Not that I don’t believe them, but it’s odd that none of the videos from YouTubers with early access have shown that kind of performance. It makes me wonder if they are trying to set lower expectations for some reason.
There is actually a LOT more little things, that make the game very different. Besides who in the right mind would buy a 70 buck sequel with Just better grafics?
Just have a look at the dev diaries. For me personally its the overhaul of pretty much all simulation engines (traffic, weather, water, wind, people etc.) and that they solved (apparently) the single thread problem of their traffic simulation. For me CS1 was bottlenecked when the cities became to big and the traffic could only be simulated on one core. There is a limit to that. But my cpu was otherwise idle. I have hope that this is now solved. Plus there is apparently no agent limit anymore. So a town of 500000 could in theory simulate all people individually, CS1 couldn’t.
I have never in my 20 years of gaming not had to make some sacrifices even with new hardware. The only time I can max out all sliders is when a game is already 5 or more years old.
Yup even if you get top of the line everything PC games usually aren’t meant to be maxed out settings at launch. A high resolution really takes a toll on the hardware too. Of course not every game is like this but for the most part they don’t want the games to look outdated after two years. It’s always fun revisiting games after a PC upgrade because of this. Though since even the devs or publisher said that they didn’t hit performance targets this is noticably worse performance, least from all the articles I’ve seen. I enjoyed the first city skylines except the traffic so am looking forward to buying when it gets optimized.
The original cities skylines had atrocious performance after a certain city size as well, especially on hardware available at launch. Hopefully they can deliver on better performance over the next few months, I expect it to improve before they do their console release.
This is a good take. If I can play, maybe high settings, on my 1440p monitor I’ll be happy. I don’t need ultra day one. I’m excited for a refreshed city builder, I have hundreds of hours in the first one and I’m excited to see the improvements.
Yeah, I’ve always had hardware that’s a step or two below top of the line for its generation. I had to go through two upgrade cycles before I could max out Far Cry. I had to buy more RAM to turn up the draw distance in Mafia. Hell, I remember my computer chugging when I built too many units in C&C Tiberian Sun…
there’s absolutely nothing wrong with allowing the engine to run with settings current hardware can’t handle
Sure, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you want your product to sell and be successful, the period shortly after release date is where most of your sales will happen. If nobody can run your game at that time, you could lose 90% of the lifetime sales you’re likely to make. It would make more sense to release a slightly pared-down version of the game that actually runs well now and improve it in the short-to-medium term with updates. Or, alternatively, release it when it can actually run well on commonly-used hardware.
I said this on Masto, but this tells me nothing as written. You can get the first game to run like that, too.
The thing is, if it runs that way on an empty map and degrades the same way the first one did, I can't see it not crashing on a full endgame map. So... how does it run on endgame? Or is this endgame and it runs fine at first? Guessing no, since the devs themselves said this was a problem. And, well, I've seen footage from streamers and it certainly chugs on small maps, too.
To answer your main Q from this, apparently the biggest performance dropoff is going from no pop to 10k, scaling up to 100k isn’t nearly the same dropoff.
Even with a beefy setup on high settings, CPP suggests turning off many of the post-processing effects and definitely disable VSync. Lastly 4K is out of the question for most cards, barely playable for top end enthusiast cards, Most will be limited to 1080p for a usable experience.
The good news from this video is that for anything above a 970 it is possible to get to late game, as long as you stick to 1080p low-med settings on any card with less than 8GB VRAM.
Hm. So it scales with VRAM and GPU, not CPU? Interesting.
That's less concerning than people had made it out to be, at least for a game of this genre. It still doesn't sound particularly pleasant to play, but hey, less of a dealbreaker.
Precisely. Not to sound too much like a shill because full disclosure I bought and I’m very excited for C:S2, but I find some of the concern is overblown. Yes the performance is a MAJOR problem, but the game is feature complete and optimization is ongoing, with significant improvements to arrive by console release.
Yeah, it seems weird because you'd think all the simulation load would be in the background and they could scale the visuals. Since it seems like there's a high base cost for them I assume it's possible to make that run at least a bit better at some point.
The console release target is a bit of a question mark, though. You'd think they have just weaker GPUs and they'll need to optimize to fit, but they can also target lower resolutions and do other stuff there. Plus if there's an I/O issue in there, there's a reliable spec for SSDs on those, so who knows.
Alright, so I got the game and it a) actually has a fantastic options menu with a ton of granularity, and b) it has some really dumb, wasteful settings flagged as "high" with no "ultra" preset.
I went from launching into a default in the 30s for the default map to toning down their nuts global illumination, volumetric clouds and transparent reflections for a neat 100+ fps. And then I cranked it back up a bit to be hovering around 90. I'm sure I'll have to tweak more when I get deeper into the game, but yeah, no, this is gonna be playable.
