Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 3 of 6«123456»
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Now that we've seen "No man's sky"
Now that we've seen "No man's sky"
hunterbickel2003Date: Thursday, 25.08.2016, 02:54 | Message # 31
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 34
Status: Offline
Space Engine + No Mans Sky = best space game ever. *massive explosion of data*
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 25.08.2016, 12:21 | Message # 32
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
hunterbickel2003, we already have a thread for this, please don't make useless threads.




Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
ConquestiDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 19:51 | Message # 33
Astronaut
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 53
Status: Offline
I've tried running "No Man's Sky"

But my graphic card to 100 ° in 4 minutes, leaving the game to not burn my computer.

Space engine works perfectly.

No Man's Sky has a bad optimization with simple graphics

Does anyone understand it?


Edited by Conquesti - Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 19:57
 
IanBrettCooperDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 20:23 | Message # 34
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 5
Status: Offline
I'm running No Man's Sky on a PS4. I've had no problems with it other than a few crashes in the first few days. There have already been a number of official updates which have made the game a lot more stable, especially on the PC (so I hear).

The game has had a lot of bad press, seemingly from people who were expecting it to be an MMO or Skyrim in space. I've had it for a month and I'm still playing and enjoying it every day. Every time I set foot on a new planet, there are new environments and fascinating life forms to discover. It's not the be-all and end-all of gaming that some people were claiming before its release, but neither is it the awful disappointment that some are now claiming it is. It's a solid arcade style space exploration game with a visual aesthetic based on '70s and '80s pulp sci-fi book cover art.

I think it's more a game for people who like games like Space Engine, rather than for fans of AAA video games. It's slow paced and mellow. You can really just relax with it. I like it a lot, and I'm not usually big on arcade style games.


Edited by IanBrettCooper - Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 20:27
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 22:25 | Message # 35
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote Conquesti ()
100 °


That is really bad. NMS does heat up my system though, my GPU hit 87°C after a few hours and my CPU hit 70°C which is a bit hotter than I would like, especially since I am running a liquid cooler.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
AerospacefagDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 22:38 | Message # 36
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote IanBrettCooper ()
I think it's more a game for people who like games like Space Engine, rather than for fans of AAA video games. It's slow paced and mellow.

The problem with NMS is, of course, only in marketing. I was observing it during the hottest days and I could easily say that it is a benchmark, it was a benchmark and it will remain one till the end of it's days. If you want it to be a game, you will have to trash it like a stuffed animal and replace all the inner workings with things like CONTENT, DIVERSITY and MECHANICS. Things that the creator have proved not able to foresee.

And the further problem that I see that it is comparatively more difficult to do so than make some Minecraft mode since the technology behind the game is pretty complex and most likely will remain closed for modding community because of company's policy. So far any mods you can find are only superficial, so there is no way they will add something like multiplayer, or new tools, or market system until they overhaul the entire game.

From gameplay side it is even worse IMO, but on the other hand, it is more controversial. Real games have what is called "depth" in them, which means they are more connected to reality, it's problems and wonders. NMS, compared to procedurally generated universe like SE is a children't game room compared to a car. You are given a number of colourful blocks and cubes with big letters on them, and you have to play with them, build towers and compose words, "what more than that do you need for gameplay". Excuse me, oh great creator of mighty and powerful game, but I am a person educated in astronomy, like millions out there, who want to see the beauty of cosmos. I don't want to see a beauty of your game room locked in 4 walls - it is your job to take the hugest hammer you can hold in your hands and break these walls with all of your might.

Quote IanBrettCooper ()
I think it's more a game for people who like games like Space Engine, rather than for fans of AAA video games.

And yet they tried to pass it as AAA hit. You see, it wouldn't be as bad as it is if nobody would be so unreasonably excited. Thousands of articles in famous magazines, thousands of streams featuring hypotheses about unreleased game, myriads of fans imagining things. It is even worse than famed Star Citizen, because a) SC is much older and it, at least, has goals in mind; b) if there's a real feature that can add to a game, they could take their time to attach it. NMS had none of that, it just rolled out of production, with all the corporate logic and grief attached to it. If you think this is bad, you should go and see the situation with post-release support.

On the side note I'm not having much faith in SC, since it is a game which was basically created and set up as a sci-fi industry flotsam strapped together within CryEngine. It has vague design and even vaguer setting, it has so many borrowed concepts I can list them all together with all of their features. It is going to inherit most of the negative sides of them and none of the positive, but it does not matter since people has donated so much money that you can just disassemble the entire campaign and start a new one from scratch. This is a problem of entire "next gen" generation of games, and it has a long history already.



Look at this game. Look. At. It. This is a real Next Gen. It has so much beauty and thought to it, that none of two games will ever have. And it is dead. Dead as dead can be.
 
