Has anyone maxed out yet.

[pirke123]

quadcore intel i5 overclocked to 4.5ghz
2x nvidia 580gtx (msi factory overclocked) in sli
16gb
win8
All graphics settings MAX (vsync, line of sight, etc) @ 1920x1200

Getting 25-40fps mostly. In certain area's in Albion it drops to 10, but I play in DeVries mostly, so I'm fine with the performance of all the beautiful space

Dude i'm with GF 570GTX, i7 2600k OC 4.0ghz, 8GB Ram and i get the same framerate and didnt drop below 20.I dont have only SSAO turn on, but i use SweetFX for extra AA, color correction and shit.

You should get more fps than me.WTF?!?!

I have my driver settings all at default, and ingame everything at max, including SSAO, distance sliders, vsync, etc.

I had 1 drop yesterday in a specific zone in Albion, for the rest I never went below 25.

Note that this game is *not* GPU bound... it's the CPU that's the bottlebeck. As your i7 has hyperthreading, it effectively has double the amount of cores. Hyperthreading can cause good performance gains, or it can cause performance losses, depending on the application. It's because the level 1 cache in your CPU has to be shared between 2 threads, and if the 2 threads need different memory, they both have half the memory available, resulting in more cache swapping inside the CPU, resulting in a lower performance. I suspect X:R benefits from hyperthreading though, giving you an advantage over my i5.

Or it's the SSAO

[Shinkenshi]

i7-920 @4ghz, 16gb ram, 7970 crossfire disabled

I was getting 25-40fps on 3 monitors with everything maxed 8xaa ssao off, 13.8 or 13.9 I forgot

Updated to 13.11 and 10fps so I just stopped playing for now. Not going to roll back a driver for a single game.

[gardentwine]

And 3.2g 6x over clocked3.7
Windows7/ubuntu13.04
8g ram
Amd 7950
128 ssd OS
500 Game

Max settings
1920-1080 35,40 fps

default settings
1920-1080 25.30 fps

[gregs4163]

I'm getting around 50-60 fps with everything maxed 2X AA and forced Anisotropic Filtering and FXAA in driver at 1920 X 1080

i7 3770 3.9 Ghz
Asrock Fitality 1 z77 mobo
16 Gb Corsair DDR3-1866
EVGA GTX 670 superclock 1.4 Ghz 2 Gb ram
Windows 8.1 64 bit

[chikatilo]

Agree on game not being GPU bound, it's a 7 year old Dx9 engine, all our graphic cards should eat the damn game.
The i7 having more cores is, well, not true, hyperthreading isn't that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Looking into CPU's though, everything maxxed out, ignoring the (for this game all overpowered anyways) GPU's

sndle9 is getting the drops on an Ivy i7
i'm not on an Ivy i5
ICO_hr isn't on a sandy i7
pirke123 is getting the drops on an i5
dlryan isn't on a FX-8150
metanoia isn't on a sandy i7
Shinkenshi is getting the drops on an i7
Gregs4163 isn't on an ivy i7

The only thing Pirke123, sndle9 and Shinkenshi and none of the others have in common is a 384-bit interface on their GPU's. 580GTX, 780GTX, Titan and 79xx as far as I know are the only cards using it. Couldn't imagine how this could cause framerate drops though, doesn't make sense.

[Roger78]

Running game maxed out and never yet had a single crash or any noticable lag.

i7-3820 @4.4 oc
16G ram
GTX 780
screen res 1920X1200
64bit Win 7

New machine and I haven't put fraps on it yet so can't give my fps, but as I don't see any problems at any point or area of the game then I must be getting good results

[spacecoyote99]

Getting about 30-40fps on my i5 3570k and GTX560 at 1920x1200 if there's not too too much going on screen. Not maxed, but about 80% on the sliders and all the eye candy effects on. Not amazing but certainly playable.

So, the about strongest standard PC is just about right to play properly ? Dooh, so much for the system requirement information. And my gaming rig, haha !

If you define "properly" as "with absolutely maxed settings at a very high resolution", but no game ever bases their system requirements on that scenario.

Agree on game not being GPU bound, it's a 7 year old Dx9 engine, all our graphic cards should eat the damn game.

That's not how software works. You could make highly detailed graphics in a DX9 engine that would slow down a modern card, you could make a simple engine that uses DX11 that would fly on any consumer model.

If you want to argue the graphics aren't good enough to justify your framerate, that's a different matter, but it has nothing to do with the version of DirectX or the age of the engine (which obviously isn't 7 years old as Egosoft _started developement_ 7 years ago and who knows how many revisions it's had.)

[chikatilo]

Running game maxed out and never yet had a single crash or any noticable lag.

i7-3820 @4.4 oc
16G ram
GTX 780
screen res 1920X1200
64bit Win 7

New machine and I haven't put fraps on it yet so can't give my fps, but as I don't see any problems at any point or area of the game then I must be getting good results

Well then, Shinkenshi having the drops screwed my Nvidia idea, you not having them screwed my memory bus idea. But it can't be on random rigs either, that's impossible. I'm out of ideas here >_>

[Roger78]

I'm out of ideas here >_>

Well, as you said earlier, only other option must be witchcraft

"chikatilo" shudders...