For the record, I think setting up decent defaults and settings should be a thing in PC games. Tuning the game shouldn't be the first thing you have to do. But whether it's thanks to last minute patches or people overreacting to the announcements I think this was a bit overblown. I'll report back if that proves not to be the case as I get deeper in.
Hah. It did lose some fps as the city grew. By the time I expanded to a bunch of tiles I was hovering at 50-60 instead of 70-90, but I'm on a VRR display, so I never felt the need to crank it down further. It may get there eventually, but I'm done for the day
The defaults for high are absolutely messed up, and it's entirely possible that some of the settings are straight up bugged. The game doesn't look that much better than CS1 on reasonable settings... but it also doesn't run that much worse, either.
Honestly, I have bigger gripes with some of the interface and with how much micromanagement there is in here. I think the tech issues are both overblown and could have been mitigated with better defaults.
EDIT: In case someone has use for it, what I did was mostly turn off volumetric clouds, turn off Vsync, turn off transparent reflections and drop the settings for Global Illumination and other screen-space effects to not be full res.
Oh, and also, they seem to think SMAA looks better than TAA here. It doesn't. You definitely want to manually change that to TAA and disable DRS, which defaults to extremely gross FSR 1.0. The way this is technically put together by default is super weird.
Yeah, I saw that they acknowledged the broken settings and provided a slightly confusing explanation about the technical reasons for it.
I genuinely think they should have locked those settings to a lower default until they can patch them. I get what they're trying to do by being transparent, but... yeah, I don't think it worked out for them or the people interested in the game.
I've been playing a bunch, I now have a large city going on and it's still very playable, at the cost of worse lighting and slow-loading textures in close-ups. Honestly, at this point I'm more annoyed by some UI and sim quirks than the performance, but here's hoping they keep improving all of the above.
Also, compared to any other city builder, there really is no competition. Even if the launch was truly botched, the game was unplayable, nobody got about 12 fps, there’s not another full feature city builder. Not since SimCity blew it’s brains out.
People just think that all new games should be able to run at 60fps on ultra settings on 4 year old hardware or it isn’t “optimized”. If it runs fine, I’m happy ,even if it needs to be on “high” settings until hardware catches up a bit.
Yeah. In fairness, it IS disappointing to have to target 1080p or 1440p at 30 fps these days on PC... but it's definitely not a dealbreaker for a sim game like this. Seeing early benchmarks and performance I'd say it went from wait and see to "temper expectations and be ready to target 30".
I was incredibly excited for this game because I thought it’d be an actual city simulator this time, but it’s just another American-road-based traffic simulator.
It’s not going to be worse than KSP2. KSP2 launched with game breaking bugs and all of the new features missing (and some of the old ones) as well as bad performance on ALL graphic settings no matter the specs. CS2 has features that differ it from the first game and the performance issues (allegedly) can be fixed by turning settings down (unlike KSP2). Both games launched (or will launch) without modding support which is really bad for both games.
Considering skylines is basically the only surviving city sim franchise, not much. But city sims have always had difficulty with performance. Sim city 4 was notorious for how badly it performed in hardware, even to this day
I mean, isn’t vanilla New Vegas pretty famously unoptimized? I think its performance has less to do with your hardware and more to do with the engine (hence this mod).
It absolutely does, though. Vanilla crashes all the time and has several game-breaking bugs. I don’t recommend that anyone plays New Vegas unmodded – especially on a newer machine that’ll be less compatible (like my 7700X + 4090 rig running Windows 11) – unless you just hate yourself. You need community patches to get it in a playable state.
Same goes for Fallout 3. It’s not nearly as buggy as NV, of course, but try running it Vanilla on a modern Windows 11 machine and let me know how well that goes for you lol. You get massive framerate dips and it literally crashes every 5 minutes on a brand new PC if you don’t install any mods to make it compatible.
I mean I still play it on a modern system mostly unmodded (I do minor QOL mods like adding/moving fast travel points to limit loading screens but nothing super fancy or specifically for performance). Still on windows 10, though. I get no performance issues, though crashing is still a worry. It’s not like every 30 minutes tho, like when it was new 🤣
Windows 11 is essentially a skin and experience pack for win 10, in fact it was.originally going to be the nezt update to 10. very little has changed that will affect how games run.
My toaster of a desktop can easily run the game at pretty good framerates yet the game just sometimes decided to just crash like it’s nobody’s business.
Hell, it ran it just fine before getting an upgrade from 4gb to something like 16gb of ram, but the problem wasn’t performance issues. Instead it was random crashing. Mods completely fixed that issue.
New Vegas is a pretty good game, but I wouldn’t wanna play it unmodded because I don’t wanna deal with random crashes.
dsogaming.com
Najnowsze