GIANTS Software - Forum

FS19 didn't use more than one core? that would explain the lackluster console performance.

Speaking of performance, would it be possible for GIANTS to release a diagram showing resolution and frame rates for each console?

Something like this would be very appreciated...

george.earlslight wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:04 pm Quite certainly Stegei refered to cores in context of soft-cores/logical processors/threads.
One core doesn't always mean 2 threads, it depends on CPU architecture, as you probably already know.
Unfortunately the term thread is often misused and also having OS/Application threads worsens the situation.

I'm glad you managed to increase your FPS, I'll also do some testing when back home.

I dont think he mentioned cores at all, he did say threads.
Yea it doesnt always mean 1 core is 2 threads but it is in my case.

Edit don_apple: fixed quoting.

FS19 is very poorly optimized, in many ways.

I have what we can call a beast as computer, with planty of cpu / rams / gpus / etc and FS19 is the ONLY game where my FPS's never over 25.

I run absolutly all other game with a solid 60 with "ultra" as graphic setting. Yes, that include Cyberpunk which is known to be very hard on usage.

Miketeg wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:39 pm FS19 is very poorly optimized, in many ways.

I have what we can call a beast as computer, with planty of cpu / rams / gpus / etc and FS19 is the ONLY game where my FPS's never over 25.

I run absolutly all other game with a solid 60 with "ultra" as graphic setting. Yes, that include Cyberpunk which is known to be very hard on usage.

I wonder what you are doing differently? I don't always get 60fps on this old box, but it's seldom below 30 and usually over 40.

The old box: i7 4790 at 3.60 GHz, 16GB RAM, NVidia GTX 1060 6GB running at 1920x1080 -- not exactly a beast.

I think FS in general has an engine somewhat poorly optimized to make use of large amounts of computer power (maxing out data buses or the game engine architecture?) but that can almost be ran on a literal potato with decent ish performance.

Riven326 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:39 pm FS19 didn't use more than one core? that would explain the lackluster console performance.

Speaking of performance, would it be possible for GIANTS to release a diagram showing resolution and frame rates for each console?

Something like this would be very appreciated...

Because then someone will be staring at 100% slot usage with everything piled into their farmyard wondering why it is a slideshow thinking it should be fine because little chart says so.
That it’s be marketing “upto” numbers so could be of questionable usability…

DEERE317 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:17 pm I think FS in general has an engine somewhat poorly optimized to make use of large amounts of computer power (maxing out data buses or the game engine architecture?) but that can almost be ran on a literal potato with decent ish performance.

runs the cousin of a potato and gets 15FPS on medium graphics...

Ok, so maybe not every computer

Dairydeere wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:43 am

DEERE317 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:17 pm I think FS in general has an engine somewhat poorly optimized to make use of large amounts of computer power (maxing out data buses or the game engine architecture?) but that can almost be ran on a literal potato with decent ish performance.

runs the cousin of a potato and gets 15FPS on medium graphics...

Ok, so maybe not every computer

Well my cousin of a potato can somehow run it at 20-30fps on absolute minimum settings…
And that’s a mobile Intel iGPU that gets out performed by over half decade old desktop Intel iGPU’s…

I'm getting an average of 66.7 fps on max settings. My fps drop when I'm in certain situations, like approaching the farm yard with all the buildings, equipment and tractors all parked neatly in rows. The FPS are worse at night when the flood lights are on, and also in the 6am-8am range when the suns coming up and effects the lighting and shadows.
Specs;
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
32GB RAM (3200mhz)
AMD Radeon GPU RX 5700 XT
Currently running on a 2TB WD 7200rpm HD. (would probably speed up if I put it on my M.2 SSD but it's not very big)
I'm not sure how many threads/cores it's using but I will have to check next time I'm running the game. But considering I get better performance on newer UE4 I'm sure the game isn't optimized for multicore processing.
For example I'm getting 90-100fps in Train Sim World 2 with 3 locomotives 60 freight cars and all the scenery.

OK, I've noticed something peculiar during my testing.

I'm running a game on Western Australia x4 by Lancyboi.
This is a rather light 4x map to play, greatly thanks to Lancyboi's optimization and also because Western Australia is flat and mostly featureless.

Two reference points while running a herbicide spreader:

Camera looking over the horizon (no buildings) - ~90 FPS, ~55% GPU load, VRAM 6GB/10GB, CPU cores none over ~60%
Camera looking at the yard (lots of buildings, some vehicles) - ~55 FPS, ~35% GPU load, VRAM 6GB/10GB, CPU cores none over ~60%

For some reason, there's a bottleneck somewhere causing lower GPU utilization when rendering lots of objects.

george.earlslight wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:54 am OK, I've noticed something peculiar during my testing.

I'm running a game on Western Australia x4 by Lancyboi.
This is a rather light 4x map to play, greatly thanks to Lancyboi's optimization and also because Western Australia is flat and mostly featureless.

Two reference points while running a herbicide spreader:

Camera looking over the horizon (no buildings) - ~90 FPS, ~55% GPU load, VRAM 6GB/10GB, CPU cores none over ~60%
Camera looking at the yard (lots of buildings, some vehicles) - ~55 FPS, ~35% GPU load, VRAM 6GB/10GB, CPU cores none over ~60%

For some reason, there's a bottleneck somewhere causing lower GPU utilization when rendering lots of objects.

Its a problem that has been plauging fs series for some time. Lots of objects equals lots of polys and engine is not handling alot of polys very well, occlussion culling should help with this in fs22

george.earlslight wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:54 am For some reason, there's a bottleneck somewhere causing lower GPU utilization when rendering lots of objects.

Similar here on other maps (Felbrunn is better (but still has the same issues) than Six Ashes, which I've been playing on but I don't think is especially well optimised like OxygenDavid's maps usually are).

I checked the VRAM level after Stegei noticed it for TheSarkY's issue, but mine was only at 4.1GB max in the tests I did (RTX 3060 TI has 8GB). Looking towards farms and a lot of vehicles drops performance from around 120FPS down to 40-50FPS - lower if I turn up the settings a bit more. GPU was at 55% maximum, CPU was only registering 16% usage (4 core, 8 thread CPU here too (4790K@4.4GHz)). Plenty of RAM free (I've got 16GB), CPU underused, GPU underused - who knows where the bottleneck is.

Mods make no difference to performance in my case (empty mods folder on Felsbrunn gives similar performance to my usual folder and mods checked in game).

njuska11 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:29 am Its a problem that has been plauging fs series for some time. Lots of objects equals lots of polys and engine is not handling alot of polys very well, occlussion culling should help with this in fs22

Should help if it's done on the fly automatically, yes. So long as it's not just a certain collision value set on certain objects like buildings. I don't think trees will help either as obviously things behind trees will still be visible, so I don't think it's going to be a game changer, unless you tend to keep much of your equipment in sheds while out working a field.

I definetly inted to cuz they said no pixels must be visible in order it to work hehe

I've got an idea to test when back home today.
I'll play around with the shadows setting. More objects = more shadows.

Shadows are only rendered at a certain distance and on my system they didn't seem to have much effect. The settings which had more effect were the distance ones. GIANTS must know about it, as even their highest preset sets some distances at only 130% rather than the maximum 200%. The only one which made the GPU work harder was the Resolution Scaling, playing with which I was able to get near enough 100% GPU usage (only for testing - I've set it back at 100% scaling when playing).

Your system will almost certainly be different though, so please do and report back any findings.