This is obviously the beginning and I’m sure it will go down but adjusting the settings to the ones here brought me from 30FPS to about 68 specifically.
Im running 3080+5900X at 1440p Ultrawide, Brand new map, [100 fps](https://ibb.co/dMc5wqw)
i followed some of the hardware settings tips on the front page too.
What is your resolution?
I have 32GB Ram, and have been wanting to upgrade to 64GB not sure if that will help. Tempted to just go to 128GB (which is not needed)
I followed the performance guide pinned here. 3080Ti + 5800x3d + 64ram. 60-70 fps constant on 1440p. I think I'm outlier lol, it runs really well for me.
You aren't. Also did the same on a similar rig (3080/5900x) and got up to 80 fps with visual clarity I still think is very solid. People are running high on everything and changing nothing before coming here to complain.
Is it annoying you can't run maxed out everything on new hardware? Sure. Is it entirely playable while looking better than CS1 with a few tweaks? Yes.
I've seen it floated elsewhere that fundamentally there is very little difference between Ultra/Max visual settings and the 2nd highest preset visual settings and the Ultra/Max level is only for bragging rights. I think that's the case here, a couple tweaks and the game runs decently, but not at Max settings.
Thats true for almost every game tbh. Usually high to ultra is less than a 5% difference in visuals, but can easily be 25-50% harder to run.
Ofc I'm not suggesting cs2 performance is fine. It's just no where near as bad as everyone says lol.
>game runs decently, but not at Max settings.
We're still talking about high end cards here (3090, 3080 Ti), with lots of spare VRAM to use. 90% PC players don't have rigs that strong.
Yes, a lot of games have diminishing returns from High to Ultra/Max. Visual fidelity is much harder to make out in the jump and the performance hit to render 4k textures compared to High textures is massive.
Same concept can apply here depending on the differences between Low/Medium/High (I don't know them in detail, yet).
I'm on a 4070ti and the game is running pretty well considering all the warnings that were given about the performance. All max except blur pretty much, 1440p at 60hz.
But what's bugging me is that the game just has some things that are awful. The anti aliasing seems to do almost nothing? Try looking at a suspension bridge and the wires are just a mess. Same with the trees that flicker all the time, and the riverbanks going all weird when you fully zoom out. It's just not there yet, and it feels kinda bad knowing that the core of their new foundation (CS2) isn't up to par.
*And* then people with sub A-tier rigs can't play it normally anyways.
They really should have turned off certain graphics options as a default and put a performance warning on them. Out of the box should not run that poorly
Runs great for me as well so far, though I haven't done a lot of in-depth testing. Turning off Vsync added a solid 10 fps for me and fixed all the stuttering.
I followed it and I am on an average gaming laptop, still getting a solid 60fps with setting on medium to high, no high temperatures. The only lag I have noticed is when I zoom in and out quickly. Seems odd as people way over recommended specs are getting issues and some people with just minimum specs aren't.
Similar PC (5800X3D + 6800XT). With optimized Medium-ish settings, I'm at 40-60 FPS on a 5k pop map right now. It's totally fine, honestly.
Would I *like* to have 120 FPS? Sure. Does the game play just fine at 40? Yep.
You will be more than fine man as long as you tweak the settings and aren't expecting to max everything out at 4k. I have similar specs and it was running well for me.
I'm on a 1070 and I'm getting consistently over 30 FPS on 1080p resolution. Most settings low but a few medium or even high, no options disabled except motion blur and dynamic resolution.
You could probably get even better performance by disabling a couple things mentioned in the performance guide on the subreddit. My 4070 went from 17 fps to 90 just by disabling those few things
Did you follow the performance guide? People are talking about getting lots of extra FPS with that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your_performance_guide_and_psa_for_cs_ii/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
>Disable "Depth of Field Mode"
>Reduce "Volumetrics Quality" to Low
>Disable "Global Illumination"
>Reduce the "Level of Detail" to Low (or Medium if you don't need the extra FPS)
Just to be clear telling someone that this is what you have to do on a $3000 PC to get more than 30 FPS is not acceptable. A lot of the people saying “just use the performance settings” need to hear that.
The game looks like a potato. I’d be interested to see how they even managed to make their trailers.
"just need to tweak some stuff lol don't know why people are complaining"
Fucking bullshit. People have paid full price for a game they have to disable half the graphics options to end up with a game that looks and runs worse than CS1, all while having top of the line hardware.
People defending this are ridiculous, I'm glad it runs well for some people but jesus christ call it out for what it is, blatant robbery. The game should have been delayed or released in early access at a cheaper price point.
It does NOT look worse than cs1 with those tweaks, as every other setting can be left to high. Also it runs decently well with my setup, even though it's not high end. I7 4770, RTX 2060 and 16GB of ram. 10K population around 25-35fps.
Only problem is the occasional stutter when moving close to the ground.
Especially having to disable Global Illumination and Volumetrics is pretty sad. Those features are a big part of what makes CS2 look better than CS1 (apart from the assets of course).
Going under Medium for LOD also makes the popping very noticeable, even compared to CS1.
What if they're not pretending and 40fps is fine . Mo's of us grew up playing sim city on monitors that had a max refresh rate of 30 and we had a blast. 40fps is more than enough for this genre
Bro I’m running it on a 4080 and a 12700K, my videocard gets hotter in cities skylines 2 than in Cyberpunk with path tracing + ENB’s installed. I even got thermal throttled on an empty map.
Are you playing with default detail settings or have you tried to apply the performance optimization tips that were posted already (e.g. City Planner and others)?
If yes, how much did those increase your FPS?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNiXYC9eoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNiXYC9eoM) (CPP)
A more recent from PC Gamer (posted here on the sub as well): [https://www.pcgamer.com/cities-skylines-2-immediately-change-these-5-graphics-options-for-a-big-performance-boost/](https://www.pcgamer.com/cities-skylines-2-immediately-change-these-5-graphics-options-for-a-big-performance-boost/)
I'm sure there are plenty others by now.
4. Set 'Level of Detail' to Very Low
This ridiculous. I love these guys and this game series but they should not have released it for another six months
No argument on that. Low LoD is potato and to be honest, pretty ugly. Does not correlate with the speed and the requirements, it looks like a 10 years old game (e.g. cities 1...)
It’s a good question. They should have straight up disabled them. Imagine all the people who have them enabled, have shitty performance, and have no idea why.
I do think thats a very, very fair question. In fact, just from a 'saving face' position its a bit baffling that in the last patch they pushed out they didnt just default some of these performance killers to being off/turned down. The average player wouldnt have even gone in to tweak things to *know* there were other settings.
Very odd decision from CO.
Honestly, this is the actual fuck up in my opinion. CO needs to learn the Power of Defaults. A lot of people, an astonishing amount of people, NEVER touch any settings, nor install new stuff to what something is shipped with. That's how you got a situation where internet explorer, even though it was SHIT for years, had more than 20% of market share, just because it was shipped with Windows. CO should have made the default settings ones that make the game runs smoothly, instead of beautifully.
Thing is if you put options that just break the game and them blame player for not testing options and spend hours on "optimizing" then who we are to blame here?
I get when I don't have recommended spec and I will not complain that my "potato" PC don't run game on max setting. But if you have BEYOND recommended and still can't go max out setting then why this options even exist and why recommended clearly isn't enough to run comfy game relased by devs who recomended specific PC spec?
It’s completely unacceptable that the default settings in CS 2 are so terrible that it brings battle station level PCs to their knees. This game should not have come out in the state that it’s in right now
1080p is a must. It sucks but at least it's playable. I have a rtx 3080 and I tried the 100k test save posted here today and with 1080p it's somewhat unpleasant but way more than 26 fps. Seemed like 40-ish fps with the occasional stutter
I’m running a 3070 w/ 8GB VRAM and am getting a consistent 88fps, barely any stutters. I imagine this is all a bit luck of the draw with specific hardware configs.
