D4rkwolf: So, I've played with all the options from 1280x800 - 1920x1080, Min, Max, Medium.

They all look identical for the most part to me (Medium is my favourite).

If I turn off AA I get a smooth 60 everywhere on max, anytime its on, 24FPS average...which is odd since running doom on max is 48-72 FPS at 1080p

Anyone else wonder these things?

dashiichi: I haven't quantified it but there's a suggestion out there for NVidia systems: turn off Vertical Sync in-game, turn on Vertical Sync and Triple Buffering in the NVidia control panel settings for NMS. Having done that, it *seems* smoother but that could just be a placebo effect.

Serren: Something I think a lot of people forget (or don't know) is that No Man's Sky not only uses procedural generation heavily, but it uses a voxel-based engine. You can't compare performance directly to a standard 3D polygonal engine with static assets.

I'm not sure if there is a single performance killer in NMS. These are some of the settings I use:

Procedural texture generation can be pretty taxing, which is why I run texture quality at "high" instead of "ultra".

FXAA, TAA or TAA+FXAA all seem to run ok for me, but I only use FXAA as TAA blurs too much.

HBAO doesn't have much of a performance impact on my system, which is surprising since SSAO is usually the first thing I disable in other games to dramatically improve performance at a negligible (sometimes undesired) visual expense.

Finally I have reflections set to low, which makes a huge difference on ocean worlds without really hurting visuals. I have seen some people trying to do screenshot comparisons with this setting, but they were actually looking at the environment and specular mapped textures, not reflections.

I also have vsync disabled, but I do that for most games to improve input latency anyhow.

Serren: You should be in much better shape than me. My Windows/game system is an i7 4700MQ @ 2.4GHz and GTX 765M with 2GB VRAM. The small amount of VRAM on my video card is most likely the reason I can't run ultra textures without massive slow down. FXAA has practically no performance impact for me. I do have 32GB of system RAM but I don't think NMS makes use of most of that, although I might try running the game entirely from a RAM drive one day.

While the 765M has more shader cores and TMUs than the 1050, the 1050 is a newer architecture and operates at significantly higher clock speeds. Your faster CPU probably also helps a lot with a game like NMS as it is likely being used more heavily than in traditional game engines which are typically GPU bound.

NMS could stand to be more optimised. For instance I don't think it does back face culling, which could dramatically improve performance. I'm sure there is a complicated reason why Hello Games aren't doing it, but maybe they'll figure something out in the future.

D4rkwolf: So, I've played with all the options from 1280x800 - 1920x1080, Min, Max, Medium.

They all look identical for the most part to me (Medium is my favourite).

If I turn off AA I get a smooth 60 everywhere on max, anytime its on, 24FPS average...which is odd since running doom on max is 48-72 FPS at 1080p

Anyone else wonder these things?

XenonS: Have you tried turning VSYNCH to off? Your fps should then also increase.
I notice that when I unlock the Atlas Pass V2 in the game which unlocks 2 additional rooms in most buildings on planets, then my fps will hit the floor, my screen is almost tearing :((

XenonS

D4rkwolf: I shall try that!, TBH I never mess with VSync, on desktop it's off by default, on my Laptop, it's always on...I shall try turning it off!

XenonS: It depends on the game, some play smoother with VSYNCH OFF, others do well with it.

XS