Let's Talk About No Man's Sky On PC

Image: Hello Games

On the weekend, No Man's Sky finally launched on PC. And while thousands of gamers registered their discontent, it didn't stop myself and Gizmodo's Campbell Simpson from spending the majority of the weekend with the game. But while we were able to play the game without much trouble, we still ran into issues of our own. So let's talk about the PC version, and what we thought of the game in general.


Image: Hello Games


Alex Walker, Kotaku Australia editor

So after a painstaking wait of a few days, No Man's Sky finally launched on PC — and the crowd went wild.

In the worst possible way.

28,850 user reviews on Steam. Only 57% were positive. Social media was filled with complaints about stuttering. Crashes to desktop. Appalling frame rates. A game that was "crippled" for consoles.

When I fired it up, I understood what the mob meant. There were jitters every few seconds. The graphics weren't great, but then we'd gotten an indication of that first hand from the PS4 version. And it was a giveaway in the system requirements anyway; you don't set a graphics card several generations old without a reason.

So I dug through the options. Fullscreen was enabled; so was FXAA, a FPS cap of 30, and bizarrely in one of the .ini files, Gsync.

So I set about correcting matters. I disabled Gsync manually. I'm on a i7-4770K and a GTX 1070, so FXAA was swapped out for the superior 4x SSAA. I unlocked the FPS cap and expanded the cramped field of view to 100, an option not available on consoles. And I switched from Fullscreen mode to Borderless.

Since then, the game has been fine. The stuttering has largely disappeared. I can ALT-TAB to the desktop without crashing. The frame rate hovers around 90-110; a little low given the system requirements, the raw power of my hardware and the fact that I'm playing at 1080p, but acceptable nonetheless.

And it hasn't crashed since. Cam, how's it been for you?


Image: Hello Games


Campbell Simpson, Gizmodo Australia editor

So, I woke up Saturday morning to install No Man's Sky, downloading it from GoG. My first exposure to the torrent of negative feedback from PC gamers was the almost comically negative reaction in the comments section of the gamev's release announcement there. Then, Reddit, and the links to TotalBiscuit's Twitch stream that he abandoned from pure frustration at stuttering gameplay. So I was cautious. But I'd played it on PS4, and I knew that I wanted to play more on PC.

And when I loaded up the game, it ran perfectly. My home machine is reasonably modern - i7-6700k and SLI'd 980s, as well as 32GB of RAM - and I'm playing at 1080p, both of which probably help a lot. But constant 90fps-plus after turning off v-sync and throwing the FOV to maximum and bumping up a bunch of texture and geometry settings is more than enough for enjoyable gameplay, even before any new patches or updated graphics drivers come out in the next week or so. Just about the only pain is alt-tabbing, which doesn't work so well.

I'm happy to report that it's even more enjoyable - for me, at least - on PC over PS4, mainly because the versatility that a keyboard and mouse has over a controller. Navigating the inventory - which you spend a significant proportion of your time doing in NMS - is a lot easier with a mouse and hotkeys. It's a game that looks really good on a big screen, so it lends itself to console gaming, but if you have the opportunity I strongly recommend you hook your gaming PC up to a TV.

But a game crippled for console? I don't think so. Sure, the art style is a bit lo-fi, and the highest quality textures still aren't great, but it's a whole, equally fun game on both platforms. Now, the one thing that I've seen the most annoyance about is the fact that you have to hold buttons to interact with items rather than tapping them. To me, that's the most minor change to make, and one that can hardly be the focal point for any legitimate complaint. What do you think?


Image: Hello Games

Alex: I think I mentioned during our livestream last week that the interface would be way better on PC because of the constant back and forth — and by God, is it ever. The transitions are even snappier if you're playing on an unlocked frame rate, and the few occasions where you have to hold down the left mouse for half a second aren't annoying in the slightest.

As for the lo-fi art style, I think it's a little more than that. It feels like all the models and textures are being upscaled from 720p, and it's not done well. My partner spent the whole weekend playing on PS4 next to me, and the PS4 version just looked sharper across the board.

