Updated Hardware Recommendations?

[Semple Fi]

“Most PC players should be fine, but it partly depends on your spec.”- Quoted from setting expectations around safehouse customization…

 

 Do you have/Will there be an updated minimum/recommended hardware specification with this final update in mind?  Is the recommended system setting posted on Steam still accurate?

 Thanks

[notcreativ0]

Minimum (25-50 FPS Low Settings)
Intel Core (R) Dual-Core i5+
4GB RAM
Half a gigabyte of VRAM

Recommended (55 FPS Medium Settings)
Intel Core (R) i7 2.5GHz+
8GB RAM
and 1 GB VRAM

Source(s): Steam(R) and Reddit
(Sources might not be correct as much)
(Settings like V-sync might give different results)
 

Edited November 25 by notcreativ0

[SafeAgain]

Hard to know.

We were told that consoles might have a more limited amount of customization, so this is the best comparison we can draw.
Take the PS4s and other consoles' equivalent PC specifications, and compare from there.

From what i can tell, it's simply a memory issue, so with enough VRAM you'll be fine.

Maybe raph is referring to cases with hundreds of decorations too, since we have no number to go off of.

 

I find the fact that it's "very memory intensive" strange though. I don't imagine the stuff will be super high fidelity or anything, so i don't know why decoration objects in particular would use so much vram.
The game world is full of objects, i don't know what's so special about a smaller map (indoors areas) that's also full of objects.

[ThePancakeLady]

5 minutes ago, SafeAgain said:

The game world is full of objects, i don't know what's so special about a smaller map (indoors areas) that's also full of objects.

Go dump a pile of 1000 sticks inside a building. Watch what happens to perf. Then go outside and watch as erf comes back up. The game has always been finicky about large numbers of objects that it has to recognize, count and render all in one small space, whether they are multiples of the same thing or tons of different objects.

[SafeAgain]

Just now, ThePancakeLady said:

Go dump a pile of 1000 sticks inside a building. Watch what happens to perf. Then go outside and watch as erf comes back up. The game has always been finicky about large numbers of objects that it has to recognize, count and render all in one small space, whether they are multiples of the same thing or tons of different objects.

Well if the issue is with 1000 objects or more, i think we'll be fine enough for it to not be worth mentioning in the post raph made.

I was thinking more along the lines of 20-30 decorations being the limit on low end machines. If the limit is in the 100s, it doesn't really matter.

[ThePancakeLady]

1 minute ago, SafeAgain said:

Well if the issue is with 1000 objects or more, i think we'll be fine enough for it to not be worth mentioning in the post raph made.

I was thinking more along the lines of 20-30 decorations being the limit on low end machines. If the limit is in the 100s, it doesn't really matter.

"1000 sticks" is a suggestion to test on your own machine to see how it handles loads of objects in one place. You can test with 20 deer hides, or 30 sets of sport socks, or a combination of 50 mixed objects laying on the floor- whatever. I have a higher-end PC and a higher-end laptop with pretty beefy CPUs. If I do the same test on my X-Box One, it freaks out. If I do the same test on my XBox One Series X, it handles it a bit better. But not as well as a beefy PC handles it. On my old toaster PC? The game would likely drop to single digit fps or crash. The game is more CPU bound than GPU bound-  perf may depend more on what CPU your PC or console has than what GPU or chipset it has, or it may be what combination of CPU/GPU it has, how much RAM and VRAM it has, and what speed they are. And there is really no way for any developer to be able to test every single possible CPU/GPU/RAM combination on PCs, since we can build wild custom built rigs piece by piece these days. While consoles are easier, since they do not have so many variables in CPU/GPU/RAM. 

[Talavaj]

Most outdoors use shared textures and meshes, individual object instances make practically no difference on memory usage even when you have thousands of them.
Smaller unique objects, however, all come with their own model and texture data and, depending on the way the textures are atlased, this can prove to be highly inefficient if they get loaded together.

Ideally, you bunch everything in a scene into the smallest number of textures possible, not just because of memory but also because of draw calls (which add up per each material).
Now, you take anything sharing a material and a texture atlas, you have to load the whole thing into memory and waste one or more additional draw calls.

This isn't a problem, IF you design your game around it from the get go, but I reckon that since the game was never designed to be played that way, what is going to happen is that a lot of computing will get wasted on resources that won't actually get utilized.
Imagine you want to take a "thing" from Hibernia, you now have to load the entire Hibernia texture atlas + material (whatever that is) that would normally only load in that particular scene.
Now you take another thing from there.. there and there, boom you are suddenly loading a lot of data most of which is not really used.

The only workaround for this is creating alternative assets for everything you want to use which they most certainly aren't going to do.  (and if someone gave that to me as a task, I'd just give them my resignation notice)