The largest map size lags on a fresh start. What's the largest map size my pc can handle late game?
7700K, 16ggis ram, 1080ti 11GB, game installed on secondary WD Black sata HDD.
I always choose third largest map on my box - i7 i4700MQ, 8G RAM, GeForce 730M, SSD, Linux. It starts lagging only when raids start to appear in numbers more than about 150 units. It is especially bad with mechanoids, but still more or less playable. I believe the number of mobs on themap adds more to the lag than map size, at least in late game.
imo, the largest map is unplayable. Here is what I base a map size being playable...
1. Do I get 60FPS 90% of the time on fresh map; at max fast forward; 5 pawns...
2. Late game do I get 30FPS+; at max fast forward; 8 pawns
3. Late game do I get 30FPS+: at normal speed; combat with 30+ pawns onmap
Largest map doesn't even pass the first test on a rich explorer start.
I play the larger medium map on an older pc, and it works fine until I get 15+ pawns , an army of muffalos, and start working on the ship. I would say with a better machine the smallest large map should be playable.
Quote from: BSNB on January 13, 2018, 04:06:54 PM
game installed on secondary WD Black sata HDD.
I wouldn't be suprised if lag is reduced significantly if you move the game to your main SSD.
Quote from: Jochem285 on January 15, 2018, 07:27:52 AM
Quote from: BSNB on January 13, 2018, 04:06:54 PM
game installed on secondary WD Black sata HDD.
I wouldn't be suprised if lag is reduced significantly if you move the game to your main SSD.
Could you elaborate? You are saying the game runs faster if it is on the same drive as your OS?
I think he was assuming that the primary disk was an SSD what would be much faster than the Hard Disk.
Meh. The bottleneck for RimWorld is your CPU, that simple, although lowering screen resolution can make a small FPS difference, if your PC is especially wooden ^^'. More specifically, like most games, RimWorld will do best with faster cores; more cores won't help all that much, even for the best-multithreaded games (of which there are very few). So a fast i5 can easily outperform a slower-clocked i7, as an easy example, running most games. Sadly, an SSD (which I have) merely speeds up load times a LOT; this is very nice, yes, but the actual game runs no faster, sadly, with the notable exception of much less autosave lag.
Note: The patches for Spectre and Stagefright will almost certainly gimp just about everyone's system, anywhere from 5-30% performance, depending on the task at hand and age of the PC :-\. Don't count on your current performance...
I'm just sticking to the 300x300 map size for now. This game really needs to be reworked for 64-bit and multi-threaded.
Quote from: BSNB on January 16, 2018, 01:59:36 PM
I'm just sticking to the 300x300 map size for now. This game really needs to be reworked for 64-bit and multi-threaded.
And Z levels too, right?
Considering the Linux build already is 64-bit, any arguments against doing the same for Windows fall pretty flat, honestly, even those coming directly from Tynan. It certainly makes far more sense than the perennial Z-level argument, so you might as well lose the snark.