Even forcing settings through the NVIDIA Control Panel and downsampling the game from 4K didn't result in parity, which has led many to question whether some of the graphics settings are having any impact at all.

It's a royal pain in the arse. NVIDIA said they'd push out a Game Ready Driver some time this week, and I'm looking forward to seeing what that, along with some patches from Hello Games, can do. They're already working overtime, but it's obvious that a lot was missed in QA — and I mean a lot.

Just take a look at the announcements on Steam over the weekend. Here's a list of all the issues Hello Games have pledged to patch:

  • Shaders are being built during gameplay
  • The Max frame rate setting results in sub-60fps on some setups
  • Sometimes the sound crackles
  • Alt-tabbing in fullscreen mode (not borderless) is completely borked
  • Flickering textures and the fat frame rate drops that come with it
  • Hard crashes to desktop because the game is accidentally selecting the integrated graphics, instead of the discrete GPU, on some systems
  • The game sometimes starts hogging the CPU — because the graphics card runs out of memory
  • "Thousands of lines of assembly" — that's a quote from Hello Games — had to be rewritten so the game worked with AMD Phenom CPUs
  • Gsync was enabled by default, an option you can't even turn on or off in-game

They've even published a beta branch of the game on Steam — which is a bit of a pain for those who purchased through Good Old Games. If they're having issues, will they get access to the beta branch as well?

It's an utter mess, and I can understand why some drew parallels with last year's catastrophic Batman: Arkham Knight. But with all the above — and there's plenty of problems to pick at — the game still functions pretty smoothly for a lot of people.

But those complaining have plenty of reasons to do so, especially if the game doesn't work at launch. I know more than a few PC gamers who just flip a table if things don't work immediately. If you're charging full price for something, however, paying customers have every right to whinge and demand a refund.

And as much fun as I'm having — there's very few games that I will play for 10+ hours in a single sitting — even I have my gripes.

I've got a i7-4770K, 32GB RAM, a GTX 1070, latest drivers, and I've ramped everything up to 10 in the NVIDIA Control Panel — and it still doesn't look as sharp as my partner's game on the PS4.

That's a problem. Will it stop me from playing? Christ no. What about you?


Image: Hello Games

Cam: No, not in the slightest. *But*, and this is a big but, I'll be playing it a lot in small amounts. I think that, for me, is what a game like NMS is all about — it's not about the "hey, whoa, where did those last eight hours go" experiences that I've had with heavily story-driven games like Tomb Raider and even shorter titles like Firewatch, or RTSes like Homeworld Remastered where I'm more likely to spend time 100%-ing a map before I finish up for the night. With No Man's Sky, I've found that I'm happy to jump in for a shorter period of time to just have a bit of a muck around.

I don't really play games all that often, and that means when I do play games, I'll devote a significant amount of time wherever possible to make for a seriously long enjoyable session where I don't feel like I've had that experience cut short by the demands of the real world. I don't feel that urge with NMS. I don't think I've had a session where I've played it for more than a couple of hours at a time. To be honest, I'm not sure — yet — whether it's just that it's the kind of game without a clearly defined objective — usually the kind of game that I thrive on — that means you can duck in and out as you want, or whether it's that the gameplay itself.

At the moment, writing this literally seconds after another two-hour session, I feel like the game isn't gripping. But that's probably just fatigue. I know that in a few more hours time, when I likely sit down in front of my PC again to play for another 10 minutes or half an hour or maybe even a complete hour, it's not because I feel any obligation to. There's no significant story to speak of, and I certainly don't feel obliged to try and make one for myself. I'm playing NMS in the same way that I've played Minecraft, just immersing myself in a world that doesn't really care whether I'm there or not and just taking some time out to enjoy mining or exploring or zooming around space.

I like that Hello Games has pledged to make fast fixes to the biggest pain points that players have with the game. I think that even afterwards, there's going to be a small but vocal backlash from players who won't be satisfied no matter what gameplay experience they have from now on in. That's the trouble of an imperfect launch — I know I have no interest in playing Arkham Knight, and I know it's fixed. Do you think NMS is a game that, from your time with it so far, will keep players interested and enticed enough that they: 1. keep playing, and 2. keep positive about the future potential of the game?


