Stellaris End-Game Unplayable Even on High-End Computers

[Riftwalker]

Games an't realiably make use of multiple cores effectively as that can cause errors from out of order processing.

What you should have known was that i7 and larger core processors aren't great for video games, you only need to get one if you're into media editing.

I have an i5 4690 and it runs pretty good, people who want games with multicore processing don't realize that how multicore stuff is used in game won't effect lag from simply engine updates, since these shouldn't be threaded anyway.

like wise 64 bit only allows it to use greater memory amounts which isn't a bottle neck either for the clausewitz engine.

 

[Agamemnic]

It is your choice: Pre 1.5 I would play preferably on even bigger since not lag is restricting me.
Do not delegate decisions to others.
As said even AAA turn based strategies lag horrendously like 8 minute to process a single ai turn on a high end pc. And Stellaris is not turn based.

Whoa relax my dude I'm not delegating any desicions. Just a harmless opinion.

Pre 1.5 lag was still real. It just never hurts for the devs to at least disclose a heads up saying +xxx size galaxies may cause lags. AAA games hedge themselves by locking such settings but allowing players to activate them via settings files and the like.

 

[tapewormlondon]

Cant believe people are trying to defend the game on this one! ha.

It needs fixing. Its a great game, we want to play it until the end. Nothing wrong with that.

Game needs optimising, its obvious.

 

[huon23]

Hmm.. I wonder if one of the problems is that the "endgame" seems to vary for a lot of people. My PC runs it pretty well into the "endgame", but for me that means I can play up to the point of dominating half of the galaxy and then a few extra decades. I honestly only make it to the endgame crisis about half the time. Still haven't stuck around till the end of a war in heaven.

Also, I have noticed that having a ton of mods (I usually use around 40~) will really slow down the game compared to playing the base game.

 

[Drowe]

Cant believe people are trying to defend the game on this one! ha.

It needs fixing. Its a great game, we want to play it until the end. Nothing wrong with that.

Game needs optimising, its obvious.

I think the game developers are aware of the shortcomings of the game. But actually solving that problem is a whole different matter. All we need to build a space elevator is a super strong fiber, so why don't the engineers and chemists and what not just develop one? It is easy to demand a solution to a problem if you don't actually know how to solve it. I'm sure someone at PDS is analyzing just where the game can be optimized, but don't expect wonders.

 

[Secret Master]

Game needs optimising, its obvious.

It might need optimizing, but some of us with inferior rigs are not facing the same problems as the OP.

That indicates to me that the problem might not Stellaris in this particular case. There are only 100,000 different things that can affect processor and video card performance, including how much crap someone has running in the background and whether or not some bizarre malware is ruining the system.

 

[Syr]

Things went back to normal after I defeated the two AEs that were fighting. Seems the game was running the majority of its activity on a single thread - only one core was really active (everything else was <20% activity)

 

[Drowe]

Things went back to normal after I defeated the two AEs that were fighting. Seems the game was running the majority of its activity on a single thread - only one core was really active (everything else was <20% activity)

Yes, and that's because it is more efficient to do it that way. Assigning threads to a core is done by the operating system, not the executing program. Programs that actually force the OS to assign a thread to a specific core are possible of course, but that only makes sense in very rare special cases, otherwise the OS is much better at making those decisions than the developer can hope to be. Only if you have complete knowledge of the hardware and other software running on a machine, which is only possible for highly specialized applications running on dedicated machines, does it make sense to do that.

 

[melkor88]

I agree that optimisations are needed like CK2 got, but I am certain devs have said and shown that the game is multi core, and 64 bit wouldn't help.

 

[Soraki]

I think most people here know it's a great game...but I don't want it to work on just the lucky few with crap computers that can run this. I want huge, max empires...why because that's what they have options for.

I built my rig this last Christmas, so quite well along after the game came out. If this hardware can't make it run on very fast, hell even normal with at least some playability in the end game, then there shouldn't be those options in the menu.

Just acknowledge the shortcomings and work towards a fix.

P.S. please don't compare a game to a space elevator...wow, I just...people...really...the apologists are moving to another level...

 

[Mouthwash]

I have a high-end gaming laptop (can easily play M2TW battles with over 20k men) and have never had any problems.

 

[TempusxX]

I have a high end computer that plays any game that is out now and that will be coming out, including this game with zero performance issues from beginning to end, shoot I use 20+ mods with Stellaris and some of the mods really strain a computer even more and even still zero problems from beginning to end.

Some people will have problems and there will be others like me who have zero issues

 

[Drowe]

I think most people here know it's a great game...but I don't want it to work on just the lucky few with crap computers that can run this. I want huge, max empires...why because that's what they have options for.

I built my rig this last Christmas, so quite well along after the game came out. If this hardware can't make it run on very fast, hell even normal with at least some playability in the end game, then there shouldn't be those options in the menu.

Just acknowledge the shortcomings and work towards a fix.

When you built your system is irrelevant. Just because it is new, doesn't mean it's a good system. Another thing is, that just because it is a good system, doesn't mean it runs all games equally well. An FPS game has different hardware requirements than Stellaris, if you want it to run well. My 6 year old system can run Stellaris on a huge galaxy well into the late game, including simultaneous war in heaven and endgame crisis, without the game becoming unplayably slow. It does get slower and it struggles with large fights, but it's not impossible.

P.S. please don't compare a game to a space elevator...wow, I just...people...really...the apologists are moving to another level...

