Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

User avatar
theSeb
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by theSeb »

Gormett wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:46 am
You press Ctrl+Shift+Esc and look at a Task Manager, if one core is maxed out and the rest isn't, that means FS is badly optimized. You can also take a look at the GPU utilization there.
Have you actually done this yourself? It does not seem like it, because you would have seen that one core is not maxed out. Instead you would see that some cores being used more than others and multiple cores being used. FS is what we could consider a basic multi-core engine that is inline with most other multi-core engines. There are other elements that could potentially be taken further, like AI workers running not on the main thread, but you get into an issue of high complexity, development cost vs what reward.
Everyone cares about performance. There's a difference between the "smooth" framerate which is >60FPS and a slideshow at 5FPS.

I always see people defending the "single-core" utilization from by saying that it's because the game has to run on everything. If that's the case, then why do people with Ryzen 9s and RTX 3000 cards struggle to hit stable 60+FPS ?
Who are these people struggling to hit a stable 60 FPS with the hardware you mentioned? They don’t exist, unless they are pushing the game well beyond its limits with ridiculous numbers of bales and equipment items and using mods that are “polybombs”.

Also, wouldn't they want to target the biggest market and cater to their optimization ?
According to the Steam Hardware Survey, 41,40% of players have 4 core CPUs, followed by 29,27% who have 6 core CPUs.

Yet GIANTS caters to the 1 core CPU playerbase, which is 0,21%
The engine is already multi-core and apart from the CPU being an issue when you have a large number of workers going, it’s not particularly heavy on the CPU. Getting further multi-core support into the engine has basically nothing to do with the slot system. Even if the game was 100% optimised for multi core, there still would be a slot system. The only game other there right now that is close to being 100% multi-core optimised is Doom Eternal. Unfortunately ID Tech 7 does not have the features to create a farming game.

But, going back to your banal interpretation of statistics, every computer with 4 cores, or more, has 1 core. So by targeting 1 core one is actually targeting 100% of users.
Wargaming - creators of World of Tanks had reworked their engine in 2018, adding multicore support
Great. I created a racing game on my ZX Spectrum in 1989 and I built a shed for my tractor in 2014. I am not sure what my racing game, shed or World of Tanks have to do with a farming game though, but I figured you were reminiscing about things that happened, so I decided to join in.

That is simply not true. Farming Simulator has the world split into chunks and each chunk keeps only a few variables stored due to low complexity of the game. That is also why the game's fields look like Minecraft - you can see each "square" change state during the groth phase. Have you never seen half of a field ready to harvest and the other still green in FS ?

Also, FS doesn't even render things that far. Take a look around your tractor, do you see the circle around it, where in a greater distance there's no detail ? That's a spotlight effect caused by the old engine that struggles to render past it. NPC cars simply disappear over a long distance as well. If you want to compare NPC daily tasks and keeping track of them, take a look at Kingdom Come: Deliverance where each NPC has their own daily routine and quests can contiune even without the player.
The density map system keeps details of the world in chunks of 0.5x0.5 metres. This is what allows the player the create fields, plant crops, fertilise them and so forth. Technically speaking it is an incredibly well designed and thought-out system from a speed and functionality point of view and I don’t think that enough players appreciate what the system is capable of, considering how much information is stored and how quickly it can be accessed, updated and synched between multiplayer connections. The updating of the growth does happen in chunks of around 16x16 metres and hence why you see the “Minecraft squares”. That does not mean that the information is stored at that density. Doing the updates at the actual density of 0.5 metres squared would take too long, hence why the game engine was OPTIMISED to work like this.

