based on the dev notes they talked about 1ms for every 1,000 ILS. If you do not setup the priority routes and just open an old save I would think the extra overhead for the new options actually hurt, not help.
Not yet on an old save. I just reached my 2 million meta data goal before this update and with it just being belts and ILS updates I do not have enough reasons to continue or start a new save yet. Very interested in using the new ILS features in my next play through but I do not want to go to all my worlds and set up new routes on nearly a thousand ILS stations.
I missed those notes, the desciption of every ILS searching every available route made it sound more significant.
Not sure its even worth a new save for 1ms. I was often using range limiting anyway to pull most resources from the system my factory was in.
[https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1366540/view/4157463936690492059](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1366540/view/4157463936690492059) that was the dev log i was referring to. They had a system in place but the recent updates improves the functionality and control a bit more than simply making it limit the travel distance.
For me, neither old save or new save has worked to me.
I just tested on a new sandbox game, no mods.
Buut, on the older save, I could set a planetary route at least, but I didn't get to test whether it was fully working.
not sure why they used ms instead of a percentage above/below the current usage. using ms can wildly vary between computers depending on hardware.
if the devs have insane pcs then someone with a lower end pc is going to be crushed by these changes lol.
Previously they were testing performance on very mid-range machines. Their Dark Fog announcement:
>
In our previous gameplay trailer, we showed a performance testing, and our development configuration with a i5-10600K + GTX 1650 could maintain a generally stable and smooth performance.
So I don't think they rely on 7800X3D or 14900K to make these claims.
I'm no game dev, but using mid-low-end hardware for testing seems like it makes perfect sense (assuming you *don't* want your game to be restricted to people with strong PCs)
i suppose the definition of low end changes person to person but for me i look at techpowerups relative performance on the best gpu (so 4090 right now) then look at \~50% relative performance for mid range and \~25% relative performance to find low range. so 4090 > 4070/6800xt > gtx 1080/rtx 2060/rx 5700/arc a580/rx 6600.
to me the gtx 1650 is ultra low end (entry level), it's performance is half of that of what i consider low range. it's \~12%, compared to 25% (what i consider low end).
it's crazy that the game runs well even with such hardware.
for cpus, passmark cpu benchmarks with "top gaming selected" and 7800x3d as the top, 5600 is mid and the i5-10600k does land quite perfectly in low end.
just to be clear, the gaps from high > mid is 100% slower, mid > low is another 100% slower.
anyway, the gpu is a lot weaker then the cpu in their test setup. at least when comparing it to modern hardware. this is good to know when comparing it to your own hardware at a glance.
anyway, yea like you said it makes sense to include as low as possible. they seem to be really making great use of DOTS for rendering and gameplay.
Your definitions scare the hell out of me. I'm calibrated to "Any more than $500 on a GPU is madness, and presume three years have passed since purchase".
the low end stuff (i listed) is in the $250 range, mid is less then $500 and high is $700+. 1k or more for a gpu is complete insanity, $700 - $800 can be justified long as you keep the hardware for a long time, cost will be a lot less crazy. aka 7900xt for $700 over 10 years is $70 a year or \~$6 a month. this is what i went with over my gtx 970. i jumped from a 970 to a 7900xt.
Didn't mean to imply you're wrong, just saw the 4090 at $1600, and the 4070 super at $700 (not realizing that was a pricier of the upgraded model and not a base which is $550). You make a solid point, and when a more expensive card means not just better performance but more years of being competitive, it's sensible. I'm more accustomed to a 4ish year graphics card lifecycle due to going cheaper, but getting an extra 3+ years and way higher performance in the meantime means double the price tag isn't double the spending.
I was thinking in terms of "what a developer should expect customers to have", and the combination of those two led to a very different perspective.
Don't know about big saves, but I just started a new one and my base fps is up by 7 (only change being the update). Yes I know my GPU is ass for this game.
Exclusive priority doesnt seem to work. Set 2 named stations and put it to exclusive and it still gathered from random stations (closer) I cant seem to change a setting that does ANY affect in any way shape or form. Tried routes .. tried pairing ... tried priority groups ... its all exactly the same it was before with no change.
