Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 performance tidbits - By Chris Roberts

[Mich Angel]

Think it is time that you all that missed this really need to read up on this issue of the FPS and all that,

For there are a great many of you that still is in a delusion on what is causing the FPS issue we have and why..

Here Chris Roberts posted this on X-mas maybe for he thought it is time to put things straight!

Explaining clearly what does matter and what does not and what is pure speculating BS from people.

Do read it all it's great reading and IMO now it all make sense :D

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/star-citizen-alpha-3-0-performance-tidbits

CHEERS! :beer::beer::beer::beer::beers::beers::beer:

 

[Zookajoe]

Nice catch Mich, very informative.
I think the big issue now is that cargo runs are THE money makers, so everyone is grabbing their Lancers, Cats and Farers, loading up as much as they can and running back and forth.
Now I plan on running mostly cargo, so this is good practice for me, but it does adversely effect the server.
If they would make the missions more viable as a cred generator, I think we would see less and less of server issues.

 

[Radegast74]

I just saw this come up on Spectrum, and somebody linked to that same exact CR post...I'll pull out the relevant paragraph here, but first I'll note that CR talked about the *solutions* they are working on to fix the problem...what follows below is the known problem, again, they know about it and are working on it:

From the data we see it is not so much about player count but more about WHAT the players are doing. In our internal testing we didn't witness the performance issues that we saw on PTU or Live once thousands of players got in and started doing all sorts of crazy things. Fill up a Caterpillar with cargo, blow it up over an Outpost on a moon and you can bring the clients and servers to their knees (as you've just added hundreds if not thousands of additional objects to simulate). One other common issue that can kill performance is interpenetration of objects as that causes an overload on physics, especially if its on a larger object. An example of this is the Asteroid Mission (which we disabled last night) that was spawning on top or near Olisar and being sucked into the local grid causing all sorts of issues and deadlocks. In addition we need to do a better job of efficiently handling the bigger ships which can bring in thousands of additional elements to update as opposed to the smaller ships that have a lot less items and geometry. Have a bunch of people fly around in Starfarers and Caterpillars and you're straining the clients and server far more than you would be with a bunch of Auroras and Hornets.

 

[Deroth]

I AM A VILLAIN!!!!

Cargo runs with the Caterpillar have just been the most fun thing I've done in the game so far, sorry for ruining the performance for everybody.

 

[RiceMaiden]

I read it and honestly made me a bit upset with Chris. While some of what he is saying might be true, it's clear he does not want to take responsibility for the current state of the game.

"In our internal testing we didn't witness the performance issues that we saw on PTU or Live once thousands of players got in and started doing all sorts of crazy things. Fill up a Caterpillar with cargo, blow it up over an Outpost on a moon and you can bring the clients and servers to their knees (as you've just added hundreds if not thousands of additional objects to simulate)."

What. Wut. Wat. wuuut. Players are being given a virtual sandbox. Players are gonna blow shit up. Players are gonna crash into each other. Players are gonna find ways to bring the servers to their knees. Everything he stated should have been known. Both by the developers and QA.

"Have a bunch of people fly around in Starfarers and Caterpillars and you're straining the clients and server far more than you would be with a bunch of Auroras and Hornets."

I can't tell if Chris is being serious or not... What is one of the big new features in 3.0? Trading. How do you trade? A ship with cargo capacity. What has cargo capacity? Starfarers and Caterpillars. What doesn't have (economically speaking) cargo capacity? Auroras and Hornets. You didn't expect people with Caterpillars to use them? This is a scenario that QA no doubt played out numerous times in the testing of 3.0 this past year.

"The game business is unpredictable - there's a lot of R&D which happens, people are just not particularly aware of that because they don't see how the sausage is made a lot of the time."
- Chris Roberts (Eurogamer Interview - Gamescom 2017)

Chris has a habit of calling us ill-informed... yet his arguments tend to come off more like easily debunked excuses than game changers. I have no doubt server load and lack of optimizations are making the game run less than ideal for players. Come out and say that without the fluff. 3.0 is Alpha. 3.0 is buggy. Stop telling us you didn't expect players to be players.

 

[Mich Angel]

I read it and honestly made me a bit upset with Chris. While some of what he is saying might be true, it's clear he does not want to take responsibility for the current state of the game.

"In our internal testing we didn't witness the performance issues that we saw on PTU or Live once thousands of players got in and started doing all sorts of crazy things. Fill up a Caterpillar with cargo, blow it up over an Outpost on a moon and you can bring the clients and servers to their knees (as you've just added hundreds if not thousands of additional objects to simulate)."

What. Wut. Wat. wuuut. Players are being given a virtual sandbox. Players are gonna blow shit up. Players are gonna crash into each other. Players are gonna find ways to bring the servers to their knees. Everything he stated should have been known. Both by the developers and QA.

"Have a bunch of people fly around in Starfarers and Caterpillars and you're straining the clients and server far more than you would be with a bunch of Auroras and Hornets."

