[1.32] Abysmal map framerate: biggest culprit is the object list with too many satellites around

[Kadatherion]

There are lots of perfomance threads in the forums talking about how bad the framerate gets on the map the more you play and explore the galaxy. However, I was beginning to have way too much issues, fps would get down to even low 10s. So I began testing and noticed that the biggest issue is when you have your UI open on the object list (which, face it: it's most of the time). In my case, in a specific test situation, with that closed (or on another tab) I'd be at ~40fps, open it and I go to low 10s, to the point the interface doesn't respond any more to mouse commands, begins to flicker and goes bonkers. This not even at max zoom out (the more you zoom out the worse it gets, usually), but at an high zoom in a trafficked sector where I was trying to manually address the known issue with engine parts supply to the npcs.

I watched my gpu monitors and guess what: with the object list open it's apparent there's a cpu bottleneck, as the GPU is so badly feeded that it begins - in my case - to spike between 40%/60% and 0% (yes, ZERO) usage, with the fps similarly tanking. Close the object list (or switch to another tab) and the framerate is stable once again, at around 40. Not optimal, but it's a map, as long as it doesn't go lower than 30 who cares?

Now, you'll notice one thing from my screenshots: my satellite in the test sector has a very big range. It's because I modded the adv satellites to have 3 times the range, 225km vs 75km, so I could afford to only place one per sector and still monitor most of it. Indeed, that makes the issue WAY more evident: I quit the game, restored the original radar ranges, and bam, the GPU spikes are gone and my fps are way better. Even when zooming all the way out and with the objects tab open, it's now consistently in the 30s. However, this is not a mod problem: the mod is just a shortcut that makes you notice it sooner, it would be pretty much the same if - as some of us do - I just deployed 4-8 vanilla satellites in every sector to still have coverage of most of the stations: it would just have taken me longer to achieve.

This means that if you play extensively and place a lot of satellites around (and not just satellites: your trading fleets are composed of ships with their own radars, so they pretty much are dozens of other "satellites" flying around), your perfomance will get worse and worse on the map up to the point of almost unplayability. Of course your mileage may vary, as I have a mediocre I54460, 3,2ghz, feeding my 1060, which is just about the (incredibily high, per se) minimum requirement on the box, people with more beefy CPUs will get proportionally less issues, but it will still be very noticeable (as many people with beefy cpus are indeed experiencing and reporting). Now, even if with full map coverage and a beefy cpu you manage to more or less still play just about decently, what will happen when the borons, split and terrans - or whatever the "new" races that are coming are going to be - will be added with the expansions, each (supposedly) with their own new sectors expanding the map?

There's need for some optimization here, regardless of my own specific framerates (that, with my cpu, are supposed to be less than optimal, obviously), because honestly the fact that the culprit isn't the thousands of ships in the universe (per se, they seem pretty well optimized, kudos to Ego) but just an UI is silly, and the fact the object tab seems to be at least great part of the issue hopefully means it will be possible to streamline and optimize it quite a bit.

Here the object tab closed/open comparison in the test environment WITH the sector covered by the satellite. From 46 to 15 fps, 0% GPU usage, so much that it downthrottles to 1500mhz as if it was pretty much resting.
http://i65.tinypic.com/34zd7cp.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/28jxzbm.jpg

Here a comparison of the map fully zoomed out before and after restoring the satellites range, AND with the objects tab open. Fps are doubled, from around 15 to acceptable 30+, the CPU bottleneck isn't as severe and the GPU doesn't downthrottle anymore. It's perfectly playable again.
http://i67.tinypic.com/nbu70h.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/k3or2h.jpg

TL;DR: Egosoft, please look into this behaviour and see what you can optimize. Fellow players: don't go overboard with satellites, be them vanilla or not. If you want to have the current prices for all stations in the universe - and we do want that - buy the faction trade licenses instead of monitoring everything.

[Masterdude420]

yeah... I mean.. why did you change it and wonder now?! that's what I thought to myself: Do not throw out to many satellites because it's a game and it's limited to your hardware.. and there is a mod on nexus which does a better job. but yeah.. I'm pretty sure they will take a look at that and give us optimizing for the UI+map.

[Kadatherion]

yeah... I mean.. why did you change it and wonder now?! that's what I thought to myself: Do not throw out to many satellites because it's a game and it's limited to your hardware.. and there is a mod on nexus which does a better job. but yeah.. I'm pretty sure they will take a look at that and give us optimizing for the UI+map.