Like I’ve said before, there is no other engine out there that can render the amount of crops and keep all of the details that a farming game requires. KDC is an awesome game that is still poorly optimised performance wise. Because of the amount of agents that it has to keep track of, it is particularly heavy and taxing on the CPU. FS is not.
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

Gormett wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:36 pm
DEERE317 wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:40 am Most would be lost the moment you talk about CPU and GPU performance. (I’ve got pretty rusty once I dropped out of the tech world)
As for the single core: how often is that a bottleneck? Hint: not often.
Almost always on modern systems, since nowadays more and more CPUs have a higher core count than clock speed, limiting the performance. Take a look at my comment about Steam Hardware survey, most of the players have 4 or 6 core CPUs. 1 core CPUs make only 0.21% of the market.

Here's a video comparing single-core and multi-core performance.
DEERE317 wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:40 am And the high end systems suffer from the game engines base being a decade old when a modern high end (and rare) system would’ve been a small supercomputer.
Exactly, shouldn't a 2019(18) game take advantage of improvements over the last 10+ years in game engines instead of being stuck in 2004 ?
DEERE317 wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:40 am As for the chunks thing: the game may not render full detail but still runs the whole map, ever notice the train sends machines flying even when far away? That because it’s still keeping track of them, there’s a difference between not rendering and simply pausing the existence off.
As for the AI (artificial id1ot) traffic if you pay attention it still tracks there position even if they’re not being rendered in (they travel in a loop), and if blocked and out of render range for a set time they’ll teleport around/through the obstruction.
It doesn't even have to track the fields. Just have the growth of the field tied to the timer. When a player unloads the chunk, save the time to the chunk. Once they get close again, but not before it's rendered, update the stored time to the actual time and boom, seems like it was always growing but in reality it's just a variable. The amount of time "added" can be determined by the soil composition and at the same time, this time based growth allows for speeding up time, like we have in the game and explains the really low render distance.

Well, it's not hard to keep track of a stationary object and enable it's physics once a collision occurs. And defending the AI by saying it's "tracking it's position" when it's more like a rollercoaster on a track, not even able to go around an obstacle ? Nothing complex about having an NPC constrained to a road with a collision box in front of it. Sounds to me like when Call Of Duty mentioned their revolutionary AI, when the fish get out of the way when a player gets near them..

If we want to talk about "tracking NPCs and all the things" in Farming Simulator, let's compare it to Kingdom Come. KC has to track every single NPC and their daily routine. Wake up > Eat > Talk to someone > do a daily task > move around > go to bed. For every single NPC. And for the NPCs that are important to the story it also has to track player's decisions and progress through the story so they have appropriate dialogue options. And tracking NPCs is extremely important in quests, where time is important, meaning quests can continue and play themselves, without the player. For example, you can send someone to Uzhic and they will physically walk there.

In the end, Farming Simulator suffers from running on an unoptimized engine from before 2008 and the two year release cycle hinders the development and innovation of the series and instead focuses on profit, similar to Fifa or NBA 2K series, while asking for a AAA price. The lack of significant changes can also be attributed to the lack of any stronger competitors currently on the market.
theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:49 pm Does that mean that the FS engine is unoptimised? It certainly could be optimised further, but it is currently the best engine out there that can handle the requirements of a farming game.
For example, Unigine:
Physics based terrain = ice = slip & slide
64-bit precison = planet scale levels
Dynamic and diggable terrain
Realistic vehicle physics simulation
VR support / proper multi-monitor support
Realistic atmosphere and weather - variable cloud types
GIS import = meaning modders could import real terrain data right into the engine. In the engine.
Vegetation streaming and impostors = instances of the same tree = just load one and spread it around
LOD blending = no model pop-ins
All built in.

