ARK: Survival Evolved

I have a GTX 970 and it runs decently. They made good progress about 30 updates ago in terms of graphics and driver optimization. This is not a finished product remember.

My only issue is environment loading, as you cross into other regions it takes a big hit. So if you happen to encounter a predator at that exact moment you're a sitting duck until it catches up.
 
cageymaru said:
Played it for a little bit and uninstalled. Game didn't run very well on my PC.
Click to expand...
I found it running really rough too. I tried it with the DK2. I only bought it for the VR support.
I tried Oculus Runtime 0.7 with various Nvidia drivers on my Windows 8.1 and no luck. I went back to Nvidia 350.22 drivers and Oculus 0.601. Hopefully by CV1's release they will have this mess sorted!!!

Here is video of my DK2 gameplay - a big bird Glitching it up!

ARK: Survival Evolved - Running rough on 5960x + Titan x + 32gb Ram + X99 Asus Deluxe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjxwVli3_3E
 
TheToE! said:
This game ran like absolute shit on my 970 didn't even look good either. Like unplayable.
Click to expand...

With the rig in my sig, and settings on Epic, I was lucky to get 25 FPS. Even High had the same results. On Medium, the max it would hit is 48.

Something is really out of whack with this game's performance, and the devs stating that they're "targeting 30 FPS for release" doesn't bode well.
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
With the rig in my sig, and settings on Epic, I was lucky to get 25 FPS. Even High had the same results. On Medium, the max it would hit is 48.

Something is really out of whack with this game's performance, and the devs stating that they're "targeting 30 FPS for release" doesn't bode well.
Click to expand...

Yep, i was thinking the same thing. It just doesn't feel right.
 
I'm sorry, but if they're really targeting 30fps, I think I'll just go ahead and back out on this one. A real shame, I enjoyed playing it. 30fps just doesn't do it for me... at all.
 
The combat and UI text look like absolute shit to me. Just a bunch of dinos humping each other
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
With the rig in my sig, and settings on Epic, I was lucky to get 25 FPS. Even High had the same results. On Medium, the max it would hit is 48.

Something is really out of whack with this game's performance, and the devs stating that they're "targeting 30 FPS for release" doesn't bode well.
Click to expand...

Wow! I thought my PC just ran it like sh*t. Thanks for posting this!
 
theplaidfad said:
I'm sorry, but if they're really targeting 30fps, I think I'll just go ahead and back out on this one. A real shame, I enjoyed playing it. 30fps just doesn't do it for me... at all.
Click to expand...

They never said they're targeting 30 fps or any bs like that.

They're making performance improvements all the time. When the game was first launched on Steam I was struggling to get 30 fps. Now I'm averaging around 80 fps with very rare dips below 60 and hitting over 100 in some areas.

They still have a lot of optimization to do. For now you just need to lower the settings if you want a higher frame rate.

I find it really stupid when people get mad they can't max out a games settings and get 60 fps. The whole point of scalable graphical settings is so you can adjust the game to run on any hardware at the speed you want it. Games should target hardware that is far in the future with their maximum settings. They shouldn't be held back by kids getting butthurt that the PC their dad bought them isn't the best.
 
sharknice said:
They never said they're targeting 30 fps or any bs like that.

They're making performance improvements all the time. When the game was first launched on Steam I was struggling to get 30 fps. Now I'm averaging around 80 fps with very rare dips below 60 and hitting over 100 in some areas.

They still have a lot of optimization to do. For now you just need to lower the settings if you want a higher frame rate.

I find it really stupid when people get mad they can't max out a games settings and get 60 fps. The whole point of scalable graphical settings is so you can adjust the game to run on any hardware at the speed you want it. Games should target hardware that is far in the future with their maximum settings. They shouldn't be held back by kids getting butthurt that the PC their dad bought them isn't the best.
Click to expand...

http://www.twitch.tv/lirik/v/4937423

At about 11:36, Lirik asks about performance, asking if a 670 and a 2700k could get 60FPS at 1080p, and Rapczak responds with "Oh, no. We're targeting a 30 FPS framerate. It's not really a 60 FPS game at this time, and part of the reason is that we're trying to push the graphical fidelity..."

Yes, the interview was held prior to release of Early Access, but it really doesn't help that searching for "30 FPS" on the steam forums brings up nearly 500 pages of people asking if there's a framerate cap because of how poorly it runs, with new ones popping up every couple of minutes.