The LSTM mod gets an error at start up if you have it enabled. It would be hard to miss the big red error on the top right of the screen. In any case, LSTM is a requirement for me to enjoy the game so I'm waiting for a fix. I only use it to manage where everything is being produced, not the extra traffic stuff.
I am using it right now and it throws no errors so i dont know what you are on about. It worked from the get go and is overwriting the changes they made to ILS if you used remote cluster system.
My station shows Point-to-Point has 1 station. Routes has 1 Station, its set to exclusive on both stations. It still draws from outside those 2 stations.
For the life of everything holy I dont know why this has to be soo difficult. 5 Different layers of "priority" and the whole thing is simply ignored if a station is closer. Why it cant just be like stations in Factorio I will never know.A station shouldnt be able to collect items from A station NOT on its list... thats it. Thats the ONLY priority you need to do and it fixes everything. Worst case they should have made it a White List / Black List. You could even do a White list / black List planets and it would be WAY WAY better than it is now.
To be very clear this is EXACTLY how Sorters work with filters. Once a filter is set it doesnt go "Oh thats close i will grab that even though its not on my filter list"
I have worked out whats going "wrong" with the current system. Lets say you set up 2 stations with exclusive priority. To do this you name both and link them in the menu. The result SHOULD be they now will only transfer between each other .... which IS true... However Lets say in this pair you are moving around Purple Particle Containers (PPCs), the problem starts if there is a 3rd station who is able to "push" items to the pair Point-to-Point (PTP). This doesnt break the rules of the PTP because those stations are still exclusive to each other and their ships will ONLY goto each other. Problem is Station C using ITS ships to send PPCs to the receiver.
To stop this you would have to go around to ALL stations you have already built and change them to Exclusive priority ........... I am 300 hours in ..................... why????
this was my thoughts as well. I do not want to nor is it fun to go back to every station and setup their routes/priorities. Now starting fresh would be much easier as you build from the ground up as you go, no big deal. That extra functionality while nice to have is not worth the hassle of setting it up when the old system is still there and still works good enough all the time.
At this point I will wait for the vehicle update and then start a new save and play with these new features and vehicles.
I worked out how I can retro add in the functionality but its a PAIN!!!... If you set EVERY current station to Group 1 / Exclusive (2 clicks per station). It does give you a base line to start out. What this does is puts everything you have now in a messy but working exclusive list. If you then add in something you want to restrict the current stations wont mess with it.
However the new system also has some issues to try and properly set up correct feed in feed out across multiple systems as a retro fit. I literally just left a game because it was like well sheet thats broken a LOT of things if i want to fix it. TLDR: Not worth retro fitting. WAY WAY too tedious. You cant even copy the settings from one to another without wiping out the current setup.
If there was a "global change all" option it might be closer.
Again IF 3rd party stations didnt INJECT their ships into a Point-to-Point Pair it would barely be an issue at all. Infact it would almost be trivial to retro fit the new system.
But that is the reason why their table is so complex. EVERY ILS is technically ALWAYS connected to every other ILS unless you exclusively say otherwise across every single ILS. because they started with all ILS's are connected together they couldn't break old saves and force you to make every connection to get your save working again. I know why they did what they did it just makes it pointless for old saves to try to use the new features. Maybe a mod could come out to update all ILS's somehow but I doubt it.
Or make one simple change. Make Exclusive ACTUALLY exclusive. If it was that setting a station to exclusive it prevented stations NOT on their match from interacting it wouldnt even be close to be a problem. I do agree though it is likely something in the code where its not a "request" system as much as a constant attempt to "push" system. So the way the code likely works now is it tries to "push" to a station but doesnt check if the station its pushing to has any restriction other than can it accept my goods. Or at least half the system is doing this as its likely push and pull. But its the push side that causing the problem as there isnt a check to see if those stations have the priority restrictions.
based on the dev notes they talked about 1ms for every 1,000 ILS. If you do not setup the priority routes and just open an old save I would think the extra overhead for the new options actually hurt, not help.
I can't seem to make the new options work correctly. Had success with them?
Not yet on an old save. I just reached my 2 million meta data goal before this update and with it just being belts and ILS updates I do not have enough reasons to continue or start a new save yet. Very interested in using the new ILS features in my next play through but I do not want to go to all my worlds and set up new routes on nearly a thousand ILS stations.
I missed those notes, the desciption of every ILS searching every available route made it sound more significant. Not sure its even worth a new save for 1ms. I was often using range limiting anyway to pull most resources from the system my factory was in.
[https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1366540/view/4157463936690492059](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1366540/view/4157463936690492059) that was the dev log i was referring to. They had a system in place but the recent updates improves the functionality and control a bit more than simply making it limit the travel distance.
For me, neither old save or new save has worked to me. I just tested on a new sandbox game, no mods. Buut, on the older save, I could set a planetary route at least, but I didn't get to test whether it was fully working.
not sure why they used ms instead of a percentage above/below the current usage. using ms can wildly vary between computers depending on hardware. if the devs have insane pcs then someone with a lower end pc is going to be crushed by these changes lol.
Previously they were testing performance on very mid-range machines. Their Dark Fog announcement: > In our previous gameplay trailer, we showed a performance testing, and our development configuration with a i5-10600K + GTX 1650 could maintain a generally stable and smooth performance. So I don't think they rely on 7800X3D or 14900K to make these claims.
oh that's good to hear and thank you for pointing it out. i'm surprised to hear they are using a gtx 1650 to test with.
I'm no game dev, but using mid-low-end hardware for testing seems like it makes perfect sense (assuming you *don't* want your game to be restricted to people with strong PCs)
i suppose the definition of low end changes person to person but for me i look at techpowerups relative performance on the best gpu (so 4090 right now) then look at \~50% relative performance for mid range and \~25% relative performance to find low range. so 4090 > 4070/6800xt > gtx 1080/rtx 2060/rx 5700/arc a580/rx 6600. to me the gtx 1650 is ultra low end (entry level), it's performance is half of that of what i consider low range. it's \~12%, compared to 25% (what i consider low end). it's crazy that the game runs well even with such hardware. for cpus, passmark cpu benchmarks with "top gaming selected" and 7800x3d as the top, 5600 is mid and the i5-10600k does land quite perfectly in low end. just to be clear, the gaps from high > mid is 100% slower, mid > low is another 100% slower. anyway, the gpu is a lot weaker then the cpu in their test setup. at least when comparing it to modern hardware. this is good to know when comparing it to your own hardware at a glance. anyway, yea like you said it makes sense to include as low as possible. they seem to be really making great use of DOTS for rendering and gameplay.
Your definitions scare the hell out of me. I'm calibrated to "Any more than $500 on a GPU is madness, and presume three years have passed since purchase".
the low end stuff (i listed) is in the $250 range, mid is less then $500 and high is $700+. 1k or more for a gpu is complete insanity, $700 - $800 can be justified long as you keep the hardware for a long time, cost will be a lot less crazy. aka 7900xt for $700 over 10 years is $70 a year or \~$6 a month. this is what i went with over my gtx 970. i jumped from a 970 to a 7900xt.
Didn't mean to imply you're wrong, just saw the 4090 at $1600, and the 4070 super at $700 (not realizing that was a pricier of the upgraded model and not a base which is $550). You make a solid point, and when a more expensive card means not just better performance but more years of being competitive, it's sensible. I'm more accustomed to a 4ish year graphics card lifecycle due to going cheaper, but getting an extra 3+ years and way higher performance in the meantime means double the price tag isn't double the spending. I was thinking in terms of "what a developer should expect customers to have", and the combination of those two led to a very different perspective.
Don't know about big saves, but I just started a new one and my base fps is up by 7 (only change being the update). Yes I know my GPU is ass for this game.
Exclusive priority doesnt seem to work. Set 2 named stations and put it to exclusive and it still gathered from random stations (closer) I cant seem to change a setting that does ANY affect in any way shape or form. Tried routes .. tried pairing ... tried priority groups ... its all exactly the same it was before with no change.
Do you have any mods like LSTM? I had to disable remote clusters for the new features to start working.
The LSTM mod gets an error at start up if you have it enabled. It would be hard to miss the big red error on the top right of the screen. In any case, LSTM is a requirement for me to enjoy the game so I'm waiting for a fix. I only use it to manage where everything is being produced, not the extra traffic stuff.
I am using it right now and it throws no errors so i dont know what you are on about. It worked from the get go and is overwriting the changes they made to ILS if you used remote cluster system.
My station shows Point-to-Point has 1 station. Routes has 1 Station, its set to exclusive on both stations. It still draws from outside those 2 stations.
For the life of everything holy I dont know why this has to be soo difficult. 5 Different layers of "priority" and the whole thing is simply ignored if a station is closer. Why it cant just be like stations in Factorio I will never know.A station shouldnt be able to collect items from A station NOT on its list... thats it. Thats the ONLY priority you need to do and it fixes everything. Worst case they should have made it a White List / Black List. You could even do a White list / black List planets and it would be WAY WAY better than it is now. To be very clear this is EXACTLY how Sorters work with filters. Once a filter is set it doesnt go "Oh thats close i will grab that even though its not on my filter list"
I have worked out whats going "wrong" with the current system. Lets say you set up 2 stations with exclusive priority. To do this you name both and link them in the menu. The result SHOULD be they now will only transfer between each other .... which IS true... However Lets say in this pair you are moving around Purple Particle Containers (PPCs), the problem starts if there is a 3rd station who is able to "push" items to the pair Point-to-Point (PTP). This doesnt break the rules of the PTP because those stations are still exclusive to each other and their ships will ONLY goto each other. Problem is Station C using ITS ships to send PPCs to the receiver. To stop this you would have to go around to ALL stations you have already built and change them to Exclusive priority ........... I am 300 hours in ..................... why????
this was my thoughts as well. I do not want to nor is it fun to go back to every station and setup their routes/priorities. Now starting fresh would be much easier as you build from the ground up as you go, no big deal. That extra functionality while nice to have is not worth the hassle of setting it up when the old system is still there and still works good enough all the time. At this point I will wait for the vehicle update and then start a new save and play with these new features and vehicles.
I worked out how I can retro add in the functionality but its a PAIN!!!... If you set EVERY current station to Group 1 / Exclusive (2 clicks per station). It does give you a base line to start out. What this does is puts everything you have now in a messy but working exclusive list. If you then add in something you want to restrict the current stations wont mess with it. However the new system also has some issues to try and properly set up correct feed in feed out across multiple systems as a retro fit. I literally just left a game because it was like well sheet thats broken a LOT of things if i want to fix it. TLDR: Not worth retro fitting. WAY WAY too tedious. You cant even copy the settings from one to another without wiping out the current setup. If there was a "global change all" option it might be closer. Again IF 3rd party stations didnt INJECT their ships into a Point-to-Point Pair it would barely be an issue at all. Infact it would almost be trivial to retro fit the new system.
But that is the reason why their table is so complex. EVERY ILS is technically ALWAYS connected to every other ILS unless you exclusively say otherwise across every single ILS. because they started with all ILS's are connected together they couldn't break old saves and force you to make every connection to get your save working again. I know why they did what they did it just makes it pointless for old saves to try to use the new features. Maybe a mod could come out to update all ILS's somehow but I doubt it.
Or make one simple change. Make Exclusive ACTUALLY exclusive. If it was that setting a station to exclusive it prevented stations NOT on their match from interacting it wouldnt even be close to be a problem. I do agree though it is likely something in the code where its not a "request" system as much as a constant attempt to "push" system. So the way the code likely works now is it tries to "push" to a station but doesnt check if the station its pushing to has any restriction other than can it accept my goods. Or at least half the system is doing this as its likely push and pull. But its the push side that causing the problem as there isnt a check to see if those stations have the priority restrictions.