However, I'd be much happier with FS running on Unreal Engine due to the fact that Megascans exist.
“Almost always on modern systems, since nowadays more and more CPUs have a higher core count than clock speed, limiting the performance.”
Wow... so wrong. The instructions performed per second (clock speed is mostly a worthless metric) in single core performance has steadily improved due to better CPU architecture and higher clock speeds. (Instructions performed = instructions per cycle (architecture improvements) * clock speed (how many cycles)
And being single threaded it isn’t a bottle neck, most CPU’s are more than capable of handling the games demand, you make it sound like this requires a Ryzen chip clocking 5ghz to run when int reality anything from the 5-10yrs (within reason) can run it.
And where are you getting that FS is AAA priced? Last I checked it was $35 at release and is either $20 or $25 now, when the default AAA price is $60 and is creeping higher.
So my current conclusion is Dunning Kruger Effect.
FS15 & FS19 Platinum Edition PC (and War Thunder, Gaijin is way worse than GIANTS ever has been accused of being)
FS Comunity Trader: https://fs19communitytrader.freeforums.net/
Desktop: i5-9400f, RTX 2060, 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD.
Laptop: Pentium Silver N5000, UHD605, 4gb RAM, 1tb HDD.
Deere, Fendt, Claas, and sometimes the rest of Agco.
User avatar
blue_painted
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:50 pm
Location: UK

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by blue_painted »

theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:05 pm
--- 8-< --- HUUUUGE snip--- 8-< ---
You're doing it again -- challenging strongly held opinions with facts ... I'm sure that's a violation of the Internet Code of Practice. :D
Playing new "Beest" Intel i7-11700F with GeForce GTX 3060 and XBOX controller
also £600 laptop - AMD Ryzen 5600H with GeForce GTX 3050 XBOX controller

Dairydeere's A Guide to Finding Farming Simulator Mods - Please give this a read and help spread awareness for respectful mod downloads
User avatar
Ekan
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:27 pm
Location: Southwest Sweden

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Ekan »

theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:59 pm
Ekan wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am
michaelb1980 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:49 pm Can someone help me understand how Farming simulator is so hard on consoles we are limited to an x amount of equipment and limited to 200 bales last I checked because it is a physical object, and any decorations or playable objects subtract from the slot count, the map is much smaller than San Andreas, with much less buildings pedestrians and automobiles. Yet our consoles can handle GTA 5 like a breeze. Can someone help me understand this?
Its quite simple, FS is a badly optimzed game. Does not matter if you have a 50k PC or PS future8 as long a game not support todays systems, it will be a rough ride.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here, but the game runs fine for what it is on high end PCs. Could it better? Sure, but simply stating that the game is badly optimised and it does not matter if you have a 50K PC is demonstrably false.
I dont mean this in a bad way, they made a game back in 2007? with a low budget (compared to rockstar) and did a great job imo.

I hope they rebuild or rather replace the engine for FS2+

:hi:
Rebuild, or replace? This is not how games are developed. Using this logic RAGE is just some old engine built in 2004/2005 for a Table Tennis game. What actually happens is that engines get worked on over time and features are added and optimised. Hence why RAGE powers all of Rockstar’s games since 2006. Giants FS engine has been constantly improved and reworked over the years with new features, just like any engine. Could there be more features and further optimisations? Of course, especially if they had a team of 1000 developers.

In my opinion the engine is the least of the problems with FS. It’s lacking actual gameplay and “simulator” features, which has little to do with the engine. Optimising the engine is a much lower priority in my view. Gameplay beats pretty graphics, but obviously not everyone thinks so, sadly.
Im saying without "real" multi core support for CPU the game runs bad. That's bad optimized game imo. (This is with max graphical settings + 200% scaling) (High-End computer)

"Gameplay beats pretty graphics" Well, I want both :mrgreen:
Last edited by Ekan on Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FS since 2012 :hi:
"Immersive farmplay & detail fanatic"

PC: :gamer:
Acer "28" NItro XVO (4k)
Geforce RTX 3070
i7-8700k 5ghz (OC) (3.70ghz)
HyperX fury 32gb RAM
M.2 970 evoPlus (500gb)
M.2 MP500 (150gb)
ROG strix Z370-F
EVGA 750w psu, Corsair cooling & chassi
They Caged Non
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 12:14 am

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by They Caged Non »

Not getting involved with the graphics discussion but download the straw barn and store all your straw and hay in there (250000l of each) by collecting it with a loading wagon... that’s the easiest way around the bale limit.
danhild
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by danhild »

theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:05 pm

Everyone cares about performance. There's a difference between the "smooth" framerate which is >60FPS and a slideshow at 5FPS.