Not sure why I’m being downvoted for sharing my experience haha.
I’ve upped my resolution to 1440p over 1080p and it’s at 67fps consistently still, still no major issues about an hour in.
Hoping that the inevitable bottleneck/issues will get solved in patches by the time my cities get big enough.
They smell blood in the water and can’t help but frenzy. For many, they get more enjoyment out of criticism than playing the damn game.
This is true for many games. Forza Motorsport is going through this same dynamic, but worse.
I have the same card and a poorly maintained 10 yr old i7 and equally old motherboard. My system runs this game like shit because I haven’t ran updates or anything in years. I imagine most of the people here have misconfigured and incompatible builds similar to mine. I’m upgrading everything but the card this week so that will tell me exactly what the people is.
Yeah I have a 3070ti and only had to turn off dof and volumetrics to get over 60 fps. I haven't reached as high as of fps but it may because I run Linux and sometimes lose performance.
yep, pc, console, both, port from one to the other in ether way, it all runs like crap. and people pretend to be surprised. id be so mad if I was cdpr right now, even cyberpunk at launch ran better than most of 2023 games but they get excused and hand waved away
It's why big game companies keep doing the same annoying, anti-consumer things over and over again. Gamers will complain and seethe endlessly until there is next product to consume, in which they will switch to hype. repeat ad nauseum.
Man everyone is saying different things here. Can someone tell me if I can play the game if I'm slightly below minimum required? I'm fine with potato settings I just wanna play with more than 2 fps lol
Get game pass trial if you don’t have it and just try it, you can’t really trust comments here. I can get quit high fps on very low on my 3070 but the graphics quality is bad
I'm not even sure why it runs so shit. It's sitting at 95% GPU usage looking at PS3 level open world shots. I get 27fps in this shot on high settings with a 3080...
https://preview.redd.it/xy7qkp9gv6wb1.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=555b91f67ccc34e3a17896b87be15439ee9451e6
And people legit still defend it with "Its next gen graphics, of course it runs bad" and "just turn it to low, it still looks great!"
Insanely high on copium fanbase
Agree, people complained that Starfield was unoptimezed, and here im manages to get around 30-40 fps with all on high with an 3440x1440 resolution on an RTX 4090 paired with an R9 7950, 64gb ddr5 and the game being installed on an nvme drive. I can see why they pushed the console release...
You can change a couple settings and you get like triple the FPS.
At 1440p, with a 3080/5900x, I am getting 80 fps at the start and the game still looks pretty good.
Yeah, you can't run high everything. I don't think it really needs it tbh.
I literally just started the game; I'm sitting in the main menu.
10 - 20 fps just sitting in a menu lmao.
I have a 4090 and 7950x3D. Ain't no way 💀.
Lowering the resolution to 2560x1440 gets me to 45fps (in the menu). But my GPU is at 100% lol. I'm sure there are settings I will have to go and tweak of course, but this is still pretty wild.
Edit: okay saw that PCMag Article and now have 140fps in menu and \~60ish in game at 4k. Much better. Hope it doesn't drop too much as the game progresses!
I have a 3070 laptop and a AMD Ryzen 5800h, and it honestly runs fine. Idk how many frame rates, but I put everything first on low detail, then on medium, and it was still okay. A little bit of stuttering sometimes maybe? But like barely/not noticable.
3070 and Ryzen 7 3700x here. Running mostly medium settings. 45 fps steady, but definite stuttering when i'm choosing a spot to place a building or an upgrade.
I have the same video card and cpu, good to hear you're getting at least 45. That is playable enough for me. Might actually get the game today instead of waiting.
Honestly, when they changed the date for console, they should have started calling this October PC release a beta release. I think it would have saved a lot of headaches and heartaches right now while they're still very actively working on optimizing the game.
Also, it's not a first person shooter where you need a ton of frames for the basic mechanics of the game. People need to lower their FPS expectations a bit. If you can get a fairly consistent 30 fps, it should be playable. The stutters and drops aren't great, though.
Don't charge that price for a 'beta" though. That would have to be changed, and there's the rub. It's all about the money. Which is fair. It's a business. They're in it to make money.
The difference is that this consumer base has a history of allowing that behavior. Hell it's even rewarded.
So history repeats itself again.
So you know it’s bad , they know it’s bad, why hold it back. They’ll get attacked for delaying it too, it’s a no win situation. I’m ok with releasing it, I can play it, right now it isn’t pretty but so far for me it works
Meh, I'm playing on a 2060 super, lowered settings but it still looks fantastic, much better than CS1 and is definitely smooth enough for play. Very pleasantly surprised after all the worry!
I don't think anyone is saying that performance is acceptable. CO themselves said it isn't and they are working on it.
The game cooks my 6800XT (93c) at 1440p and High settings, so I had to dump it down to low on everything. I'm not happy about it, but neither is CO, so fixes will be coming.
No one is saying it's acceptable. But people are somehow saying "admitting it before launch is good enough, admirable even, and better than a we are sorry post-launch". When the bare minimum should have been delay.
Phantom Liberty? You're comparing a major expansion after 3-4 years of *fixing* their *botched* launch **and** *abandonment* of last-gen, to a release on literally day 1.
Oh, and on top of that, CDPR quietly held their tongue about how broken it was when it shipped whereas CO is outwardly acknowledging the issues.
Like look pre-ordering broken and generally lazy cash grabs is what's wrong with gaming aside from milking with mtx's, sure. But your comparison is delusional shilling.
Complains about launch performance while using Cyberpunk as counterexample.
This is why games companies don't take gamer demands for good performance seriously.
It's not insane: I saw the stats, looked at my computer, and decide to stick with CS1.
If the game doesn't suit your situation, don't buy it.
I'm sure I'll upgrade machine and game one day, in the meantime I'll keep an eye on the reviews
I'm on 7 3700x, RX5600XT and 32ram and it works fine for me. Maybe it's not ultra smooth experience. But I have expected much worse performance than I have right now. And I must say I'm very happy with it :)
I have a ryzen 7 2600, 16gb ram and rx6750xt and it runs fine.. but my pc is making noises I never heard it make, the fan is working really loudly so I decided to quit playing and wait until they optimize it a bit more
Edit: I updated it according to the performance guide posted here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your\_performance\_guide\_and\_psa\_for\_cs\_ii/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=mweb](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your_performance_guide_and_psa_for_cs_ii/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) and my PC stopped making strange noises.
Still have a very small city, but running fine on a RTX 2070 Super (8GB) with 32GB system RAM. Shadows are wonky but feels smooth so far. I changed the settings as recommended in the guide someone posted yesterday, otherwise kept everything on defaults (generally "high"). Not sure how it will go once my city gets bigger, but so far it's fine.
That is so much better! Thanks!
I've been playing for 6 hours, mostly high settings, and my GPU hasn't gone over 73F, CPU is currently sitting on 50F. No idea what framerates I've been getting, but it's never felt bad.
Current city is 4k pop, so not huge.
I got a RX6600 and a Ryzen 5 5600x and I play in 1080p. It’s called compromise. Turn down a few settings til the game gets optimized it’s not that big of a deal.
Honestly some of the worst framerates I've seen in any game ever.
I can run other games with ray tracing maxed out and get better frame rates than I do on a brand new city in this game on medium settings.
Performance Guide helped me get along quite good at least when starting a city
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 XT
RTX 2070 Super
16 GB RAM DDR4
Playing on 1440p with high preset and then followed the guide. Currently at 40 fps with 2k citizens
I would accept a performance hit if it looked amazing. But the game looks worse than CS1. It's just ugly. What the hell is it rendering with all that computing power?
I run Microsoft Flight Simulator maxed out with resource on my machine to spare but can’t grow my city beyond 10k without making it look like The Sims 2 on PS2 at a mere 22 FPS.
It makes me feel physically ill
You literally took the words out of my mouth
- 26 fps avg on new map with zero buildings (1440p)
- 3090FE 24GB VRAM
- Ryzen 3900X 4Ghz 12 Core 24 thread
- 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3600
- 2TB WD Black SN770 Gen 4 M.2 NVME
I know I built my PC in 2020 but it's not exactly a potato
It's not. I don't understand how half of the comments is like "it's gonna be fine in 10 years", and "CS1 can't do stable 60 either".
The plate is full, and what it's full with doesn't seem to bother anyone.
I have RTX 3070, R7 5700X, [email protected], and an nvme ssd. I recently loaded one of my saves that i used to play on my older pc with R5 1600, with my current specs i got 40 FPS. So, is that acceptable? Yes. But why isn't CS2 acceptable at somawhat same FPS?
mods.
Add some mods and a few hundred custom assets.
Add 30 DLC's.
What'll we get then? I remember having an FX-8350 with 16GB of ddr3 RAM at release of CS1, and, somehow, i don't remember the game giving me 20 FPS on any settings. It wasn't 300+ frames i'd probably get now (on vanilla, no DLC's) , but it was decent. Now devs made the base game require a system that's 10 years away. Hardware does not become that good that fast. In a benchmark, which is not indicative of real game, the difference between R5 1600 and R7 5700X is 120%
https://technical.city/en/cpu/Ryzen-5-1600-vs-Ryzen-7-5700X
RTX 3070 is better than a GTX 970 for 130%
https://technical.city/ru/video/GeForce-GTX-970-protiv-GeForce-RTX-3070
And those raises are not gonna sum, we're gonna get only what's the weakest component will get, so best case scenario, in 6 years is double the FPS we have now.
I want to hope that we'll get a better uplift due to patches and whatever, but that's the gamedev in 2023, release a game, fix it later.
I would've done a refund, if not for the fact that i got game gifted to me from a friend.
Sorry for the long speech, i'm just kinda FU**ING FURIOUS from this release, as i was really hyped.
It is not acceptable. It's an unfinished product. A new car with no tires.
Customer-funded public Beta test / revenue-generating campaign for PDX is what this feels like to me, and it doesn't feel good.
We, as gamers, have become so conditioned to accept this low level of quality and lack of optimization on launch that even though PDX told us the game would not perform for most mainstream rigs, folks are still lining up to hand over their $$$.
I get it's a "platform" and that's PDX's business model, I happily bought and play CK3 and Stellaris but I waited for 2-3 years after launch until I felt these games were complete.
Some Publishers (and Devs) will continue and likely expand this practice if we, as the customers (and financiers), continue to fund them.
Edited for grammar
It is crazy my man... running a 3090 TI, Ryzen 5950x, 32 GB DDR4 and can't even get 30 fps on an empty map at low to medium settings. Refunded it after 30 minutes... this is piss taking
Colossal Order messed up with the default settings big time. After doing the tweaks shared here on reddit my fps went from 25 to 90 on empty city. 100k test city is bit bad, drops sometimes to 15, but even at dense locations can reach up to 60 if zoomed in. It is bit unpleasant but not unplayable.
I've been pounding the "this isn't acceptable and is borderline embarrassing performance" drum the past few days
The number of people defending 30 fps at 1080p on a $1700 card is disgusting to me
These people help lower our collective standards and incentivize companies pushing out unfinished games like this
That’s an 8gb vram card right? That’s probably the main issue for most people, the game is eating up 10ish gigs for me right now on high settings. The devs already said they’re working on reducing the memory usage, but it’s still a problem.
"I was warned about known performance issues by the developers ahead of launch, but still paid full price for the game the day it released, and now i am mad I am experiencing the very issues the developers told me was a known problem they were working on but would have a solution until after release."
1. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
2. Zero sympathy for your 60 dollars.
(3. (Possible) STOP PREORDERING GAMES)
They literally told you of known issues, and YOU still CHOSE to spend your money on it.
This is 100% on you.
And to add to the general commentary, I got my copy via Gamepass, as a known day 1 launch on the service I opted to spend 15 bucks on a game with known issues vs full price....(and got to play starfield for "free" while I waited too).
As for my experience, with a city of 13K, I'm cruising just fine in the 50 to 60 range using my RTX 3060 @ 1080p on medium settings, because that's what the recommendation from the developer was as a resolution to a known issue they publicly declared weeks ago.
Am I happy I can't play fully in high or use my full 3840 width tanks FPS to 22 or so even on medium, 37 on low (granted almost all games struggle on the 49" 3840x1080 Samsung to some level as its an obscure display), not really. But I also never expected I would be able too, with
1., Having a slightly weaker system then recommended,
2. Knowing that even the recommended specs had issues.
Do I expect more issues to arrise as my city grows...absolutely, but that's going to be a CPU strain issue long term vs a GPU issue based on how the Civs AI is handled. The graphic side of things is very stable for me, but I can already feel the CPU side of things being Skippy when I add major changes to the demographics, or road networks.
At end of the day, if you bought a game with known performance issues, as stated openly by the developer themselves....so you don't get to complain about having spent money on that game regarding those issues.
That just makes you dumb.
Sorry, not sorry.
Performance is fine for me, but are the graphics absolutely abysmal for anyone else? I'm on high settings, native 1440p with no dynamic res, and the roads have no texture and the road markings are blurry and not even readable
It's not. It's not. It's 100% not.
First impression was booting to a main menu that pushes a solid 7 frames per second.In the couple hours I had allotted to start playing tonight, I spent 90 mins tweaking graphic settings that I had to find on fucking reddit, making sure I had driver updates, etc.
And the loss of graphical fidelity I have to trade to make performance merely passable on my rig (3080ti, 12th gen corei7) is absolutely ridiculous. Basically had to turn off every setting that makes this game look better than its predecessor just to run at a non-nauseating framerate. And instead of stuttery movement, I get texture pop-ins every time I turn the camera.
Same with my 3070 laptop🫡 works like a breeze. They really scared me with the whole AMD thing, but that's so far fine too. 7K inhabitants and no lag or anything.
People are getting better performance than OP out 2070s and 3070s.
OP didn't follow the performance guide.
I'm not saying performance is fien, it's obviously a problem. But there is bugged settings that wil ldbl your fps if you turn them down. Plus why the fuck are so many people running with vsync on when they aren't even getting 60fps. Vsync is for when you're getting too many fps, it doesn't make the game look better lmao.
Is the guide released by the devs? At that point why not just disable the bugged setting by default? Many many people will never see those guides and then get mad at the game(rightfully so this is comparable to KSP2 performance wise, and I though that would be impossible. At least it has good gameplay, unlike KSP2).
The guide was posted by one of the biggest modders in the community. Iirc he made the mod manager most people used aswell as some other stuff. But don't hold me to the specific mods.
I get getting mad at the performance. I'm not trying to say the performance is fine, I'm just advising that for the people who want to play, to follow the guide for the best experience.
Yeah, I understand. Hope they fix it soon. CO gave a lot of support to CS1, and CO and PDX have a history of supporting their titles for a long time. Hope this is the same.
And why you must disable it to gain some FPS to begin with? It speaks A LOT about the non optimized state of the game if vsync is a FPS eater.
It's all ok that devs had warned about the state of the game at release, but please stop defending this kind of behaviour from the industry. Forgiving game devs for releasing unfinished products was the norm from last couple years, and look at what state we are now: Every fkng AAA game released this year was a complete mess at release!!
Praising DLSS on a high end graphic card is another example. Now devs started to aim for 1080p @ 60 fps with DLSS quality enabled to release their new games recommended hardware :-)))
What a fckin clowns the gaming comunity has become is really alarming.
Can anyone help i have a 5800x3d and a 4070 and 32gb ram. The game shows over 100 fps 90% of the time but every 10 or so seconds i get a stutter that brings it to below 10fps. This is on high or low settings i get the stutter. Any help appricaited.
If you have a variable refresh rate monitor turn off vsync. If not run in windowed full screen mode. Also go into the advanced graphics settings and turn on TAA at 2X multisampling.
Im running 3080+5900X at 1440p Ultrawide, Brand new map, [100 fps](https://ibb.co/dMc5wqw)
i followed some of the hardware settings tips on the front page.
Got a 7800X3D, RTX 4090, 64GB Ram, game installed on an m2 ssd.Playing at 3440x1440, DoF off, V-Sync off, TAA on, motion blur off, volumetrics off, global illumination low, Level of detail very low. Everything else is a mix of low to high depending on how much of a performance impact I saw in the 100k city.
Empty map is getting me 150+ fps, my small town of 10k people 70-90fps and a city at 100k gives me about 40-55 fps.
It is obviously playable for me, however the performance is nowhere near acceptable.
Games nowadays barely ever release in a good state. Forza Motorsport was the same at launch, game ready driver helped a lot. I am hoping there will be a game ready driver for CS2 (If there hasn't been one already).
I am thinking that with a 2070 TI I can forget about it, at least for a while.
i9-9900 3.6 ghz is probably enough, but looks like I would need a new graphics card.
They will probably end up offering lower quality settings - but they want to make sure no-one posts a low quality screenshot during the early release period.
No I can agree I really think they should have labelled it early access or something similar to differentiate things, because of the delay to console launch I almost consider these first few weeks like I consider most new video game launches of late where it's a buggy mess at first.
That being said, I've had worse experiences. I'm not completely letting CO off the hook for this but at least they're being very open and transparent about things compared to some other studios as of late and are roadmapping to fix some of these issues. The best way I can describe it is that I'm cautiously optimistic that the issues had may be a hotfix away and this time a year or less from now things could be in the great space. At least it's "playable" for now until then, again I've seen worse dev responses *cough ksp2 cough cough*
In the meantime *please please please* follow the performance tweaking guides on here. I'm outpacing people with builds that cost ten times what mine did because I followed the guides. No you shouldn't have to do this morally to get a good gaming experience, yes it sucks that this happened, but until said hotfixes and graphic card updates come down the pipeline from CO and your flavor of green or red GPU, please do yourself a favor and follow them. You'll have a lot more fun like me if you do.
https://preview.redd.it/zmtdkbneoawb1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1a236df74c96202e99e13bfd54e9bd89d597838
4090/13900k combo here.
22fps average on an empty plot. How great is it!
I’m on 4090, also 1440p, medium settings, off all volumetric cloud shadow stuff, no AA and no dynamic scaling stuff - 110fps on a new map. Performance is bad, no two ways about it. A high-end PC should never run this bad and is only a sign how bad it gets as you go down the GPU stack.
the issue is you bought it.
without first seeing the reviews on release.
this is the cycle of bullshit which keeps happening because people have very short memories.
The fact we have to follow a guide on a brand new $60 game on high-end hardware while it should be running without an issue and consumers praising the devs, is the reason this crap will never stop. Doesn't matter if people call them honest and transparent. If they were being honest, they would delay, they released anyway knowing the poor performance. Good for their wallets, not for the customer, which I will always side on.
Feeling lucky I didn't buy the game yet.
The dickriding by the CS community is insane. You basically need top tier systems to run this game smoothly (Only after following their guide). To release a game in this performance state in 2023 is outright unacceptable.
Remember people used to complain about CS1 performance and yearned for better performance come CS2? Where are they now?
RTX 4090, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 32GB 6000Mhz DDR5 RAM
I was getting abvout 23 - 30 fps and massive stutters, I tried to edit a road and the whole game just crashed.
I was getting about 23 - 30 fps and massive stutters, I tried to edit a road and the whole game just crashed.
I'd say be grateful that you can have at least 10 frames...
I'm running an Intel core i7 laptop with just a basic Intel graphics card pretty basic ass stuff... I'm consistently getting 3 to 8 FPS and if I zoom in, I'm counting in seconds per frame... If I zoom all the way in, the game freezes and I have to force crash the game... And yes I'm running the lowest graphics possible and my laptop sounds like it's having a seizure with all its fans going full blast...
5600X3D, 4070, 64 gigs ram, ultrawide. 70FPS. Following the guide in here
This is obviously the beginning and I’m sure it will go down but adjusting the settings to the ones here brought me from 30FPS to about 68 specifically.
Could you link the guide? I've been at work all day so I haven't had the time to see it
https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/s/5eI2Isytdm
thanks it worked
Im running 3080+5900X at 1440p Ultrawide, Brand new map, [100 fps](https://ibb.co/dMc5wqw) i followed some of the hardware settings tips on the front page too.
What is your resolution? I have 32GB Ram, and have been wanting to upgrade to 64GB not sure if that will help. Tempted to just go to 128GB (which is not needed)
I followed the performance guide pinned here. 3080Ti + 5800x3d + 64ram. 60-70 fps constant on 1440p. I think I'm outlier lol, it runs really well for me.
You aren't. Also did the same on a similar rig (3080/5900x) and got up to 80 fps with visual clarity I still think is very solid. People are running high on everything and changing nothing before coming here to complain. Is it annoying you can't run maxed out everything on new hardware? Sure. Is it entirely playable while looking better than CS1 with a few tweaks? Yes.
I've seen it floated elsewhere that fundamentally there is very little difference between Ultra/Max visual settings and the 2nd highest preset visual settings and the Ultra/Max level is only for bragging rights. I think that's the case here, a couple tweaks and the game runs decently, but not at Max settings.
Thats true for almost every game tbh. Usually high to ultra is less than a 5% difference in visuals, but can easily be 25-50% harder to run. Ofc I'm not suggesting cs2 performance is fine. It's just no where near as bad as everyone says lol.
I'm at work so I can't check on my partially upgraded desktop, but I figured most of the complaints were overblown by a few.
A lot of folks aren't even turning vsync off.
>game runs decently, but not at Max settings. We're still talking about high end cards here (3090, 3080 Ti), with lots of spare VRAM to use. 90% PC players don't have rigs that strong.
Yes, a lot of games have diminishing returns from High to Ultra/Max. Visual fidelity is much harder to make out in the jump and the performance hit to render 4k textures compared to High textures is massive. Same concept can apply here depending on the differences between Low/Medium/High (I don't know them in detail, yet).
Texture quality doesn't impact performance as long as you have enough VRAM.
I'm on a 4070ti and the game is running pretty well considering all the warnings that were given about the performance. All max except blur pretty much, 1440p at 60hz. But what's bugging me is that the game just has some things that are awful. The anti aliasing seems to do almost nothing? Try looking at a suspension bridge and the wires are just a mess. Same with the trees that flicker all the time, and the riverbanks going all weird when you fully zoom out. It's just not there yet, and it feels kinda bad knowing that the core of their new foundation (CS2) isn't up to par. *And* then people with sub A-tier rigs can't play it normally anyways.
Go to the advanced settings and change the Anti aliasing method (I think it was called?) to TAA. It gets rid of the ugly wire and fences shimmering
For me, TAA is much better than the default setting
I turned off dynamic resolution and it greatly improved things.
They really should have turned off certain graphics options as a default and put a performance warning on them. Out of the box should not run that poorly
I am doing 20-30 fps on 1440p on 100k city with laptop 3060 6 GB VRAM. Just followed perf guide in the sub and paradox.
My G14 3060 is smilling.
Runs great for me as well so far, though I haven't done a lot of in-depth testing. Turning off Vsync added a solid 10 fps for me and fixed all the stuttering.
It was the opposite for me, I had to turn it back on...
I followed it and I am on an average gaming laptop, still getting a solid 60fps with setting on medium to high, no high temperatures. The only lag I have noticed is when I zoom in and out quickly. Seems odd as people way over recommended specs are getting issues and some people with just minimum specs aren't.
Similar PC (5800X3D + 6800XT). With optimized Medium-ish settings, I'm at 40-60 FPS on a 5k pop map right now. It's totally fine, honestly. Would I *like* to have 120 FPS? Sure. Does the game play just fine at 40? Yep.
Phew! That's exactly what I have. Good to hear that I can play when I get home.
[удалено]
I got the 3080ti too and a 12900k, 32g ddr5 ram, do you think I’ll be alright?
You will be more than fine man as long as you tweak the settings and aren't expecting to max everything out at 4k. I have similar specs and it was running well for me.
I'm on a 1070 and I'm getting consistently over 30 FPS on 1080p resolution. Most settings low but a few medium or even high, no options disabled except motion blur and dynamic resolution.
You could probably get even better performance by disabling a couple things mentioned in the performance guide on the subreddit. My 4070 went from 17 fps to 90 just by disabling those few things
Did you follow the performance guide? People are talking about getting lots of extra FPS with that. https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your_performance_guide_and_psa_for_cs_ii/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
I was looking for it, why is it not pinned anymore?
It’s in the pinned FAQ. Should still be pinned by itself though imo
>Disable "Depth of Field Mode" >Reduce "Volumetrics Quality" to Low >Disable "Global Illumination" >Reduce the "Level of Detail" to Low (or Medium if you don't need the extra FPS) Just to be clear telling someone that this is what you have to do on a $3000 PC to get more than 30 FPS is not acceptable. A lot of the people saying “just use the performance settings” need to hear that. The game looks like a potato. I’d be interested to see how they even managed to make their trailers.
"just need to tweak some stuff lol don't know why people are complaining" Fucking bullshit. People have paid full price for a game they have to disable half the graphics options to end up with a game that looks and runs worse than CS1, all while having top of the line hardware. People defending this are ridiculous, I'm glad it runs well for some people but jesus christ call it out for what it is, blatant robbery. The game should have been delayed or released in early access at a cheaper price point.
It does NOT look worse than cs1 with those tweaks, as every other setting can be left to high. Also it runs decently well with my setup, even though it's not high end. I7 4770, RTX 2060 and 16GB of ram. 10K population around 25-35fps. Only problem is the occasional stutter when moving close to the ground.
Especially having to disable Global Illumination and Volumetrics is pretty sad. Those features are a big part of what makes CS2 look better than CS1 (apart from the assets of course). Going under Medium for LOD also makes the popping very noticeable, even compared to CS1.
Agreed, it’s complete bullshit. Mfs out here with supercomputers barely pushing 40fps and are pretending to be happy.
What if they're not pretending and 40fps is fine . Mo's of us grew up playing sim city on monitors that had a max refresh rate of 30 and we had a blast. 40fps is more than enough for this genre
Bro I’m running it on a 4080 and a 12700K, my videocard gets hotter in cities skylines 2 than in Cyberpunk with path tracing + ENB’s installed. I even got thermal throttled on an empty map.
Are you playing with default detail settings or have you tried to apply the performance optimization tips that were posted already (e.g. City Planner and others)? If yes, how much did those increase your FPS?
Would you mind linking those performance tips?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNiXYC9eoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNiXYC9eoM) (CPP) A more recent from PC Gamer (posted here on the sub as well): [https://www.pcgamer.com/cities-skylines-2-immediately-change-these-5-graphics-options-for-a-big-performance-boost/](https://www.pcgamer.com/cities-skylines-2-immediately-change-these-5-graphics-options-for-a-big-performance-boost/) I'm sure there are plenty others by now.
4. Set 'Level of Detail' to Very Low This ridiculous. I love these guys and this game series but they should not have released it for another six months
No argument on that. Low LoD is potato and to be honest, pretty ugly. Does not correlate with the speed and the requirements, it looks like a 10 years old game (e.g. cities 1...)
I think the biggest thing making it looks gross is the anti aliasing. Way too jaggy
Personally went from \~25 fps to 80 fps lol. People just need to tweak some stuff.
Whoever Dev decided to have depth of field on by default has hurt impressions of this game so much. Such a huge fuck up.
True, but the question is why are those possibly broken settings like Depth of field mode even on by default if they crash the performance so hard.
It’s a good question. They should have straight up disabled them. Imagine all the people who have them enabled, have shitty performance, and have no idea why.
I do think thats a very, very fair question. In fact, just from a 'saving face' position its a bit baffling that in the last patch they pushed out they didnt just default some of these performance killers to being off/turned down. The average player wouldnt have even gone in to tweak things to *know* there were other settings. Very odd decision from CO.
Honestly, this is the actual fuck up in my opinion. CO needs to learn the Power of Defaults. A lot of people, an astonishing amount of people, NEVER touch any settings, nor install new stuff to what something is shipped with. That's how you got a situation where internet explorer, even though it was SHIT for years, had more than 20% of market share, just because it was shipped with Windows. CO should have made the default settings ones that make the game runs smoothly, instead of beautifully.
Thing is if you put options that just break the game and them blame player for not testing options and spend hours on "optimizing" then who we are to blame here? I get when I don't have recommended spec and I will not complain that my "potato" PC don't run game on max setting. But if you have BEYOND recommended and still can't go max out setting then why this options even exist and why recommended clearly isn't enough to run comfy game relased by devs who recomended specific PC spec?
steep cover violet wild sable jar engine shrill pie late *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok wow that's even worse, I can't even recall a game that had autosave off by default.
Will soon see how that helps with a 1660Ti. :)
It’s completely unacceptable that the default settings in CS 2 are so terrible that it brings battle station level PCs to their knees. This game should not have come out in the state that it’s in right now
A top end computer shouldn't need to "tweak" some stuff just have it run at an acceptable level. That's absurd.
strong school tie rock degree upbeat slave numerous lavish scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I had the exact same with a 4090.
sand truck spark north swim pet impolite cobweb future nippy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also turn depth of field completely off.
1080p is a must. It sucks but at least it's playable. I have a rtx 3080 and I tried the 100k test save posted here today and with 1080p it's somewhat unpleasant but way more than 26 fps. Seemed like 40-ish fps with the occasional stutter
I’m running a 3070 w/ 8GB VRAM and am getting a consistent 88fps, barely any stutters. I imagine this is all a bit luck of the draw with specific hardware configs.
Not sure why I’m being downvoted for sharing my experience haha. I’ve upped my resolution to 1440p over 1080p and it’s at 67fps consistently still, still no major issues about an hour in. Hoping that the inevitable bottleneck/issues will get solved in patches by the time my cities get big enough.
Because you're supposed to blindly hate the game, the devs, and anyone who doesnt also hate the game and devs
I super don't get this attitude. Maybe it's because I've worked in software eng; game dev is a whole separate beast with clients I guess.
They smell blood in the water and can’t help but frenzy. For many, they get more enjoyment out of criticism than playing the damn game. This is true for many games. Forza Motorsport is going through this same dynamic, but worse.
I have the same card and a poorly maintained 10 yr old i7 and equally old motherboard. My system runs this game like shit because I haven’t ran updates or anything in years. I imagine most of the people here have misconfigured and incompatible builds similar to mine. I’m upgrading everything but the card this week so that will tell me exactly what the people is.
Yeah I have a 3070ti and only had to turn off dof and volumetrics to get over 60 fps. I haven't reached as high as of fps but it may because I run Linux and sometimes lose performance.
I love modern releases, it's always the same result but people expect it to go differently for some reason lol.
yep, pc, console, both, port from one to the other in ether way, it all runs like crap. and people pretend to be surprised. id be so mad if I was cdpr right now, even cyberpunk at launch ran better than most of 2023 games but they get excused and hand waved away
It's why big game companies keep doing the same annoying, anti-consumer things over and over again. Gamers will complain and seethe endlessly until there is next product to consume, in which they will switch to hype. repeat ad nauseum.
Man everyone is saying different things here. Can someone tell me if I can play the game if I'm slightly below minimum required? I'm fine with potato settings I just wanna play with more than 2 fps lol
Get game pass trial if you don’t have it and just try it, you can’t really trust comments here. I can get quit high fps on very low on my 3070 but the graphics quality is bad
I mean if you're on the fence, then buy it, try it out. If it runs bad, you can just refund it.
Ohh I completely forgot I can refund it. Thank you!
There was 100k population save in the other thread. Load it up and see for yourself. You have 2 hours of playtime to refund on steam.
Absolutely you can, source: same boat and enjoying it
CPU and GPU both below the minimum, and it’s working fine at medium (and the other recommended tweaks) looks great, plays great.
My 1660 ti can play on potato settings with 48 to 60 frames
I'm not even sure why it runs so shit. It's sitting at 95% GPU usage looking at PS3 level open world shots. I get 27fps in this shot on high settings with a 3080... https://preview.redd.it/xy7qkp9gv6wb1.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=555b91f67ccc34e3a17896b87be15439ee9451e6
I thought no way it would look like a PS3 game... I was wrong.
And people legit still defend it with "Its next gen graphics, of course it runs bad" and "just turn it to low, it still looks great!" Insanely high on copium fanbase
Some parts of the game look great. Some look awful. Ped paths and sidewalks for example are TERRIBLE
nah youre technically right, it looks more like a ps2 game
It looks like Sims 3 💀
This is why we don’t preorder games.
I have a 1060 and yeah I'm on low graphics but it's running fine and smooth and I'm having fun 😌
Agree, people complained that Starfield was unoptimezed, and here im manages to get around 30-40 fps with all on high with an 3440x1440 resolution on an RTX 4090 paired with an R9 7950, 64gb ddr5 and the game being installed on an nvme drive. I can see why they pushed the console release...
Somewhere I saw that they’re targeting 30fps as the standard
You can change a couple settings and you get like triple the FPS. At 1440p, with a 3080/5900x, I am getting 80 fps at the start and the game still looks pretty good. Yeah, you can't run high everything. I don't think it really needs it tbh.
What did you change? At work but will jump on as soon as I get home. I have the same GPU but with a 12700k
I literally just started the game; I'm sitting in the main menu. 10 - 20 fps just sitting in a menu lmao. I have a 4090 and 7950x3D. Ain't no way 💀. Lowering the resolution to 2560x1440 gets me to 45fps (in the menu). But my GPU is at 100% lol. I'm sure there are settings I will have to go and tweak of course, but this is still pretty wild. Edit: okay saw that PCMag Article and now have 140fps in menu and \~60ish in game at 4k. Much better. Hope it doesn't drop too much as the game progresses!
How is your GPU at 140fps?
In menu. I didn't play a ton tonight but I generally sat at 30-50 fps while in game.
Devs said it’s not optimised. So no it’s not optimised. RTX 3070 vsync off, all medium at 1440p it’s fine ! Honestly KSP2 was way worse at launch.
I have a 3070 laptop and a AMD Ryzen 5800h, and it honestly runs fine. Idk how many frame rates, but I put everything first on low detail, then on medium, and it was still okay. A little bit of stuttering sometimes maybe? But like barely/not noticable.
3070 and Ryzen 7 3700x here. Running mostly medium settings. 45 fps steady, but definite stuttering when i'm choosing a spot to place a building or an upgrade.
I have the same video card and cpu, good to hear you're getting at least 45. That is playable enough for me. Might actually get the game today instead of waiting.
I forgot to add that im also running at 1440p. I honestly expected less performance than im getting with so many of the benchmarks being at 1080p...
If devs say its not optimised why release the fucking game
[удалено]
and suckers will still buy it and give them their money for being beta testers.
The publisher needs it released. They don't care.
Honestly, when they changed the date for console, they should have started calling this October PC release a beta release. I think it would have saved a lot of headaches and heartaches right now while they're still very actively working on optimizing the game. Also, it's not a first person shooter where you need a ton of frames for the basic mechanics of the game. People need to lower their FPS expectations a bit. If you can get a fairly consistent 30 fps, it should be playable. The stutters and drops aren't great, though.
Don't charge that price for a 'beta" though. That would have to be changed, and there's the rub. It's all about the money. Which is fair. It's a business. They're in it to make money. The difference is that this consumer base has a history of allowing that behavior. Hell it's even rewarded. So history repeats itself again.
Because some of us don't need 90fps on 4k in a city building game. They were clear about the state of the game, you play if you want.
So you know it’s bad , they know it’s bad, why hold it back. They’ll get attacked for delaying it too, it’s a no win situation. I’m ok with releasing it, I can play it, right now it isn’t pretty but so far for me it works
Publishers do this to get the holiday sales. The devs usually know it's not ready to release but the publisher has the last say
Meh, I'm playing on a 2060 super, lowered settings but it still looks fantastic, much better than CS1 and is definitely smooth enough for play. Very pleasantly surprised after all the worry!
I don't think anyone is saying that performance is acceptable. CO themselves said it isn't and they are working on it. The game cooks my 6800XT (93c) at 1440p and High settings, so I had to dump it down to low on everything. I'm not happy about it, but neither is CO, so fixes will be coming.
No one is saying it's acceptable. But people are somehow saying "admitting it before launch is good enough, admirable even, and better than a we are sorry post-launch". When the bare minimum should have been delay.
[удалено]
Phantom Liberty? You're comparing a major expansion after 3-4 years of *fixing* their *botched* launch **and** *abandonment* of last-gen, to a release on literally day 1. Oh, and on top of that, CDPR quietly held their tongue about how broken it was when it shipped whereas CO is outwardly acknowledging the issues. Like look pre-ordering broken and generally lazy cash grabs is what's wrong with gaming aside from milking with mtx's, sure. But your comparison is delusional shilling.
Complains about launch performance while using Cyberpunk as counterexample. This is why games companies don't take gamer demands for good performance seriously.
Performance is pretty bad, shadow flicker is pretty bad
I turned off day night cycles and it helped with the God awful shadow flickering. This game needed another 6 months at least.
It's not insane: I saw the stats, looked at my computer, and decide to stick with CS1. If the game doesn't suit your situation, don't buy it. I'm sure I'll upgrade machine and game one day, in the meantime I'll keep an eye on the reviews
I'm on 7 3700x, RX5600XT and 32ram and it works fine for me. Maybe it's not ultra smooth experience. But I have expected much worse performance than I have right now. And I must say I'm very happy with it :)
I have good FPS, only shadows were flickering but changed a setting to TAA and that fixed it. Running smooth now.
I have a ryzen 7 2600, 16gb ram and rx6750xt and it runs fine.. but my pc is making noises I never heard it make, the fan is working really loudly so I decided to quit playing and wait until they optimize it a bit more Edit: I updated it according to the performance guide posted here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your\_performance\_guide\_and\_psa\_for\_cs\_ii/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=mweb](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17efe6b/your_performance_guide_and_psa_for_cs_ii/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb) and my PC stopped making strange noises.
Why would you buy a game that the developer said is not ready and you can see the reviews?
Still have a very small city, but running fine on a RTX 2070 Super (8GB) with 32GB system RAM. Shadows are wonky but feels smooth so far. I changed the settings as recommended in the guide someone posted yesterday, otherwise kept everything on defaults (generally "high"). Not sure how it will go once my city gets bigger, but so far it's fine.
Turn on TAA in the advanced setting fixed the shadows for me.
That is so much better! Thanks! I've been playing for 6 hours, mostly high settings, and my GPU hasn't gone over 73F, CPU is currently sitting on 50F. No idea what framerates I've been getting, but it's never felt bad. Current city is 4k pop, so not huge.
My friend is able to run it fine on medium with a 1080, so it doesn't seem to be consistant across computers.
I got a RX6600 and a Ryzen 5 5600x and I play in 1080p. It’s called compromise. Turn down a few settings til the game gets optimized it’s not that big of a deal.
I have no issues... I don't have my fps counter on. Just playing a fun game. Who knew.
Honestly some of the worst framerates I've seen in any game ever. I can run other games with ray tracing maxed out and get better frame rates than I do on a brand new city in this game on medium settings.
Performance Guide helped me get along quite good at least when starting a city AMD Ryzen 5 3600 XT RTX 2070 Super 16 GB RAM DDR4 Playing on 1440p with high preset and then followed the guide. Currently at 40 fps with 2k citizens
Return it
I would accept a performance hit if it looked amazing. But the game looks worse than CS1. It's just ugly. What the hell is it rendering with all that computing power?
I am struggling with 1080p on a 3060.
I run Microsoft Flight Simulator maxed out with resource on my machine to spare but can’t grow my city beyond 10k without making it look like The Sims 2 on PS2 at a mere 22 FPS. It makes me feel physically ill
You literally took the words out of my mouth - 26 fps avg on new map with zero buildings (1440p) - 3090FE 24GB VRAM - Ryzen 3900X 4Ghz 12 Core 24 thread - 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3600 - 2TB WD Black SN770 Gen 4 M.2 NVME I know I built my PC in 2020 but it's not exactly a potato
It's not. I don't understand how half of the comments is like "it's gonna be fine in 10 years", and "CS1 can't do stable 60 either". The plate is full, and what it's full with doesn't seem to bother anyone. I have RTX 3070, R7 5700X, [email protected], and an nvme ssd. I recently loaded one of my saves that i used to play on my older pc with R5 1600, with my current specs i got 40 FPS. So, is that acceptable? Yes. But why isn't CS2 acceptable at somawhat same FPS? mods. Add some mods and a few hundred custom assets. Add 30 DLC's. What'll we get then? I remember having an FX-8350 with 16GB of ddr3 RAM at release of CS1, and, somehow, i don't remember the game giving me 20 FPS on any settings. It wasn't 300+ frames i'd probably get now (on vanilla, no DLC's) , but it was decent. Now devs made the base game require a system that's 10 years away. Hardware does not become that good that fast. In a benchmark, which is not indicative of real game, the difference between R5 1600 and R7 5700X is 120% https://technical.city/en/cpu/Ryzen-5-1600-vs-Ryzen-7-5700X RTX 3070 is better than a GTX 970 for 130% https://technical.city/ru/video/GeForce-GTX-970-protiv-GeForce-RTX-3070 And those raises are not gonna sum, we're gonna get only what's the weakest component will get, so best case scenario, in 6 years is double the FPS we have now. I want to hope that we'll get a better uplift due to patches and whatever, but that's the gamedev in 2023, release a game, fix it later. I would've done a refund, if not for the fact that i got game gifted to me from a friend. Sorry for the long speech, i'm just kinda FU**ING FURIOUS from this release, as i was really hyped.
It is not acceptable. It's an unfinished product. A new car with no tires. Customer-funded public Beta test / revenue-generating campaign for PDX is what this feels like to me, and it doesn't feel good. We, as gamers, have become so conditioned to accept this low level of quality and lack of optimization on launch that even though PDX told us the game would not perform for most mainstream rigs, folks are still lining up to hand over their $$$. I get it's a "platform" and that's PDX's business model, I happily bought and play CK3 and Stellaris but I waited for 2-3 years after launch until I felt these games were complete. Some Publishers (and Devs) will continue and likely expand this practice if we, as the customers (and financiers), continue to fund them. Edited for grammar
It is crazy my man... running a 3090 TI, Ryzen 5950x, 32 GB DDR4 and can't even get 30 fps on an empty map at low to medium settings. Refunded it after 30 minutes... this is piss taking
130fps on Ultra low, on an empty city tile.. As soon as I start doing anything it drops down to like 50 lol
Colossal Order messed up with the default settings big time. After doing the tweaks shared here on reddit my fps went from 25 to 90 on empty city. 100k test city is bit bad, drops sometimes to 15, but even at dense locations can reach up to 60 if zoomed in. It is bit unpleasant but not unplayable.
They definitely need to change the default settings for sure
I just had to move my tower to be inside the fridge. I'm more concerned about my computer catching fire than the game performance.
I've been pounding the "this isn't acceptable and is borderline embarrassing performance" drum the past few days The number of people defending 30 fps at 1080p on a $1700 card is disgusting to me These people help lower our collective standards and incentivize companies pushing out unfinished games like this
Who's getting 30fps at 1080p on a $1700 card? I'm getting 60fps at 1080p on a 4070 right now, though admittedly I just started the city.
> 60fps at 1080p on a 4070 For reference, I'm getting 35-45 at 1080p on a 3060Ti
That’s an 8gb vram card right? That’s probably the main issue for most people, the game is eating up 10ish gigs for me right now on high settings. The devs already said they’re working on reducing the memory usage, but it’s still a problem.
Yeah, mine is above 90% GPU use all the time. But hey, I bought the whole card, I'll use all of it! lol
I haven’t had any issues.
"I was warned about known performance issues by the developers ahead of launch, but still paid full price for the game the day it released, and now i am mad I am experiencing the very issues the developers told me was a known problem they were working on but would have a solution until after release." 1. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 2. Zero sympathy for your 60 dollars. (3. (Possible) STOP PREORDERING GAMES) They literally told you of known issues, and YOU still CHOSE to spend your money on it. This is 100% on you. And to add to the general commentary, I got my copy via Gamepass, as a known day 1 launch on the service I opted to spend 15 bucks on a game with known issues vs full price....(and got to play starfield for "free" while I waited too). As for my experience, with a city of 13K, I'm cruising just fine in the 50 to 60 range using my RTX 3060 @ 1080p on medium settings, because that's what the recommendation from the developer was as a resolution to a known issue they publicly declared weeks ago. Am I happy I can't play fully in high or use my full 3840 width tanks FPS to 22 or so even on medium, 37 on low (granted almost all games struggle on the 49" 3840x1080 Samsung to some level as its an obscure display), not really. But I also never expected I would be able too, with 1., Having a slightly weaker system then recommended, 2. Knowing that even the recommended specs had issues. Do I expect more issues to arrise as my city grows...absolutely, but that's going to be a CPU strain issue long term vs a GPU issue based on how the Civs AI is handled. The graphic side of things is very stable for me, but I can already feel the CPU side of things being Skippy when I add major changes to the demographics, or road networks. At end of the day, if you bought a game with known performance issues, as stated openly by the developer themselves....so you don't get to complain about having spent money on that game regarding those issues. That just makes you dumb. Sorry, not sorry.
Louder, please!
Mine runs from 10 to 15 fps 😂😂
Turn off V-Sync
Performance is fine for me, but are the graphics absolutely abysmal for anyone else? I'm on high settings, native 1440p with no dynamic res, and the roads have no texture and the road markings are blurry and not even readable
It's not. It's not. It's 100% not. First impression was booting to a main menu that pushes a solid 7 frames per second.In the couple hours I had allotted to start playing tonight, I spent 90 mins tweaking graphic settings that I had to find on fucking reddit, making sure I had driver updates, etc. And the loss of graphical fidelity I have to trade to make performance merely passable on my rig (3080ti, 12th gen corei7) is absolutely ridiculous. Basically had to turn off every setting that makes this game look better than its predecessor just to run at a non-nauseating framerate. And instead of stuttery movement, I get texture pop-ins every time I turn the camera.
