Starfield

[FearTheCow]

Got the free Star Eagle ship last night, huge upgrade from the beginner ship and is class A.

 

[AceGoober]

So I downloaded the game it shows 0 Bytes in the folder so where is the game stored?

0 bytes?

Steam should show Starfield in your game list.

 

[Mchart]

0 bytes?

Steam should show Starfield in your game list.

Unless he’s doing it from Microsoft/Xbox app. It’ll show 0 due to how it permissions the files.

 

[Ranulfo]

So... I recently finished THE EXPANSE on Prime and now crave a good space game. I've been watching STARFIELD for some time and due to its space flight portion not being fleshed out the way I'd like it to be I'm going to pass on it and get ELITE: Dangerous & Odyssey instead. I gave Star Citizen a try but it has issues so uninstalled it quickly.

Get Elite Dangerous first and the expansion later if you like the game. Maybe they've fixed the expansion but it was a mess on release. I uninstalled it not long after and just had the base game installed. I think they had some update awhile back that people were complaining about too. Old version vs new. I know it got me to uninstall ED completely for some reason, can't remember exactly though.

 

[crazycrave]

I run 4 sticks of https://www.newegg.com/mushkin-enhanced-16gb/p/N82E16820226994?Item=N82E16820226994 on my AM4 MSI B550 Mortar with the 5600x / Peerless Assassin 120 SE = DDR 4 3600Mhz Cl 14-19-19-39-83-1 https://valid.x86.fr/es5t2y

I have no idea what this memory is capable of being pushed passed 3600Mhz, not saying it's best setup for this game.

AMD & Intel Compatible / AMD 300 Series / AMD 400 Series / AMD 500 Series / AMD B450 / AMD B550 / AMD Ryzen Compatible / AMD Threadripper Compatible / High Performance or Gaming Memory

 

[Skott]

Been watching YT videos. It seems everyone is raving that Bethesda has another hit on their hands. The game def has problems of course because well its Bethesda lol. Mods are dropping now to fix various things. I got a 4 day weekend next weekend so I'll probably pick it up next friday. In the meantime I'll just keep watching and waiting. Something to look forward to. Thanks for all the info you guys are putting out. Kudos!

 

[ThatITGuy]

Refund it. Revisit it later.

I would recommend sitting on the fence *at least* until day one or past it if you have any doubts. Wait for news on updates, etc. Only reason I preordered was because I had a deal and some left over credit from another refund. I'll enjoy it for what it is but take everything under advisement.

I also got a nice deal and had credit I could use on this or else I would not have pre-ordered. That said, I have enjoyed the game so far. Only annoyance I have so far is the same with the Fallouts, lots of stuff to pick up in the world and i never know if it might be needed sometime, or if it is junk. So i end up always encumbered. It is a bit like No Man's Sky with more "realistic' graphics and an actual story, but without all of the house-building and other side activities NMS has now.

Get Elite Dangerous first and the expansion later if you like the game. Maybe they've fixed the expansion but it was a mess on release. I uninstalled it not long after and just had the base game installed. I think they had some update awhile back that people were complaining about too. Old version vs new. I know it got me to uninstall ED completely for some reason, can't remember exactly though.

Do not get the expansion if you want to do VR, it makes it a pain to boot into VR. I would also say Odyssey is a far worse experience than Starfield from the "ground" only perspective. If what you want to do is fly ships and dogfight, its hard to beat E, but you don't need Odyssey for that.
As for the update, they did update the Framework for the base E game (technically Horizons), which required a complete reinstall of E since it now using the same codebase as Odyssey. It should not have affected existing Odyssey players, it only would have uninstalled the "legacy" client. Non-Odyssey can choose between Legacy and Live.

 

[jobert]

I can't believe hardly anyone complains about performance in this game even though it runs pretty bad on anything other than top end specs. FFS a 4070 ti cant even average 60 fps at 1080p ultra. And a cpu ike the 5600x also cant even hold 60 fps. That is flat out ridiculous for the visuals and in fact in many areas the game can look like pure crap.

 

[NightReaver]

I cant believe hardly anyone complains about performance in this game even though it runs pretty bad on anything other than top end specs. FFS a 4070 ti cant even average 60 fps at 1080p ultra. And a cpu ike the 5600x also cant even hold 60 fps. That is flat out ridiculous as this game is super good looking and in fact in many areas can look like pure crap.

