An optimization pass on the game would be an extremely welcome sight

[Shadow_rainbow]

Spoiler

Show

Anything more than that requires source code access. Speculating is pointless, as programmer's dogmas are Murphy's Law, "Profile before optimizing", and "Premature optimization is root of all evil".

Yes. The latter covers/implies at least two cases:
* Optimization of code that does not do the right thing is wasted effort
* Optimizing, say O( n² ) algorithm, when program could use O( n*log(n) ) algorithm

Shadow_rainbow is probably of the opinion that the statistical model proposed in OP is (a) less big-O than current implementation, and (b) something that X4 could use.

He sees ungodly specification recommendations for the game, as well as experiencing FPS drops. He doesn't need to presume the game is overcalculating, he experiences it. And proposes some ways he's aware of to do something about it.
In general, if you are aware some specific implementation leads to problems, you choose another one or work on the one you have to make it if. As mentioned above, optimizing something that's not doing the right thing is a problem.

[TheDeliveryMan]

All I see in the mandelbrot examples are spirals, spirals, spirals and starlike degenerate spirals. It's always some variation of the same pattern.

[Shadow_rainbow]

@Shadow_Rainbow - Why not open a performance bug report in the Technical support forum,

Spoiler

Show

give a typical situational game save (unmodified), DXDiag + VulkanInfo + Config.xml, describe the problems you are seeing, and then go into your long winded explanation of what you think can be done by the devs, and see what happens in a following beta?.
Maybe part of it will tickle their brains in how it could be applied with their collective expertise without ruining the game for anyone .. or maybe not .. Who knows until you try.

I think the devs do read topics like these occasionally (depends how busy they are), but putting it over as a tech support issue (game not performing as we can reasonably expect it to in a battle situation with above Recommended Machine Specifications), may prompt a bit more thinking at least.
Obviously it will take some time to implement whatever they come up with, or maybe they will just get on with what they already have planned.

I cant help with that, as the machine specifications are unfortunately for Desktop PCs, and I will never have one so cant really give the same argument. All I can do is hope one day for a laptop machine that will run it acceptably. So far they are doing good in that regard (well, so long as I limit how many stations/miners/traders/fleets/individual ships I have, and steer clear of being in VIG sectors fighter swarms).

At least these topics keep us off the streets

Edit : One other point I would like to make for anyone reading is that Egosoft also wish the game to perform as good as we do (again I cant put my mouse on a quote, but it has been said), I'm not just a fanboy trying to blow their trumpet, the above is an honest opinion based on my years experience since 2006 following the series and being a member here.

Tech support isn't for suggestions, its for tech problems, so it wouldn't be any kind of fit there. I'm new to this forum, so being hit with banhammer isn't the best idea of introduction. Not that it's a great idea in general

To my understanding, nothing is computed in a wrong way. Its just trying to compute way too much at some points. Again, as expected of it as it is. If any official answer was to be given, it would almost guaranteed to be 'get a more modern and powerful processor, yours is not enough to keep up with all these calculations'. Yet again, because of how it is now.

The only real way to change that would be doing the stuff not as it's done now, without overcomputing stuff. And I am completely aware of what I describe is a huge chunk of work that would take even more work to fit into the existing model. I am not really expecting it to be done fast -- or ever, for that measure. Everyone seems to have taken their attention to the least important (at the moment) part of it that would enable close to infinite playing field, and seemed to ignore the main part of using precompiled scenario parts for big battles. That wasn't really implemented in any game I seen before, so it would have been as much R&D as actually implementing it.
But if it would make battles infinitely scalable, along with infinitely scalable Universe... that would open a whole Universe of possibilities to grasp.

[Nanook]

...
What happens to THE Pirate you've let away seriously depends on how deep does developer want for his model to go. But eventually, when his ship is no different from the rest of them, he will of course be added to background statistics since there's no point in tracking him or his ship...

Not true. Individual ships do matter. If I, say, scan an NPC freighter and it has something I'd like, such as the freight it's carrying or maybe the mods it has, I'll note the ID of that ship and try to determine it's path and ultimate direction. And even if it travels all the way across the universe, and I can't do anything about it right now, I'll just ignore it for now. Then later I can filter that map for that ship when I'm ready and see if it's still available (which it often is). Or I can put a ship on it's tail and follow it throughout its travels. Your plan would seemingly remove that ship, and possibly mine, and add it to some homogeneous mush, ruining my whole plan. You see, there is a point to tracking most ships until they're removed either by the player or destroyed by an opposing faction.