I always see people defending the "single-core" utilization from by saying that it's because the game has to run on everything. If that's the case, then why do people with Ryzen 9s and RTX 3000 cards struggle to hit stable 60+FPS ?
Who are these people struggling to hit a stable 60 FPS with the hardware you mentioned? They don’t exist, unless they are pushing the game well beyond its limits with ridiculous numbers of bales and equipment items and using mods that are “polybombs”.
Hello there.
Im one of those non existing users
I have a Ryzen 5800x @ 5.05 ghz single core 4.75ghz multi core and a Rtx 3090
4x8gig (32gig) 3600hz triden-z
i run a 38" ultawide monitor @ 3440x1440p @144hz
and i can´t run the game at max settings with resolution scaling at 200%
If i run 100% resolution scaling fps is ok 70-144 fps but if i run 200% i get 10-144 fps

The big problem is wheat fields it kills the cpu with 100% load on one core and fps drops to 10-30 and if i turn my back to the field the fps go to 80+ some times i can get 144fps with 200% res scaling
Support for a better distribution of the load will fix this
Multicore support was added back in FS11

but still i love the game its not perfect but i hope some day it will be =)

Edit don_apple: fixed broken quoting.
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

danhild wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:03 pm
theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:05 pm

Everyone cares about performance. There's a difference between the "smooth" framerate which is >60FPS and a slideshow at 5FPS.

I always see people defending the "single-core" utilization from by saying that it's because the game has to run on everything. If that's the case, then why do people with Ryzen 9s and RTX 3000 cards struggle to hit stable 60+FPS ?
Who are these people struggling to hit a stable 60 FPS with the hardware you mentioned? They don’t exist, unless they are pushing the game well beyond its limits with ridiculous numbers of bales and equipment items and using mods that are “polybombs”.
Hello there.
Im one of those non existing users
I have a Ryzen 5800x @ 5.05 ghz single core 4.75ghz multi core and a Rtx 3090
4x8gig (32gig) 3600hz triden-z
i run a 38" ultawide monitor @ 3440x1440p @144hz
and i can´t run the game at max settings with resolution scaling at 200%
If i run 100% resolution scaling fps is ok 70-144 fps but if i run 200% i get 10-144 fps

The big problem is wheat fields it kills the cpu with 100% load on one core and fps drops to 10-30 and if i turn my back to the field the fps go to 80+ some times i can get 144fps with 200% res scaling
Support for a better distribution of the load will fix this
Multicore support was added back in FS11

but still i love the game its not perfect but i hope some day it will be =)
Try turning FPS lock back on. Have heard it helps prevent FPS drops.
Also you don’t tell us what map or mods.
A buggy and optimized 16x map and a bunch of buggy and unoptimized mods can rapidly eat into performance. (And 70FPS is far from poor for a game coded to run at 60)

Edit don:apple: fixed quoting.
Last edited by DEERE317 on Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FS15 & FS19 Platinum Edition PC (and War Thunder, Gaijin is way worse than GIANTS ever has been accused of being)
FS Comunity Trader: https://fs19communitytrader.freeforums.net/
Desktop: i5-9400f, RTX 2060, 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD.
Laptop: Pentium Silver N5000, UHD605, 4gb RAM, 1tb HDD.
Deere, Fendt, Claas, and sometimes the rest of Agco.
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

Ekan wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:11 pm
theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:59 pm
Ekan wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am

Its quite simple, FS is a badly optimzed game. Does not matter if you have a 50k PC or PS future8 as long a game not support todays systems, it will be a rough ride.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here, but the game runs fine for what it is on high end PCs. Could it better? Sure, but simply stating that the game is badly optimised and it does not matter if you have a 50K PC is demonstrably false.
I dont mean this in a bad way, they made a game back in 2007? with a low budget (compared to rockstar) and did a great job imo.

