Ship Simulator Extreme(S) Slow

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

[Titanic14]

Hi there! I've installed SSE on my pc and I'm surprised, how can the game just run about 16fps in my pc.

Specs:
Windows Vista Home Premium x64
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @2,40Ghz
Ati Radeon HD 5750 1GB DDR5
3GBRam

The strange thing is that I can run Mafia II, Dirt 2, Codmw2, Medal of Honor,Gta IV etc, very well.

But this game I really dont understand why is so slow.

Thx for replies...

[helidan]

I hear ya!!

Seems to be a very strange thing with this sim.  Plenty of reports of high power pc's that can run the latest games flawlessly but when tasked with running SSE their suffering quite severe performance degradation.  My pc (Phenom 2 quad (overclocked), 4GB ram & latest GTX 480 graphics can push very respectable FPS (60+) through every game that I've run so far but at best I get around 12-15 in SSE.  I'm not sure if patches can fix this (I really do hope so).
You're not alone!!

[mvsmith]

The simple fact is that the things that SSE has to do make it more computationally intensive than other games that can take shortcuts. That is partly because it is similar to the professional maritime training simulator VSTEP makes. Even FSX does not need to do nearly as much computation to produce reasonably realistic flight dynamics in still air compared to what is necessary for a ship in a seaway. Add to that the creation of the sea itself and the simultaneous handling of perhaps a dozen AI ships each requiring as much computation, or more, as the player ship, in some situations.

A frame rate of 18 FPS is adequate for smooth operation, very high rates, above 30, do nothing.
Remember that theatrical motion pictures run at 24FPS, even when they are played from a DVD.
PAL TV is only 25 FPS, NTSC TV is 29.97 FPS.

[molleh]

That's pretty terrible excuse making, to be perfectly honest.

There are plenty of games out there that simulate TONS of things going on without the massive hit on framerate that SSE creates.  Take Arma II for example - in that game you have planes, helicopters, ground vehicles, infantry, etc. running around real-time in missions (with dozens and dozens of active AI) with explosions going off, tracers everywhere, etc., yet you can still retain a great framerate.  And the graphics in Arma II are first rate as well.

Another example would be Silent Hunter 5.  Arguably a more believable ocean simulation, and on top of that it simulates naval warfare at the same time.

I have a Core i7 950 overclocked to 4ghz, a Radeon 5850 HD video card, 6gbs of DDR3 1600 memory, all on a streamlined and optimized Windows 7 install, and I'm barely able to exceed 30fps in some parts of the game.  It's playable, but given how basic the graphics are.... it's unbelievably bad framerate.  And that's without antialiasing turned on, which these days is a must have - when I turn that on I hit down as low as 10fps.  Insane!

Before I built this PC a week ago I had a Core 2 Duo E6750 overclocked to 3.6ghz (and still had the 5850 video card).  It was far from top of the line but also still above what the average user for SSE probably runs, and SSE absolutely crippled that system.  10-15fps on any of the port environments.

Given that this game has a niche audience to begin with, I can't see how it will be successful if you need a high end PC like mine to enjoy it without lowering graphics to very basic levels or playing it like a Powerpoint presentation...

/rant

[Yudax]

hey ur processor Ghz is 2.40 only ,the requirements is 3.0 plus

[molleh]

hey ur processor Ghz is 2.40 only ,the requirements is 3.0 plus

Not quite correct.  The requirements state 3.0ghz Pentium 4 or AMD equivalent minimum.  Even though a Q6600 is only 2.4ghz, it is FAR more powerful than a 3.0ghz Pentium 4.  My i7 950 runs stock at 3.06ghz but is a very very fast CPU.

[helidan]

18 FPS is NOT adequate at all, NO NO way.  Panning the camera around for example really does strain your eyes.

And FPS on TV/DVD and a computer game are two very different things indeed and should never be compared in that way.  Google how computer graphics actually work, you may be surprised mvsmith.

[Orinoco]

I can only assume the FPS is limited in some way TBH.

I've turned everything down to minimum and I still only get 22FPS, and that's with a Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.4GHz, 8GB of DDR3 RAM and an AMD Radeon HD 6950 (2GB). I get virtually the same FPS (20) if I turn everything up to maximum, including Anti-Aliasing.

There must be a limit built into the software.

EDIT: Having had a bit of a read around the forum, perhaps it's just really bad code optimisation. 

[MokMok]

You can try the experimental hot fix described at topic "Update 1.3 : experimental performance improvement" http://80.95.161.114/shipsim/forum/index.php?topic=23507.new;topicseen#new

[MinnesotaNice]

You can try the experimental hot fix described at topic "Update 1.3 : experimental performance improvement" http://80.95.161.114/shipsim/forum/index.php?topic=23507.new;topicseen#new

Are you sure that topic exists? Opens up to an error when I click that.

Anyways,

As far as improving performance goes on Ship Simulator Extremes, this is what I have tried:
Instead of trying to lower the quality settings in-game, I have tried using my graphics card control panel directly. Try setting all of you settings to favor "performance" rather than "quality".

That's all I have for now. Hopefully we can all get our frame rates up soon.

[saltydog]

Are you sure that topic exists? Opens up to an error when I click that.

That's because the topic is in Technical Support. You need to register the license key of your game to access that..

[Bob360]

Not quite correct.  The requirements state 3.0ghz Pentium 4 or AMD equivalent minimum.  Even though a Q6600 is only 2.4ghz, it is FAR more powerful than a 3.0ghz Pentium 4.  My i7 950 runs stock at 3.06ghz but is a very very fast CPU.

Not quite correct either.

I have always been told by many computer techs, not to confuse the Power with the Speed of a computer, and vice versa. Power, as explained to me is that a computer can run many programs & tasks efficiently at the same time, but does not mean it will run it fast, or faster. I’m sure most of you know what I mean by this. A higher speed along with power means you can achieve both. I have had many computers in my time, and found that a powerful computer could not meet some specs of speed on a given game (slower startup, game play time, etc).

So, if a game calls for a processor with 3.0GHz, and you only have 2.4GHz, sure you may get it to run, but not at the desired speed it was designed for. So, all things being equal... if you had a 2 Core, Quad @2.4GHz, and a 2 Core, Quad @3.2GHz, which one would be better? I happen to have both, and I certainly know which I would use for this game.

[Mr Robville]

but the thing he is correct with is that a Q6600 processor is much faster and then also more powerfull then a Pentium 4.
quad core processors are rarely to be found above 3 GHZ, at least for a reasonable prize. 

A frame rate of 18 FPS is adequate for smooth operation, very high rates, above 30, do nothing.
Remember that theatrical motion pictures run at 24FPS, even when they are played from a DVD.

60FPS is the limit, anything above is useless because your eyes won't notice. the diffrence between 40 and 60 FPS can be clearly seen.
i watched my brother play Crysis on his recently built computer, with all settings at High he played the game at 60 fps, it was as smooth as it could be, when turning everything to extra high, the fps dropped to 40 FPS, still very doable, but we both noticed the slower framerate and a very very tiny stutter in the frames. so for a little less quality we decided to keep playing at 60 FPS, just because it's smoother.

any computer game, no exeptions for Simulators, should be able to run at 60FPS for any computer that meets the recommended system requirements, and 15-20 FPS is not an excuse.

[Bob360]

quad core processors are rarely to be found above 3 GHZ, at least for a reasonable prize.  

Not true. I’ve seen a few of them around over 3GHz., and at what I consider reasonable prices. I just got one for under $150.00. That’s less than a good quality printer (Kodak AIO 7 $175.00). You just need to shop around. One of my favorite places is Tiger Direct. I can play SSE, ME2, Rig‘n’Roll, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and a few other high demand CPU games with many programs running in the background, without so much as a hiccup with this computer.

[Mr Robville]

ok forgive my mestake then 

but the point still is, a 2.4 GHZ quad core processor is faster then a 3GHZ pentium 4 processor. 

[Snakebyte92]

ok forgive my mestake then 

but the point still is, a 2.4 GHZ quad core processor is faster then a 3GHZ pentium 4 processor. 

True a pentium 4 processor runs on I guess max 512kb l2-cache. And the newer quad 2 core probally on 6mb. The multi-threading threw the quad core is much better than the pentium can do. So even when the clock speed isn't that much the calculation will be done in a quicker time than the pentium 4 can do that. But look for more info on wiki or something.

[Tomaten]

Im sorry, but I've stopped believing in this talk about SSE "have" to take so mutch power...
Learn how to use different cores!!! Use hypertreading... Let the GPU handle some, and the other cores some other.
It can't be that hard for a company! Even the game Rigs of Rods (witch is developed by ONE single man!) have support for multicores and hypertreading..

Just using 1 core is old stuff, it's time to do some progress.

Optimizing is everything in computer gaming...

[Bob360]

but the point still is, a 2.4 GHZ quad core processor is faster then a 3GHZ pentium 4 processor.  

Not really the point. The point was that the original poster of this thread was stating that his 2.4GHz processor would not run effectively for this game, and someone posted that his speed was too slow. I agree with that, because on my Intel 2 core quad @2.8GHz the game also runs slow. Most of us could at least agree with that. Now my other computer with an Intel 2 core quad @3.2GHz, this game runs flawlessy, and as I stated previously... this game runs better @3.0GHz, or higher, just like the req. stated, and all things being equal. So let's just face it. 2.4GHz won't run this game at the desired expectations. This is just fact. I can varify the difference myself. That's why I installed on the faster one. Hopefully we can now put this to bed.

I also agree with Tomaten & Snakebytes92's statements.

[fjacobsen]

The simple fact is that the things that SSE has to do make it more computationally intensive than other games that can take shortcuts. That is partly because it is similar to the professional maritime training simulator VSTEP makes. Even FSX does not need to do nearly as much computation to produce reasonably realistic flight dynamics in still air compared to what is necessary for a ship in a seaway. Add to that the creation of the sea itself and the simultaneous handling of perhaps a dozen AI ships each requiring as much computation, or more, as the player ship, in some situations.

A frame rate of 18 FPS is adequate for smooth operation, very high rates, above 30, do nothing.
Remember that theatrical motion pictures run at 24FPS, even when they are played from a DVD.
PAL TV is only 25 FPS, NTSC TV is 29.97 FPS.

LOL

I don´t hope You are actual programmer on this.

Normally I play Flightsims.

You know that air actually is a fluid like water, just with alot less density.
An aircraft moving through the air behaves in many ways like a ship.
Just with higher speed and in 3 dimensions.

On top of that You need scenery that reaches much farther out than what You need in a ship sim, cause view distance is alot greater.

Then add more complex instruments, GPS etc.

Pardon me, but I must agree with the statement in another post that someting isn´t optimised in the code.
The graphics are nice in SSE, but not stunning.

Finn