Oh I see plenty of performance complaints and buggy screenshots. Just not here.

*Edit* And tbf when people say "It runs good (for what it is), that's a bit of an admission. It's probably they're just having enough fun to offset it.

 

[ThatITGuy]

5900X + 3080Ti running at 1440/144hz with no noticeable issues with frame rate yet, even in the first city.

 

[jobert]

Oh I see plenty of performance complaints and buggy screenshots. Just not here.

I am on other forums and see very few complaints considering the amount of people posting.

 

[Furious_Styles]

I cant believe hardly anyone complains about performance in this game even though it runs pretty bad on anything other than top end specs. FFS a 4070 ti cant even average 60 fps at 1080p ultra. And a cpu ike the 5600x also cant even hold 60 fps. That is flat out ridiculous for the visuals and in fact in many areas the game can look like pure crap.

After all the games released this year that shouldn't surprise you in the slightest. JS was a UE4 game and the performance was poor.

 

[learners permit]

I am on other forums and see very few complaints considering the amount of people posting.

See post 1440 of this thread for a dlss frame gen mod by pure dark.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

IDK what does that mean. How is it a 2010 game? You have probably a thousand planets, where you can build outposts and have ongoing missions. Who cares that CPU usage is 70% during a dialogue? This seems like a non-issue to me. Optimization doesn't mean make everything as optimized as humanly possible, or the game would never get a release. The question is it optimized enough for mainstream consumption. I have a 4 year old mid range CPU and I did not see any CPU lag, so I'd say yes. As a gamer I don't care how high CPU usage is as long as it is not 100%. Let this be a problem for streamers who need the extra processing power for the stream itself.

So I have been thinking more about this.

The vastness of the game is great. I haven't personally even started to scratch the surface of that, but it does not explain or justify the rather poor ap0pearance of the world, characters and subpar immersiveness in places like the city. I was absolutely wowed by how "alive" and real Night City felt in Cyberpunk when I played through it. That feeling is completely absent here. It doesn't necessarily feel like 2010, but it does feel rather dated.

2010 is a little harsh, as while there were good looking games then (Metro 2033 maybe?) they were mostly tunnel shooters, and as we all know open world games do take more GPU/CPU power for the same lev3l of performance. I'd argue that even Fallout 4 was better looking than this game though.

That's not to say graphics are the most important part of a game. They certainly aren't, and the gameplay of this game may wind up making up for the low level raphics, but it does not explain the crazy high performance requirements of the game. Just because the are more planets out there in space than any game that came before it doesn't mean that it should be harder to render what is on screen right now. You expect older looking graphics to run lighter and work on older systems. Here we have an inexpicable combination of something that looks dated, while at the same time is harsher on the system than any game that has come before it.

THAT is the real head scratcher. Sure, we can blame it on "Bethesda jank", shitty optimization etc, but can I remind you all of how it loads up 24 cores on my Threadripper?


SMT On:

SMT Off:

There was some talk about amazing AI in the game that was loading the CPU's. I have seen no evidence of this yet in game. Nothing in NPC behavior stands out compared to past games with NPC's that used a fraction of the CPU power.

I can't shake the feeling that this is some background monetization scheme, where Bethesda is using everyone who plays this game's PC as some sort of mining or distributed computing platform. Or maybe every running game is used as a distributed computing platform to procedurally generate more space, and submits it back to Bethesda for the next update?

Because absolutely nothing involved in displaying what goes on screen explains this completely ridiculous CPU load.

Also, add to the fact that the load seems to scale with core count, without impacting performance. If this load were actually necessary for the game to run, you would expect a low core count CPU to choke on it, but they run the game just fine, despite the fact that it loads up 24 cores on mine. I've seen people run it on 6C/12T CPU's loading up all threads to 100% and yet, in the next breath run it on a 4C8T CPU and it still actually runs instead of choking.


This seems to suggest that all of this CPU load is somehow not required in order to run the game, and is doing something else instead. Either that or the engine has some really serious bug.