I hope they rebuild or rather replace the engine for FS2+

:hi:
Rebuild, or replace? This is not how games are developed. Using this logic RAGE is just some old engine built in 2004/2005 for a Table Tennis game. What actually happens is that engines get worked on over time and features are added and optimised. Hence why RAGE powers all of Rockstar’s games since 2006. Giants FS engine has been constantly improved and reworked over the years with new features, just like any engine. Could there be more features and further optimisations? Of course, especially if they had a team of 1000 developers.

In my opinion the engine is the least of the problems with FS. It’s lacking actual gameplay and “simulator” features, which has little to do with the engine. Optimising the engine is a much lower priority in my view. Gameplay beats pretty graphics, but obviously not everyone thinks so, sadly.
Im saying without "real" multi core support for CPU the game runs bad. That's bad optimized game imo. (This is with max graphical settings + 200% scaling) (High-End computer)

"Gameplay beats pretty graphics" Well, I want both :mrgreen:
Single vs multicore doesn’t matter unless the main game thread is pinning the CPU @ 100% (which I’ve only accomplished when calculating Courseplay courses)
FS15 & FS19 Platinum Edition PC (and War Thunder, Gaijin is way worse than GIANTS ever has been accused of being)
FS Comunity Trader: https://fs19communitytrader.freeforums.net/
Desktop: i5-9400f, RTX 2060, 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD.
Laptop: Pentium Silver N5000, UHD605, 4gb RAM, 1tb HDD.
Deere, Fendt, Claas, and sometimes the rest of Agco.
User avatar
Ekan
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:27 pm
Location: Southwest Sweden

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Ekan »

DEERE317 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:39 pm
Ekan wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:11 pm
theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:59 pm

I don’t know what you are trying to say here, but the game runs fine for what it is on high end PCs. Could it better? Sure, but simply stating that the game is badly optimised and it does not matter if you have a 50K PC is demonstrably false.



Rebuild, or replace? This is not how games are developed. Using this logic RAGE is just some old engine built in 2004/2005 for a Table Tennis game. What actually happens is that engines get worked on over time and features are added and optimised. Hence why RAGE powers all of Rockstar’s games since 2006. Giants FS engine has been constantly improved and reworked over the years with new features, just like any engine. Could there be more features and further optimisations? Of course, especially if they had a team of 1000 developers.

In my opinion the engine is the least of the problems with FS. It’s lacking actual gameplay and “simulator” features, which has little to do with the engine. Optimising the engine is a much lower priority in my view. Gameplay beats pretty graphics, but obviously not everyone thinks so, sadly.
Im saying without "real" multi core support for CPU the game runs bad. That's bad optimized game imo. (This is with max graphical settings + 200% scaling) (High-End computer)

"Gameplay beats pretty graphics" Well, I want both :mrgreen:
Single vs multicore doesn’t matter unless the main game thread is pinning the CPU @ 100% (which I’ve only accomplished when calculating Courseplay courses)
Thats what exactly what happens when the game is on max settings. 1 core (2 threads) at 100% when you push it, drives near/over a growing field and the FPS drops to around 35. (i7 8700 - 5.1gghz)
FS since 2012 :hi:
"Immersive farmplay & detail fanatic"

PC: :gamer:
Acer "28" NItro XVO (4k)
Geforce RTX 3070
i7-8700k 5ghz (OC) (3.70ghz)
HyperX fury 32gb RAM
M.2 970 evoPlus (500gb)
M.2 MP500 (150gb)
ROG strix Z370-F
EVGA 750w psu, Corsair cooling & chassi
danhild
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by danhild »

DEERE317 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:36 pm
danhild wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:03 pm
theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:05 pm




