Some of the settings there are absolute killers. Volumetric coulds is nuts. The game is 90% staring at the ground, and I lose 10+ fps with that. Ditto for transparent reflections, and the settings for global illumination on high are insane as well.
Sure, once you tune it down selectively it looks like CS1… but it also performs like it.
I really don't understand some of the choices they made here, either in the way the visuals work, the way the default settings work or the way they communicated it. If they hadn't come out saying it'd be super heavy and they renamed "high" to "ultra" or had an intermediate setup between medium and high they wouldn't be getting this much crap.
I strongly disagree. The game has massive performance issues and I'm getting 10-20 FPS on the lowest possible settings with my 2080 Super. At that point it looks worse than CS1 and performs worse.
Also the 7 FPS or so on the main menu are ridiculous, unless they're using my pc to mine crypto in full force.
If they release a complete game for 50€ or 90€, then I expect that shit to be a super smooth experience, even on the minimum recommended specs, which do in fact note a GTX 980 if I recall correctly.
So either get the specs correct, optimise the game properly or get out of the business. I'm a programmer myself and I'd be deeply ashamed if I released software that performs so poorly.
That does sound like a setting is bugged somewhere, or perhaps like one of the problematic settings is not toned down on the low preset. It's hard to tell without testing on the specific hardware. I'm curious enough that I may install it in more devices with less VRAM and mess with the settings just to see what happens.
I do think if they hadn't told people that performance was going to be messed up you'd absolutely assume that's a bug, given that, as you say, it doesn't match their spec notifications.
No one told me before I bought it, and it's not mentioned on the steam store, see the point of the specs. So I don't quite understand what you mean with "if they hadn't told people", because they sure didn't unless you're on that specific social media they did it on.
I've watched all those feature videos before and they don't mention that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
Anyways I don't want to occupy your time and argue, in the end I'm just super miffed and disappointed because I had a free weekend for once and was looking forward to binging CS2.
They did put out an announcement that they had "missed their performance targets", and that made news.
It's fair to be disappointed, though. There ARE serious issues here. The game can be made to run acceptably (I went and dug up a comparable card to your 2080 and yeah, it's a 1080p30 game there, but it works). That takes significant fiddling in their advanced menu, and there are significant visual compromises to be made.
At the very least, their default presets should have been tuned differently. That would have been free and prevented the whole "it runs at 20fps on my 4090 on low" frustration with no additional development effort. Not to say that they shouldn't be patching this up a LOT going forward, but they had tools to mitigate that they're not using, which is very confusing.
2080 SUPER here too and while I also get the seriously low framerate in the menu (1 - 2 FPS for me) I also get 30+ FPS in game on medium settings at 4k (on an empty map) so I'm not too sure what's going on with your PC unless your CPU is the bottleneck. If I go up to high settings then performance does drop down to ~15 FPS.
I agree the performance is not great and I'm absolutely not justifying it, just throwing in my experience too. It's mostly playable for me and I can probably live with it until it's hopefully patched.
I was playing all night last night on low (second from bottom) at 1440p and getting constant 60fps with occasional frame hiccups if I zoomed quickly or scrolled way across the map quickly.
I have a 2080 non super.
So there must be something else going on.
On the very lowest settings I was getting around 80-90 fps.
Yeah, a 2080 should be more than capable of handling a game like that, badly optimized or not. I've seen people report running the game much better with way worse cards.
However all the people I see complaining here of terrible performance don't mention which CPU they have, when it was already the bottleneck in C:S 1… And the kind of people who don't think the CPU is relevant information probably aren't the kind to use a modern, top-of-the-line CPU.
I'll still wait until the patches roll in before buying it, but I'm also not going to trust complaints from players who don't even know which CPU they are using when playing a CPU-bound game.
I've the same GPU but way older CPU (3900X) and could play for 3h without issues yesterday.
I noticed that the game is using multithreading way better than C:S 1. All cores of my CPU were used equally which made me think that the technical foundation seems to be solid, just too demanding for the average gaming PC.
I'm on openSUSE btw
Assuming this is about C:S 2, turning off Vsync and setting to medium graphics gets my 60+ FPS. 6800XT and Ryzen 7 5800X3D, Arch linux btw
I read C:S 2 as CS:2…
It's the TF2 (Team Fortress 2 / Titanfall 2) situation all over again
Transport Fever 2, surely?
Diablo 2 (good) / Destiny 2 (I have so many rants)
At least on this case they have the : to difference themselves…
Same, I had to go back and reread. I was so confused.
Sorry, that's Cities: Skylines 2, not Counter-Strike Source 2, right?
Correct.
I had it running at 100+ fps.
Some of the settings there are absolute killers. Volumetric coulds is nuts. The game is 90% staring at the ground, and I lose 10+ fps with that. Ditto for transparent reflections, and the settings for global illumination on high are insane as well.
Sure, once you tune it down selectively it looks like CS1… but it also performs like it.
I really don't understand some of the choices they made here, either in the way the visuals work, the way the default settings work or the way they communicated it. If they hadn't come out saying it'd be super heavy and they renamed "high" to "ultra" or had an intermediate setup between medium and high they wouldn't be getting this much crap.
I strongly disagree. The game has massive performance issues and I'm getting 10-20 FPS on the lowest possible settings with my 2080 Super. At that point it looks worse than CS1 and performs worse.
Also the 7 FPS or so on the main menu are ridiculous, unless they're using my pc to mine crypto in full force.
If they release a complete game for 50€ or 90€, then I expect that shit to be a super smooth experience, even on the minimum recommended specs, which do in fact note a GTX 980 if I recall correctly.
So either get the specs correct, optimise the game properly or get out of the business. I'm a programmer myself and I'd be deeply ashamed if I released software that performs so poorly.
That does sound like a setting is bugged somewhere, or perhaps like one of the problematic settings is not toned down on the low preset. It's hard to tell without testing on the specific hardware. I'm curious enough that I may install it in more devices with less VRAM and mess with the settings just to see what happens.
I do think if they hadn't told people that performance was going to be messed up you'd absolutely assume that's a bug, given that, as you say, it doesn't match their spec notifications.
No one told me before I bought it, and it's not mentioned on the steam store, see the point of the specs. So I don't quite understand what you mean with "if they hadn't told people", because they sure didn't unless you're on that specific social media they did it on.
I've watched all those feature videos before and they don't mention that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
Anyways I don't want to occupy your time and argue, in the end I'm just super miffed and disappointed because I had a free weekend for once and was looking forward to binging CS2.
They did put out an announcement that they had "missed their performance targets", and that made news.
It's fair to be disappointed, though. There ARE serious issues here. The game can be made to run acceptably (I went and dug up a comparable card to your 2080 and yeah, it's a 1080p30 game there, but it works). That takes significant fiddling in their advanced menu, and there are significant visual compromises to be made.
At the very least, their default presets should have been tuned differently. That would have been free and prevented the whole "it runs at 20fps on my 4090 on low" frustration with no additional development effort. Not to say that they shouldn't be patching this up a LOT going forward, but they had tools to mitigate that they're not using, which is very confusing.
2080 SUPER here too and while I also get the seriously low framerate in the menu (1 - 2 FPS for me) I also get 30+ FPS in game on medium settings at 4k (on an empty map) so I'm not too sure what's going on with your PC unless your CPU is the bottleneck. If I go up to high settings then performance does drop down to ~15 FPS.
I agree the performance is not great and I'm absolutely not justifying it, just throwing in my experience too. It's mostly playable for me and I can probably live with it until it's hopefully patched.
I was playing all night last night on low (second from bottom) at 1440p and getting constant 60fps with occasional frame hiccups if I zoomed quickly or scrolled way across the map quickly.
I have a 2080 non super.
So there must be something else going on.
On the very lowest settings I was getting around 80-90 fps.
Yeah, a 2080 should be more than capable of handling a game like that, badly optimized or not. I've seen people report running the game much better with way worse cards.
However all the people I see complaining here of terrible performance don't mention which CPU they have, when it was already the bottleneck in C:S 1… And the kind of people who don't think the CPU is relevant information probably aren't the kind to use a modern, top-of-the-line CPU.
I'll still wait until the patches roll in before buying it, but I'm also not going to trust complaints from players who don't even know which CPU they are using when playing a CPU-bound game.
I've the same GPU but way older CPU (3900X) and could play for 3h without issues yesterday. I noticed that the game is using multithreading way better than C:S 1. All cores of my CPU were used equally which made me think that the technical foundation seems to be solid, just too demanding for the average gaming PC. I'm on openSUSE btw
The 3900x isn't really way older than the 5800X3D, only 1.5-ish generations older.
I guess so, though I imagine the 3D cache of the 5800X3D might benefit the workload of this game specifically
These worked for me. I'm at about 10k citizens and the game is running fine. 3000 series GPU
Vsync off, high settings, full screen windowed Ryzen 2700x, 7700xt… no idea what frame rates are but perfectly playable… Only 5k in city so far.
Biggest complaint are the maps… Pretty but annoying.
deleted by creator