Image: Hello Games

Alex: Keep positive? If the last few months are any guide, the only thing that can be counted on is a propensity to overreact. Just look at the death threats to Stephen, Kotaku's US editor, for reporting that the game would be delay. Or critic Jim Sterling saying his site had been DDoS'd because he gave NMS a 5/10.

People go nuts for this game, perhaps quite literally. Maybe they need to lay off the iridium.

But the way you're playing is kind of what I was hoping for — something that can be enjoyed in small doses, a game that works around my life instead of being an interruption. I played NMS all throughout the weekend, and happily cooked, entertained, watched movies, watched the finals of The International, did the washing, whatever was required.

And I could do that because NMS was, for lack of a better phrase, a chilled game. And that's what I wanted.

So provided that matches people's expectations — and it's understandable if that's not — I think people will stick with the game for a while. And that's not factoring in the potential for mods, although whether that's compatible with how NMS coded the game isn't known.

At the end of the day, you and I are pretty fortunate. Any issues were fixed with a couple of tweaks. And that's been a common thread I've seen, where people have either had troubles getting the game to work at all, or to work smoothly. But a driver update here, a few changed options there, and normal service resumed.

Thing is, people shouldn't have to do that. There are enough oversights that make you question whether Hello Games had the resources to QA the PC port before it went out; the complaints on Steam are certainly indicative of that. And at the end of the day, first impressions last.

You didn't touch Arkham Knight because of its horrible reputation. A lot of interested players might not touch NMS for the same reason, or at least until it goes on sale. And plenty have given it a hard pass because they realised it wasn't the game they thought it would be.

No Man's Sky is a colourful, vibrant grind in space. That's fine — it's what I wanted from Elite: Dangerous. But a lot of gamers don't buy into that, because sooner or later they want something more. And it's up to Hello Games to provide that — as soon as they iron out some of the more critical bugs.


For those of you playing on PC — how's the experience been for you? Let us know in the comments!


Comments

    Oh and something that I've only just infuriatingly discovered at work: if you bought through Good Old Games, you don't get the benefit of cloud saves.

    Might try and workaround this with a USB stick and just copying the install folder from one PC to another; I'll let you know tomorrow how I go.

      Possibly also worth noting, if you get the non Galaxy version of it from GoG then it won't connect to any of the online stuff, which was obvious in hindsight, but didn't occur to me for 2 hours of play (thankfully the save worked across versions).

        You can however just run said non-galaxy version through galaxy and get the online features. I downloaded mine from the GoG site, and then tried running it through galaxy the next day.

        They also only added a notice to the game page about that some time after it had already released.

          I dont recall seeing it Friday, but the notice was there at launch. Or at least it was there around 4am when I DL'd it via Galaxy, which I hadnt had installed prior.

            All I know is I played the first hour or two without realising that was the case, til I looked up how you got to change your name and found someone had pointed it out :P

            Last edited 15/08/16 1:35 pm

              I was actually wondering whether you could use the loophole to run multiple sessions. Find the save folder, rename it to something else, then when it loads up it starts from scratch.

              Then, if/when you want to go back to the other game, just tinker with the folder names to switch them around.

      This makes sense, though. Cloud saves are a Steamworks feature, they wouldn't exist in the non-Steam version unless Hello Games implemented their own storage for it.

    Added to my "maybe when its 50% or more off" list.
    Looks ok, but I doubt I'd get $60 of value out of it. Hopefully by the time its around $20-$30 it will have a lot more content and all the bugs will be gone.

    Last edited 15/08/16 12:09 pm

      After 10 hours of play, I agree with you completely.
      After 26 hours of play, I'm moving my value estimate of the game upward. I think it's worth about $45USD now. Inventory grind was painful, until I realised the game wants you to move to planets where the task is easier.