Although my main gripe is not with how things work out of sector, but FPS drops in medium to large encounters.

So your solution to gain FPS is to castrate one of the game's most important features? Hmmm!

Besides, I don't believe that the background universe has that much of an effect on large encounters where the player is present. My understanding is that most of the slowdown during those are due to the ongoing battle itself. And the player has almost total control over that situation, since the player generally causes those situations. In other words, don't start major conflagrations if your computer can't handle it.

Oh, and I'm not an Egosoft employee, just so you know.

[Shadow_rainbow]

All I see in the mandelbrot examples are spirals, spirals, spirals and starlike degenerate spirals. It's always some variation of the same pattern.

Let's look at this video from this point for a minute to see it's far from that. There is a great number of structures you can discover there, each with its variations. And if that's not enough, no one forbids intersection with another infinite fractal to produce even more variety.
There's far more variation that can be fit into game mechanics.

[TheDeliveryMan]

And, like I have described above, ship numbers, pilot skills and even ship states can be stored for each faction. As opposed to per-ship storage as it is now.

No, the persistent universe is a core feature of X4 and it's predecessors. Every station, every ships exists, including storage/cargobay content, equipment, crew, current job/command. Newer titles of the X series are more detailed in that regard. But even in older titles every station, every ship and their cargobay content exists, whether you are looking or not. You cannot take this feature away, it's what makes the X games unique.

[vvvvvvvv]

What happens to THE Pirate you've let away seriously depends on how deep does developer want for his model to go. But eventually, when his ship is no different from the rest of them, he will of course be added to background statistics since there's no point in tracking him or his ship.

Tracking ships by ID is a common tactic in this game.
What you describe reminds me of Mass Effect 2. When they reduced every game choice to +- number in war effort. Felt absolutely awful.

I recommend to propose something else, or make your own title on those principles. For x4 it will just ruin it.

He sees ungodly specification recommendations for the game, as well as experiencing FPS drops. He doesn't need to presume the game is overcalculating, he experiences it. And proposes some ways he's aware of to do something about it.

No, this line of reasoning is an error and a typical programming mistake. You experience FPS drop. That's observation, valid. You decide it is because of background simulation. Now that's an assumption an it should be treated as invalid, unless supported by data from a profiler.

In essence you may be discussing solution to a feature that is not related to your problem. I.e. trying to solve a problem that does not need fixing.

Like it was said many times over, this is a core feature of the game that sets it aside from all other games. Removing it will kill the reason to play the game. Hence the advice to try something else or make your own thing.

If you proposed something that would allow current universe run at realtime and track every ship and bullet with no approximations, that would be far more interesting.

[vvvvvvvv]

What happens to THE Pirate you've let

Actually why don't you just listen to the responses.

I am a customer. I have a fairly good idea of why I play this game, which of its features for me are important and which aren't. Basically I have a checklist of interests, and this game checks a lot of boxes there.

I also played a LOT of things, and encountered mechanics you propose before. So, basically it means that when I say I dislike something, it is not "because I do not understand" or something like that, but because I DO understand what it entails, what will the result play like. And I do not like it. Mandelbrot is very dull and repetitive. For me. And I've seen what happens when games use preset encounters.

You are also a customer and have your own list of things you want. And in your scenario "complete simulation" is somewhere near the bottom of the list. You're more interested in performance, etc. Smoke and mirror is enough, so you propose to nuke the complete simulation. Understandable.

But.

For me this change will kill the game. It is again not exaggeration, but how it is. It is one of the major reasons why I play it and at the moment it is the only game I play. So, obviously losing the stuff I like is against my interests. Hence I oppose the proposal. That's also the reason why I suggested to try something else instead. Something that closer aligns with checklist of yours.

[Shadow_rainbow]

...
What happens to THE Pirate you've let away seriously depends on how deep does developer want for his model to go. But eventually, when his ship is no different from the rest of them, he will of course be added to background statistics since there's no point in tracking him or his ship...

Spoiler

Show

Not true. Individual ships do matter. If I, say, scan an NPC freighter and it has something I'd like, such as the freight it's carrying or maybe the mods it has, I'll note the ID of that ship and try to determine it's path and ultimate direction. And even if it travels all the way across the universe, and I can't do anything about it right now, I'll just ignore it for now. Then later I can filter that map for that ship when I'm ready and see if it's still available (which it often is). Or I can put a ship on it's tail and follow it throughout its travels. Your plan would seemingly remove that ship, and possibly mine, and add it to some homogeneous mush, ruining my whole plan. You see, there is a point to tracking most ships until they're removed either by the player or destroyed by an opposing faction.