Who are these people struggling to hit a stable 60 FPS with the hardware you mentioned? They don’t exist, unless they are pushing the game well beyond its limits with ridiculous numbers of bales and equipment items and using mods that are “polybombs”.
Hello there.
Im one of those non existing users
I have a Ryzen 5800x @ 5.05 ghz single core 4.75ghz multi core and a Rtx 3090
4x8gig (32gig) 3600hz triden-z
i run a 38" ultawide monitor @ 3440x1440p @144hz
and i can´t run the game at max settings with resolution scaling at 200%
If i run 100% resolution scaling fps is ok 70-144 fps but if i run 200% i get 10-144 fps

The big problem is wheat fields it kills the cpu with 100% load on one core and fps drops to 10-30 and if i turn my back to the field the fps go to 80+ some times i can get 144fps with 200% res scaling
Support for a better distribution of the load will fix this
Multicore support was added back in FS11

but still i love the game its not perfect but i hope some day it will be =)
Try turning FPS lock back on. Have heard it helps prevent FPS drops.
Also you don’t tell us what map or mods.
A buggy and optimized 16x map and a bunch of buggy and unoptimized mods can rapidly eat into performance. (And 70FPS is far from poor for a game coded to run at 60)

Edit don:apple: fixed quoting.
Just right now i did a test.

NO mods installed only all dlc
All settings on max and resolution scaling on 200%

27FPS i an field on Erlengrant and the cpu get 100% load to one core/thread and bottelneck the system.
As soon as i leave the field cpu go back to 20-70% load and fps is back upp to 65-92 in my test
If i lock fps to 60 i still have 27fps in the fields

Just saying Giants can make a bit better distribution of the load so i can run the game at all max setting
FarmBoss
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 11:45 am

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by FarmBoss »

Summary:
- Giants FS is perfectly optimized for 100% of players, and to say otherwise is so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
- No other game could even comes close to the capabilities of FS.
- If your fps is low, it's your fault.
- If you even think think of mentioning another game, you're out of your mind.
- Comparing a shed with game is the same as comparing this game with another game.
- Some people are only capable of spewing facts.
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

danhild wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:47 am
DEERE317 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:36 pm
danhild wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:03 pm

Hello there.
Im one of those non existing users
I have a Ryzen 5800x @ 5.05 ghz single core 4.75ghz multi core and a Rtx 3090
4x8gig (32gig) 3600hz triden-z
i run a 38" ultawide monitor @ 3440x1440p @144hz
and i can´t run the game at max settings with resolution scaling at 200%
If i run 100% resolution scaling fps is ok 70-144 fps but if i run 200% i get 10-144 fps

The big problem is wheat fields it kills the cpu with 100% load on one core and fps drops to 10-30 and if i turn my back to the field the fps go to 80+ some times i can get 144fps with 200% res scaling
Support for a better distribution of the load will fix this
Multicore support was added back in FS11

but still i love the game its not perfect but i hope some day it will be =)
Try turning FPS lock back on. Have heard it helps prevent FPS drops.
Also you don’t tell us what map or mods.
A buggy and optimized 16x map and a bunch of buggy and unoptimized mods can rapidly eat into performance. (And 70FPS is far from poor for a game coded to run at 60)

Edit don:apple: fixed quoting.
Just right now i did a test.

NO mods installed only all dlc
All settings on max and resolution scaling on 200%

27FPS i an field on Erlengrant and the cpu get 100% load to one core/thread and bottelneck the system.
As soon as i leave the field cpu go back to 20-70% load and fps is back upp to 65-92 in my test
If i lock fps to 60 i still have 27fps in the fields

Just saying Giants can make a bit better distribution of the load so i can run the game at all max setting
Ekan wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:24 am
DEERE317 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:39 pm
Ekan wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:11 pm
Im saying without "real" multi core support for CPU the game runs bad. That's bad optimized game imo. (This is with max graphical settings + 200% scaling) (High-End computer)

