.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Justinian
-
Posts
358 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Justinian
-
-
Another vote for never having had any trouble with Pillars' performance. But I'm not sure what warrants this thread getting a necro 14 months after the last post.
Because to this day, Pillars still runs like a garbage heap on the most powerful of computers and the recent footage of Pillars 2 looks like a stuttery mess as well. Obsidian either have subpar programmers or are terrible at utilising Unity.
-
I wouldn't say it's an issue per se. Obsidian have decided upon realism as the end goal for art direction, and while I don't think it's the most inspiring of decisions, the end result is adequate.
There is no doubt that there was simply superior design and execution of art/backgrounds in many older infinity engine games however.
-
The watercolor portraits look nice, but to be honest, they aren't really that necessary and in my opinion they won't enhance the game that much. I would rather have them spend the money and time on a new quest or two than on dozens of portraits.
The portraits will enhance every single NPC interaction in the game. They also are done by artists which means it will have nothing to do with quest designers and won't impact number of quests.
Besides, if I had a choice between enhancing every single NPC interaction in the game vs one or two extra quests I know which I would take.
-
3
-
-
It's a pretty widespread problem I think, and certainly having two computers above recommended spec run it particularly poorly supports that. Tyranny which uses the same engine seems to have performance problems on many setups as well, as a quick search online shows.
-
Straight from Fig:
Feargus
DEVELOPER
@Dimitrios S. - We are thinking about how to make Eternity II play well on as low machien specs as possible. While we have added a lot in the way of cool new graphics, we have also been optimizing as well. We've also optimized the non-graphics part of the engine (loading is WAY better now). We are pretty confident that Eternity II will run as well as Eternity I even with all the new stuff. Maybe better - but were not sure on that yet.
That statement doesn't instill confidence at all. It's just another way of saying "expect the same terrible performance".
-
2
-
-
I've got a distinctly worse machine than that and have a solid-60 framerate in all locations, specifically including Copperlane. I mean, I literally keep the FPS up on screen with Steam (for all games) and it doesn't drop in Pillars. So I suspect it might not be as widespread as you think.
I do feel loading times are excessive (haven't tried moving it to my SSD though...) but they did already mention that they have a new way of doing that, one that should make them basically a non-issue.
That's strange. Can you initiate combat with bystander NPCs in Copperlane, throw a few persistent spell effects and see what happens to your frame rate? It would be even more embarrassing and bizzare if weaker PCs run this game better than more powerful hardware!
-
They have said that they've greatly improved performance, particularly loading times by implementing a new system that streams areas.
http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/156411333161/how-does-the-content-streaming-work-how-does-one
I see no mention of performance, only a new streaming system. I'm not talking about loading times but frame rate.
-
Running the first Pillars across two PCs that were well beyond the recommended specs, I got such poor performance in some areas like Copperlane and in combat that the game became an absolute chore to play. It's incredible that frame rate can drop into the 20s on an i7 6700/GTX 980Ti rig, and because of this I still haven't been able to drag myself through the first game (that I backed for over $250).
I understand these performance issues are widespread (if not affecting everyone), and are due to limitations in Unity and/or the way the game is designed. The fact that Obsidian are building on the same engine for the sequel has me concerned enough that I will not back or purchase this game.
It would be good to get some assurances from the devs that game performance will be GREATLY improved on Pillars 2 or at least acknowledge that performance was poor on the engine and they are doing something about it.
-
2
-
-
So I've been putting this game off since it came out because of terrible frame rate in various areas and during every combat encounter. When I pledged for this game it never crossed my mind that a 2.5D game would ever perform so poorly. After checking back every single patch to see if things have improved and seeing nothing, I'm at wits end. During the year or so the game has been out, I have upgraded my PC from a i5 2500k/HD 6950 to an i7 6700/GTX 980 Ti, and to my utter dismay, I saw almost negligible performance improvement.
I was briefly relieved that Copperlane began running at 60fps right after the 3.0 patch, but after a little while playing, the performance dropped back to the usual crap (some kind of memory leak at work I'm sure). The thing is, I could probably tolerate certain areas running at 45fps, but the combat in this game routinely drags performance down to the 20s and 30s when spells go off, making the game a sluggish mess and nigh unplayable.
I'm almost certain that others are suffering the same performance issues so why isn't anyone complaining here? Obsidian, are you just going to leave the game as is and completely ignore optimisation? Sure, the support you've given the game content wise is admirable but why hasn't something central like performance been paid any attention? As entitled as I may sound, I would like a dev response to clarify just what is going on, as I'm sick of waiting to play this game I pledged hundreds of dollars for and years looking forward to.
-
SSD does speed up the load times noticeably, but forget trying to build a PC around Pillars - you won't get smooth performance on even the highest end hardware. I'm running an i7 6700 and GTX 980 Ti and the game still drops frames like crazy. It's just an incredibly unoptimized game.
-
Same here. It's the game, not your hardware.
I get a consistent 60fps without drops on Ultra settings on Witcher 3 with my rig and yet Pillars runs at 45fps in many places. It's the ONLY game on my machine that drops frames ever, and considering it's not at all demanding (the CPU and GPU are hardly being utilised), it's quite an embarrassment.
i7 6700
8GB RAM
GTX 980 Ti Strix
Windows 10
-
I don't think it will be that big of a deal, this game isn't 3d after all.
I can't say for sure though, the lowest laptop I ever ran this on had 2,5 ghz dual core.
The game is one of the worst optimised I've ever played. I'm getting 60 most of the time but whenever fancy spells go off or im in a larger area the framerate tanks into the 30s.
Intel i5 2500k 3.6 Ghz
8 Gb RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6950 2 Gb
Highly doubtful you'll get anywhere near a decent experience with those specs.
On my main desktop it's above 50 all the time.
i5 4460
16gigs RAM
nvidia 960
And that's quite a beefy PC for running a 2D style game wouldn't you agree? The fact that you don't even get a constant 60fps on that machine pretty much drives home the point.
-
I don't think it will be that big of a deal, this game isn't 3d after all.
I can't say for sure though, the lowest laptop I ever ran this on had 2,5 ghz dual core.
The game is one of the worst optimised I've ever played. I'm getting 60 most of the time but whenever fancy spells go off or im in a larger area the framerate tanks into the 30s.
Intel i5 2500k 3.6 Ghz
8 Gb RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6950 2 Gb
Highly doubtful you'll get anywhere near a decent experience with those specs.
-
Better visibility and readability in combat.
Dramatic performance optimisations.
Difficulty balance at higher levels.
-
Out of curiosity...are many of you playing with all of the other difficulty options in play? Such as...trial of iron, expert mode etc. Also..did you have any meta knowledge of the game prior to certain areas?
Just started playing last night(computer broke back in January, just got my new one in(
). I have every possible difficulty option on for my first playthrough....been quite difficult so far. Lost 3 characters prior to even reaching the Gilded Vale lol. Just for the record, if you didn't start on the hardest possible settings with 0 metagame knowledge...you really missed out on a special experience(massive time sink).Wish there was some sort of graveyard to track all of the adventurers that are going to fall throughout this journey.
Once more for those not paying attention...
The issue being raised is that game difficulty in the first 1/2 or 2/3 is fine and then it falls off a cliff and the rest of the game becomes trivial.
-
I've noticed this is still happening in 1.06, making combat in doorways almost impossible to decipher. It looks like too many other 3D elements are also occluding selections circles when they really shouldn't, like blood splats. Please fix this Obsidian!
-
Has patch 1.06 improved the difficulty curve any?
-
This happens to me on 1.06...
-
I agree. The game is way overdue for a performance patch.
-
Same here. Copperlane was awful for the same reasons I'm guessing. Hoping the next patch comes with some optimisation.
-
game has crashed 6 times in a row, when im in Dyrfords crossing, Trygils Curriery area and trying to go down the stairs. a little frustrating.
somehow i get the feeling that i really needs to go down there to find the lost daughter, and possibly other things.
but i cant do it
The dungeon under Dyrford crossing runs like absolute ****e on my PC, which should be more than capable of running a primarily 2D game flawlessly. I would guess that your PC cannot handle the unoptimised nature of the dungeon. Do you have any issues in Copperlane? That also runs abysmally for me.
-
I'm sure everyone knows by now but all issues have been resolved. I have no long saving/loading times anymore. This game is awesome! 120 + hours and counting and still haven't finished the game!
Same for me. I'm on 1.05.0567 version and still have loading times btw 40 and 60sec and saving times btw 10 and 15sec. I use only 2 save files (quick and auto), have 35 hours of play time. It became barely playable.
Well what are you waiting for? Post your save files so the devs can fix this!
-
1
-
-
There's always solo for people finding the difficulty "too easy". I'm running solo and it seems fine, I guess this is all a matter of perspective.
So by your logic we should play with a full party until halfway through the game and then suddenly run around solo for the rest... sounds like a great idea! Totally not up to the game designers to make a challenging and fun game, no - we must handicap ourselves to varying degrees to create the right level of challenge.
-
2
-
-
). I have every possible difficulty option on for my first playthrough....been quite difficult so far. Lost 3 characters prior to even reaching the Gilded Vale lol. Just for the record, if you didn't start on the hardest possible settings with 0 metagame knowledge...you really missed out on a special experience(massive time sink).
Game engine and performance concerns - dev response?
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
It's inefficiencies and bottlenecks in code that cause performance issues - the fact that Pillars doesn't use anywhere near 100% CPU or GPU but still manages to run extremely poorly in certain situations in game. I have a lot of highly demanding games on my PC (and the one before it) and NONE of them run anywhere near as badly as Pillars does.