Saying they were aiming for 30 FPS was a mistake I think. When you play Skylines you want to admire the whole thing functioning especially if you have a decent PC and in 2023 30 FPS is just not acceptable. This is what you get however for making a complex simulation in Unity rather than actually making it from scratch like it should be.
That said, I am getting 30 FPS on a 100k pop map and it is playable once you get used to the occasional jerkiness of it. On my now 8k pop map I’m getting 60-90 FPS after following some guides I’ve seen online about tweaking some settings.
I hope they do eventually optimise this game better but from everything I’ve seen in other Unity games that suffer similar problems its going to be a long road to treak.
Ive seen on some other threads that skylines 2 is able to get better frames if you turn off some settings like fog and depth of field and that it’s likely these two effects specifically that are borked.
as an avid fan of cities skylines I’m so very disappointed.
as someone who works in software… I’m eagerly waiting for next year when I do buy the game.
the games industry is a business at the end of the day and building software is a very expensive process. I understand that executives want to see returns start to come in now rather than later and if they make some customers angry then they’ve weighed the risks and decided it’s worth it.
I don’t think that has been the case for at least a full console generation, maybe more.
Look at the rise and fall of pre-order goodies to get a rough estimate of when publishers really, really wanted you to buy the game day 1 (and when it stopped mattering as much)
To me, 30fps is unbearable in fast paced games, but okay in slow paced games. This is a slow paced game, so I’m fine as long as the fps stays above 24 with a 1% low of at least 20.
Everyone has different standards in terms of motion blur they can bear, and you need a certain framerate to achieve that standard at any given speed of motion on screen.
It’s not just about how smooth the game looks, but also how smooth it feels to control. 30 fps is way too sluggish for me. Granted, most people would probably reach a point of diminishing return somewhere after 60 fps, unless you’re someone with the reflexes and hardware (high polling rate mouse, good frame timing on your monitor, low system lag, etc.) to back it up. I’m quite comfy between 120 to 144 fps, but there’s some absolute monsters out there who would probably find that too slow.
If it’s not a very fast moving game, like a turn based RPG, then it doesn’t matter that much, but at least 60 fps is still a must for me to not look like a slideshow.
Latency plays a big part too, that’s true. I mentioned that in another comment.
Though how bad a higher latency feels is also tied to how fast you move your mouse. Slowly panning across the map of your city builder makes latency less of an issue than wanting to hit flickshots in Counterstrike.
Latency and framerate go hand in hand, though depending on the game, one might be more important to you than the other.
Sure. And I used to be okay downloading my porn at 56kbps. Now I want my smut so hi-def that I can see the actors’ emotional scars. Peoples’ standards change as technology advances. If you want to be stuck in 2001, go right ahead, but that doesn’t mean everyone else has to be.
Everyone’s perception is different. I can do 60 fps. I prefer 90 fps minimum and 120 fps target. I see no benefit at 144 or higher. Anything below 60 fps and I just get frustrated. That’s my perception.
30 fps though is something we should move away from. Given how far we’ve come in with all kinds of hardware and software features.
I remember playing OSRS and Team Fortress 2 on my shitter PC with like 10-20fps.
It was fine back then, considering my brain hadn’t yet normalized 60+, but nowadays I struggle with anything under 50fps. I guess I played too many fast-paced games since then because Switch games that fluctuate between 25-30fps really turn me off from playing.
Game was worth picking up for a dollar on a 14 day Xbox PC game pass trial membership. I got to see first hand how dogshit the performance is! Look at these great numbers (medium settings, no DOF, no volumetrics, 1440p, no vsync)
You should double check your settings, you may have “Adaptive Resolution” turned on (since it is on by default), but it actually makes performance worse while making everything nice and vaseline-y. Also maybe change the AA, if you hit the advanced settings you can enable TAA which had better overall performance than the others for me.
Edit: oh and I get just barely below you for performance, on a 3800x (OC) and a 3070 (Undervolt OC). Somewhere around 40fps avg, peaks of 60-70. 1% lows bad, but that’s a specific known issue that they’re working on.
It’s performance, especially on top of the line hardware (13900k + 4090) is dogshit yeah? Just so we’re under no illusions about the state this game was released in.
The icing on the cake is colossal orders gaslighting saying that there’s no practical benefit to having anything above 30 FPS, as if there’s not a tangible benefit to playing games at a smooth 60FPS compared to a sloppy 30 FPS
poptalk.scrubbles.tech
Hot