Now if he was talking about the console release, then I'd understand, but he isn't in this context. In fact, it boggles my mind that they even think the game will run on a console, which is probably why they're banking on DX12 to provide that magical "30% improvement" they talked about prior to the free weekend. More than likely they ran into the same async shader issue on Maxwell GPUs that Oxide did with Ashes and didn't want to shit on a sponsor.

It also does no benefit to anyone when a lot of the tooltips in the menus are either too minimal (i.e. no numerical values on the sliders, or indication of what type of Antialiasing is being used), or provide inaccurate information. According to their own tooltip, a 970 should be able to run High, and a Titan X should run Epic...neither of which is remotely accurate unless 9-24 FPS is considered playable by their standards. Even after dropping the settings to medium, I was lucky to eek out 48 FPS as a max on my system. There isn't a single game that I've played recently that is that low in performance on Medium or lower settings.

Look, I like the game, I really do. It was probably the most fun I've had in with game in a while, and I'm even thinking of reconstructing my home media server to act as a dedicated server for the game if I can get my friends interested in it, but holy jeez...even Arma 3 doesn't run this poorly. Hell, Star Citizen doesn't run this poorly. It is unbelievably misleading that their trailer for the game is a consistent 30 FPS on Epic settings, only because it was timedemo recordings on prerendered playback.
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
http://www.twitch.tv/lirik/v/4937423

At about 11:36, Lirik asks about performance, asking if a 670 and a 2700k could get 60FPS at 1080p, and Rapczak responds with "Oh, no. We're targeting a 30 FPS framerate. It's not really a 60 FPS game at this time, and part of the reason is that we're trying to push the graphical fidelity..."

Yes, the interview was held prior to release of Early Access, but it really doesn't help that searching for "30 FPS" on the steam forums brings up nearly 500 pages of people asking if there's a framerate cap because of how poorly it runs, with new ones popping up every couple of minutes.

Now if he was talking about the console release, then I'd understand, but he isn't in this context. In fact, it boggles my mind that they even think the game will run on a console, which is probably why they're banking on DX12 to provide that magical "30% improvement" they talked about prior to the free weekend. More than likely they ran into the same async shader issue on Maxwell GPUs that Oxide did with Ashes and didn't want to shit on a sponsor.

It also does no benefit to anyone when a lot of the tooltips in the menus are either too minimal (i.e. no numerical values on the sliders, or indication of what type of Antialiasing is being used), or provide inaccurate information. According to their own tooltip, a 970 should be able to run High, and a Titan X should run Epic...neither of which is remotely accurate unless 9-24 FPS is considered playable by their standards. Even after dropping the settings to medium, I was lucky to eek out 48 FPS as a max on my system. There isn't a single game that I've played recently that is that low in performance on Medium or lower settings.

Look, I like the game, I really do. It was probably the most fun I've had in with game in a while, and I'm even thinking of reconstructing my home media server to act as a dedicated server for the game if I can get my friends interested in it, but holy jeez...even Arma 3 doesn't run this poorly. Hell, Star Citizen doesn't run this poorly. It is unbelievably misleading that their trailer for the game is a consistent 30 FPS on Epic settings, only because it was timedemo recordings on prerendered playback.
Click to expand...


If you keep listening to that the dev makes it clear they aren't going to sacrifice the highest end settings so that people can get 60 fps on current hardware, but if you turn settings down you will be able to easily get 60 fps. This is exactly how it should be done. Then he goes on to say they're going to target 30 fps on lower settings for consoles.
 
sharknice said:
They never said they're targeting 30 fps or any bs like that.

They're making performance improvements all the time. When the game was first launched on Steam I was struggling to get 30 fps. Now I'm averaging around 80 fps with very rare dips below 60 and hitting over 100 in some areas.

They still have a lot of optimization to do. For now you just need to lower the settings if you want a higher frame rate.

I find it really stupid when people get mad they can't max out a games settings and get 60 fps. The whole point of scalable graphical settings is so you can adjust the game to run on any hardware at the speed you want it. Games should target hardware that is far in the future with their maximum settings. They shouldn't be held back by kids getting butthurt that the PC their dad bought them isn't the best.
Click to expand...