Ships are not bullets. They can change direction. If the Universe is complex enough, you won't be able to assess its destination from just some point somewhere mid-flight. If you can, it's not complex enough -- probably exactly because of need to compute its at every point?
If you tail the ship, it is not removed from tracked ones since you are aware of it directly.
As for my evil plans of removing that ship, that is not true. If dissolved as ingame object, it would still be present in the Universe. It could be continuing doing its job, be intercepted by pirates and destroyed or suffer any other fate that can be implemented, without ever manifesting. It could even be rediscovered by yourself and manifesting again. Of course, it can be implemented to be dissolved without keeping its individual traits, as well.
Also, what was that point of tracking that specific ship, exactly? Why do you care for one specific trading ship in a universe where there are countless more ships just as this one? You didn't explain that same in relation to a pirate ship, but perhaps you'll do that with a trader instead?

Although my main gripe is not with how things work out of sector, but FPS drops in medium to large encounters.

Spoiler

Show

So your solution to gain FPS is to castrate one of the game's most important features? Hmmm!

Besides, I don't believe that the background universe has that much of an effect on large encounters where the player is present. My understanding is that most of the slowdown during those are due to the ongoing battle itself. And the player has almost total control over that situation, since the player generally causes those situations. In other words, don't start major conflagrations if your computer can't handle it.

Oh, and I'm not an Egosoft employee, just so you know.

Nope. To improve it. That would also enable scaling the whole thing up, as a bonus.
And if you carefully read what I've written, I have described a way to calculate battles of virtually any size without much in-time computing effort. And having large battles is a good thing.

[Shadow_rainbow]

What happens to THE Pirate you've let away seriously depends on how deep does developer want for his model to go. But eventually, when his ship is no different from the rest of them, he will of course be added to background statistics since there's no point in tracking him or his ship.

Tracking ships by ID is a common tactic in this game.
What you describe reminds me of Mass Effect 2. When they reduced every game choice to +- number in war effort. Felt absolutely awful.

Do you mean a userstory like this one? It works only if there's very limited number of entities to track. Imagine a universe with about a million pirates that are mixed and matched, with infighting and everything going on between them and everyone else -- and trying to track a specific one. Again, if that one holds significance, there's no reason not to single him out, like in aforementioned Nemesis system. But otherwise, it's a waste of resources.
Also note that user story in question did not result in finding the entity even when it's tracked by game. It's still tracked (if alive), but there's no good method to find it. So why is it tracked, then?
Also also. Did it really need to be tracked individually before it encountered his freighter? Why, specifically? What is the reason it cannot be some randomly selected or generated pirate ship and has to be this ship, exactly?

As for Mass Erect 3, note how each action not only increases/decreases Readiness, but also causes minor consequences tied to it. It felt awful because of starting deterioration of Bioware, not because it's the wrong way to handle it.
Look at it from another perspective. Your propulsion is statistical approach to calculating internal workings of engines and exhaust of nozzles combined. In proper simulation, you can track each individual atom that is being accelerated through the chamber. The question is not in 'could you', but 'should you'. Meaning you really need a strong reason to calculate it.

He sees ungodly specification recommendations for the game, as well as experiencing FPS drops. He doesn't need to presume the game is overcalculating, he experiences it. And proposes some ways he's aware of to do something about it.

No, this line of reasoning is an error and a typical programming mistake. You experience FPS drop. That's observation, valid. You decide it is because of background simulation. Now that's an assumption an it should be treated as invalid, unless supported by data from a profiler.

Spoiler

Show

In essence you may be discussing solution to a feature that is not related to your problem. I.e. trying to solve a problem that does not need fixing.

Like it was said many times over, this is a core feature of the game that sets it aside from all other games. Removing it will kill the reason to play the game. Hence the advice to try something else or make your own thing.

If you proposed something that would allow current universe run at realtime and track every ship and bullet with no approximations, that would be far more interesting.

This line of reasoning is about expanding the possible universe, first and foremost.
For FPS drop in large battles, there's another line of reasoning, similar to the first one, but different. It's just over there, along with the first one.
Both do track every bullet and can be implemented in a way that tracks every ship -- like I said, combining statistics and pre-compiled scenarios are capable of wonders -- just in a different way. As for requirements of tracking and rules of dissolving/embodying, these are details that can be discussed, as well.

