I said this on Masto, but this tells me nothing as written. You can get the first game to run like that, too.
The thing is, if it runs that way on an empty map and degrades the same way the first one did, I can’t see it not crashing on a full endgame map. So… how does it run on endgame? Or is this endgame and it runs fine at first? Guessing no, since the devs themselves said this was a problem. And, well, I’ve seen footage from streamers and it certainly chugs on small maps, too.
To answer your main Q from this, apparently the biggest performance dropoff is going from no pop to 10k, scaling up to 100k isn’t nearly the same dropoff.
Even with a beefy setup on high settings, CPP suggests turning off many of the post-processing effects and definitely disable VSync. Lastly 4K is out of the question for most cards, barely playable for top end enthusiast cards, Most will be limited to 1080p for a usable experience.
The good news from this video is that for anything above a 970 it is possible to get to late game, as long as you stick to 1080p low-med settings on any card with less than 8GB VRAM.
Hm. So it scales with VRAM and GPU, not CPU? Interesting.
That’s less concerning than people had made it out to be, at least for a game of this genre. It still doesn’t sound particularly pleasant to play, but hey, less of a dealbreaker.
Precisely. Not to sound too much like a shill because full disclosure I bought and I’m very excited for C:S2, but I find some of the concern is overblown. Yes the performance is a MAJOR problem, but the game is feature complete and optimization is ongoing, with significant improvements to arrive by console release.
Yeah, it seems weird because you’d think all the simulation load would be in the background and they could scale the visuals. Since it seems like there’s a high base cost for them I assume it’s possible to make that run at least a bit better at some point.
The console release target is a bit of a question mark, though. You’d think they have just weaker GPUs and they’ll need to optimize to fit, but they can also target lower resolutions and do other stuff there. Plus if there’s an I/O issue in there, there’s a reliable spec for SSDs on those, so who knows.
Alright, so I got the game and it a) actually has a fantastic options menu with a ton of granularity, and b) it has some really dumb, wasteful settings flagged as “high” with no “ultra” preset.
I went from launching into a default in the 30s for the default map to toning down their nuts global illumination, volumetric clouds and transparent reflections for a neat 100+ fps. And then I cranked it back up a bit to be hovering around 90. I’m sure I’ll have to tweak more when I get deeper into the game, but yeah, no, this is gonna be playable.
For the record, I think setting up decent defaults and settings should be a thing in PC games. Tuning the game shouldn’t be the first thing you have to do. But whether it’s thanks to last minute patches or people overreacting to the announcements I think this was a bit overblown. I’ll report back if that proves not to be the case as I get deeper in.
Hah. It did lose some fps as the city grew. By the time I expanded to a bunch of tiles I was hovering at 50-60 instead of 70-90, but I’m on a VRR display, so I never felt the need to crank it down further. It may get there eventually, but I’m done for the day
The defaults for high are absolutely messed up, and it’s entirely possible that some of the settings are straight up bugged. The game doesn’t look that much better than CS1 on reasonable settings… but it also doesn’t run that much worse, either.
Honestly, I have bigger gripes with some of the interface and with how much micromanagement there is in here. I think the tech issues are both overblown and could have been mitigated with better defaults.
EDIT: In case someone has use for it, what I did was mostly turn off volumetric clouds, turn off Vsync, turn off transparent reflections and drop the settings for Global Illumination and other screen-space effects to not be full res.
Oh, and also, they seem to think SMAA looks better than TAA here. It doesn’t. You definitely want to manually change that to TAA and disable DRS, which defaults to extremely gross FSR 1.0. The way this is technically put together by default is super weird.
People just think that all new games should be able to run at 60fps on ultra settings on 4 year old hardware or it isn’t “optimized”. If it runs fine, I’m happy ,even if it needs to be on “high” settings until hardware catches up a bit.
Yeah. In fairness, it IS disappointing to have to target 1080p or 1440p at 30 fps these days on PC… but it’s definitely not a dealbreaker for a sim game like this. Seeing early benchmarks and performance I’d say it went from wait and see to “temper expectations and be ready to target 30”.
I said this on Masto, but this tells me nothing as written. You can get the first game to run like that, too.
The thing is, if it runs that way on an empty map and degrades the same way the first one did, I can’t see it not crashing on a full endgame map. So… how does it run on endgame? Or is this endgame and it runs fine at first? Guessing no, since the devs themselves said this was a problem. And, well, I’ve seen footage from streamers and it certainly chugs on small maps, too.
Might be good to have a watch of City Planner Play’s Benchmarking video
To answer your main Q from this, apparently the biggest performance dropoff is going from no pop to 10k, scaling up to 100k isn’t nearly the same dropoff.
Even with a beefy setup on high settings, CPP suggests turning off many of the post-processing effects and definitely disable VSync. Lastly 4K is out of the question for most cards, barely playable for top end enthusiast cards, Most will be limited to 1080p for a usable experience.
The good news from this video is that for anything above a 970 it is possible to get to late game, as long as you stick to 1080p low-med settings on any card with less than 8GB VRAM.
Hm. So it scales with VRAM and GPU, not CPU? Interesting.
That’s less concerning than people had made it out to be, at least for a game of this genre. It still doesn’t sound particularly pleasant to play, but hey, less of a dealbreaker.
Precisely. Not to sound too much like a shill because full disclosure I bought and I’m very excited for C:S2, but I find some of the concern is overblown. Yes the performance is a MAJOR problem, but the game is feature complete and optimization is ongoing, with significant improvements to arrive by console release.
Yeah, it seems weird because you’d think all the simulation load would be in the background and they could scale the visuals. Since it seems like there’s a high base cost for them I assume it’s possible to make that run at least a bit better at some point.
The console release target is a bit of a question mark, though. You’d think they have just weaker GPUs and they’ll need to optimize to fit, but they can also target lower resolutions and do other stuff there. Plus if there’s an I/O issue in there, there’s a reliable spec for SSDs on those, so who knows.
Alright, so I got the game and it a) actually has a fantastic options menu with a ton of granularity, and b) it has some really dumb, wasteful settings flagged as “high” with no “ultra” preset.
I went from launching into a default in the 30s for the default map to toning down their nuts global illumination, volumetric clouds and transparent reflections for a neat 100+ fps. And then I cranked it back up a bit to be hovering around 90. I’m sure I’ll have to tweak more when I get deeper into the game, but yeah, no, this is gonna be playable.
For the record, I think setting up decent defaults and settings should be a thing in PC games. Tuning the game shouldn’t be the first thing you have to do. But whether it’s thanks to last minute patches or people overreacting to the announcements I think this was a bit overblown. I’ll report back if that proves not to be the case as I get deeper in.
Removed by mod
Hah. It did lose some fps as the city grew. By the time I expanded to a bunch of tiles I was hovering at 50-60 instead of 70-90, but I’m on a VRR display, so I never felt the need to crank it down further. It may get there eventually, but I’m done for the day
The defaults for high are absolutely messed up, and it’s entirely possible that some of the settings are straight up bugged. The game doesn’t look that much better than CS1 on reasonable settings… but it also doesn’t run that much worse, either.
Honestly, I have bigger gripes with some of the interface and with how much micromanagement there is in here. I think the tech issues are both overblown and could have been mitigated with better defaults.
EDIT: In case someone has use for it, what I did was mostly turn off volumetric clouds, turn off Vsync, turn off transparent reflections and drop the settings for Global Illumination and other screen-space effects to not be full res.
Oh, and also, they seem to think SMAA looks better than TAA here. It doesn’t. You definitely want to manually change that to TAA and disable DRS, which defaults to extremely gross FSR 1.0. The way this is technically put together by default is super weird.
Removed by mod
People just think that all new games should be able to run at 60fps on ultra settings on 4 year old hardware or it isn’t “optimized”. If it runs fine, I’m happy ,even if it needs to be on “high” settings until hardware catches up a bit.
Yeah. In fairness, it IS disappointing to have to target 1080p or 1440p at 30 fps these days on PC… but it’s definitely not a dealbreaker for a sim game like this. Seeing early benchmarks and performance I’d say it went from wait and see to “temper expectations and be ready to target 30”.