Is this a common problem? When ever I enter a forest or any such area my FPS just tanks. I average around 20 to 25 fps. Now I have a 660ti and a pretty beefy cpu. I can run brokenfield 4 at 60+ fps on ultra settings and that game is broken as fuck. So logic dictates that rust should run fine. I was just wondering if there is a broken setting right now that causes this or any quick fixes because I am loving the new branch of the game so far (besides the OP as metal armor D:<)
Press F2 and turn everything off. Even makes the game look better.
Yeah I have tried that and I do somewhat agree with it looking better. That motion blur is abismal. But i still get pretty crappy fps. I am playing on the good settings right now and it makes me sad if im going to have to go lower to play
Memory is also a problem, need 8gb to play until memory leaks are fixed.
I have 8 gigs D:! This is such a shame, maybe Rust just hates my computer
I have also been experiencing frame rate drops in forests, especially arctic ones since yesterday.
I think it’s due to more trees being moved over to speedtree. I expect the performance will increase soon once all the trees are moved over.
Thats what I was thinking too. I was just making sure that this was thing that was happening to people and demons just haddent possessed my computer.
I have 3gb of memory and I can still run the game decently on Fastest with everything off. I also get frame drops near forest. Drops from 45-60 to 25-40 so it’s not horrible, but noticable.
lol 24 fps is not okay ever in a game like this. especially if i have to make it look like shit in order to achieve even that. I guess I will just wait a few weeks for some optimization to happen because it sounds like this is a pretty common problem.
I’m pretty sure that’s because of the tree textures being borked at the moment, or there is some memory leak related to them.
Considering the frames and performance I used to get, it’s actually pretty damn amazing, being able to play the game for real.
It appears the latest experimental dev patch improved the framerate in forests for me!
I think it’s due to the patch that made the trees cheaper to animate that appeared on RustUpdates two hours ago.
Can anybody else who is on the Steam Rust experimental dev branch confirm?
I am at work right now but I will check later tonight. If that is true then that is wonderful!
I’ve just had a play… until I got eaten by a wolf. In a forest I get 9-12 fps… Outside of forests 30 or over fps.
I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with trees but it eats fps like hell. Also, shadows, ambiant occlusion and full reflections are really expensive. Without those and in fantastic mode, I have ~40fps except when deep in forest.
I have a laptop with GTX660 and i73610 2.3Ghz
Why’s that? … (considering 24 fps is the industry standard for movies, and was okay in every film I ever watched)?
Play a game at 24 fps, then get back to us. Also did you see The Hobbit in the 48fps format? You could see more detail than you otherwise could.
Because games and movies are not the same thing. A movie is very dependent on static shots and points of focus, so even when the camera is moving around it your eyes are locked on one point. Even that being said the “industry standard” for films was bumped up to around 40fps after lord of the rings was made. But anyway, in video games you are in a sense the camera and the jerky frame rate is alot more noticeable. You can NEVER compare fps in a movie to a game for that reason. Do a little experiment. Take a camera from like 5 years ago (because most smart phones shoot at around 40 to 60 fps now anyway) set to record and spin in circles a few times, then review the footage and its going to look choppy and shitty. There is a reason why all games try and atleast get 30fps and 60 if they can. If 24 was good enough, all game would run at that and you would get crucified now if you put out a game that ran sub 30 fps, I promise you, I work in the industry.
i appreciate the dream of 60fps. i’d love to have 30, but the reality is i can play rust fine at 12-16fps. yeah, maybe it makes a difference in terms of First Person Shooter competitions, but for casual play in a game that is intended to be a survival game with First Person Shooter elements, i really don’t think we NEED better rates.
We definitely need better than 16 FPS. I don’t think the game will feel right at such low FPS rates.
I can’t imagine any AAA game that a person with a good computer cannot get 30 FPS. They have to optimize it first, then FPS should be decent on good PCs.