Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

But how many people who know about/care about game performance are there? Would be hard to make a poll when many don’t know what you’re talking about. And what would it do? The game doesn’t run perfectly but it can run on just about anything. So we want GIANTS to spend how much to “optimize” the game for who knows what benefit?
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.
Drmattymd
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:54 pm
Location: VA, USA

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Drmattymd »

Nobody is saying Giants couldn't/shouldn't do better. The point is comparing them with other games is like saying, "wow my tractor pulls this 10' disk way better than this 60' disk, the 60 must be poorly designed "
Playing on PC and PS4
User avatar
DEERE317
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:01 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by DEERE317 »

Drmattymd wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:19 pm Nobody is saying Giants couldn't/shouldn't do better. The point is comparing them with other games is like saying, "wow my tractor pulls this 10' disk way better than this 60' disk, the 60 must be poorly designed "
:this:
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.
Gormett
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:21 am

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Gormett »

blue_painted wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:36 pm 1. Should FS19+ make a more balanced use of all CPU cores? Well, yes, if that is a performance bottleneck, but is it? How do we know? What benchmarks and run-tests have we carried out at code level?

2. Is FS19 using all the available power of the GPU? Maybe not but ... the same applies ... how do we know? And much more to the point, if the code isn't using GPU as efficiently as possible, what are the constraints? What else would be affected?
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.
DEERE317 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:04 pm But how many people who know about/care about game performance are there? Would be hard to make a poll when many don’t know what you’re talking about. And what would it do? The game doesn’t run perfectly but it can run on just about anything. So we want GIANTS to spend how much to “optimize” the game for who knows what benefit?
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 ?

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%

Wargaming - creators of World of Tanks had reworked their engine in 2018, adding multicore support, here's a nice video about it
DEERE317 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:29 pm
Mwal wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:34 pm Gta doesn’t need to render the entire map at once, only the area you are in farm sim does. The npc’s and cars you see and the area you are in only exist while you see them on gta, on farm sim they are there no matter what. I believe this is due to the crop growth and various other things that take place on farm sim, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on why.
:this:
Most other games is just moving a camera around with visual effects, FS has to have entire map at least partially render able.
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.
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 12:46 am
blue_painted wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:36 pm 1. Should FS19+ make a more balanced use of all CPU cores? Well, yes, if that is a performance bottleneck, but is it? How do we know? What benchmarks and run-tests have we carried out at code level?

2. Is FS19 using all the available power of the GPU? Maybe not but ... the same applies ... how do we know? And much more to the point, if the code isn't using GPU as efficiently as possible, what are the constraints? What else would be affected?
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.
DEERE317 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:04 pm But how many people who know about/care about game performance are there? Would be hard to make a poll when many don’t know what you’re talking about. And what would it do? The game doesn’t run perfectly but it can run on just about anything. So we want GIANTS to spend how much to “optimize” the game for who knows what benefit?
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 ?

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%

Wargaming - creators of World of Tanks had reworked their engine in 2018, adding multicore support, here's a nice video about it
DEERE317 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:29 pm
Mwal wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:34 pm Gta doesn’t need to render the entire map at once, only the area you are in farm sim does. The npc’s and cars you see and the area you are in only exist while you see them on gta, on farm sim they are there no matter what. I believe this is due to the crop growth and various other things that take place on farm sim, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on why.
:this:
Most other games is just moving a camera around with visual effects, FS has to have entire map at least partially render able.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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 »

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

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by theSeb »

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?

This is a question that comes up every few months on these forums and has been answered. To use an analogy you are comparing a Ferrari F8 Tributo to a John Deere 6125. The Ferrari is great on tarmac, but not great for driving over a ploughed field.

Games like GTA have full control over the player scene and can scale the number of objects up and down as necessary to ensure a consistent frame rate. Have you ever tried to block a main, busy road in GTA V and then blow up one of the cars to cause a massive chain reaction? You will note that if too many cars are blocked up, some cars will start to disappear. Also you will notice that as more and more cars get blocked up the frame rate will drop, before the game starts despawning them. The frame rates drop heavily for a few seconds when you do set off a massive chain reaction as the game tries to calculate all of the physics, the particles flying about and to draw the scene.

In FS a player is free to create the most complex scene they wish with x number of objects like equipment and bales and so forth. There is no despawning, so the player has free reign and could make the game unplayable. This is why the game has a slot system. It’s basically to save the players from themselves and ensure that console players have what is deemed to be an acceptable gaming experience by the console manufacturers.

The other part of the equation to understand here though is that GTA V had a development team of around 1000 people and a development budget of over 137 million USD. RDR2 had a development team of around 1600 people and a development budget of around 170 to 240 million USD. The entire RDR2 team is estimated to be around 2000 people. Giants have an entire team of around 60 and a development team of about 20 people. Some of those people work on the gameplay development and some work on the engine. So let’s estimate that about 10 people work on the engine. To put this into perspective, the development team working on Arthur Morgan’s hair and beard growth was larger than the entire Giants development team.

Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) does not have to keep details about growth, crop planted, plough status, fertiliser status and so forth for every 0.5m x 0.5m square. The focus of the engine is to do something completely different. Engines like RAGE stream the world to the player and do not need to keep the entire world in memory. Both FS and RDR2 have fast travel with very different implementations. When you tab to a vehicle on the other side of the world you are fast travelling to another location on the map. It is instant without a loading screen. When you fast travel in RDR2 you get pretty cinematic screens. Those are just hiding the fact that the game is loading the location because the engine does not have the chance to stream the data in gradually, as it would if you were walking, or riding a horse to that location.

So to summarise: the difference is that the engines have completely different requirements and RAGE has a lot more polish and optimisation due to the sheer number of people working on it. 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. Take a look at some of the competitors to FS and tell me if you can think of any that can manage fields as large as FS and run smoothly, even on super high end PC hardware. You can’t because there aren’t any. The much anticipated competitor (the one whose name cannot be mentioned) has tiny fields and really poor performance on high end PCs.
Last edited by theSeb on Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
theSeb
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by theSeb »

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.
bojanh66
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:08 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by bojanh66 »

In my opinion the engine is the least of the problems with FS. It’s lacking actual gameplay and “simulator” features. Optimising the engine is a much lower priority in my view
In your view.
But in my view and many other players view, optimizing engine to use multithreaded cpu more efficiently is a high priority.
I stopped playing this game a while ago because i cant build big farm and maintain 60fps even with gtx 1080ti and ryzen 5 2600, even if i play on lowest settings, no difference.
Game engine cant handle lots of equipments on the main farm and one core on cpu cant do all the job, so thats why they need to optimize this engine more, to provide more fluid gameplay, because its not fun to play at 40fps...whats the point of having a modern PC if i cant play the game with high fps.
There are countless of threads all over the forum and reddit and steam community about having low fps and bad optimizations...i bet if you ask any of those players would they like better fps, answer would be yes, and for that, engine needs to be optimized.
How will Giants optimize their game, thats not my problem, they earned plenty of money, they can hire a good programmer to write a code or whatever they need to do, i as a consumer of their product want to enjoy their product and i am not enjoying playing on 40fps on main farm and having 60fps everywhere else on the map.
Point is, game engine optimization should be a high priority together with new gameplay features.
Gormett
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:21 am

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Gormett »

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.
Gormett
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:21 am

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Gormett »

theSeb wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:59 pm 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.
Every game has to strike a balance between the amount of features and performance. If you don't have the game optimized, you can't add the lacking "gameplay and "simulator" features you want, unless you optimize the game and add more headroom for them.
Mwal
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Mwal »

I can almost promise 99% of the people who complain about massive frame rate drops are dealing with issues with mods and mod conflicts rather than the actual game being unoptimized.
Noraf
Posts: 2170
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:53 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by Noraf »

Tried playing without an fps counter? :search:
PCGamer wrote: “It’s clear from the literature that you cannot see anything more than 20 Hz,” Adrien Chopin, a post-doc researcher in cognitive sciences, tells me. And while I admit I initially snorted into my coffee, his argument soon began to make a lot more sense.
He explains to me that when we’re searching for and categorising elements as targets in a first person shooter, we’re tracking multiple targets, and detecting motion of small objects. “For example, if you take the motion detection of small object, what is the optimal temporal frequency of an object that you can detect?”

And studies have found that the answer is between 7 and 13 Hz. After that, our sensitivity to movement drops significantly. “When you want to do visual search, or multiple visual tracking or just interpret motion direction, your brain will take only 13 images out of a second of continuous flow, so you will average the other images that are in between into one image.”

Discovered by researcher Rufin vanRullen in 2010, this literally happens in our brains: you can see a steady 13 Hz pulse of activity in an EEG.
:hi:

FS22 Bug-tracker
How to post your log
Giants Discord
Posting pictures How-to

Just remember, if the world didn't su.., we'd all fall of...
User avatar
theSeb
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by theSeb »

Mwal wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:45 pm I can almost promise 99% of the people who complain about massive frame rate drops are dealing with issues with mods and mod conflicts rather than the actual game being unoptimized.
Yup, pretty much. I can run the game on a 1070 with a 2017 intel quad core CPU on very high with a few tweaks at around 100 FPS with all of my equipment on the in-game map. Custom maps I am usually over 60 every where and dipping to the 50s when in-cab (7 mirrors etc)
User avatar
theSeb
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: Farming simulator 19 vs GTA 5

Post by theSeb »

bojanh66 wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:18 pm
In your view.
But in my view and many other players view, optimizing engine to use multithreaded cpu more efficiently is a high priority.
I stopped playing this game a while ago because i cant build big farm and maintain 60fps even with gtx 1080ti and ryzen 5 2600, even if i play on lowest settings, no difference.
Game engine cant handle lots of equipments on the main farm and one core on cpu cant do all the job, so thats why they need to optimize this engine more, to provide more fluid gameplay, because its not fun to play at 40fps...whats the point of having a modern PC if i cant play the game with high fps.
There are countless of threads all over the forum and reddit and steam community about having low fps and bad optimizations...i bet if you ask any of those players would they like better fps, answer would be yes, and for that, engine needs to be optimized.
How will Giants optimize their game, thats not my problem, they earned plenty of money, they can hire a good programmer to write a code or whatever they need to do, i as a consumer of their product want to enjoy their product and i am not enjoying playing on 40fps on main farm and having 60fps everywhere else on the map.
Point is, game engine optimization should be a high priority together with new gameplay features.
You say that how they optimise the game is not your problem, yet just before you claim that if they use multi-threaded CPUs more efficiently, then everything will be fine and it is a high priority. The point here is that using multi-core CPUs more efficiently is not some silver bullet. The optimisations that need to happen are more on the GPU side. On the standard map with a 1070 I am well over 160 FPS without any equipment. This starts dropping once I plant fields and buy equipment and buildings. This is has nothing to do with CPU and multi-core.
Locked