Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Attempt at playing survival mode using planets

Discussion in 'General' started by StarCore, Nov 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. StarCore Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    51
    Yesterday with a friend we tried to play in survival mode, starting from scratch, except for respawn ships.
    There were some problems that really ruinned the game experience :

    1) The performance. 7 Go of my 8 available Go were in use just by Space Engineers. The game was so slow that, after spawning, I could not see what I was doing until I die by crashing on the ground and have to respawn again. The second try was smoother though, despite the low FPS.

    2) Placing stations. "New station" could only place blocks with the default rotation, i.e with an angle of approximately 45° to the horizontal where I was, making the creation of a station either totally unrealistic or impossible. We resorted to just create a station that was no fixed to the ground, a thruster-less ship basically...

    3) Manipulating objects. Creating a ship on a planet is nearly impossible without a crane. As soon as you place a block that is too far away from the initial landing gear, the gravity takes the ship into a position that makes its construction impossible. Since the character can't use its hands to push or pull objects, you're screwed, unless you have a crane or something.

    Finally we decided to start over with a pre-created station because starting from scratch on planets is just no doable at the moment.
     
  2. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    Try pressing "B".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. bigbangnet Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    137
    1) yes, the performance is really bad, but Keen is working on that and since people were too impatient...well you (and everyone else who were impatient) got what you deserve... so deal with it. the no planet games are still available

    2) didnt have time to do it and I didnt feel like doing it since performance was so bad...and my game kept crashing as well

    3) make a very small vehicule with wheel and a small platform so you can increase your altitude while you're on it. that should help you
     
  4. DivineWrath Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    531
    My advice. Don't start playing planets in survival. Play planets on creative for at least an hour before moving on to survival. There is much to learn and trying to survive while doing so is a pain.
     
  5. Nyx Mulder Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    I get steady 30-40 fps on an average pc. I have no idea why people with i5s and i7s get such low frame rates.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  6. Burillo Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    648
    another issue is gravity. i've been trying to create an atmospheric miner for like two hours yesterday, and i simply couldn't, even in creative - it's either too heavy, or sucks too much energy (which asks for more reactors, which makes it too heavy again... and round and round we go). i can't even imagine what it would be like in survival.
     
  7. Nyx Mulder Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    Use batteries, reactors are more of a midgame item now because uranium is rare on planets.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. bigbangnet Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    137
    Theres also the issue of ownership. I don't know if anyone had this problem but just creating a world on a planet that is creative gets the base to destroy everything I build...very annoying. I just created that world so I didn't do anything yet
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Barfbag Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    86
    I wonder if the people that are having performance issues have enough Ram. You can have the best i7 out there but if you don't have at least 8GB of Ram you are going to lag like crazy. While playing last night on a moon start SE was using 6.7GB of Ram. Fortunately i have 16 so my experience was smooth.
     
  10. Nyx Mulder Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    Maybe, but I kind of expect people with i7s to have 8Gb of Ram or more anyway. It's not like it's very expensive regardless.
     
  11. grant.ivy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    185
    CPU doesn't matter as much. GPU does, they probably have lower end gpus, or laptop gpus.
     
  12. StarCore Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    51
    Well for my part i have a i5 750 (quad core) overclocked at 3.7 GHz and 2x4 Go of RAM.
    I don't think the CPU the main issue, even if mine is barely enough for what SE is now. The RAM is probably the main problem. I think it is not reasonable for a video game to use 7 Go nowadays. I'm not saying it's easy to do better, but 7 Go is just too much, especially for a game that has average/outdated graphics and where it's almost impossible to create even basic mechanisms.
    They coded the game in C# and i think it was a bad idea. The physics engine is maybe in native code, but the whole game should have been in native code. You can't expect a game that includes C# to run smoothly with such advanced physics.
    Also the FPS issues are GPU related since the game can simply slow down the simulation speed to preserve the FPS if the CPU is not fast enough.
     
  13. Nyx Mulder Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    Alright, here is my logic - if you are going to get a good cpu then you wouldn't want to bottleneck it by getting a lower end gpu, I sure wouldn't. I'm just coming off an assumption here.
     
  14. kalras Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    I don't think my GTX 970 was au "lower end" gpu ^^

    i5 2500k @ 4,2
    8go DDR3
    GTX 970 4Go
     
  15. grant.ivy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    185
    Your graphics card makes them biggest difference, I had a laptop that had an I7 gen 4 and it ran it terrible, because it had a mediocre graphics chip, not even a dedicated card.
     
  16. grant.ivy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    185
    Yaaa that is not :p

    I imagine your CPU is good? Have you overxlocked with that card ever, or have had any driver crahses?
     
  17. Barfbag Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    86
    Then I'm wondering if it's the CPU or Ram then. I have an I7, 16GB Ram, and a GTX 760 and i have no framerate issues.
     
  18. Nyx Mulder Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    I'm just saying, not talking about anyone is particular.
     
  19. grant.ivy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    185
    @kalras

    Try this, redownload new drivers, when you are doing that make sure to click custom install and select all drivers to be replaced with a new install, if you are like me when Nvidia experiences even one crash, it down clocks aka makes things super slow. Reinstalling will fix this.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. kalras Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    yes a know, I have resolved my probleme, Java was using 1 go of ram, killed the task (javaw.exe and jushed.exe) and now 45-55 fps in high
     
  21. PeZook Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    34
    I'm playing on a really crappy box (E8400, 4GB RAM, R7 240 GPU). Default planet worlds chop a bit, making gameplay annoying, but I find that setting up a custom planet that's 80km instead of the default 120km helps massively.

    We'll see how it keeps up once I build something sizeable though :D
     
  22. Einharjar Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    518
    If you're using an i7 like me, it may be beneficial to shut off the Hyperthreading. Will reduce your threads to four, but hardly any applications aside from engineering apps actually use multiple threads wisely. Most games, an assuming SE too, the threads are just jumbled. You may see them in use (even all 8 with Hyperthreading on) but the calls are just disorganized. The best thing to do is to reduce the logical cores so that you've got 4 "faster" cores by just using the physicals. I do this all the time with games that push the limit, like Planetside 2. Works like a charm.

    If you have an nVidea card, I'd also suggest doing a driver rollback because with Fallout 4, SC2: Legacy of the Void and SW:Battle Front all releasing, nVidea pulled the same bullshit as before and rushed out new drivers for these released and it's causing a ruckus on all of them. Roll your current driver back and wait until they stop beta testing the current drivers... I hate it when they do that shit. I mean, they did it for BF3 too and it was a huge mess, all of us with DX11 top end systems were SCREWED trying to play that game thanks to the idiocy between publishers (EA) and nVidea.
     
  23. Syna Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    CPU does matter but it's not the only one. You have to avoid as many bottleneck as possible.
    Good CPU for physics calculation.
    Good GPU for rendering
    Good ram for overall loading of data. (Don't forget that the game can have also some hidden memory leaks)
     
  24. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    RAM and GPU are the biggest things with planets. I had to drop my resolution and some of the settings to even get a world to load on my gaming laptop. I'm sure it'll get better optimization with time.
     
  25. Dreokor Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,606
    For me everything works well with the settings I had the game already set in, I get good FPS and no crashes.
     
  26. Zyfe Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    I'm pretty sure that's an intended part of challenge for building on planets. Please don't complain about this so that Keen takes it away. It's fun having the challenge and need to actually engineer something for a change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,801
    I just built my first mining drone. I haven't filled it with ore yet.

    I found that I had to build scaffolding around it in order to reach the top. It wasn't too big of a deal to do.

    The drone consists of a drill, a connector and two atmo-thrusters in each direction. I also added the usual suspects (remote, antennae, gyro etc).

    The first block I completed was the battery. I then added a temporary array of solar panels to charge the battery while I worked out the rest of the ship. I had enough parts to build the drone by scrapping a couple of the lander's small thrusters. I'm not going anywhere for a while... more than likely. You can also scrap the LCDs and the conveyors connecting the small cargo bay to he rest of the ship. Just move it to the conveyor block left of the exit. I added a connector and temporarily stored my parts there while I deconstructed the cargo bay. You also have a timer block and a programmable block you can scrap. If you're not going anywhere, scrap the gyroscope too and as many windows as you can reach and turn them into solar parts.

    If you're in an oxygen environment, you can scrap the oxygen tank, the generator and vents. Just be sure to replace them with conveyors where necessary.

    I also added as many solar panels to the lander as possible. Again, I built scaffolding to get to a place where I could place the panels.

    Scaffolding is pretty cheap (cubed armor blocks and angled armor blocks). It's a bit of a challenge with the default two-day cycle and building ships in a gravity environment.

    But I'm really enjoying the challenge. Just remember to turn on the drones battery when you're done charging and ready to fly away (I added a connector to the lander). Gravity ain't forgiving.
     
  28. Cruzz999 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    Uhm.. Has anyone found any uranium on a planet yet? I found a deposit with the landers ore detector, so I swiftly changed the on board beacon into an antenna, and broadcasted its position. I dug down (about 70m, if someone's interested) and got to the spot.. but there's no uranium there. I mean, I know uranium is supposed to be rare, but why does my ore detector lead me on wild goose chases deep under the ground? That's just mean.
     
  29. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,801

    Same here. I was going to fire up ole' sparky in the lander with some freshly refined uranium and...

     
  30. Cruzz999 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    Actually, scratch that. Found a deposit. Not exactly where the detector told me first, but I found it nontheless.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.