"Gameplay beats pretty graphics" Well, I want both :mrgreen:
Single vs multicore doesn’t matter unless the main game thread is pinning the CPU @ 100% (which I’ve only accomplished when calculating Courseplay courses)
Thats what exactly what happens when the game is on max settings. 1 core (2 threads) at 100% when you push it, drives near/over a growing field and the FPS drops to around 35. (i7 8700 - 5.1gghz)
Seems odd as I don’t remember my i5-9400f ever pinning outside of Courseplay or game lock ups.
Would say I have a stable 60fps but I mostly play on a old Medicine Creek Farms save that has just a “few” (:lol: not really) machines. 1x maps handle at 60fps pretty fine for me.
And that’s playing with every graphics setting set at its highest (don’t remember what I have anti aliasing set at though), i5-9400f, GTX1660ti (may be getting changed out as I’m not sure if it’s alive anymore), 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD
FS15 & FS19 Platinum Edition PC (and War Thunder, Gaijin is way worse than GIANTS ever has been accused of being)
FS Comunity Trader: https://fs19communitytrader.freeforums.net/
Desktop: i5-9400f, RTX 2060, 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD.
Laptop: Pentium Silver N5000, UHD605, 4gb RAM, 1tb HDD.
Deere, Fendt, Claas, and sometimes the rest of Agco.
Mwal
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Mwal »

No ones saying it’s 100% optimized, just saying it’s made to work on 100% of systems
No other game really comes close to fs in the genre so say what you want, but they’re the only ones doing this and saying the closest competitor is anything more than 1/10th as successful at making a quality game is laughable to anyone who’s actually played a competitors product
If your FPS is low on pc it is most definitely your own fault, unless someone else buys your pc for you or is installing junk mods when you’re not around
Comparing the game to gta is like saying the chiefs *censored* in the Super Bowl they should be more like the Tampa bay lightning and win because they’re both team sports
Some people really hate facts as they tend to run counter to opinion
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

From what I’ve seen whenever games start to push large amounts of physics and other computations into a large area performance tanks.
Train Sim World 2020 runs on I think Unity (or whatever the other big game engine is) and takes a well optimized engine and makes a game the struggles to/can’t reach 60fps on a high end systems.
At least for the most part FS with 4x and 16x maps is better than that.
FS15 & FS19 Platinum Edition PC (and War Thunder, Gaijin is way worse than GIANTS ever has been accused of being)
FS Comunity Trader: https://fs19communitytrader.freeforums.net/
Desktop: i5-9400f, RTX 2060, 8gb RAM, 256gb SSD.
Laptop: Pentium Silver N5000, UHD605, 4gb RAM, 1tb HDD.
Deere, Fendt, Claas, and sometimes the rest of Agco.
User avatar
blue_painted
Posts: 1670
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:50 pm
Location: UK

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by blue_painted »

FarmBoss wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:47 pm Summary:
- Giants FS is perfectly optimized for 100% of players, and to say otherwise is so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
- No other game could even comes close to the capabilities of FS.
- If your fps is low, it's your fault.
- If you even think think of mentioning another game, you're out of your mind.
- Comparing a shed with game is the same as comparing this game with another game.
- Some people are only capable of spewing facts.
Re-summarised:
- this game has never been optimised at all, anyone asking for any rational basis for this opinion has to be a GIANTS shill, probably even a sockpuppet
- no one can get playable FPS even with overclocked i7 with multiple RTX 3080 cards and terrabytes of RAM
- GIANTS want us to have low FPS for reasons
- any other farming game would result in fantastic FPS performance by next Tuesday!
- anyones' iPhone X playing Netflix is better than this therefore GIANTS aren't trying and don't care
- we can all make stuff up based on "what I read on teh internetz" and become instant experts


... yes, I know this is a gross exaggeration but then, to be fair, so was the post I've quoted.
Last edited by blue_painted on Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Playing new "Beest" Intel i7-11700F with GeForce GTX 3060 and XBOX controller
also £600 laptop - AMD Ryzen 5600H with GeForce GTX 3050 XBOX controller

Dairydeere's A Guide to Finding Farming Simulator Mods - Please give this a read and help spread awareness for respectful mod downloads
Locked