Don't know, maybe because in previous X games satellites could perfectly well cover the entirety of sectors, of all the hundreds of sectors, with no performance hit whatsoever, and that's what we all did since forever? It's only natural to try and do this here as well, with the only difference it now needs more satellites to reach a similar coverage. Also, the "mod on Nexus which does a better job" is the very same mod I use (you might have missed it also has an option to increase radar range). Finally, since most of the issue doesn't come from the satellites per se but from AN UI TAB BEING OPEN, the issue is with the UI rather than with game style. It's simply unacceptable that opening an UI tab can halve your fps, no matter if you tank from 60 to 30 or from 30 to 15. As for satellites, the fact the forums are filled with reports of the very same issue indicates that - whether you do it or not - there are lots of players that, given a feature - satellites - are trying to use it. Surprising, isn't it?

[Masterdude420]

yeah... I mean.. why did you change it and wonder now?! that's what I thought to myself: Do not throw out to many satellites because it's a game and it's limited to your hardware.. and there is a mod on nexus which does a better job. but yeah.. I'm pretty sure they will take a look at that and give us optimizing for the UI+map.

Don't know, maybe because in previous X games satellites could perfectly well cover the entirety of sectors, of all the hundreds of sectors, with no performance hit whatsoever, and that's what we all did since forever? It's only natural to try and do this here as well, with the only difference it now needs more satellites to reach a similar coverage. Also, the "mod on Nexus which does a better job" is the very same mod I use (you might have missed it also has an option to increase radar range). Finally, since most of the issue doesn't come from the satellites per se but from AN UI TAB BEING OPEN, the issue is with the UI rather than with game style. It's simply unacceptable that opening an UI tab can halve your fps, no matter if you tank from 60 to 30 or from 30 to 15. As for satellites, the fact the forums are filled with reports of the very same issue indicates that - whether you do it or not - there are lots of players that, given a feature - satellites - are trying to use it. Surprising, isn't it?

ok pls don't get offended.. I just think what you did is reaching out the limits in a way you did not expect. The old games are different but yeah your are right, there should be improvement.. But still some people have already 2000 ships and wonder about lags?! I mean it is a sandbox game in it's early stages and ofc it's easy to **** it up.. stress it out.

[Kadatherion]

2000 ships and wonder about lags?! I mean it is a sandbox game in it's early stages and ofc it's easy to **** it up

Try building 10 ships, just 10, then give each of them a bunch of manually queued trade orders. See what happens with the map still open. And no, it's not in "early stages", it's been released as 1.0. You don't buy a vacuum cleaner that maybe, just maybe, one year from now will be able to stay on for more than 5 minutes.

But that's not even the point - Egosoft launches have always been like this if not worse and I wasn't critizing them but just pointing out one of the environments that brings up the issue so it can be investigated - simply put, having what would actually be a reasonable number of assets in the galaxy can halve (or worse) you perfomance (whether you have a beast of a PC or a mid range one) because of a badly coded UI. What's sensible: to see if the UI can be optimized or to say "oh well, whatever, just don't play how the game is supposed to let you play"?
Fun fact: know how the "ever expanding sector limits" are "a feature"? Yeah, too bad it appears that feature as well will exponentially bloat the save and progressively tank your fps the more explored the map is. Just because there's progressively more map - even if empty - not anymore under the fog of war. Can you understand why a reply that would go "oh well, just don't explore the map then" would meet a snarky response?

[Masterdude420]

2000 ships and wonder about lags?! I mean it is a sandbox game in it's early stages and ofc it's easy to **** it up

Try building 10 ships, just 10, then give each of them a bunch of manually queued trade orders. See what happens with the map still open. And no, it's not in "early stages", it's been released as 1.0. You don't buy a vacuum cleaner that maybe, just maybe, one year from now will be able to stay on for more than 5 minutes.

But that's not even the point - Egosoft launches have always been like this if not worse and I wasn't critizing them but just pointing out one of the environments that brings up the issue so it can be investigated - simply put, having what would actually be a reasonable number of assets in the galaxy can halve (or worse) you perfomance (whether you have a beast of a PC or a mid range one) because of a badly coded UI. What's sensible: to see if the UI can be optimized or to say "oh well, whatever, just don't play how the game is supposed to let you play"?
Fun fact: know how the "ever expanding sector limits" are "a feature"? Yeah, too bad it appears that feature as well will exponentially bloat the save and progressively tank your fps the more explored the map is. Just because there's progressively more map - even if empty - not anymore under the fog of war. Can you understand why a reply that would go "oh well, just don't explore the map then" would meet a snarky response?

wtf you are talking about i have 20 and right now, around 12 alone in the same sector in argon prime and everything works just fine. I discovered about 30 sectors or more and i droped satelites close to shipyards trading stations... and have zero lag on the map, too. I can recocmend the Razer Cortex programm to help your system.. otherwise fu

[Drakuel]

The only thing accurate of your report is the title..

I dont see system specs, or dxdiag or saved game, on this report...

So one your entire report does nothing to contribute to helping your issue in your game, but it does not help other customers who need the devs to gather proper technical data, so they can actually address it and get it into a proper patch sprint...

