Performance Megathread
- Thread starter Ashantai
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I just built my new computer over the weekend, and used Stellaris as my CPU tester. I almost cried when I was getting no slowdown in the 2300-2400 years a only a bit of slowdown in the 2500's. (Large Galaxy/Default AI Numbers/50% Habability)
That's the furthest I've gotten in the game unless I do a small galaxy start with just me. The only thing that really slowed it down was when the L-Gate opened. Though it picked up as I let the Unbidden cleanse a 1/4 of the galaxy. Other half of the galaxy was ruled by an Awakened Fallen Empire. My new CPU is an i7-9700, not the cheapest things for people to get, but seems to do the job for me.
That's the furthest I've gotten in the game unless I do a small galaxy start with just me. The only thing that really slowed it down was when the L-Gate opened. Though it picked up as I let the Unbidden cleanse a 1/4 of the galaxy. Other half of the galaxy was ruled by an Awakened Fallen Empire. My new CPU is an i7-9700, not the cheapest things for people to get, but seems to do the job for me.
It seems like optimization would be extremely low hanging fruit. These calculations shouldn't be getting made as often as they do, most planets take 12 months or more before any meaningful change impacts them. Even if they didn't want to try and figure out scheduling versus polling, restricting the checks to one of the 30 days in every month would be a good send. Or better, allow players to set the "update frequency". I'd settle for 12 month update cycles if it meant I could play the game.
The other issue is obviously the AI spam creating new races, and spamming habitats that they don't know how to properly build out. Locking the AI from pursuing either would be a net benefit for both the player, and the AI's ability to run its economy. This one in particular seems really really easy to accomplish.
That at the end of the day is what's so infuriating for me, that they could at least throw us a bone in the form of stop gap fixes. Things that probably wouldn't solve the issue(I have no hope they'll ever expend the resources to do a proper rebuild, or revert to the old economy), but would at least produce a net increase of playability.
No need to totally restrict the AI from building habitats, just limit them... I saw the AI using habitats in a decent manner when blocked in. Something like 2 + 10% of controlled planets will do.
Last edited:
There is literally a huge thread at the top of the screen that says "POST PERFORMANCE STUFF HERE"
Why do people keep posting new threads about it today? Is something in the air today? Is it "poke the moderators in their ears" day?
Why do people keep posting new threads about it today? Is something in the air today? Is it "poke the moderators in their ears" day?
Yup. I sort of expected the same. And to the “late the the party” comment, well the party is still in full swing given there’s a new thread on it give or take every day.
we just have to keep reminding them I think, else they’ll think all is fine.
i5 9600k processor for the record.
we just have to keep reminding them I think, else they’ll think all is fine.
i5 9600k processor for the record.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some people will be doing so as a form of protest.
Others are simply exhibiting that effect where people's eyes glide straight past any sticky threads, presumably assuming that they're forum administrative bumf rather than threads to participate in.
Because this thread hasn’t been addressed by developers. To have a game that slows down so much just as the crisis kicks in is extraordinarily sloppy.
Even a newbie like me can see that. So it’s worth pointing it out. It’s one of the reasons why stellaris, which is a pretty good game in theory, gets panned in the reviews in the way no other paradox game does.
Even a newbie like me can see that. So it’s worth pointing it out. It’s one of the reasons why stellaris, which is a pretty good game in theory, gets panned in the reviews in the way no other paradox game does.
Because:
Performance megathread: 0 dev responses
FTL Discussion Thread: 0 dev responses
Sector Discussion Mega-Thread (Post 2.2): 0 dev responses
People keep making new threads because this thread appears to be a rug, which all mentions of performance are swept under, then promptly forgotten about. If you think I am wrong, present evidence supporting your view. Mine is simple, this thread is barren of any Dev's talking about what they are doing to address the issue.
Game is playable. Its not anywhere living up to the quality that it could be. Design is fantastic by and large. The idea of what the game is, fantastic. The late game is a let down as it sits.
AI is .. terribly miss guided. the layout and buildup of the planets needs work.
Game grinds to a total halt on my 3900x. No joke.
Here is how I managed to get it to get it to be playable.
- Starnet AI. (Mandatory if you expect to have a challenge - it masks the problems quite well to be honest ).
- Reduced planet count to 1.5x max
- 400 stars. (600 on single player does ok also).
- Disable gateways and wormholes out the gate (can still build them).
I complained about this in a post a long time ago in the calmest way possible and the posts were deleted on this forum. It is what it is.
There is a major disconnect between management, developers, forum administrators and the people that play the game. The people that play the game, would love to donate more and more money to keep the gravy train of what the game is and could be going.
Management wants to sell expansion.
People that play the game want a playable game.
Developers want clean code, a project that works, and to please both sides.
I do not blame the developers. I dont blame management directly. The problem exists between all three however.
Management, no joke, if you just said.. ok the next expansion we will do only minor fix ups but we will release a powerhouse AI instead and charge as if it was an expansion... I would buy it, and i think others would also. beats the hell out of this 6 month spaces between eye candy patches that end up disappointing... and yet still i say shut up and take my money.. every time without question.
AI is .. terribly miss guided. the layout and buildup of the planets needs work.
Game grinds to a total halt on my 3900x. No joke.
Here is how I managed to get it to get it to be playable.
- Starnet AI. (Mandatory if you expect to have a challenge - it masks the problems quite well to be honest ).
- Reduced planet count to 1.5x max
- 400 stars. (600 on single player does ok also).
- Disable gateways and wormholes out the gate (can still build them).
I complained about this in a post a long time ago in the calmest way possible and the posts were deleted on this forum. It is what it is.
There is a major disconnect between management, developers, forum administrators and the people that play the game. The people that play the game, would love to donate more and more money to keep the gravy train of what the game is and could be going.
Management wants to sell expansion.
People that play the game want a playable game.
Developers want clean code, a project that works, and to please both sides.
I do not blame the developers. I dont blame management directly. The problem exists between all three however.
Management, no joke, if you just said.. ok the next expansion we will do only minor fix ups but we will release a powerhouse AI instead and charge as if it was an expansion... I would buy it, and i think others would also. beats the hell out of this 6 month spaces between eye candy patches that end up disappointing... and yet still i say shut up and take my money.. every time without question.
Everything after the year 2400 might as well not be in the game because once the menus start imploding from lag the game is unplayable.
I've been playing on the same PC since day one. The thing that bothers me the most (and is probably due to all the render issues that guy was mentioning) is the fact that after a while, moving the camera becomes an intense task. Clicking a species you want to modify to adapt it to your needs sometimes gets you the "not responding" Windows mouse cursor for a while. It's obvious that the DLC's required API changes and they were (also obviously) not implemented ideally.
Maybe the problem lies with the programming paradigm itself (Stellaris got too big for it) and that's why the devs are so resistant to change: they could very well be fired if Stellaris was to be incrementally hotfixed to support a more compatible paradigm.
There is absolutely NO DENYING that a lot could be done at the .txt level to improve performance, and the fact that none of it is fixed leads me to believe that whoever is responsible for managing the coders really couldn't give a rat's ass about performance, as long as the money keeps pouring... A shame too, because I will probably buy Federations at the very second I see it for sale... I really LOVE this game, I wish people in charge of it would respect and acknowledge that love appropriately and AT LEAST FIX THE .txt FILES!
Maybe the problem lies with the programming paradigm itself (Stellaris got too big for it) and that's why the devs are so resistant to change: they could very well be fired if Stellaris was to be incrementally hotfixed to support a more compatible paradigm.
There is absolutely NO DENYING that a lot could be done at the .txt level to improve performance, and the fact that none of it is fixed leads me to believe that whoever is responsible for managing the coders really couldn't give a rat's ass about performance, as long as the money keeps pouring... A shame too, because I will probably buy Federations at the very second I see it for sale... I really LOVE this game, I wish people in charge of it would respect and acknowledge that love appropriately and AT LEAST FIX THE .txt FILES!
These megathreads are usually a mess of various despondent opinions all mashed together in awkwardness by the mods merging troublesome topics together.
Not really the best place to voice opinions.
Edit: And once they reach a certain size most folks avoid them anyways...not many want to read dozens and dozens of pages to catch up on stuff.
Not really the best place to voice opinions.
Edit: And once they reach a certain size most folks avoid them anyways...not many want to read dozens and dozens of pages to catch up on stuff.
This is pretty much it. Talking in this thread is pointless because the Devs dont want the forum just this.
Of course its kinda backwards to make this thread and ignore the issue, rather than make a statement that this would be a priorty and fix it.
As aspec says, maybe they are focused entirely on getting each quarter DLC out, just to stay afloat
Or maybe they dont care.
Who knows
I just want them to make performance a priority. I love this game, its easily my favourite strategy game of all time.
But the game i sbasically uinplayable after 2300 for me. 1.9 was very playable. I dont miss 1.9, I just miss being able to play after 100 years....
On another note, have any dev diaries recently mentioned performance enhancements?
Its laggy for me right now during 2425 or so but its certainly still playable. Just slow.
Just wondering, how long does each day and each month take to process in that game for you? It's possible that you're one of the lucky ones who's PC has been blessed with acceptable performance for no particular reason, but it also could be possible that you just have a higher tolerance of bull than most people.