Where did I get mad about anything other than saying that I wasn't down for 30fps to be the games target? Some people had mistakenly informed us that 30fps was the target for the game, and that I simply wasn't down for that. Even if you aren't speaking directly to me (you quoted me though), you're comments toward the end are really off base and weren't necessary. Seeing as it's an alpha game, I only slightly agree with you that it should target future hardware. For non-alpha release games, that comment couldn't be anymore ridiculous, and I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Now moving along, I started my own server and played quite a bit over the weekend with a few friends. At 1440p with GTX-980 in SLI (yes I know SLI doesn't work yet for this game) I find that my game runs okay on high settings with low sky quality and low ground clutter. Epic settings are out of the question, as I get stuttering and generally low frame-rates. They're claiming an approximate 20% boost in performance when they are able to implement DX12 into the game. The only other thing I hope is that SLI support is enabled at some point so that my second GTX 980 can be leveraged to finally let me hit those epic settings at playable frame rates.
 
sharknice said:
If you keep listening to that the dev makes it clear they aren't going to sacrifice the highest end settings so that people can get 60 fps on current hardware, but if you turn settings down you will be able to easily get 60 fps. This is exactly how it should be done. Then he goes on to say they're going to target 30 fps on lower settings for consoles.
Click to expand...

On top of that, a 670 and 2700k would have trouble getting 1080p60 on most games these days (without running on lower settings, anyway). That's 3-4 year old hardware.
 
theplaidfad said:
Where did I get mad about anything other than saying that I wasn't down for 30fps to be the games target? Some people had mistakenly informed us that 30fps was the target for the game, and that I simply wasn't down for that. Even if you aren't speaking directly to me (you quoted me though), you're comments toward the end are really off base and weren't necessary. Seeing as it's an alpha game, I only slightly agree with you that it should target future hardware. For non-alpha release games, that comment couldn't be anymore ridiculous, and I shouldn't even have to explain why.

Now moving along, I started my own server and played quite a bit over the weekend with a few friends. At 1440p with GTX-980 in SLI (yes I know SLI doesn't work yet for this game) I find that my game runs okay on high settings with low sky quality and low ground clutter. Epic settings are out of the question, as I get stuttering and generally low frame-rates. They're claiming an approximate 20% boost in performance when they are able to implement DX12 into the game. The only other thing I hope is that SLI support is enabled at some point so that my second GTX 980 can be leveraged to finally let me hit those epic settings at playable frame rates.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think games should target current hardware at release with their very highest settings and you shouldn't have to explain your reasoning?
 
:captain obvious: I said plenty of things, that being one of them.

Draw your own conclusion about what I said, and if you feel so strongly opposed please feel free to make another thread about that topic. Don't derail this one.
 
theplaidfad said:
:captain obvious: I said plenty of things, that being one of them.

Draw your own conclusion about what I said, and if you feel so strongly opposed please feel free to make another thread about that topic. Don't derail this one.
Click to expand...

Well I could point out a million flaws in your conclusion, but I'll be lazy and rude like you and just not. I guess you'll just have to remain ignorant.
 
On second thought, I'll dance. Lazy isn't a word I like used to describe me by somebody who doesn't even know me.

When I look at an issue, I like to try and look at it from a logical and realistic standpoint. That being said, let's take up the case of games targeting highest settings on current hardware.

In our current capitalistic society, most game developers are going to release games that appeal to the masses because profit is the real name of the game. That usually comes with making sure that their games are supported across a wide variety of hardware, including the massively popular and oft underpowered gaming consoles. Every now and then you will have a game developer who really loves his/her craft and wants to push the technological limits to really create something of beauty. In those rare cases, this can slightly help with the push to make technology better. Unfortunately, development of better technology seems to be on a steady pace most often tied to the hardware companies same capitalistic goals of making a huge profit.

The reality of the overall situation aside, even people who want to make the most demanding games that tax hardware to the point of almost not being playable at the highest settings still have a desire to have their thoughts and ideas be a success so that they're able to keep crafting and improving their projects.

With ARK as an example of a recent outlier (so far), they've made a beautiful game with ideas that are seeming very popular as proven by the large amount of money they've managed to grab since making this pre-alpha game available for purchase. As to the statement I made earlier, I said I slightly agree with the premise of making a pre-alpha game not conform to current hardware but possibly targeting best performance with future hardware. That's their vision, and kudos to them. They seem to be taking this at a proper pace, and optimizing things to make sure it also works across a large variety of hardware, including consoles. Will they keep it up where as so many other pre-alpha projects have taken the money and run, so to speak? We will see.