All this report does is create noise and really would get just as much attention in general forums in my opinion.

Hint: there is a nice sticky post explaning exactly how to report issues with your game for dev assistance on this forum.

[Kadatherion]

wtf you are talking about i have 20 and right now, around 12 alone in the same sector in argon prime and everything works just fine. I discovered about 30 sectors or more and i droped satelites close to shipyards trading stations... and have zero lag on the map, too. I can recocmend the Razer Cortex programm to help your system.. otherwise fu

It's the show orders filter (and, to a lesser extent, a couple other filters), that with just about 20,25 overall queued orders adds an humongous load to the cpu. QUEUED orders. This happens to EVERYBODY, again, doesn't matter the system specs, simple difference is that more ghzs give you more leeway before becoming unplayable. With a good enough system that might mean going from 60 to 30 fps instead than from 30 to 15: it still is clearly unacceptable for just a simple map filter and needs optimization. So, maybe, try to understand "wtf I am talking about" before replying?

The only thing accurate of your report is the title..

I dont see system specs, or dxdiag or saved game, on this report...

So one your entire report does nothing to contribute to helping your issue in your game, but it does not help other customers who need the devs to gather proper technical data, so they can actually address it and get it into a proper patch sprint...

All this report does is create noise and really would get just as much attention in general forums in my opinion.

Hint: there is a nice sticky post explaning exactly how to report issues with your game for dev assistance on this forum.

The issue in my game is solved by exactly what is written, reducing the amount of satellite coverage (and other things that don't work well, like the aforementioned show orders filter). I have no "issue" to solve nor need of assistance, this report points out one of the parts of the UI that causes the most performance hit. It has NOTHING to do with my specific system, except for the obvious fact the closer you are to the minimum requirements the sooner the hit goes into the "unplayable" scale. And again, a relevant performance hit because of an UI is by definition something that shouldn't happen. This report - just like those that identified the show orders filter as another one of the main culprits - helps highlighting which components exactly of the troublesome UI seem to need the most to be investigated for further optimization.

Hint: there is a difference between asking assistance from the devs and OFFERING it. You can find it on any common dictionary. All this report does is offering that, in the technical forum instead of the general one, to have better chances to reach whom is concerned.

[Raztax]

I get a pretty poor frame rate on the map screen as well. I have not done any testing to see what triggers it but I've noticed that in space I am seeing 70-140 fps, then open the map and fps drops to the mid 30's. Would have to look into it more to determine if it happens everywhere or only in certain sectors.

[Kadatherion]

I get a pretty poor frame rate on the map screen as well. I have not done any testing to see what triggers it but I've noticed that in space I am seeing 70-140 fps, then open the map and fps drops to the mid 30's. Would have to look into it more to determine if it happens everywhere or only in certain sectors.

Yep, it's a problem that - to some extent - we all have. Of course, with beefy enough specs, the map will stay playable, maybe at 30fps, but if when you close it you jump back at 140 it's obvious it ain't working as it should. Because it's not the actual activity in the universe that's slowing you down: that goes on the same way whether you are flying your ship or looking at the map (and, actually, this deserves a major kudos to Egosoft: sure, some things still don't work as intended, but the actual load on the CPU of all those npc traders and fleets is amazingly low under normal circumstances, this was an issue in previous titles and seems to have been wonderfully solved), but when the map is open showing you some icons it struggles.

Interestingly enough, you'll see many of the map elements are affected by some graphic settings, AA to name one. You'll notice it because with AA on text on the interactive map becomes a little fuzzier. This alone would be an oversight and an uneccessary GPU load, but doesn't seem to matter much, as the performance hit on the map doesn't change if you turn AA off, and anyway, as stated, the map somehow bottlenecks the CPU rather than the GPU. The show orders filter impact, for instance, is mindboggling: it just draws some lines and small icons on the map that show the current AND future routes and actions your ships will do: something that should have virtually no impact whatsoever. And yet, just a relatively small number of them being queued can destroy your fps. Turn the (arguably not much useful anyway) filter off and bam, problem gone and you can queue as many orders to as many ships you want with little to no impact.

[Drakuel]

wtf you are talking about i have 20 and right now, around 12 alone in the same sector in argon prime and everything works just fine. I discovered about 30 sectors or more and i droped satelites close to shipyards trading stations... and have zero lag on the map, too. I can recocmend the Razer Cortex programm to help your system.. otherwise fu

It's the show orders filter (and, to a lesser extent, a couple other filters), that with just about 20,25 overall queued orders adds an humongous load to the cpu. QUEUED orders. This happens to EVERYBODY, again, doesn't matter the system specs, simple difference is that more ghzs give you more leeway before becoming unplayable. With a good enough system that might mean going from 60 to 30 fps instead than from 30 to 15: it still is clearly unacceptable for just a simple map filter and needs optimization. So, maybe, try to understand "wtf I am talking about" before replying?