Donatelo200Date: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 22:42 | Message # 37
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
@DoctorOfSpace

Those temps are a bit high. Especially if you have water cooling. My GPU only hits 76°C under very high load and during NMS it rarely hits 74°C. As for my CPU, which is water cooled, never exceeds 60°C and doesn't really go beyond 55°C normally.





CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 22:48 | Message # 38
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote Donatelo200 ()
My GPU only hits 76°C under very high load and during NMS it rarely hits 74°C


You are also running a 1080 which probably has better cooling capability, especially if it is an aftermarket card.

I could keep my GPU temps down but with my OC and higher power profile I have my target temperature set to 83C. Getting that hot isn't that risky for the GPU but pushing above 85 and getting close or beyond 90 is definitely something that should be avoided.

As for my CPU, I recently upgraded to a Corsair H90 which reduced my temperatures from my H80, was even able to push my OC to 4.2Ghz and still not get above 65C. It just seems like NMS is doing a lot of things in the background that tend to cause higher than average temperatures.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
IanBrettCooperDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 23:14 | Message # 39
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 5
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
If you want it to be a game, you will have to trash it like a stuffed animal and replace all the inner workings with things like CONTENT, DIVERSITY and MECHANICS.


I've been playing it for a month. It has all that stuff, and I assure you, it is a game. I've been playing video games for over 40 years, and I know a game when I play one.
 
Donatelo200Date: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 23:17 | Message # 40
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
Probably true but, even my old 970 with a large OC wouldn't climb above 76°C. Though I have had the Strix version of both cards which does seem to have a very good cooling system. As for my CPU, I haven't OC'd that so that probably explains the difference there. I have an NZXT Kraken X61 CPU cooler.




CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
AerospacefagDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2016, 23:23 | Message # 41
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote IanBrettCooper ()
I've been playing video games for over 40 years, and I know a game when I play one.

So do people who play Tetris. It is not that I am trying to critique your choice, I am talking about all those who were expecting something more than it was shown to them. And also, uh, there is the fact that this game does not cost the money you have to pay for it.
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 00:29 | Message # 42
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote Donatelo200 ()
I haven't OC'd that so that probably explains the difference there


The performance gains are worth the few degrees more. I had a discussion with an Intel engineer regarding the upper limits of the CPUs, while the recommended is 65 or lower the chips are designed to push well beyond that so routinely getting close to 70C isn't something to be concerned about.

Quote Donatelo200 ()
Though I have had the Strix version of both cards which does seem to have a very good cooling system


The 980 Ti I use has dual ACX but I like quiet gaming and getting into the upper 70s and low 80s is not going to kill a card.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
n0b0dyDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 07:03 | Message # 43
Explorer
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 297
Status: Offline
I mostly agree with Aerospacefag. Had NMS been released 5-6 years ago at its current state it would have been a different story. I tend to see it as ''Spore 2". Why people are comparing it with SE, Elite:Dangerous and SC, I do not understand. It does not belong to the Space Sim genre and even more to the Multiplayer category. Nor it was meant to. So this was clearly something that the developers of NMS failed to communicate properly. Hence all the negative critique.

Regarding the temperatures, this is another reason I am not going to try it. I tend to get about ~70C GPU and ~55-60C CPU with SE (generally SE doesn't use much of my CPU which is 6 core / 12 thread @ 3.2 GHz - only when I am flying fast through the galaxy it starts to use the CPU) and about ~70C both CPU and GPU with Elite: Dangerous. And I am on conventional air cooling. But I need to clean CPU heatsink urgently...

I see many of you are on water cooling. I was always afraid of it due to fear of leaks but I think the new water coolers must be quite reliable.
 
Brett001Date: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 10:42 | Message # 44
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Hungary
Messages: 81
Status: Offline
My GPU (Gigabyte GTX960) with two fun max. 71 C NMS.
 
BambusmanDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 17:21 | Message # 45
Pioneer
Group: SE team
Germany
Messages: 408
Status: Offline
i have OC gtx 760 and have about 80°C while playing + the performance is bad i have 40 minimum 55 maximum fps at the highest settings. but i can play other games at high settings perfectly with 60 - 80 FPS, for example i can play SpaceEngine with no performance problems at all.
Something that bothers me is the hype that was build for this game, it was really unnecessary
and now people are comparing NMS to SE and mostly any video or blog that is writing something about SE has NMS in the title too
for example: "SpaceEngine’ is like a free ‘No Man’s Sky’ modeled after the real universe" -Digital trends.
"Space Engine" Is a Free, Scientifically Accurate Version of "No Man's Sky" -Outerplaces.
and on video comments i find things like : " NMS 2.0, no thanks not again"

but still i have played NMS for 5 hours now biggrin
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Now that we've seen "No man's sky"
Page 3 of 6«123456»
Search: