Is Star Citizen 3.0 Server Capped

[Gallitin]

Great watch and explains/answers a lot of questions.

Is Star Citizen 3.0 Server Capped - "Why I get playable frames... and others don't" - #nobullshit

 

[Rain2reign]

That was quite interesting and to the point. I like it and finally someone says what i was thinking(, since i am too lazy to say it myself). lol

[Gallitin]

4 minutes ago, rain2reign said:

That was quite interesting and to the point. I like it and finally someone says what i was thinking(, since i am too lazy to say it myself). lol

Agreed, I normally don't like watching videos too long as I lose interest.  This one was the perfect length without a bunch of rambling.

[Porcupine]

Unfortunately that was a rather pointless video. The question is not so much whether sufficiently poor hardware will affect frame rates (it unquestionably will at some point) but rather why different people with reasonably decent hardware that seems nominally very much comparable can consistently experience anything from "40-60 FPS" for some all the way to "never more than 10" or worse for others. We're not talking about "there can be a few frames lost depending on your SSD's speed" nor "don't use an HDD", we're talking about differences of almost an order of magnitude (not to insist on the matter but with a quad core CPU, an SSD, 16GB of RAM and a Radeon FX480 I get about 6-7FPS on average - in what universe does that make sense?). People wouldn't be baffled by higher-end stuff working better - they are baffled because hardware doesn't seem to change much even when upgraded! The actual question is why does HE get "40-60" while many, many others (not particularly me) with similar hardware seem to get far, far less? What exactly is so "bingo" about his rig - or maybe his rig isn't the cause at all?

At the very least, a meaningful test would have been taking his rig and moving it to someone else nearby known to never catch a break, and seeing whether it still does "40-60" plugged into that bloke's wire. And finally, I can't confirm his blaming of disk drives - yes, while my RAM was full the resulting paging to an HDD utterly crippled the game down to a literal 0.1FPS; but with more RAM (and a new SSD) disk access dies down quickly after the initial load and stays at fairly low levels - yet FPS sucks (unless the Gods smile, and I can miraculously suddenly play over 20FPS! Only happened twice on fresh logins; only lasted mere minutes...). It's actually stupidly obvious - if a PC is proven to be capable of rendering things with ease in offline mode, and if you stay still so nothing around you needs to change or load: why doesn't the FPS spike up at least then...? The only things remaining that can limit FPS in such a static situation are outside your PC's case. Which means exactly nothing has been explained beyond "playing on a Pentium I is inadvisable"...

[Gallitin]

I thought it was helpful.  I wasn't aware it was that disk I/O intensive. 

Just looking at that point it was clear to me that a traditional SATA drive is not an option.  While a SSD or Octane type of drive won't solve all your problems it's at least one thing to check off the list of bottlenecks.

[Juntau]

The video was straight to the point if you get past some of the methodology most already knew were going to have little impact. The fact that SSD i/o speeds have such a great impact was a bit surprising. Although I already have an M.2 so I didn't notice some of the issues that other may have, especially those still running a spinning disk HDD.