Universal Sandbox 2.1.0 (1FPS)

[markmc01]

To begin I have:
 An Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00Ghz
 A Nvidia Ge Force GTX 460 w/ on-board 1G Ram
 Dedicated 4 GB system Ram
 Windows 7 ultimate 64-bit SP1

    I purchased this game/Sim after many glowing reviews, and while initially is was indeed a great game, I am having trouble understanding why this game runs so hard, and lags so bad. While running basic simulations such as galaxy collide, or even running two planets into each other I am getting basic FPS usually around 1 FPS. At first I thought this was because the game was taxing my graphics card or even my CPU, but I checked both of those statistics and surprisingly they came back with low results.
    My CPU only recorded a total CPU usage of 32% system wide when running the simulation, and my graphics card was running a cool 9-15%. My Used physical memory is only at 45%. Those are laughably low numbers when compared to taxing games such as Crysis 2, which I can run also, so I should not be receiving low FPS. I'm not sure what exactly is going on but this issue needs to be addressed. If anyone has any thoughts on how to fix this, please let me know.

[Carnage2K4]

I also have bad FPS on a i5-750 (quad). the game runs at about 25-35 FPS even when it's overclocked... seems to be reason other then it's only using a single core even when the use multi core is selected in options it refuses to stay ticked...
seeing as I use my comp for some rather heavy gaming it should stay at 60 FPS flat (when synced).

[Bla]

I think your dust multiplier might be very high. Try checking it in the simulation settings at the left side of the screen, near the bottom of the menu which appears. If it's "25", that's the reason. By default it should be 1.

[markmc01]

    That is a poor excuse, and I'll explain why. The settings I explained about in my original post (CPU Usage/ Graphics Usage/Memory usage) were all done with that setting on (25 dust multiplier). How can the program be lagging to 1FPS when none of the systems are close to taxing as I explained. Even give you that point, what system pray tell should be used to run the Sim with a high dust multiplier, seeing as a high-end machine like mine cannot run it? One from NASA? The program should be designed to work on its highest settings given that a machine with high-end hardware can run it. Seeing as I already said none of my hardware was close to being taxed, it should work.

[WolfVonhinslik]

same thing here, i had to lower my settings to the lowest to get it to run (inbetween crashes and planets not placing correctly among the hundreds of bugs) my specs are

Saphire ATI Radion 6950 2GB
6GB ram
i3 2.93GhZ processor
Win 7 64bit
1TB HDD

my system is not being taxed at all, sounds more like bad coding to me

if these issues are not corrected i want a refund (have the steam version)

[Dan Dixon]

what system pray tell should be used to run the Sim with a high dust multiplier, seeing as a high-end machine like mine cannot run it?

It all depends on how much dust you're multiplying. And computers in 5 years will probably not have any issues.

I hope to address some of the confusion around this feature in a future update.

if these issues are not corrected i want a refund (have the steam version)

I'm working on it. Look for regular updates and fixes over the next few days and weeks.

[markmc01]

It all depends on how much dust you're multiplying. And computers in 5 years will probably not have any issues. I hope to address some of the confusion around this feature in a future update.

    I want to personally thank you for responding to my question. I can agree this this understanding, that Computers in 5 years should be able to run this Sim on high settings. However, I am still not clear what systems such a setting was designed for if it will not run on most.
    Obviously you are working hard on this project, and I commend you for your hard work, dedication, and attention to detail. As a suggestion there should be a settings adjuster (e.i. low/medium/high/ultra-high), as that would help find a middle ground. I look forward to you updates, and even though I seems cynical, I have purchased and will continue to support your product in the future.

[Bla]

   That is a poor excuse, and I'll explain why. The settings I explained about in my original post (CPU Usage/ Graphics Usage/Memory usage) were all done with that setting on (25 dust multiplier). How can the program be lagging to 1FPS when none of the systems are close to taxing as I explained. Even give you that point, what system pray tell should be used to run the Sim with a high dust multiplier, seeing as a high-end machine like mine cannot run it? One from NASA? The program should be designed to work on its highest settings given that a machine with high-end hardware can run it. Seeing as I already said none of my hardware was close to being taxed, it should work.

First of all, I'm not trying to make poor excuses for the program. I'm another user on the forum who's trying to help you.

You have a quad core, so if the program only uses one core, it'll be 25%. I think that makes sense with your 32%. The multicore option isn't working very well currently, it's a new feature disabled by default, and if you haven't enabled it, the program itself won't be able to use more than one core/25% of your CPU.
Graphics card, I don't think will make any difference beyond what your CPU can simulate. If it takes very long time to simulate every screen, I don't think you can get more than 1 FPS, no matter your graphics card.

I have a nVidia GTX 275 and an Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 at 2.80 GHz. Anything beyond a 5x multiple would lag terribly. 1x is the default (some are having problems with it being 25x as default since the Steam version, though, I think, which it's not meant to be.)
I don't know anything about the code involving the particles, but have you tried lowering the settings and seeing if it helps?

[markmc01]

First of all, I'm not trying to make poor excuses for the program. I'm another user on the forum who's trying to help you.

You have a quad core, so if the program only uses one core, it'll be 25%. I think that makes sense with your 32%. The multicore option isn't working very well currently, it's a new feature disabled by default, and if you haven't enabled it, the program itself won't be able to use more than one core/25% of your CPU.
Graphics card, I don't think will make any difference beyond what your CPU can simulate. If it takes very long time to simulate every screen, I don't think you can get more than 1 FPS, no matter your graphics card.

I have a nVidia GTX 275 and an Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 at 2.80 GHz. Anything beyond a 5x multiple would lag terribly. 1x is the default (some are having problems with it being 25x as default since the Steam version, though, I think, which it's not meant to be.)
I don't know anything about the code involving the particles, but have you tried lowering the settings and seeing if it helps?

Firstly, I'm sorry about my apparent attitude towards your replay to me. I believe I unjustly attacked you for no reason, and I want to apologize. I've just had surgery and on medication, and while that is no excuse, I have been in a fairly uncomfortable mood as of late.
    As to your reply, Yes I understand. I've tried the multicore button, but have experienced little result. I do own the steam version and it does default to 25x. I will try to lower it next time I run the simulation and will post my results here.

[Dan Dixon]

I added check for this in the Steam update I posted earlier today.

If the particle multiplier is less than .5 or greater than 2 it gives you a warning.

Let me know if this helps.

[Bla]

Firstly, I'm sorry about my apparent attitude towards your replay to me. I believe I unjustly attacked you for no reason, and I want to apologize. I've just had surgery and on medication, and while that is no excuse, I have been in a fairly uncomfortable mood as of late.
    As to your reply, Yes I understand. I've tried the multicore button, but have experienced little result. I do own the steam version and it does default to 25x. I will try to lower it next time I run the simulation and will post my results here.

No problem, I've also written things I've regretted later, that's what happens.

[Dan Dixon]

We all say things we regret. We don't all acknowledge that later. Thanks.