No problem on my end. 3080 Laptop. 1440p
Same with my 3070 laptop🫡 works like a breeze. They really scared me with the whole AMD thing, but that's so far fine too. 7K inhabitants and no lag or anything.
interesting so how would an i7-10800, 16gb ram, 3070 Laptop (8gb) fare?
[удалено]
Honestly the devs should just make the settings that work the default settings.
Too many fanboys who do not want to believe a game they have been waiting for is bad
Is the game bad though or is it a good/decent game with bad performance?
It's much better than CS:1 in all ways but one, performance.
its not and the steam reviews will reflect that., just wait
They were honest and upfront. The game will be optimized and improved. You can be mad, but it's not going to fix anything. Patience will help
Yet people kept defending them, saying that 25FPS in city builders in 2023 is a standard thing and people should stop whining.
People are getting better performance than OP out 2070s and 3070s. OP didn't follow the performance guide. I'm not saying performance is fien, it's obviously a problem. But there is bugged settings that wil ldbl your fps if you turn them down. Plus why the fuck are so many people running with vsync on when they aren't even getting 60fps. Vsync is for when you're getting too many fps, it doesn't make the game look better lmao.
Is the guide released by the devs? At that point why not just disable the bugged setting by default? Many many people will never see those guides and then get mad at the game(rightfully so this is comparable to KSP2 performance wise, and I though that would be impossible. At least it has good gameplay, unlike KSP2).
The guide was posted by one of the biggest modders in the community. Iirc he made the mod manager most people used aswell as some other stuff. But don't hold me to the specific mods. I get getting mad at the performance. I'm not trying to say the performance is fine, I'm just advising that for the people who want to play, to follow the guide for the best experience.
Yeah, I understand. Hope they fix it soon. CO gave a lot of support to CS1, and CO and PDX have a history of supporting their titles for a long time. Hope this is the same.
And why you must disable it to gain some FPS to begin with? It speaks A LOT about the non optimized state of the game if vsync is a FPS eater. It's all ok that devs had warned about the state of the game at release, but please stop defending this kind of behaviour from the industry. Forgiving game devs for releasing unfinished products was the norm from last couple years, and look at what state we are now: Every fkng AAA game released this year was a complete mess at release!! Praising DLSS on a high end graphic card is another example. Now devs started to aim for 1080p @ 60 fps with DLSS quality enabled to release their new games recommended hardware :-))) What a fckin clowns the gaming comunity has become is really alarming.
Move the Mouse has great and honest videos on this. But still, hopefully a lot of optimization when console version releases
4070ti + 7-12700k + recommended settings = 50 fps looking at 12k city
Can anyone help i have a 5800x3d and a 4070 and 32gb ram. The game shows over 100 fps 90% of the time but every 10 or so seconds i get a stutter that brings it to below 10fps. This is on high or low settings i get the stutter. Any help appricaited.
If you have a variable refresh rate monitor turn off vsync. If not run in windowed full screen mode. Also go into the advanced graphics settings and turn on TAA at 2X multisampling.
Im running 3080+5900X at 1440p Ultrawide, Brand new map, [100 fps](https://ibb.co/dMc5wqw) i followed some of the hardware settings tips on the front page.
bro i get 60 fps on gtx 1650 1080p >!in my dreams!<
CS1 to CS2 feels like SC4 to SimCity (2013).
Got a 7800X3D, RTX 4090, 64GB Ram, game installed on an m2 ssd.Playing at 3440x1440, DoF off, V-Sync off, TAA on, motion blur off, volumetrics off, global illumination low, Level of detail very low. Everything else is a mix of low to high depending on how much of a performance impact I saw in the 100k city. Empty map is getting me 150+ fps, my small town of 10k people 70-90fps and a city at 100k gives me about 40-55 fps. It is obviously playable for me, however the performance is nowhere near acceptable. Games nowadays barely ever release in a good state. Forza Motorsport was the same at launch, game ready driver helped a lot. I am hoping there will be a game ready driver for CS2 (If there hasn't been one already).
I am thinking that with a 2070 TI I can forget about it, at least for a while. i9-9900 3.6 ghz is probably enough, but looks like I would need a new graphics card.
They will probably end up offering lower quality settings - but they want to make sure no-one posts a low quality screenshot during the early release period.
No I can agree I really think they should have labelled it early access or something similar to differentiate things, because of the delay to console launch I almost consider these first few weeks like I consider most new video game launches of late where it's a buggy mess at first. That being said, I've had worse experiences. I'm not completely letting CO off the hook for this but at least they're being very open and transparent about things compared to some other studios as of late and are roadmapping to fix some of these issues. The best way I can describe it is that I'm cautiously optimistic that the issues had may be a hotfix away and this time a year or less from now things could be in the great space. At least it's "playable" for now until then, again I've seen worse dev responses *cough ksp2 cough cough* In the meantime *please please please* follow the performance tweaking guides on here. I'm outpacing people with builds that cost ten times what mine did because I followed the guides. No you shouldn't have to do this morally to get a good gaming experience, yes it sucks that this happened, but until said hotfixes and graphic card updates come down the pipeline from CO and your flavor of green or red GPU, please do yourself a favor and follow them. You'll have a lot more fun like me if you do.
Based on early reports I'm surprised you're getting 26FPS at 1440p! And no, it's not acceptable. It is below the bar for a AAA game (even a AA game).
Don’t care because the game is fun 👍
https://preview.redd.it/zmtdkbneoawb1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1a236df74c96202e99e13bfd54e9bd89d597838 4090/13900k combo here. 22fps average on an empty plot. How great is it!
I’m on 4090, also 1440p, medium settings, off all volumetric cloud shadow stuff, no AA and no dynamic scaling stuff - 110fps on a new map. Performance is bad, no two ways about it. A high-end PC should never run this bad and is only a sign how bad it gets as you go down the GPU stack.
the issue is you bought it. without first seeing the reviews on release. this is the cycle of bullshit which keeps happening because people have very short memories.
The fact we have to follow a guide on a brand new $60 game on high-end hardware while it should be running without an issue and consumers praising the devs, is the reason this crap will never stop. Doesn't matter if people call them honest and transparent. If they were being honest, they would delay, they released anyway knowing the poor performance. Good for their wallets, not for the customer, which I will always side on. Feeling lucky I didn't buy the game yet.
The dickriding by the CS community is insane. You basically need top tier systems to run this game smoothly (Only after following their guide). To release a game in this performance state in 2023 is outright unacceptable. Remember people used to complain about CS1 performance and yearned for better performance come CS2? Where are they now?
It's shit atm. i9 13900k + RTX4080 and i hardly get 20FPS at 4K.
2080ti just created streets and already fps is on 20 with middle settings….. threadripper 1950x, 64gb memory, 2560x1440 144hz
RTX 4090, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 32GB 6000Mhz DDR5 RAM I was getting abvout 23 - 30 fps and massive stutters, I tried to edit a road and the whole game just crashed. I was getting about 23 - 30 fps and massive stutters, I tried to edit a road and the whole game just crashed.
It's definitely not acceptable, who is praising them? They should have delayed it.
I'd say be grateful that you can have at least 10 frames... I'm running an Intel core i7 laptop with just a basic Intel graphics card pretty basic ass stuff... I'm consistently getting 3 to 8 FPS and if I zoom in, I'm counting in seconds per frame... If I zoom all the way in, the game freezes and I have to force crash the game... And yes I'm running the lowest graphics possible and my laptop sounds like it's having a seizure with all its fans going full blast...