Spoiler

Show

What happens to THE Pirate you've let

Actually why don't you just listen to the responses.

I am a customer. I have a fairly good idea of why I play this game, which of its features for me are important and which aren't. Basically I have a checklist of interests, and this game checks a lot of boxes there.

I also played a LOT of things, and encountered mechanics you propose before. So, basically it means that when I say I dislike something, it is not "because I do not understand" or something like that, but because I DO understand what it entails, what will the result play like. And I do not like it. Mandelbrot is very dull and repetitive. For me. And I've seen what happens when games use preset encounters.

You are also a customer and have your own list of things you want. And in your scenario "complete simulation" is somewhere near the bottom of the list. You're more interested in performance, etc. Smoke and mirror is enough, so you propose to nuke the complete simulation. Understandable.

But.

For me this change will kill the game. It is again not exaggeration, but how it is. It is one of the major reasons why I play it and at the moment it is the only game I play. So, obviously losing the stuff I like is against my interests. Hence I oppose the proposal. That's also the reason why I suggested to try something else instead. Something that closer aligns with checklist of yours.

Of course I understand your concerns. But simply voicing opposition to the change can't help us in working out a common vision of any kind, even if would be agreeing to disagree.
For example, you refer prior experience, but do not refer to truly massive scale games that use statistical and pre-generated approach a lot. Do you not think it's not quite relevant to the matter we discuss?
Let's speak of it constructively. Like, trying to imagine or select scenarios where one model breaks or underperforms, while other shines, and then criticising those would go much further.

[Shadow_rainbow]

And, like I have described above, ship numbers, pilot skills and even ship states can be stored for each faction. As opposed to per-ship storage as it is now.

No, the persistent universe is a core feature of X4 and it's predecessors. Every station, every ships exists, including storage/cargobay content, equipment, crew, current job/command. Newer titles of the X series are more detailed in that regard. But even in older titles every station, every ship and their cargobay content exists, whether you are looking or not. You cannot take this feature away, it's what makes the X games unique.

I can retort that this feature is what limits X-Universe's scale. The series' core feature is living universe with living economy (alongside space sim with specific physics). We're discussing details of how is it implemented, which is another matter entirely.
For example, how would it take away from your experience if cargo ships' storage was stored as sector or trade route property? Except making save/load times incomparably faster, that is?
Also, you have seen the video fragment I've linked about variety of infinite fractals?

[CBJ]

You keep demanding that other people listen to you, but you don't seem to be prepared to extend the same courtesy yourself.

Your thread title is also grossly misleading. You're not talking about an "optimisation pass"; you're talking about a completely different game that doesn't share the core simulation features that, for better or for worse, make X4 what it is. Hand-waving about statistics and fractals does not change that.

You're welcome to discuss your ideas for a game, but the way things are currently going this will end up being retitled and moved to the off-topic forum. And don't be too surprised if people stop engaging with you if you keep insisting that they don't understand their own gaming preferences.

[vvvvvvvv]

like this one? It works

No, I mean when ship does not disappear around the corner, it works very different compared to when you're dealing with GTA NPC which appears from nothing and disappears into nothing. As repeatedly stated. It is not about "user story" it is about being able to do it. The ship is real, has goal, orders, route and so on. It matters and makes a difference.

This line of reasoning is about expanding the possible universe, first and foremost.

Simulation quality is more important than size of universe. We already have Elite Dangerous. It is bigger. It is also unbelievably dull and that's why I'm not playing it.

For FPS drop in large battles, there's another line of reasoning, similar to the first one, but different. It's just over there, along with the first one.
Both do track every bullet and can be implemented in a way that tracks every ship

For FPS drop in large battles that's the point where you ignore any ideas you have and sit down with a profiler to identify the actual bottleneck which most likely has nothing to do with the assumption. This is one hundred percent "you need source code" situation. This is also a very classic situation where you do not assume that you know why it is slow.

Of course I understand your concerns. But simply voicing opposition to the change can't help us in working out a common vision of any kind, even if would be agreeing to disagree.

There can't be a common vision, when you attempt to kill THE reason for playing the game. The proposal is fundamentally unacceptable.

