EA game , can get bad opt in each big update to later fix it

They will continue to optimize for performance, but if you expect a major breakthrough you might be disappointed. After all this is a game with fully dynamic environments, running on Unity game engine which is not exactly known for its efficiency. Valheim will never run as well as some other game which features mostly content that was known at the time when the game was made. You can optimize LODs, lightmaps, asset streaming etc so much better when the exact content in the game world is known in advance. Procedurally generated games such as Valheim do not have this luxury.

Originally posted by Hollusta:

Is this in the plans?

As any EA game - it is in plans, but at the last place.

Buy normal pc, me and my friend have zero problems with it being optimized

Originally posted by Skullopendra:

Buy normal pc, me and my friend have zero problems with it being optimized

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

Originally posted by Skullopendra:

Buy normal pc, me and my friend have zero problems with it being optimized

what does this bring to the table here exactly?........besides the fact your full of it

For what PC they should optimize it a Pentium2 from 1999? It runs perfectly fine on a GTX1060. Just because the graphics look simpel by design doesnt mean it actually is. Why do you think all this games with destroyable worlds haven't crysis level of graphics? Come back in 10-20 years if you want that.

Originally posted by magnificent moose:

You can optimize LODs, lightmaps, asset streaming etc so much better when the exact content in the game world is known in advance. Procedurally generated games such as Valheim do not have this luxury.

You can still optimize LODs, lightmaps and etc. The problem is, that, for example.. In a static world game, you, as a dev, can make sure that the most resource-expensive features are never spammed tightly in the same room, near each other.
In dynamic world games like Valheim, users can do that on their own, breaking any levels of preparations developers could have. For example, lighting is a very power-consuming thing, so most static world games pre-bake the light into the world. You really cannot have such kind of luxury a dynamic world games. That makes all your lighting dynamic - the most power-hungry type of lighting. Basically, an RTX raytracing level of power-hungry.
If you add more than 3-5 sources of dynamic lighting in the same frame of the screen, you'll get a very poor performance even on the beefiest GPUs there are.

Then, you apply physics calculations, which is an another power-hungry feature not many games are brave enough to adapt.

The world being dynamic adds its own layer of recalculations, so it is also power-hungry.

Originally posted by darkstar:

For what PC they should optimize it a Pentium2 from 1999? It runs perfectly fine on a GTX1060. Just because the graphics look simpel by design doesnt mean it actually is. Why do you think all this games with destroyable worlds haven't crysis level of graphics? Come back in 10-20 years if you want that.

I have 30-70 fps FULL HD on the rx 6600

Originally posted by SiEgE:

You can still optimize LODs, lightmaps and etc.

What I mean is that if you know that your game has a certain forest area for example, you can prepare the forest to be viewed from a distance as a singular unit, which opens up a whole world of optimization techniques you can use to make it efficient. You can bake any amount of information you need about displaying the area efficiently. By contrast, a procedurally generated forest looks different every time. The result only really exists when its generated around the player and not before. Issuing draw calls for each tree in the forest for example is very expensive in terms of performance, but merging geometry together dynamically for faster drawing is a very difficult thing to achieve when you have to do it strictly in real time.

Same thing with lightmaps. You can bake the lighting if you know which objects and lights exists and where, but since you don't know in this case, you cannot prebake information about them.

I reckon most people don't think about these things, they just take notice that their favorite triple A game runs much better and looks better too, so its disappointing that Valheim is not on par with them. But there is a reason why most procedural games look more modest and run worse.

Originally posted by SiEgE:

Originally posted by Skullopendra:

Buy normal pc, me and my friend have zero problems with it being optimized

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

You starting the game using Vulkan? You have to start through steam/library, and not taskbar steam icon. My 3060 ti gets 100-144 fps and isn't even breaking a sweat. All max settings.

Originally posted by SiEgE:

Originally posted by Skullopendra:

Buy normal pc, me and my friend have zero problems with it being optimized

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

2700x 3080ti 32gb ram never have a problem. You should go get a console.

Originally posted by TheAntiCamper:

Originally posted by SiEgE:

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

You starting the game using Vulkan? You have to start through steam/library, and not taskbar steam icon. My 3060 ti gets 100-144 fps and isn't even breaking a sweat. All max settings.

I too have 100-144 fps :) but I'm talking about the lower end of fps. Once you start doing minor improvements to your base, you'll start seeing dips down to 90-70 fps. It is just a matter of time until you start to.

I don't care if the game gives out 500 fps on a fresh new map, with me just spawned in the center. All I care is the fps I get as I do things I usually/I'm expecting myself to do in a game with that amount of features and interactivity.
If it drops down to 70 fps for me at that point, then it is how I'll measure fps.

Originally posted by Roostahh:

Originally posted by SiEgE:

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

2700x 3080ti 32gb ram never have a problem. You should go get a console.

I don't care about the basic, "fresh world", "just joined" fps :) That is like saying "this game runs well, because it gives out 2k fps when I pause it".

Originally posted by TheAntiCamper:

Originally posted by SiEgE:

my r9 5900x, rtx 3070, 64gb ram is having some issues with this game's performance :)
What kind of "normal" are you talking about?

I'll have no issues playing 60fps, granted, but I want more, and with the current level of optimizations it is almost impossible.

You starting the game using Vulkan? You have to start through steam/library, and not taskbar steam icon. My 3060 ti gets 100-144 fps and isn't even breaking a sweat. All max settings.

Vulkan, fresh reinstalls, config edits, driver tinkering, some knowledge in rendering and programmatic part of it, too.

The game starts with decent 120-140 fps, but as I gradually improve my base, fps dips.