[chikatilo]

Agree on game not being GPU bound, it's a 7 year old Dx9 engine, all our graphic cards should eat the damn game.

That's not how software works. You could make highly detailed graphics in a DX9 engine that would slow down a modern card, you could make a simple engine that uses DX11 that would fly on any consumer model.

If you want to argue the graphics aren't good enough to justify your framerate, that's a different matter, but it has nothing to do with the version of DirectX or the age of the engine (which obviously isn't 7 years old as Egosoft _started developement_ 7 years ago and who knows how many revisions it's had.)

Agreed, can't compare vanilla Reunion & A.P same engine they started off with. And there's plenty of dx9 titles way heavier on the hardware than dx11. But if you look at Rebirth's graphics, even though (when in space) they are nice, all of the GPU's mentioned above should eat the game, this is all high end stuff suitable for running frostbite -& Cryengine III maxxed out, 1080P, 4XMSAA etc at decent frames.

Someone just posted an overclocked haswell i7 - Gtx titan combo sweating to get 20FPS on these mediocre -at best- textures, something's going on...

They built a new game and their own engine, brand new, so this was to be expected.

[ICO_hr]

I'm with the latest nvidia drivers and some tweaks in the Control Panel like FXAA, Adaptive Vsync...

Btw what amount of Dedicated Video Memory XR is using on your machines?I'm with 1.2GB and the fraking game eats all of it.

[jl1aisbett]

I don't suppose some of the people getting worse frame rates have vsync turned on, I believe there was some comment by someone at egosoft that vsync on artificially caps the frame rate much lower than expected.

[ICO_hr]

I don't suppose some of the people getting worse frame rates have vsync turned on, I believe there was some comment by someone at egosoft that vsync on artificially caps the frame rate much lower than expected.

No, not really.I've tried in game and from Nvidia Control Panel there is almost no difference only it feels more lagy when is ON but no FPS drop.

Btw Vsync cap the frame rate at 30 or 60.Vsynk can't cap your frame rate at 10 or 20.This is ridiculous or maybe if i code it.

[CJBok]

Running game at maxed settings between 15 and 25 FPS

Res: 1920x1080
AA: 8x
AF: Greyed out
Vsync / Shadows / SSAA: On
LOD / View D / EFF D: All 100
Shader: High

Changing any of these settings only increases about 2 FPS.

Specs:
Motherboard: Sabertooth 990 FV R2
Processor: AMD FX-8320 3500 (OC 3800Mhz)
Videocard: AMD HD7870, Driver Catalyst 13.9 (Also tried beta 13.11 v9.4)
Memory: 16GB (1600Mhz)
OS: Windows 7 64bit
Storage: SSD

[TMT]

I'm running on GTX 670 (OC) and i5 3570K, 1080p.

I get about 20 to 35 fps, in stations it's almost not playable. I even disconnected two monitors to see if that helps. It makes no difference. Settings are on lowest. I can put them on max (8xAA, VSync on etc.) but it's nearly the same result (looks nicer though). The framerate is still bad. In free space without huge stations it's ok.

OS is Windows 8.1, programs in background are only Asus STX card suite (for audio), Nvidia control panel and Steam. GPU driver v331.82.

[dzhedzho]

After a lot of fiddling and adjustments to my hardware settings.

All on except vsync running between 20-40fps 1920x1080

i7 2600K 3.4GHz
GTX 570
16GB Ram



Funnily enough everything off/low at 1366x768 runs between 30-50fps

[chikatilo]

In open space okay, lots of stuff, but the ^^ slowdowns inside those stations make no sense at all, there is nothing to render in there, that's 1999 quake 3 graphics at best.

[dzhedzho]

I'm with the latest nvidia drivers and some tweaks in the Control Panel like FXAA, Adaptive Vsync...

Btw what amount of Dedicated Video Memory XR is using on your machines?I'm with 1.2GB and the fraking game eats all of it.

On mine seems to eat around 700-900 depending on where i am.

[HighwayStar]

The devs have openly said that the game rides the CPU mostly because of the AI simulation. Just fly between Watergate and Gushing Spring and you'll see your frame rate change dramatically. Unfortunately my CPU is about 4/5 years old and shows its age in this game. It's a shame my GPU can't be harnessed to do some of the AI stuff.

[CJBok]

In open space okay, lots of stuff, but the ^^ slowdowns inside those stations make no sense at all, there is nothing to render in there, that's 1999 quake 3 graphics at best.

Thats because everything else is still being rendered. Just check the outside world when you are on a open landing platform. So this means the game has te render even more when you are inside a station. And it also explains why the loading is so fast.