Game engine and performance concerns - dev response?

[Justinian]

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.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Justinian

[john_boy]

I'm hanging back due to this, my machine isn't top of the line - but I could play the original, performance and load times suffered through the white march

[mothra]

I'm sad to hear that....you sure you don't have any other problems that causes this ?

980 is a pretty good card, my PC is much worse (660) and my laptop even worse and both can play POE1 with no problems....

[Archaven]

I agree with OP. The first PoE .. i'm not sure what's wrong.. this game made my GPU fan scream so loudly and the temperature was kind of hot. This game i thought was just 2D handran background but it seems it's choking my GPU so badly.. it ain't Crysis 3.. even FarCry 4 running much cooler for me.

[paladin181]

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.

 

 

I'm sad to hear that....you sure you don't have any other problems that causes this ?

980 is a pretty good card, my PC is much worse (660) and my laptop even worse and both can play POE1 with no problems....

 

Pretty much this/. I have a 660Ti and never had the first hiccough in PoE.

[Eurhetemec]

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.

[anameforobsidian]

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

Edited January 28, 2017 by anameforobsidian

[Justinian]

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.

[Justinian]

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!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Justinian

[anameforobsidian]

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.

[Boeroer]

I use a Nvidia 555M in my laptop and it's OK most of the time. But all lightning effects like from whisps or blights for example kill my frame rate. No wonder.

But no problems in Copperlane.

 

I'm on Linux by the way.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Boeroer

[Justinian]

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".

Edited January 29, 2017 by Justinian

[Boeroer]

Erm... If you think so. At least now you know what to expect.

[No idea]

Only thing I have with performance are the long loading times between areas

[AwesomeOcelot]

Due to a Unity bug I could only use 60hz, and I literally always had 60fps, never dropped on a GTX 970, so if you're having frame drops on a 980 Ti you have a problem that's not the game, most likely drivers or software. The only performance issue I had was loading/saving, awfully slow on a SSD, same issue I had with NWN 2.

[Eurhetemec]

 

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!

 

 

I'm playing through again and will do so next time I get to Copperlane but I seriously had no framerate issues there last time, and my machine is beefier now so... maybe it'll perform worse? I dunno...

[Justinian]

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.

[Skyleaf]

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.

 

Seriously? Tyranny is running into the same problems as all those other Unity Engine RPGs before it? Now I'm worried. That's one thing I truly find frustrating with PoE. the performance problems. I'm running DA:I and Battlefield 4 with no problems but 3 hours playing PoE slows my PC down to a crawl. Although, in a way I was able to monitor my gaming hours better since when the game starts to slow down, I would simply decide to stop for the day instead of restarting my PC.

 

Still, I hope the devs can assure us again like they did in the announcement video that they we won't have to deal with this typical Unity engine problem again.

[ManifestedISO]

Feargus just said system reqs will be the same as PoE1.

[Eivenne]

Seriously? Tyranny is running into the same problems as all those other Unity Engine RPGs before it? Now I'm worried. That's one thing I truly find frustrating with PoE. the performance problems. I'm running DA:I and Battlefield 4 with no problems but 3 hours playing PoE slows my PC down to a crawl. Although, in a way I was able to monitor my gaming hours better since when the game starts to slow down, I would simply decide to stop for the day instead of restarting my PC.

 

Still, I hope the devs can assure us again like they did in the announcement video that they we won't have to deal with this typical Unity engine problem again.

 

For me, PoE worked better than Tyranny. It took sometimes 5-8 minutes to load an area in Tyranny, I don't remember the exact times in PoE, because I haven't played it in a couple of months, but they were a bit shorter. Locations with edicts active had an awful performance, I could barely move the party because the game was lagging more than I could have imagined. PoE didn't have such demanding areas, but I'm anxious each time Obsidian announces graphic improvements. I have to mention that my laptop barely meets the minimum requirements, but such problems won't stop me from playing :D 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Eivenne

[Skyleaf]

 

Seriously? Tyranny is running into the same problems as all those other Unity Engine RPGs before it? Now I'm worried. That's one thing I truly find frustrating with PoE. the performance problems. I'm running DA:I and Battlefield 4 with no problems but 3 hours playing PoE slows my PC down to a crawl. Although, in a way I was able to monitor my gaming hours better since when the game starts to slow down, I would simply decide to stop for the day instead of restarting my PC.

 

Still, I hope the devs can assure us again like they did in the announcement video that they we won't have to deal with this typical Unity engine problem again.

 

For me, PoE worked better than Tyranny. It took sometimes 5-8 minutes to load an area in Tyranny, I don't remember the exact times in PoE, because I haven't played it in a couple of times, but they were a bit shorter. Locations with edicts active had an awful performance, I could barely move the party because the game was lagging more than I could have imagined. PoE didn't have such demanding areas, but I'm anxious each time Obsidian announces graphic improvements. I have to mention that my laptop barely meets the minimum requirements, but such problems won't stop me from playing :D 

 

 

Oh well, I think I can understand the reason behind the awful performance for Tyranny though. Afterall, the requirements for that game are higher than PoE. 

[Pharaun159]

 

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".

 

This was the same impression i got.  The only time ive got the first game to run perfect was on a 16thread cpu and a 1080ti.  I never even knew about people having performance issues untill now.  Im running a 12 thread ryzen cpu and a 1060.  Im getting 25 fps in white march regardless of settings.  1080p lowest settings or max settings at 4k... 25ps... combat lowers that to freaking single digits.  What the hell?!

[algroth]

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.

Edited March 12, 2018 by algroth

[Yosharian]

My i7 + 1080TI struggles to push Pillars 1 above 100 FPS

[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.