I can't tell if Chris is being serious or not... What is one of the big new features in 3.0? Trading. How do you trade? A ship with cargo capacity. What has cargo capacity? Starfarers and Caterpillars. What doesn't have (economically speaking) cargo capacity? Auroras and Hornets. You didn't expect people with Caterpillars to use them? This is a scenario that QA no doubt played out numerous times in the testing of 3.0 this past year.

"The game business is unpredictable - there's a lot of R&D which happens, people are just not particularly aware of that because they don't see how the sausage is made a lot of the time."
- Chris Roberts (Eurogamer Interview - Gamescom 2017)

Chris has a habit of calling us ill-informed... yet his arguments tend to come off more like easily debunked excuses than game changers. I have no doubt server load and lack of optimizations are making the game run less than ideal for players. Come out and say that without the fluff. 3.0 is Alpha. 3.0 is buggy. Stop telling us you didn't expect players to be players.

Oh! I see what's happening here... LMAO :joy:
See...
When a Man say "nice outfit", he really mean nice outfit... But..
When a Woman say "nice outfit", she mean that is so damn ugly she puke just looking at it...

CHEERS! :beers: :beer: :beers: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[Printimus]

The game is progressing at an exponential rate. I like it.

 

[Printimus]

The game is progressing at an exponential rate. I like it.

 

[supitza]

I read it and honestly made me a bit upset with Chris. While some of what he is saying might be true, it's clear he does not want to take responsibility for the current state of the game.

"In our internal testing we didn't witness the performance issues that we saw on PTU or Live once thousands of players got in and started doing all sorts of crazy things. Fill up a Caterpillar with cargo, blow it up over an Outpost on a moon and you can bring the clients and servers to their knees (as you've just added hundreds if not thousands of additional objects to simulate)."

What. Wut. Wat. wuuut. Players are being given a virtual sandbox. Players are gonna blow shit up. Players are gonna crash into each other. Players are gonna find ways to bring the servers to their knees. Everything he stated should have been known. Both by the developers and QA.

"Have a bunch of people fly around in Starfarers and Caterpillars and you're straining the clients and server far more than you would be with a bunch of Auroras and Hornets."

I can't tell if Chris is being serious or not... What is one of the big new features in 3.0? Trading. How do you trade? A ship with cargo capacity. What has cargo capacity? Starfarers and Caterpillars. What doesn't have (economically speaking) cargo capacity? Auroras and Hornets. You didn't expect people with Caterpillars to use them? This is a scenario that QA no doubt played out numerous times in the testing of 3.0 this past year.

"The game business is unpredictable - there's a lot of R&D which happens, people are just not particularly aware of that because they don't see how the sausage is made a lot of the time."
- Chris Roberts (Eurogamer Interview - Gamescom 2017)

Chris has a habit of calling us ill-informed... yet his arguments tend to come off more like easily debunked excuses than game changers. I have no doubt server load and lack of optimizations are making the game run less than ideal for players. Come out and say that without the fluff. 3.0 is Alpha. 3.0 is buggy. Stop telling us you didn't expect players to be players.

I 100% agree.
It's our fault for not playing a sandbox properly. Shame on us.

 

[MegaMonkey]

I read it and honestly made me a bit upset with Chris. While some of what he is saying might be true, it's clear he does not want to take responsibility for the current state of the game.

"In our internal testing we didn't witness the performance issues that we saw on PTU or Live once thousands of players got in and started doing all sorts of crazy things. Fill up a Caterpillar with cargo, blow it up over an Outpost on a moon and you can bring the clients and servers to their knees (as you've just added hundreds if not thousands of additional objects to simulate)."

What. Wut. Wat. wuuut. Players are being given a virtual sandbox. Players are gonna blow shit up. Players are gonna crash into each other. Players are gonna find ways to bring the servers to their knees. Everything he stated should have been known. Both by the developers and QA.

"Have a bunch of people fly around in Starfarers and Caterpillars and you're straining the clients and server far more than you would be with a bunch of Auroras and Hornets."

I can't tell if Chris is being serious or not... What is one of the big new features in 3.0? Trading. How do you trade? A ship with cargo capacity. What has cargo capacity? Starfarers and Caterpillars. What doesn't have (economically speaking) cargo capacity? Auroras and Hornets. You didn't expect people with Caterpillars to use them? This is a scenario that QA no doubt played out numerous times in the testing of 3.0 this past year.

"The game business is unpredictable - there's a lot of R&D which happens, people are just not particularly aware of that because they don't see how the sausage is made a lot of the time."
- Chris Roberts (Eurogamer Interview - Gamescom 2017)

Chris has a habit of calling us ill-informed... yet his arguments tend to come off more like easily debunked excuses than game changers. I have no doubt server load and lack of optimizations are making the game run less than ideal for players. Come out and say that without the fluff. 3.0 is Alpha. 3.0 is buggy. Stop telling us you didn't expect players to be players.

hey I don't know about you lot, but I have been doing cargo runs in my mustang, and sometimes take my 315p for a fly around the planets when it's not bugging out, so I'm doing exactly what Chris is expecting of a normative space monkey:banana::monkey:

 

[marcsand2]

It is good that players do crazy shit, actually, CIG should make a competition, which people can do the craziest shit, make a list of the top 100 craziest people and invite them in the next first PTU round.