I don't have the means or expertise to dig into it further than this, but I definitely think it is very suspicious. Something is not right with this CPU load. I just don't know exactly what it is, which fuels speculation. I certainly hope it is not Bethesda helping themselves to our CPU cycles (and thus our electric bills) to do things that are not to the benefit of running the game on our machines, because if it is Bethesda needs to burn.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I am on other forums and see very few complaints considering the amount of people posting.

What forums? (honest question, I want to read more in general)

 

[schoolslave]

What forums? (honest question, I want to read more in general)

rpgcodex for the best 4chan-esque commentary.

 

[GoldenTiger]

rpgcodex for the best 4chan-esque commentary.

Thank you!

 

[LigTasm]

I don't have the means or expertise to dig into it further than this, but I definitely think it is very suspicious. Something is not right with this CPU load. I just don't know exactly what it is, which fuels speculation. I certainly hope it is not Bethesda helping themselves to our CPU cycles (and thus our electric bills) to do things that are not to the benefit of running the game on our machines, because if it is Bethesda needs to burn.

I think its just your machine man, I'm not seeing anything like that and I've run it on two different rigs. I might even break out the AM4 crap and give the 5700X a go. This is standing in the middle of the first city, whatever it was called Atlantis or something.

 

[Hershy]

Night City is fake. The whole thing just feels like a placeholder for a game that was promised and never delivered.

I spent well in excess of a hundred hours playing Cyberpunk 2077 - but if I’m being honest I was just fascinated by the tech. (I can’t wait for the expansion - hopefully that will be the real game… though maybe I’m just being gullible)

I can’t say yet if Starfield’s open world feels dead to me - but Fallout 4’s and Skyrim’s did not.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I think its just your machine man, I'm not seeing anything like that and I've run it on two different rigs. I might even break out the AM4 crap and give the 5700X a go. This is standing in the middle of the first city, whatever it was called Atlantis or something.

View attachment 595852

It's definitely not just my machine, as I have seen "all cores pinned" types of loads in a large number of youtube videos regarding Starfield CPU load, but - based on your screen shot - it appears as if it is "not all machines", and I am curious why that is.

IPC and clock speeds have gone up by a few percent gen over gen in the last two gens, but nowhere near enough to explain that.

 

[schoolslave]

It's definitely not just my machine, as I have seen "all cores pinned" types of loads in a large number of youtube videos regarding Starfield CPU load, but - based on your screen shot - it appears as if it is "not all machines", and I am curious why that is.

IPC and clock speeds have gone up by a few percent gen over gen in the last two gens, but nowhere near enough to explain that.

Probably depends on the in-game situation. Not just location/NPC density but possibly also what timed triggers etc are firing concurrently. Maybe sharing and loading a common savefile might show more consistent results across multiple machines?

It's also not entirely unreasonable to assume Bethesda has some old spinlock or similar code buried deep inside their game engine.
("spinlock" meaning game engine "idle" threads are spinning on a variable waiting to go kind of situation - which would show up as close to 100% load).

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Probably depends on the in-game situation. Not just location/NPC density but possibly also what timed triggers etc are firing concurrently. Maybe sharing and loading a common savefile might show more consistent results across multiple machines?

It's also not entirely unreasonable to assume Bethesda has some old spinlock or similar code buried deep inside their game engine.
("spinlock" meaning game engine "idle" threads are spinning on a variable waiting to go kind of situation - which would show up as close to 100% load).

Interesting theory, and you might be on to something, but I haven't seen this type of "spinlock" behavior in any game in a LONG time. Like we are talking back to the original Deus Ex during the single core era.

Maybe they inadvertently re-introduced some zombie code from game engine history during development?

With how much jank their outdated engine has collected over the decades, its not an impossible theory.

They really ought to do a "from scratch" development of a new engine, or just start using someone elses engine like everyone else does.

 

[Q-BZ]

Since it keeps getting mentioned: Elite Dangerous has always intrigued me but I'm intimidated by how hard it apparently is.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Lol. I just realized I haven't upddated Nvidia drivers in a while. I am still on 531.29.

Not sure if Nvidia has released GameReady drivers for Starfield yet (it is after all only in pre-release for a few more days) but I should probably look into that.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Since it keeps getting mentioned: Elite Dangerous has always intrigued me but I'm intimidated by how hard it apparently is.