The simulation has to stay. A pass of looking for possibility of algorithmic optimization could be done (the usual. Faster collision queries via spatial optimization, parallelization, switch to advanced instructions, data-driven design, seeing if you can offload computation onto GPU, etc), but the simulation cannot be dumbed down, cannot be removed and cannot be turned into smoke and mirrors.

It is THE killer feature. And in situation where it is not important for you a reasonable idea for you is to play something else. Another game where this feature does not exist. That's because there is only one X4 and a lot of other games which do not do what x4 does.

[alt3rn1ty]

@Shadow_Rainbow - Why not open a performance bug report in the Technical support forum,

Spoiler

Show

give a typical situational game save (unmodified), DXDiag + VulkanInfo + Config.xml, describe the problems you are seeing, and then go into your long winded explanation of what you think can be done by the devs, and see what happens in a following beta?.
Maybe part of it will tickle their brains in how it could be applied with their collective expertise without ruining the game for anyone .. or maybe not .. Who knows until you try.

I think the devs do read topics like these occasionally (depends how busy they are), but putting it over as a tech support issue (game not performing as we can reasonably expect it to in a battle situation with above Recommended Machine Specifications), may prompt a bit more thinking at least.
Obviously it will take some time to implement whatever they come up with, or maybe they will just get on with what they already have planned.

I cant help with that, as the machine specifications are unfortunately for Desktop PCs, and I will never have one so cant really give the same argument. All I can do is hope one day for a laptop machine that will run it acceptably. So far they are doing good in that regard (well, so long as I limit how many stations/miners/traders/fleets/individual ships I have, and steer clear of being in VIG sectors fighter swarms).

At least these topics keep us off the streets

Edit : One other point I would like to make for anyone reading is that Egosoft also wish the game to perform as good as we do (again I cant put my mouse on a quote, but it has been said), I'm not just a fanboy trying to blow their trumpet, the above is an honest opinion based on my years experience since 2006 following the series and being a member here.

Tech support isn't for suggestions, its for tech problems, ~

Ehm yes, I know. Which is why I suggested to present it as a bug report, the game not performing as we can reasonably expect it to given your "above recommended" specifications of your machine, in a given situation (game save).

I have a space-age PC of 4 cores capable of executing 3.4 billion basic operations per second in parallel, with 32 GB RAM exceeding 640KB (which, as we all know it, are enough for anyone) 50 thousand times. It won't get much faster than that anytime these next two decades.

That would not get you banned.

[jlehtone]

Nope. To improve it. That would also enable scaling the whole thing up, as a bonus.
And if you carefully read what I've written, I have described a way to calculate battles of virtually any size without much in-time computing effort. And having large battles is a good thing.

We, the players, do the "scale up" very predictably. Whenever the devs have made a pass of optimization that keeps the game from falling to its knees, we build more and bigger to bring it back down. Whenever we buy faster computer, we again build more and bigger to bring the game back down to its knees. We don't have to, yet we do.


You say that you did describe implementation for "large battle". Did you mean a battle where the player is in the midst of it, or a battle fought in some far away sector? The bits I've read were all about "far away". (One needs incentive before carefully reading repeating walls of text.) Why should we care about far away battles?

Statistically, all that matters is the rate of credits accumulating into our account. Battles mean death, death means trade, and trade means profitsss. The remote battles are indeed not important -- as long as we get the credits. Nothing on top of "add credits to player account" needs to be done, no visuals, no tracking, no computations. If X4 would go to that, then it would become very boring (at least for me).

(The devs could re-introduce the old school Xenon Q: anything and everything you send against Q will be oneshot dead. Same as pressing "Self Destruct" button on your ships -- if they had one.)

[vvvvvvvv]

Ehm yes, I know. Which is why I suggested to present it as a bug report, the game not performing as we can reasonably expect it to given your "above recommended" specifications of your machine, in a given situation (game save).

I have a space-age PC of 4 cores capable of executing 3.4 billion basic operations per second in parallel, with 32 GB RAM exceeding 640KB (which, as we all know it, are enough for anyone) 50 thousand times. It won't get much faster than that anytime these next two decades.

That would not get you banned.

That's a good idea, also a SAVE with that low fps battle along with dxdiag and vulkan info would be a great addition to the report.

[charlie1024]

I personally think OP would be better to understand what the core mechanic of the game is.

In this game, all the things: even a projectile is being simulated. It means, to get improvement of the performance of the game, you just have to do: upgrade the computer.