      The music and audio is perfection. The sense of vastness/insignificance that hits you sometimes is sublime.
      There are a few things which are bad though: Buildings are too evenly distributed, and on EVERY planet the number is too similar, some should be dense and some really sparse.
      Ship appearance has zero connection with their size or features. It would be so easy to assign a size class to inventory slots, even just small medium large. I currently fly a toaster which is 75% of maximum capacity, yet the smallest ship I've ever seen.
      It's too easy, I've only ever died to pirates. And the last few times I just ignore them and keep flying because I know I can fly back and collect all of my loot from my grave with no pirates around later - the graves need to go. You need to spawn in a station with an empty ship and trade with the ships to get some fuel or something.
      UI is clunky, it feels like a console port.

      It feels like a beta version, it's not $88AUD release ready yet. Maybe it will be in a month.

      Last edited 16/08/16 10:12 am

    This is exactly what I was hoping for, but I'm still at a loss.

    I want to make a start on this game, on my PC. I have forgotten most of what I've learned over the past year of upgrading my gear, plus I know where I still lack. I don't want to have to try and justify to myself I need a monitor that outputs 4K. I'd rather aim for and achieve optimised settings for a game I think I'll just be happy to get lost in - therfore 1080/60.

    Not interested in watching TB's nuclear reactor of a rig chew up and spit out a game that was never promising to be fucking Crysis. That guy is poison.

      You really don't need a 4k monitor if you're wanting to upgrade for this and future games. Screenwise, IMO it'd be a better option to get 144hz capable 1080p, *MAYBE* 1440p screen but that's it. Then fork out on the 1080. Or swap the order of those 2 around.

        I'm probably going to stick with my tried and true HD tv as that's where my PC is plugged into as part of my entertainment centre. I am keen on stable output. Sounds like I'll have to wait a bit before purchasing if these patch promises are anyhting to go by.

          Also, crikey, a downvote? Really :D

            there you go, fixed it for you.

            Downvoted @ relation to the TB comment. Rough callout considering he has/had cancer.

            A rig that powerful shouldn't have hitches with any kind of game. As you said, it's not crysis so it shouldn't be that much of a taxation on the system.

            Last edited 15/08/16 3:06 pm

              I accept that, but I've got no time for the bloke. He's cornered the PC enthusiast market for a while sadly and I spent a year plus listening to/watching his stuff on and off as I ventured (back) into the high-end of PC things. Not a guy I think can be trusted but more power to those who do.

                Snipped this thread off for the sake of keeping the comments civil. Sorry if there was some useful discussion beyond this point but just a reminder to keep it friendly and on topic!

        Just my opinion of course, but a GTX1080 is overkill for 1080p. Hell, even a 1070 kind of is.

        They're in a sweet spot for 1440p though. I'm running a G-SYNC 1440p monitor with a 1070 and it's awesome.

        The only reason I'd go with one of those cards for 1080p is if you REALLY cared about going 120fps plus. Even then, you'll hit those frame rates at 1440p with those cards on a lot of games.

        (Of course, this whole discussion could be moot given how expensive 60fps+ 1440p monitors are :p) .

          Right, which is my point.

          Alex and Cam's discussion veers from 'this is why the PC version is like it is' (going as far as referencing Arkham Knight) into territory that could leave people mistakenly thinking the only way this version will be any good is with the bells and whistles only achievable with expensive upgrades. That doesn't seem to be the case.

          Arkham Knight looks and plays damn well on my PC, but I only bought it in January. Yet all you hear still is that the critical period of launch to a week after launch was bug-ridden. It's still not optimised however, but that's on me.

          I've read a few 'let's build a PC to the exact specs of Xbone/' or similar articles in the past and the thing that ends up mattering the most? The games themselves. We won't see games that benefit from the new bleeding edge for at least a couple of years - but by then those games will also be held to standards that are again raised too highly for most people who already spend close to 250/300 bucks on gaming a month.

            Something I didn't really have the space to include, but a friend of mine couldn't launch NMS on the Saturday. His GPU was well below spec and he's running a 2nd-gen i3, and was considering a refund.