As far as finished production release games, I find it almost a completely asinine statement that they shouldn't target highest playable settings on current top end hardware or even mid-range hardware. Again, profit is bottom line, and they have to make sure their product appeals to the masses in every way to ensure they'll be able to have continued expansion into the market with their future titles. You may not like it, but this is just how it is.

There may very well be a game out there that targets only the hardcore performance that hardware of the future brings, but I've never heard of it, and I certainly wouldn't buy it. Then again, I'm not running quad SLI Titan X with a dual socket Intel motherboard with surround sound displays. I suppose I'm just one of the masses with normal bloke hardware, you know, the ones that these games are meant to appeal to.

Now... tell me why I'm wrong. I'll patiently wait for your millions of reasons why. #rude
 
This is why game developers should just release HD content DLC to please those who think just because they can't run the game at 4k 60+FPS Max Ultra Epic settings that it's garbage.
 
theplaidfad said:
I find it almost a completely asinine statement that they shouldn't target highest playable settings on current top end hardware or even mid-range hardware. Again, profit is bottom line, and they have to make sure their product appeals to the masses in every way to ensure they'll be able to have continued expansion into the market with their future titles.
Click to expand...

How does that make it more appealing to the masses? I think it makes it less appealing to the masses. The masses get hyped by amazing graphics from trailers and screenshots. If a game's highest settings target mid-range hardware the graphics aren't as impressive and the masses aren't as interested. The masses don't look at benmcharks for how well a game performs using the highest end settings on mid-range hardware then decide they don't want the game because they can't max it out.

Another problem with targeting mid-level or high-end hardware is that is that mid-range and high-end is very subjective. Are you going to target 144 fps at 2560x1440? 60 fps at 4k? 60 fps at 1080p, 30 fps? That is just resolution and framerate as one set of variables. You also have to choose what you consider "high-end" hardware. Do you pick the single fastest GPU, 4X SLI, or the highest end card under $300. There are tons of configurations, and don't forget about overclocking.
This is indicative that the problem you're trying to solve is very subjective itself.
You're trying to limit the graphics for everyone else just because your system can't handle anything higher. That seems extremely selfish to me. It also means that if you upgrade in the future you won't be able to enjoy better graphics.
You don't have to play a game on its highest settings. Games don't even default to the highest settings, they default to medium settings or detect your hardware and optimize the settings for you. You're still able to play with just as good of graphics as you would have been if they had removed the options for higher settings.

I'm saying that games should have a very wide range of graphical settings so anyone can play it well on the lowest settings on low-end hardware and still be able to have beautiful graphics on high end hardware, and even more beautiful graphics on 4X overclocked Titans and hardware of the future. How is there a downside to that?

I don't see any downsides to having higher end settings that only future hardware can handle. The only real problem I see is the extra development required to add them, which really isn't a large amount of work for most PC developers.
 
What you say is all well and good, but you're still ignoring the mainstream console market part of the discussion all together. That's currently where the masses are right now, and that's what most game devs are targeting. Is that a broad statement, sure, but it's not like I'm basing it on pure specilulation. With such a large curve of hardware capabilities when you compare the consoles with PC, they're still going to target the larger crowd, and they do. All the sliders and bells and whistles they throw on is simply meant to appease the PC crowd the best they can.

Again, you may not like it, and there may be a few outliers here and there, but this is the reality of it. I, for one, live in the real world and deal with it as its dealt to me. Just because you think your opinion on it is true and just isn't going to make it so here.
 
And to add on, you're grossly over valuing the masses appeal to things like eye popping graphics and whiz bang physics explosions. One simple word to back up my statement on that: Minecraft
 
Yeah I guess if you completely ignore the context we're talking in your point makes perfect sense.
 
theplaidfad said:
And to add on, you're grossly over valuing the masses appeal to things like eye popping graphics and whiz bang physics explosions. One simple word to back up my statement on that: Minecraft
Click to expand...

That's the worst counter argument anyone can possibly make.
 
sharknice said:
Yeah I guess if you completely ignore the context we're talking in your point makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Well which fricking context are you talking about? Because again, for the third time, I'm pointing out reality... you know, which we actually live in.
 
On a different topic....I am enjoying this game immensely. I really would like to stay stone age though....I don't know, shooting a T-Rex with a high power rifle just seems less exciting...don't really know....I just got tranq arrow technology. I know there are a few mods out there that enhance early tech options and limit the tech progression past stone age. Can anyone recommend any of these mods, if possible one we won't have to start all over with...(Mostly for private LAN server just for me and buds).

I have looked into this a bit, and obviously read through the stuff on the workshop...just looking for opinions...thank you.
 
schoenda said:
On a different topic....I am enjoying this game immensely. I really would like to stay stone age though....I don't know, shooting a T-Rex with a high power rifle just seems less exciting...don't really know....I just got tranq arrow technology. I know there are a few mods out there that enhance early tech options and limit the tech progression past stone age. Can anyone recommend any of these mods, if possible one we won't have to start all over with...(Mostly for private LAN server just for me and buds).

I have looked into this a bit, and obviously read through the stuff on the workshop...just looking for opinions...thank you.
Click to expand...

They have official primitive servers that cap out at stone tier, so it shouldn't be too hard to enable those settings for a local server.
 
theplaidfad said:
World of Warcraft, The entire recent run of COD series... do I need go on?
Click to expand...

Both of those you mentioned receive graphics updates every year or so. Neither of those games can continue successfully on gameplay alone.
 
sharknice said:
They have official primitive servers that cap out at stone tier, so it shouldn't be too hard to enable those settings for a local server.
Click to expand...

Thank you...you are correct....I should have been more concise...I am looking for mods/tc's that not only limit past stone age but also expand the stone age tech options like for example multiple levels of simple bow/spear/whatever, each still primitive, but slightly better than the base, etc...
 
NickJames said:
Both of those you mentioned receive graphics updates every year or so. Neither of those games can continue successfully on gameplay alone.
Click to expand...

... and both of which were graphical updates that ran fine on high settings with the current main-stream hardware of the time. My point still stands.
 
schoenda said:
Thank you...you are correct....I should have been more concise...I am looking for mods/tc's that not only limit past stone age but also expand the stone age tech options like for example multiple levels of simple bow/spear/whatever, each still primitive, but slightly better than the base, etc...
Click to expand...

Please post back here if you find a modded server that runs like that. I'm interested in that style of play for sure. I currently am running a completely un-modded vanilla settings server and might consider doing something like that for sure after testing.
 
theplaidfad said:
... and both of which were graphical updates that ran fine on high settings with the current main-stream hardware of the time. My point still stands.
Click to expand...

Actually world of warcraft struggled on high end hardware during the WOTLK and even Cataclysm updates. Now if it was related to optimization issues that can be argued by the game didn't run smooth on maximum settings until the next generation of hardware after it. My point once again is that not all games can not survive on gameplay alone.
 
Motion to stop de-railing thread with graphics BS.

All in favor say aye.
AYE

Motion carried.
 
I think it's a valid argument. It's obvious that ARK is far from optimized as it still runs like crap on my system but that's mostly due to lack of SLI support. I think they should start shifting their focus to performance more rather than gameplay but that's just me. And I don't know the current state of the development team or much work is being put into different areas.
 
ryang said:
Motion to stop de-railing thread with graphics BS.

All in favor say aye.
AYE

Motion carried.
Click to expand...

Oh... I tried. I mentioned that it should get its own thread, but was told that I was lazy. After proving my point successfully, I'm more than glad to drop that topic and move on to the game discussion.

I'm still stuck on figuring out how to tame the little monkey, and refuse to look up a solution on the web. Some how, some way, some day, that little monkey will do my bidding.
 
NickJames said:
I think it's a valid argument. It's obvious that ARK is far from optimized as it still runs like crap on my system but that's mostly due to lack of SLI support. I think they should start shifting their focus to performance more rather than gameplay but that's just me. And I don't know the current state of the development team or much work is being put into different areas.
Click to expand...

As I said prevously, I am really hoping SLI support for the game is a "when" and not an "if".
 
theplaidfad said:
Oh... I tried. I mentioned that it should get its own thread, but was told that I was lazy. After proving my point successfully, I'm more than glad to drop that topic and move on to the game discussion.

I'm still stuck on figuring out how to tame the little monkey, and refuse to look up a solution on the web. Some how, some way, some day, that little monkey will do my bidding.
Click to expand...
It's not looking it up if someone tells you right?
Put a certain food in your 0 quick item slot
mejors/dodo egg kibble
 
Loser_guy said:
It's not looking it up if someone tells you right?
Put a certain food in your 0 quick item slot
mejors/dodo egg kibble
Click to expand...

I'm going to just pretend that I didn't click the spoiler boxes ;)

(thank you)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top