If you have ED you are not hard

(Sorry, I just had to...)

 

[pendragon1]

Lol. I just realized I haven't upddated Nvidia drivers in a while. I am still on 531.29.

Not sure if Nvidia has released GameReady drivers for Starfield yet (it is after all only in pre-release for a few more days) but I should probably look into that.

 

[Ranulfo]

Lol. I just realized I haven't upddated Nvidia drivers in a while. I am still on 531.29.

Not sure if Nvidia has released GameReady drivers for Starfield yet (it is after all only in pre-release for a few more days) but I should probably look into that.

537.13 is the new Starfield game ready driver. Though the game seems to be fine for me on 536.99.

 

[Ranulfo]

rpgcodex for the best 4chan-esque commentary.

I'd forgotten about that site. Didn't know they had a forum. Good stuff.

It led me to this...screenshot.

 

[M76]

I'd argue that even Fallout 4 was better looking than this game though.

I was absolutely wowed by how "alive" and real Night City felt in Cyberpunk when I played through it. That feeling is completely absent here. It doesn't necessarily feel like 2010, but it does feel rather dated.

Cyberpunk is pretty but Starfield has so much more content and shit to do that it is not even funny.

And still the question remains. Why does it matter how many cores it utilizes? I don't get it.

Because absolutely nothing involved in displaying what goes on screen explains this completely ridiculous CPU load.

I don't know why do you think that in such a complex game the only thing that uses cpu time is what's momentarily on screen.

 

[M76]

Oh I see plenty of performance complaints and buggy screenshots. Just not here.

*Edit* And tbf when people say "It runs good (for what it is), that's a bit of an admission. It's probably they're just having enough fun to offset it.

What it is is the most complex open world game I've seen so far. It is not an admission, it is reminder to those who want to compare graphics and performance to empty sandboxes or corridor shooters.

I've seen a few glitches now, like objects offset in height from their supposed location. So it's certainly not bug free. The funniest one was when during takeoff a maintenance worker was in my cargo hold for some reason. He went flying, then dropped hard.

The thing I'm enjoying most in the game right now is the dogfighting, I picked up a mission that led to another that led to another, I almost feel like I'm in Tie Fighter. I wish Star Citizen was half this good.

 

[jobert]

What forums? (honest question, I want to read more in general)

Well Steam forums for example. The few complaints about performance seem to be followed by about 95% of people disagreeing and saying it runs great. Plenty of people listing specs and making claims that do not even come close to matching what is being shown in actual testing done by trusted reviewers.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Cyberpunk is pretty but Starfield has so much more content and shit to do that it is not even funny.

I haven't gotten far along yet to really experience it, I'm still mostly doing performance testing, but yes, m,ore things to do is great.

It's just that the environment - at least in New Atlantis - feels a bit dead. It just doesn't come alive the way Night City does, and that impacts the ability to get sucked into the whole universe of the game significantly.

And still the question remains. Why does it matter how many cores it utilizes? I don't get it.

I'm all for system load if I think it is doing something for me. If it doesnt appear to, then it is a sign of something being wrong, and maybe even being suspicious like malware.

I don't know why do you think that in such a complex game the only thing that uses cpu time is what's momentarily on screen.

You really think it is calculating AI actions for the entire universe in the background every scene you are in? Fuck, it has a load screen if you just enter certain buildings, so I highly doubt that. This game is as isolated, rendering and processing the area you are in, and nothing else, just like every title before it.

 

[DF-1]

if you guys use persuasion to avoid combat, do you then fight them for the XP?

idk if i should or not.
(you can also pickpocket their weapons and make it real easy)

 

[Flogger23m]

Did you really load up all those games? I remember HZD being exceptionally good looking for its age, but Metro Exodus and Shadow of the Tomb Raider not so much. Still none of these have the complexity to match even Skyrim, let alone Starfield.

I've yet to load it up myself but the interiors look decent, it is mainly the exterior areas of Starfield that look dated. But I think the main problem people are pointing out is the low performance given the looks. Plenty of open world games look nice and also get good performance.