            I told him, hang on, I'll lend you one of my GTX 780s. See how you go with that. So he came over, picked it up, checked out the game for a bit, then went home.

            After doing the borderless, vsync off, gsync off and the other fixes, the game works fine. I can't speak to the visual quality, but it's perfectly playable and he doesn't have any issues.

            The Arkham Knight reference was also in lieu of the discourse on Saturday morning/afternoon Australian time, which went a little too far IMO. The game has issues on launch, but it's not at the point where it should be pulled from sale.

    I just bought my first gaming PC & I'm finding it absolutely exhausting with all the fiddling I have to do to get a game running.

    Sometimes I install & everything is fine & then another attempt with a different game & I'm trying to fix settings & shit.

    I hope this gets easier with practice, but I totally understand why someone would complain if they can't get a game working properly or even at a decent level.

      Did you get the bits and pieces or did you grab one ready-made from Harvey's/etc? I just went and did the former late last year, still running into some issues at times but it's still good. The DIY gave me a big confidence boost with this stuff.

        Bits & pieces, had someone who knew what they wre doing help.

          All that remains of my existing machine is the case, power supply and that's it. Needed new CPU, so that meant gutting the thing and practically starting from scratch. Games that are released on multiple platforms by definition can't extend too far beyond what we see on consoles at any given point (imo), so for tinkerers or first timers the first milestone is 'this now runs and looks better'.

          The devs on No Man's Sky can't be expected to be bend over backwards to the fickle PC demographic on everything, diminishing returns and all.

    I still get occasional stuttering, but I found it seems to run better at higher settings on my computer, set the frame cap to 90 and it seems to be hovering much closer to 60 than it otherwise did. Turning anisotropic filtering to 16x is a must, given you'll rarely ever be looking straight at something. And borderless windowed is necessary if you have the attention span of a shrew, and alt-tab a lot.

    Otherwise, it runs at an acceptable level, aesthetics > graphics for life, and I'm having a lot of fun.

    I get a bit of stuttering for the first 30-60 seconds of loading and some stutter during the transitions between space/planet, but once it's all built/loaded it pretty smooth. The geometry pop-in is very noticeable when I'm boosting around on the planet's surface, but it doesn't really bother me that much.

    I did force AA, AF and vsync externally after reading about the in game settings being a bit weird.

    Core i7 3820, GTX980Ti, 16GB RAM.

    I spent a good portion of the weekend playing it. Had a couple of problems with stuttering frames, but after it gets running it worked well enough.

    Having tried to avoid any hype about the game past the original trailer/demo I have to say a) it took me a while to understand what the game itself is and b) once I figured what you can and can't do - (the limitations, invisible walls and the repeating elements) I have to say I really enjoy it.

    In a way it reminds me a lot of the space exploration in Spore. The joy of finding other life forms and creations. The only difference is that we're finding 100% computer generated content rather than a combo of computer and user created, which is a shame. It'd be great if in the future they allow for the creation of species/planets as well as just discovering them.

    After going v-sync off, max FPS and borderless I started getting horrible screen-tearing. Didn't know about the g-sync thing though, gotta try that I guess. Haven't really had problems though, the occasional stuttering happens I guess and may be even worse with borderless, but I'm a console pleb through and through so I don't even see any problems with the visual quality. I think I've even been playing with AA off, actually.

    There have been issues with PC where the 30FPS cap is set to 15, 60FPS cap is set to 30fps, and 90FPS is set to 60fps. Haven't experienced that personally.

    Alt Tabbing for me even in windowed borderless freezes and doesn't re open.

    Loving it. Was a bit choppy in first hour, but settled down after that (maybe after all the procedural generation had finished?)

    GTX970 + i7-6700k OC'd, getting 100fps ish on max settings.

    I've been lucky in that I haven't had any of the terrible crashes etc, but it's still...not great.

    I'm running it at 1440p G-SYNC with a GTX1070, 16GB RAM and an i5 4670K. Getting around 80-90fps on max settings, ignoring the dips and jitters.