The only thing accurate of your report is the title..

I dont see system specs, or dxdiag or saved game, on this report...

So one your entire report does nothing to contribute to helping your issue in your game, but it does not help other customers who need the devs to gather proper technical data, so they can actually address it and get it into a proper patch sprint...

All this report does is create noise and really would get just as much attention in general forums in my opinion.

Hint: there is a nice sticky post explaning exactly how to report issues with your game for dev assistance on this forum.

The issue in my game is solved by exactly what is written, reducing the amount of satellite coverage (and other things that don't work well, like the aforementioned show orders filter). I have no "issue" to solve nor need of assistance, this report points out one of the parts of the UI that causes the most performance hit. It has NOTHING to do with my specific system, except for the obvious fact the closer you are to the minimum requirements the sooner the hit goes into the "unplayable" scale. And again, a relevant performance hit because of an UI is by definition something that shouldn't happen. This report - just like those that identified the show orders filter as another one of the main culprits - helps highlighting which components exactly of the troublesome UI seem to need the most to be investigated for further optimization.

Hint: there is a difference between asking assistance from the devs and OFFERING it. You can find it on any common dictionary. All this report does is offering that, in the technical forum instead of the general one, to have better chances to reach whom is concerned.

Nothing wrong with trying to help others if it was in a already existing post here or in general forum as a new post.. But you used a new technical post as your delivery of this, and I see this as not helpfull and just pushes valid technical posts further down or to next page, again noise...

Also your issue may or may not help users some issues with similar results does not mean what your issue is 5he same fir them, but I think you know this as that is clearly explained on posting rule thread as well.

[Kadatherion]

Nothing wrong with trying to help others if it was in a already existing post here or in general forum as a new post.. But you used a new technical post as your delivery of this, and I see this as not helpfull and just pushes valid technical posts further down or to next page, again noise...

Also your issue may or may not help users some issues with similar results does not mean what your issue is 5he same fir them, but I think you know this as that is clearly explained on posting rule thread as well.

We are talking about a tech support forum that is, for the 80%, filled with game bug reports instead of actual technical issues (whether the tech issue lies in the player's specs or the game itself). This is a tech issue at least, so what's the real noise here? And again, "whomever is concerned" in this case aren't just the other players (whom, anyway, when they are looking for information about fps drops would tend to look on technical forums rather than general discussion ones, where we talk about economy balance, how cool is the Nemesis or how nividium is better than pineapple when used as pizza topping) but the devs themselves. As stated, I'm not asking for support: I'm giving it, even to devs themselves (that might very well know all this already, of course, but we don't and can't know that).

A support request that just goes "Devs help, I have bad framerate on the map here's my save", will 90% of the time just point out everything is "fine", or anyway wouldn't help in highlighting what's the cause behind that (when, indeed, the problem lies with the game itself rather than your system). So a dev has to start from zero in investigating what specific element(s) is (are) the main offender(s). From this thread (instead of dozens of mentions scattered among as many differently themed topics) you now know that, among other things:

A) The show orders filter has a big performance impact for no apparent reason;
B) (I'm adding this right now but it's been already mentioned elsewhere) the show captain/crew names does as well to a lesser extent, still for no apparent reason;
C) In the general UI, a specific tab among the others seems to be much worse than all the rest, so it might be wise to start investigating from that.

Bam, unless they knew already, you've saved them a few hours of potentially unneeded trial and error.

Man, I sure am no developer, but I build computers since the 286 era, I can distinguish a general game optimization issue from your run of the mill driver/registry/whatever individual compatibility problem.

[CBJ]

Stick to the topic of the thread, please, not discussing each other's right to post. If there is an issue with a post then a moderator will deal with it.

[Masterdude420]

wtf you are talking about i have 20 and right now, around 12 alone in the same sector in argon prime and everything works just fine. I discovered about 30 sectors or more and i droped satelites close to shipyards trading stations... and have zero lag on the map, too. I can recocmend the Razer Cortex programm to help your system.. otherwise fu

It's the show orders filter (and, to a lesser extent, a couple other filters), that with just about 20,25 overall queued orders adds an humongous load to the cpu. QUEUED orders. This happens to EVERYBODY, again, doesn't matter the system specs, simple difference is that more ghzs give you more leeway before becoming unplayable. With a good enough system that might mean going from 60 to 30 fps instead than from 30 to 15: it still is clearly unacceptable for just a simple map filter and needs optimization. So, maybe, try to understand "wtf I am talking about" before replying?

ok just let them tarde in one sector (right click command on map) to lvl your pilots up, then after a while choose auto trade behavior when they get their 3 stars.. super easy

[Masterdude420]

and yes you are right the UI needs optimization but there is a lot of stuff impacting on this early X4 version... even driver so on, so the experience is different for some.