I know that the experimental version is in Alpha, but I was wondering if there is anyway to fix my fps problems now or in the future. The other version of Rust really tests my computer, but I can still play it at around 40 FPS with a 2.66 ghz CPU. I have tried everything to play experimental, putting all my settings on min with F2, running both my cores, setting the CPU focus of the game on high and nothing changes much. When I play experimental I can't even hardly move my character. I actually haven't seen how much FPS I get, but I know it has to be between 5-15 fps.
Are the requirements for Rust ever going to come back down like the old version of the game or only going higher? Also is there any commands I can set in the console for the experimental to help out? I also noticed that the memory experimental uses is like 1,200,000 memory for me, is this normal? It seems a bit high compared to other games I played, though I'm not sure how much the old Rust uses.
Normally I've solid frames on Experimental too, but with the addition of the extra building parts it's taken a sizable dive. Was getting 50fps just before, with everything on.
Now it spikes violently between 10-20 constantly.
It'll probably smooth over when optimized again. This isn't the first time a feature was added and the engine would take a shit. *coughgrasscough*
I expect it to be fixed soon. It is annoying, however.
stairs. i love them, but they seem to be hugely memory intensive at the moment;)
i look forward to optimisation:)
The problems with the framerate began with the updates at monday or so. Last week I got 45-50 fps on my 3 year old graphics card and cpu. This is pretty much playable.
Now I get 10-25 fps, but it is not constantly this bad. And in or around buildings the framrate really drops.
Before these issues I was able to hear the graphics card's fan screaming but now it is mostly quite.
I guess the game doesn't use the capacity of my hardware anymore. This is a problem I experienced with many non-AAA titles. The odd thing is, last week this wasn't a problem.
I asked a friend to test the experimental branch with his brand new rig (i7 and Radeon R9 290 Tri-X OC, 4GB GDDR5). He got stable 50 fps with a 2440x* resolution. He changed it to 1080p and the fps didn't improve at all.
Along with this comes lag. Since yesteday I can feel some micro lagging at times.
Another problem is that firefights seem to be comnpletely random right now. I will never know what the net code will do. And for some reasons I have the feeling that people with a bad connection and therefore a bad ping has advantages over me.
Don't get me wrong. I like what facepunch is doing and how well they progess and like rob2021 said, it's still experimental. I know many things will change and improve.
But I'm still a bit worried whether all these issues can be fixed. I bought indie titles in the past that were horribly optimized. Games like Red Orchestra 2 (they improved the performance over the time) or Rise of Triad. I get that optimization isn't trivial and often hard to do. But I hope you guys from facepunch will be able to solves these problems!
I'm assuming it's with all the new rocks they've been testing, They're stressing everything on purpose to see what they can handle, They'll optimize it! It's still a very early build.
Premature optimization is the root of all suffering in this world. You should expect performance to be bad considering the experimental build is the digital equivalent to an active construction site, remember to wear a hard hat.
Expect performance to improve over time. Legacy Rust's performance used to be terrible as well.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;45562491]Premature optimization is the root of all suffering in this world. [/QUOTE]
I partly agree. I consider this to be often the case in application development where you in most of the cases won't hit unavoidable hardware boundaries too soon. But in games? I think it's different.
Big data in applications? No problem use parallel processing for your backend and double the amount of hardware. Use a cluster. Mirror databases...whatever.
I just don't see multiplayer games scaling that well yet. Look at Battlefield 3 and 4 these games have tons of stuff to synchronize over the net. It's a wonder that it is somewhat playable right now.
That said, when it comes to game development I never coded anything beyond board games , so please forgive me when I talk shit, but I think if you think big and you don't care about optimization in the early stages of a game soon enough problems will hit you hard. That's the point where you dump down things in order get it playable.
The Arma series for instance got it all wrong. They've gone too big, never really cared for optimization.
Yeah I agree too. I think maybe they just released experimental a bit too early for viewing? You could counter that with saying that Garry getting spam mail with flamers always saying that legacy is never getting updated though. From videos I've seen on experimental it looks pretty good in the direction it's going, but I can't comment on my personal experience as I can't play it yet. The performance issues and how much it still needs to go up to where legacy is at the moment really worries me though. I'm still not exactly sure why they decided to start over. Is it because of the hackers/bugs or just taking the game in another direction? It's sad that in legacy I have died more from exploiters and hackers than legit players. The other day someone stole like 1k metal fragments out of my furnace through the outside wall in legacy while I was in my house...
[QUOTE=rob2021;45565553]I think maybe they just released experimental a bit too early for viewing?[/QUOTE]
No, your expectations for experimental are too high. [B]Experimental is being updated between 10 and 20 times a day.[/B] If that doesn't scream invitation to (fixable) performance problems and you expect it to run smoothly, the problem is in your mind and is solved by simply accepting that they still have a long way to go to actually finish the experimental build. Which isn't unreasonable because they only restarted with it in February.
And the reason they started over was because the legacy codebase of Rust was a creaky heap of shit. In short, decisions that they had made months earlier, and crappy code that was just hacked together to make prototype systems work so they could see if the concept was worth continuing work on, began to get in the way of adding new things to Rust and made it longer and harder to get updates done.
Legacy was also coded with the assumption that hacking would not be a major problem for another year or so, and so it was built without a lot of defensive maneuvers to counter easy hacking for efficiency's sake, since adding layers of security adds a lot of extra time and overhead to the development process. The devs have tightened up some things, but, again, due to the decisions of the past, they could only go so far.
So they went for a fresh start, using the lessons learned from the last time to avoid some of the pitfalls they fell into the first time around. Legacy is still around and the default option for players precisely because experimental has not caught up to it. Experimental is also running EasyAntiCheat, a third-party active client solution that runs side-by-side with VAC.
You're an alpha tester playing a game fairly early in its development. The hackers are total shits, but you shouldn't be expecting balance and permanence in an alpha. Especially a dead-end build of an alpha (legacy). In time, this will be appropriate to expect, but it's still too early.
My expectations aren't too high. I can't even move around because of the 1080p fps lag. My point is if a lot of people can't even run it don't open it up for alpha testing. They should have started out low in performance and built it up slowly instead of maxing what they can do and lowering the performance issues later on. I still can't believe that they are so hyped up on high graphics and experimental looks like a wasteland.
Path of Exile is a good example of this. They didn't do all the bells and whistles first and have lots of people unable to run it because of performance problems they KNEW would be created, they started out with a simple build and worked their way up.
You could say that legacy is the example or blueprint so experimental doesn't need to do that, but I actually have low expectations for experimental from my point of view because I doubt later on I'll be able to get the 40 fps I can get in legacy.
I don't know why you keep marking my posts as "Late". Maybe you're some type of troll on here that gets his jollies off on marking people's posts. Not all of us have the time to dedicate half our life to some forum and get over 7k posts. Mark this post as "Late" too. Yes, I can't sit here and post every 30 mins like you can.
The really odd thing right now is, that my GPU usage goes down when the scenary is more complex which results in bad fps and the GPU usage goes actually up when the scnenary is simple.
Should be the other way round.
[QUOTE=asphantix;45591035]The really odd thing right now is, that my GPU usage goes down when the scenary is more complex which results in bad fps and the GPU usage goes actually up when the scnenary is simple.
Should be the other way round.[/QUOTE]
Because the bottleneck in those cases is in the number of objects on the scene being processed by the [B]CPU[/B], not graphical complexity being too hard for the GPU.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