    Ignoring the gameplay itself (which is okay - not terrible, not great), it's not a perfect port. My issues:

    - It might be because they didn't do any sort of "you hardware is X, your recommended default setting are Y", but I had to change: the resolution, frame rate cap, AA, graphics settings, etc etc. It loaded by default at 1080p 30fps cap, low settings.
    - The jitter/frame drops are baaaaaad. I can be flying over the planet with buttery smooth 90fps at 1440p, but when I try to do things like get out of my cockpit it stutters like mad.
    - Texture pop-in is SUPER noticeable.
    - PC controls are pretty terrible. Especially that UI. Flying with mouse and keyboard is not the best.

    Gameplay wise, it's alright. The seamless spaceflight -> fly through atmosphere -> land -> walk is awesome. Art direction is cool. The text based story/RNG aliens are pretty boring though (yes, I realise it's not a campaign-driven game). Sense of awe when flying onto a new planet is sweet. Moment to moment gameplay and resource gathering is pretty dull. After you've gone through a few RNG star systems it all starts to get very same-y. Survival aspects are easy enough to not be a major hassle (e.g. DayZ) but just enough to be annoying.

    It's a fun game to chill out to and listen to a few podcasts or your iPod, but not something I'll sink 100 hours into.

      Those are some nice consumer electronic components you have there.

      Ignoring this game, am I pushing shit up-hill with an i7-6770, GTX 970, 8GB RAM machine if I dip my toe into the 1440p scene?

        Not sure if this matters to you, but FYI if you're doing any Steam streaming (Steam Link etc) the host's aspect ratio should match the client, so 1440p would result in black bars on your TV.

        Not in the slightest, although from 2017 onward you might have to be playing on all low/medium settings when everything starts running on DX12/Vulkan.

        DOOM, for instance, should be playable at 60fps with the GTX 970 as long as you don't mind not playing on Ultra.

          Cheers Alex. I didn't go all out as it was my first upgrade. Pretty happy with it for now.

        Haha, thanks - had the whole system for a couple of years but got the 1070 last month.

        I'd say no - with current games you'll be okay with that setup at 1440p. Sure, you probably won't be smashing 120fps but that's a solid build. It probably just won't be super future proof - i.e. next year's AAA games you might hit a bit of a graphics settings wall.

        To be honest though, I'd prefer higher fps to higher resolution. If you're not upgrading your monitor, a 1070/1080 is probably overkill. You could always wait a bit, save the extra and get a new monitor and an 1170 (or whatever) in a year's time. The 970 is still pretty solid. It's only at higher resolutions where it struggles a bit with the VRAM.

          Yes, optimal/smooth performance is my target. In my heart of hearts, I'm quite fine playing below 1080p to get 60. Nintendo tragic at heart, so that may have something to do with it.

    It runs terribly on my machine. I'm using an i7-4790k and GTX-980, so lack of grunt isn't likely to be the problem. I've tried the various fixes (which helped a tiny bit), but irrespective of what graphics settings I use the frame rate swings and judders between 25 and 40 with only difference being the amount of graphics card utilisation. The CPU isn't bottlnecking, as it's running at a pretty consistent 25% load across all four cores. Hopefully a patch and some new Nvidia drivers will improve things, so I'm going to hold off on playing the game for now.

      If you're on steam, try the experimental branch (beta code '3xperimental') ... fixed the shader cache issue for me which was causing major stuttering. Worth a shot at least (and it's a small download/patch)

        I purchased through GOG, so can't access the beta patch unfortunately. I bought the game fully aware that this might be the situation, especially given the significant last minute changes Hello games made, so can't really complain (although, I'd hesitate to be too critical of people who are pissed off). Figured it was a coin toss as to whether it'd be playable for me, and the bet didn't pay off. Got my fingers crossed for the issues to be resolved by the weekend...

          I'll cross my fingers for you too... The beta patch seems stable otherwise though so hopefully they'll make it live quick-smartish

    I'm running it on the Alienware Alpha fairly well.