Well, the philosophy of the game is 'All the things are being simulated simultaneously'. At least I think so. So, you have nothing of other selection than getting new devices.

[jpeaglesandkatz]

I personally think OP would be better to understand what the core mechanic of the game is.

In this game, all the things: even a projectile is being simulated. It means, to get improvement of the performance of the game, you just have to do: upgrade the computer.

Well, the philosophy of the game is 'All the things are being simulated simultaneously'. At least I think so. So, you have nothing of other selection than getting new devices.

I'm sorry but you are clearly quiet clueless just like a lot of people who come here and say.. Hey just upgrade your computer. Yeah but that doesn't change anything.

If you would do so some research you would find out that the 5800x3d is actually STILL one of the best gaming CPU's around. My system consists of a 5800x3d, 64gb ddr4-4000 ram, a 5080 and a couple of fast nvme drives.

I'm experiencing the same exact symphtoms as the OP which frankly does a very good job outlining how this game performes.

I have between 2-5 fps in bigger battles in sector and my CPU AND GPU utilization is at max 30/35% at that time... And that persists even out of sector. (btw before getting the 5080 even my 3060ti was doing the exact same thing)...
The game never gets to a playable frame rate midgame+

Quiet frankly I'm pretty shocked about the condescending tone of some of the Egosoft staff here in the responses. Please go ahead, stick your heads in the sand.. Pretend there aren't major issues, I'm sure that will make your days a lot more relaxing not having to try and fix things. But that doesn't fix anything. If you are so happily bashing the OP for using wrong tools, then how about providing some tools that will make it accurate?

[Alan Phipps]

@ jpeaglesandkatz: Please refrain from calling posters 'clueless'. We try to keep the forums a friendly place to be, even if you don't like what is being posted. Also describing the devs as not trying to fix things is demonstrably inaccurate.

[charlie1024]

I personally think OP would be better to understand what the core mechanic of the game is.

In this game, all the things: even a projectile is being simulated. It means, to get improvement of the performance of the game, you just have to do: upgrade the computer.

Well, the philosophy of the game is 'All the things are being simulated simultaneously'. At least I think so. So, you have nothing of other selection than getting new devices.

I'm sorry but you are clearly quiet clueless just like a lot of people who come here and say.. Hey just upgrade your computer. Yeah but that doesn't change anything.

If you would do so some research you would find out that the 5800x3d is actually STILL one of the best gaming CPU's around. My system consists of a 5800x3d, 64gb ddr4-4000 ram, a 5080 and a couple of fast nvme drives.

I'm experiencing the same exact symphtoms as the OP which frankly does a very good job outlining how this game performes.

I have between 2-5 fps in bigger battles in sector and my CPU AND GPU utilization is at max 30/35% at that time... And that persists even out of sector. (btw before getting the 5080 even my 3060ti was doing the exact same thing)...
The game never gets to a playable frame rate midgame+

Quiet frankly I'm pretty shocked about the condescending tone of some of the Egosoft staff here in the responses. Please go ahead, stick your heads in the sand.. Pretend there aren't major issues, I'm sure that will make your days a lot more relaxing not having to try and fix things. But that doesn't fix anything. If you are so happily bashing the OP for using wrong tools, then how about providing some tools that will make it accurate?

Other than upgrading the computer, really, what can we do?

I'm not very old-year player of X series, but if you see some SNS(ex. Youtube) comments, some people say even 'X-BtF(1999, the first X game) was too heavy to run smoothly in the era'.

It means, if the user wants to play the X suited to the times(for now, X4), the user cannot achieve even solid 60fps in 200 fighters vs 200 fighters great battle.

I use i7-12700F + RTX 3070 @ 3400MHz CL14 32GB RAM. The game tanks 30fps with CoH plot missions, but that's it. There's nothing I can do at least currently.

You did upgraded the video card, and you said- nothing got better -. It means that this is completely out of 'optimization issue'. (Of course there's no of 100% optimized thing )

You'll see many 'heavy optimizations' already in the game, for example, map, graphics, physics, etc. I'm not very professional of the game, but at least you see if the player see ships in the map moving in other sectors, they just seem move discontinuously. The typical 'heavy optimization' is maybe already here(low attention calculations are simplified compared to the high attention calculations). This has been even in 4.20, when I started X4 in the first time.

Only 5800X3D is good? My i7-12700F can beat other many CPUs very easily. But, X is just X. Maybe nothing meaningful with comparing different games with X.