Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'performance'.
Found 4 results
Hey all! I recently subscribed and started playing the game. But the game has been almost un-playable for me due to the low FPS (5-15 FPS) When at the hub my FPS sits around 5-10 FPS. With a lot of the time bringing me down to 1-3 FPS. While getting 15-25 FPS when out in the wild. I have all settings set to low and even changed it from auto to manual and bringing my graphics down to 1. Here is my specs. I7-4770 GTX 1080 16GB DDR3 Game is running on an SSD with 100GB free left on the SSD. I see a lot of other people are having issues too, but a lot of people are doing fine. For example my friend with the same rig, but with a 1060 is always sitting at around 25 FPS at the hub and 60 FPS in the wild.
Dual Universe should have a public benchmark that's separate from the main game, and not under NDA. Why? It would benefit NovaQuark! It would give the gaming press a demo to run themselves, to show off DU's amazing engine in a safe, controlled, media friendly way. It would give potential backers a way to assess DU's performance on their computers, without buying a pack first. Not only does this encourage backing, but it reduces NQ Support's workload and reduce player backlash. It would give NovaQuark a constant stream of objective, repeatable performance data throughout development. It could potentially show the game to a whole new audience, as I know hardware review sites/streamers would love to get their hands on a demanding game benchmark for GPU/CPU reviews.
Dual Universe should have the option to turn off player nametags. This should be implemented as purely a performance issue, but I could see it being used for cosmetics (screenshots, gameplay, etc). The reason this should be possible is because some players' computers will not be able to handle the high stress levels of the single shard universe, especially with floating nametags having to be rendered along with computing the server load. This could also serve some practical purposes as well, such as only showing the players' nametags that are only in your organization(s). This could ensure that you don't accidentally destroy your own organization's bases, kill your own organization members, etc. This would only be needed when an organization swells beyond member memorization, but would still be nice to have.
So we have seen the planned system of having the game sub-divide a region of space based on the number of players, and this makes a lot of sense for planets and space stations, but how would this work for moving ships with large numbers of people on them? What happens if a ship gets sub-divided into multiple regions? We know the regions update slower with each other, so I imagine this could pose problems with a ship that is trying to maneuver. I'm not sure what the cut-off point is for the server to sub-divide a region of space, but I'm just going to pick and arbitrary number here for the sake of argument that the system will try to keep around 100 players per server region. It's more than reasonable that there could be ships that have more than 100 people on them, especially a year or two post-launch. Imagine a large Capital ship: the ship is going to need a crew of people to fly it, people to make emergency repairs during combat and probably a team of people to repel boarders and run the guns. And if the ship is carrying fighters then those ships will have pilots and maintenance crews, plus people to move cargo around. Add in an infantry group or non-combat personnel and the ship could easily get over 100 people. So how would the ship function if it was running on two separate machines in the server cluster?