    Occasionally I will reach a point after a few hours playing where the framerate will suddenly drop to unbearable levels for no reason (happened 3 times on saturday) but I think that might be caused by me overclocking the card, and restarting seems to fix it.

    Using the steam controller to play which works incredibly for the game! Standard controller style, mouse style aiming, and gyro for the cockpit look :)

    Played for around 20 hours on the weekend, loved every minute.

    Last edited 15/08/16 2:46 pm

      The 2-3 hour slowdown is happening to many people. It's not your overclocking.

    Has Nvidia released optimized settings via Geforce Experience for NMS yet?

    EDIT: Google says yes - anyone tried them?

    Last edited 15/08/16 2:57 pm

      Haven't tried them yet. It's also worth noting that their game ready drivers are supposedly going to be out Monday U.S. time.

        I gave them a go on Saturday. It defaults to exclusive fullscreen instead of borderless. Borderless doesn't have the stuttering or alt-tabbing issues though, so I stopped using them and customised it myself.

          Full screen vs windowed borderless has always been an option you have to set yourself in Geforce Experience. You can change it by selecting the game, clicking the spanner icon at the top right of the settings area, then choosing windowed borderless from the display mode dropdown.

            The DSR features don't work in windowed borderless mode though, so its kind of pointless in the end (since that's the only feasible way around the blurry look right now).

              Hopefully in the near future they'll patch it so you can run full screen and alt-tab without the game shitting itself, so things like DSR are more viable to run. It's on their list of acknowledged bugs, though I struggle to understand how this wasn't discovered during development.

    people say Im full of shit, but the game runs perfectly 60fps for me 1080p maxed on an i5 4670k, 8gb ram, gtx 960 2gb. installed to spindle hdd. havent encountered any hitching except for occasional loading jumps when approaching a new planet (kind of like oblivion/skyrim back in the day).

    Running an old core i5 that I can't even remember which model (and I'm not at home right now) along with 8gb DDR3 ram and R9 390 at 1440p. No real issues. Had stuttering at first but disabling the 30 fps cap fixed that. Put in about 16 hours and only had two crashes (no error, just mining some minerals and the game CTDs)

    I played about 6 hours at full screen before switching before switching to bordered (1440p bordered on 4k monitor). Ran perfect at full screen, stutters a lot on borderless, runs perfect on bordered. Only switched to bordered so I can watch TV shows on my second monitor 'cause NMS isn't interesting enough to hold my attention without also doing something else.

    With the old i5 and only 8gb ram the tv shows struggle. No matter what I watch them through (itunes, Windows media player, VLC Player) they tend to freeze occasionally while playing and sometimes crash but the game runs perfectly fine the whole time.

      I5-3570k, 16gb, r9 390. Running bordeless at 1080p. Hovering at 50-60 fps outdoors, sometimes hitting 80 indoors. Imagine yours is much the same?

      Game largely runs without issue. Main annoyance, ignoring bugs, is texture pop in.

    To be HOnest, this game is not for its game-play and music. High freedom control and explore. However, the optimization still needs to be fixed and improve. Mine is 1080 and 16G RAM with i7 6700k. change to 60 fps. it usually drop fps from 60 to 25 or less. Hope it can be fixed soon.
    BTW, anyone know how to find Ti(Titanium)in game?

      I've found it to be quite plentiful on certain planets, showing up like Plutonium except as yellow crystals.

        you can also kill sentinels for titanium

        my system is an i7-2600, GTX960 and 8Gb runs great at 1080p but every 5 hours or so I get dropped to unplayable fps and have to restart the game to continue

          You too huh...

          My game the FPS drops after about 2 hours of gameplay, restart and the problem disappears.

          Titanium so far - killing sentinels, plants you interact with, "depot" way points you blow up the big tanks, buy from market place

    Got it to run fine on a machine well below minimum for CPU and RAM (E7600 Core Duo, 6Gb Ram GTX950) by playing at lower settings. Seems you can offset CPU and ram a little with a better graphics card if your happy to run it at lower res.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now