its funny now that i think back on it but boy was i pissed at the moment that happened
I'm on a GTX 970 and that biome is still a nightmare of pop in.
P.S. UWE just updated to (yet another) new version of their game engine (Unity). Expect it to take more time to get all of the graphics glitches worked out.
I played version 3741 on a lower quality and it worked pretty good. That was a download from IGG games, the more recent ones were from a diifferent uploader. So i figured out it maybe depends on the download and when I buy the game from Steam it will work just fine. But I'm a bit screwed when it's not working qus then my money is gone. Any advice?
Thanks for the response by the way.
and frame rate still good around 48fps
Specs: Model: X555QA, Processor: AMD A10-9600P Radeon R5, 10 COMPUTE cores 4C+6G 2.40 GHz. I dont have much technical know-how when it comes to computers and what parts are good, clearly. I have windows 10 and got the computer in December of 2016.
Buy it, download it, install it, play it! That's the only way you'll definitively find out if the game will run. Here you'll get a load of "It should play it" or "it won't play it". If it doesn't run you have a limited time to return the game for a full refund. I think Steam stipulate that you have 2 weeks (or 2 hours game play time, whichever comes first) to return for a refund.
In general, I would NOT expect your computer to be able to run the game. There are a wide variety of computers sold to the general public, and most of the low end computers are designed only for general word processing and light web browsing rather than playing many of the computer games. Just the other day, my friend from a previous job complained to me. She said she had just bought a brand new computer and was mad because her next door neighbor couldn't get his brand new game Battlefield 1 to run on her computer. I asked her how much she paid for her computer, and the answer came back as $200 to $300. I then told her that many people playing that game spend more money just on their GRAPHICS CARD than she spent on her entire computer.
I run Subnautica on a five year old computer I got for maybe $300-$400. But I spent around $130 for a dedicated graphics card that didn't require a beefy power supply: NVIDIA 750TI. This graphics card is more than enough to run Subnautica. For the most part, if you want to play any 3D games, you should expect to spend at least $100 on a graphics card.
Thanks, I didnt think that it would run on my computer but I wanted to check just to be sure.
I can't even get the game started. When the game goes to the loading screen the spinning loading symbol is even too much for my gpu.
Unity is great for 2D. It's good for static 3D. It's good for making things very, very pretty. However, it's also a FPS killer and notorious for absurd amounts of pointless memory bloating.
A lot of devs reflex grab unit because it looks good and runs fine on their small scale prototypes. It's not until later, when they try adding more stuff to it, that they realize that it's basically a black hole for processors. Then they end up spending 90% of their dev cycles just trying to optimize back down to merely three times the memory footprint of other game engines.
You get what you pay for.
If that's the case, I hope UWE is up to the challenge. Are there other large-scale games like Subnautica that did well on Unity?
Well, there's Osiris: New Dawn, but that's a laggy resource pig, so probably not the best example.
But, yes: Firewatch, SuperHOT, Kerbal Space Program, Tabletop Simulator, I Am Bread, Cities: Skylines, Surgeon Simulator - to name a select few. Optimization is a GIANT pain in the wetsuit, but it's doable. But it's important to remember that optimization is usually one of the last things done to a game. Odds are very good that by the V1.0 release, it'll run better.
I wonder if I should put a link to this in my signature for future reference.. .probably won't need it before v1.0, but who knows (as a quick answer to anyone thinking nothing good can come from Unity - no I'm not saying that's what you were saying, @DagothUr , I meant more in general).
What!? I play OND regularly and I get more lag with Subnautica than I do with OND. In fact I can honestly say I don't think I have experienced any lag with OND.
Kerbal Space Program is actually a great example of why Unity is a terrible choice for any 3d game that wants to do more than basic FPS style stuff. Even smaller rockets or stations will start lagging its physics engine to death.
It's a great engine for someone that just wants to have some fun making a game but doesn't want to learn the engineering needed to deal with the 3d side of stuff. It's a terrible choice for anything more than that. Unreal is a lot better, though it also has trouble with games with a lot of CPU heavy tasks.
Unreal is "better" in that optimization can be done more precisely, but there's a reason - and a cost - for that: it needs constant modification. Unity, fresh out of the box (so to speak), will do dang near anything you want to do; maybe not great, but it'll do it. It's also relatively inexpensive, making it a great choice for a new independent project that doesn't have scads of startup capital.
Unreal's strength over Unity is that Unreal can be made to do more things and do them more efficiently, but you have to mod the hell out of it most of the time. Nearly all of the games you see with the "Unreal Engine" logo are running modified versions of the Unreal engine, modded under their license agreements. The reason they're modded is because, again, fresh out of the box, Unreal is kind of a cranky SOB. It doesn't like to do anything particularly complicated or innovative, which means that developers have to sink a lot of time, effort, and money into getting Unreal to do its job correctly. And, of course, at the end of production, you still have to optimize. So that's a lot of "administrative" time that players aren't generally going to recognize.
So do you go with an engine that will do the job but might not do it efficiently, or with the engine that will do the job efficiently but only after you've effectively rebuilt huge pieces of it? Both are correct answers under the right circumstances, but both are also wrong under unfavorable circumstances. Basically, though, it comes down to developer priorities and objectives.
Indeed it was!
Goes to show how systems affect performance! On my machine, which runs Subnautica smooth as silk most of the time, OND is a stuttering, unplayable mess.
@Myrm @scifiwriterguy What are the processors and graphics cards that you both use, and how much RAM? Or, heck, post Speccy output. (File -> Publish Snapshot -> copy+paste link here)
Mine, for reference (sucks as no dedicated GPU, long story lol, currently waiting for Vega) :
http://speccy.piriform.com/results/RC0CnhDkwJDaZ3bOYS4ZAhv