Spoiler: Old games

Looking at some of the benchmarks, my PC would get around 50-70 frame rates at 2560x1440 in Starfield, maybe less because my CPU is not as fast as those in most benchmarks. All of the games above are open world or at least open ended in the case of Control, and my PC gets higher frame rates than that with those games.

I assume there will be some performance improvements with patches, but I think their dated engine is always going to run a bit slow. Maybe they will implement DLSS officially because the mod that is out there looks like it works decently.

 

[Mchart]

I've yet to load it up myself but the interiors look decent, it is mainly the exterior areas of Starfield that look dated. But I think the main problem people are pointing out is the low performance given the looks. Plenty of open world games look nice and also get good performance.

Spoiler: Old games

View attachment 595873View attachment 595874View attachment 595875View attachment 595876View attachment 595877View attachment 595878
View attachment 595880

Looking at some of the benchmarks, my PC would get around 50-70 frame rates at 2560x1440 in Starfield, maybe less because my CPU is not as fast as those in most benchmarks. All of the games above are open world or at least open ended in the case of Control, and my PC gets higher frame rates than that with those games.

I assume there will be some performance improvements with patches, but I think their dated engine is always going to run a bit slow. With luck they will implement DLSS officially because the mod that is out there looks like it works decently.

None of those games you posted are anywhere near as complex though. That's the difference. I concur with an earlier statement that this is easily one of the most complex games ever made at this point with all the various gameplay systems that intersect with each other. The more hours I put into Starfield i'm just consistently amazed at how much game there is.

Further, I really don't think the graphics are that bad, and the game at least runs fine on most setups. There's no shader stutter or serious performance issues like many other recent AAA games in memory.

 

[jobert]

It really depends on where you're at as to how the graphics look. I'd say in some spots the graphics look very good, but there are other spots that it is just laughably bad and looks extremely outdated. The characters faces are horrendous for a modern game.

 

[NightReaver]

The characters faces are horrendous for a modern game.

Standard Bethesda at this point lol.

 

[BeavermanA]

Spoiler: A "2010" Game

View attachment 595741View attachment 595742
View attachment 595743View attachment 595744
View attachment 595745

Spoiler: Actual 2010 Game*

View attachment 595746View attachment 595747
View attachment 595748View attachment 595749

*Not really, because these are from the 2021 remaster, and still. Do these look the same to anyone?


Did you really load up all those games? I remember HZD being exceptionally good looking for its age, but Metro Exodus and Shadow of the Tomb Raider not so much. Still none of these have the complexity to match even Skyrim, let alone Starfield.

I do think Starfield looks good in the smaller areas/indoors and performance is fine, for me anyway. This was directed at the "open world", or larger areas. It seems in the city, and maybe other larger areas they really had to cut down on the IQ otherwise you'd get like 10fps. Which suggests the game engine is just not capable, or just horribly optimized? I've barely started the game, so only basing this off the first few areas.

Unfortunately it didn't capture my FPS in the screens like I thought it would.

Spoiler: Just some Screenshots of various games

HZD - 120fps all Ultra settings
2020 PC release

Shadow of the Tomb Raider - ~80fps. Highest settings with RT on, SMAA x4 and DLSS off.
2018 Release

Read Dead Redemption 2 - ~80fps pretty much everything maxed with some AA and DLSS off
2019 PC Release

Starfield - Ultra settings - 55fps

 

[LittleBuddy]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WkTOancUk

 

[Flogger23m]

None of those games you posted are anywhere near as complex though. That's the difference. I concur with an earlier statement that this is easily one of the most complex games ever made at this point with all the various gameplay systems that intersect with each other. The more hours I put into Starfield i'm just consistently amazed at how much game there is.

Generally these things have little affect on performance or image quality though. What does tend to affect performance is NPC density and lots of heavy physics related calculations (think DCS, with hundreds of projectiles affected by wind/drag/altitude/start speed). But NPC density and large maps are something most AAA games have.

It doesn't look awful, but doesn't quite look as good as other AAA games yet has very hefty system requirements. But it does seem to be Bethesda's least buggy game in history, which is certainly a good sign. I think we will see some minor performance improvements in future patches but I also don't think much will change.

I will give the DLSS mod a try to see how it looks, but I think I will have to end up using it to get acceptable frame rates.