I don't see how that is apologist. I have a background in software development, so I actually know what performance optimization actually means and how difficult it is to do. The person I responded to said : "Game needs optimising, its obvious." [SARCASM]A space elevator needs a super strong fiber, it's just as obvious[/SARCASM]. Neither of those things are easy to achieve. And since so many people complained about performance issues, they reduced the number of AI empires to at least mitigate the problem. I'm sure they did other things as well, but that's what is immediately noticeable if you start a new game.

 

[forfor]

My crappy Home Depot laptop gets me to year 2300 reliably enough 0.0

 

[Soraki]

Ive ran this game on 4 different systems...they all lag end game, turn counter stuck issue...

Ya i know software development is hard...wheel out credentials...but when you make a point of making a game you might want to test it on most hardware...if all your old systems can do it, why can't a new system.

That's laziness on a companies part for not checking if their "software" runs on a majority of systems. Newest hardware shouldn't make the end game lag.

Your sarcasm was lost on me as you fail to see the obvious.

 

[Drowe]

Ive ran this game on 4 different systems...they all lag end game, turn counter stuck issue...

Ya i know software development is hard...wheel out credentials...but when you make a point of making a game you might want to test it on most hardware...if all your old systems can do it, why can't a new system.

That's laziness on a companies part for not checking if their "software" runs on a majority of systems. Newest hardware shouldn't make the end game lag.

Your sarcasm was lost on me as you fail to see the obvious.

Newest hardware doesn't make the endgame lag, what makes it lag is the complexity of the simulation. One thing that could impact the performance may be suboptimal cooling, the mainboard throttles the CPU if it is getting too hot, and modern OS actually overclock a core if it can do so without overheating, which is usually better than parallel processing. CPUs with a higher transistor density produce more heat and need better cooling. And the standard heatsink and fan that ship with the CPU may simply not be sufficient, it sure wasn't for me.

The software does run on those machines, but you can't expect them to do stress tests on every configuration possible. It is reasonable to expect them to test it out on various machines, but they have to make assumptions about what kind of system someone might use. If they see it runs just fine on a mid range system, it is a reasonable assumption, that it will also run fine on something better. And it should unless the better system has a flaw, such as suboptimal cooling, that makes it perform worse. I had that problem with my I7 950, it shipped with an insufficient heatsink and I didn't bother to buy a new one until I ran into problems.

It's incredibly easy to blame the developers for something that is not in their control. What kind of system you are running is not something they can do anything about. If the game runs better on a less powerful system, then there is something wrong with the more powerful system, not with the game.

Edit:
I've noticed the stuck turn counter occasionally too. Don't know if it's a bug or just some calculations taking way too long. If you play Ironman mode, then the frequent saves slow the game down a lot, so you might try it without Ironman to see if that's better.

 

[jeppev]

I just went from a 9 year old CPU too a i5 6600. Played a game til 2380 on a 800 star galaxy, 4 fallen empire last night. No issues whatsoever. There is a slowdown compared to the begining, but it is very playable. Fastest-speed at year 2380 is running at speed similiar to how fast-speed perform at year 2200.
On my old CPU past 2320 every speed in the game was similar to SLOWEST-speed at year 2200... So =D

 

[Soraki]

Newest hardware shouldn't make the endgame lag. No, my system isn't suboptimal on the cooling. I am using watercooling. Doesn't matter, overclocked or no.

And there's the ringer. I CAN EXPECT them to stress test most configurations. That is their job as a company. There is nothing abnormal about any of the systems I tried to run it on. I can expect them to make sure their software runs well on parts that are in the real world.

I don't play ironman. I have tried running it on older systems. I am not going to blame a computer or computers that run every game just fine except this one.

I hope they fixed it with the new DLC, but I am sick and tired of people that are lucky enough to have the "right" hardware telling the rest of us there are no problems with the game.

Ignoring problems is being an apologist. GG.

 

[grommile]

And there's the ringer. I CAN EXPECT them to stress test most configurations.

Indeed, you can expect that. You can also expect the moon to explode into a billion lumps of delicious cheese tomorrow morning at nine AM.

PCs are an utterly horrible platform to do performance testing for, because the number of possible configurations people might have - and I don't just mean at the "choice of hardware components" level, though that's bad enough all by itself - is insanely large.

 

[Dauth]

And there's the ringer. I CAN EXPECT them to stress test most configurations.

Lets just look at this statement a little bit closer shall we.
CPU minimum AMD Athlon II X4 640 @ 3.0 Ghz / or Intel Core 2 Quad 9400 @ 2.66 Ghz

nCPUs valid = 124 (intel) + 54 (AMD) = 168

GPU minimum AMD HD 5770 / or Nvidia GTX 460, with 1024MB VRAM. Latest available WHQL drivers from both manufacturers.
nGPUs valid = 34 (nVidia) + 46 (AMD) = 80

However each GPU has multiple versions which means you're probably looking at ~240 cards that are valid.

Then you have the number of RAM options which is easily in the hundreds (speed/capacity/timings/size/number of sticks). ~ 250 (and this is low)

Lets multiply these out shall we, 168*240*250 = 10,080,000 . Yes 10 million combinations. This is before we look at drivers, operating systems, antivirus programs.

There are more possible combinations of computers than there are people on the planet. It is impossible to test all of them or even most, or even a small fraction of them. Any other claim is frankly delusional.

Yes I would like the game to run better. The people saying PDX have done a bad job are free to found their own company to do a better one. Those who suggest that the engine is not suited to multi-core have been told this is not the case by the developers and those who think going to 64 bit memory addresses makes things faster are the ones completely missing the point.