I was never really interested in the game but after watching "The Engoodening of No Man's Sky" I'm always glad when I hear positive things about the game, the developers really turned things around.
Congrats for showing the industry it's still okay to lie and release garbage before it's finished. 👍 Gamers are the most screwed over group in retail and will probably never realize it's all their fault.
@@SVW1976 they had a game that didn't live up too the hype and they fixed it, seems like they did better than some other Devs like EA that got there cash and ran away and just closed the game down.
@@SVW1976 So just to confirm, you'd prefer if people never made up for their mistakes, and just continued to make them? No Man's Sky was made by an indie dev that overestimated their abilities and was under pressure from Sony. They have spent the past 6 years making up for their mistakes. Meanwhile you are still living in 2016 and apparently believe that nobody should ever be forgiven for anything ever.
3:07 - Fun fact, there's a mod actually that completely fixes the stutter you get when leaving planets. According to the mod author, the culprits are the files in nexus/parts folder, where they have to be uncompressed/compressed, each adding a little to the stutter - which becomes a rather big stutter at the end
You can mod the game to run on all uncompressed files and for better, if you have at least 32GB extras of free RAM, can make a RAM drive and move the game directory to there. That way you can eliminate the loading of assets.
Games runs better than it used to, has more content, and has one of my favourite VR implementations that more devs could take a lesson from (namely, being able to play VR with your friends while they're on a monitor). That it can run on modern integrated graphics is just icing on the cake, and I still cannot really believe how they turned this around from the disastrous launch.
And out rolls the 640 by 480 12inch LCD from 2004! It’s a brilliant game and I have had hours of fun with my 8 year old son, I even built him his first gaming PC for this with a 3400G! Little under powered graphically but he’s a happy chappy. Great content as always 🙏🏼
A mini PC/NUC or a cheap-ish laptop with the latest 6000 series APUs (preferably Ryzen 7, as the R5 parts cut the iGPU shader units in half iirc) should provide a great upgrade imo!! Look for R7-6800U/H/HS but with decent cooling or you could always take out the mobo & make a DIY NUC/HTPC
@@mobarakjama5570 you mean build a PC with those, or at best buy a laptop with those already in. Which is either way a bad idea because they cost too much, and especially in a laptop they heat too much.
@@sushimshah2896 Hey could you tell me the difference between the U, H and HS in amd laptop APUs / CPUs? Also I'm looking exactly for that: a ryzen 6000 apu laptop with good cooling for about 1000€, but I still haven't found a good one. Do you have any reccomendations?
What's weird isn't the integrated graphics, but that they then upped the requirements of the discrete graphics. If it runs this well on integrated, surely it will at least as well on the old minimum GPU settings.
Yeah that is a mystery. Might be because those previous cards are now end of life and less and less people use them. Even though they’re still great old cards!
@@TheBackyardChemist Even if that is the case, you'd think they'd drop the requirements to the lower 10 series cards, like the GTX 1050 or even GT 1030.
@@ZipplyZane The GT 1030 is not guaranteed to be Pascal based, there are some Kepler die 1030s which would have much worse Vulkan support. But you are right about the 1050, that ought to be supported.
The new updates to the game have made it sooooo much better But first impressions are usually the most impactful, and many people still refuse to play this game
I always wait after couple of bigger updates to try it. Its still boring, but i drop around 50h or more in the game. Wats most annoying is they tend to change a lot of things regarding resources, blueprints, and some side missions. So every time (this was 4th time i think) i started from begining, because its easier than trying to sort out what's where, and how to craft again.
I played it recently and sank quite a lot of hours (about 100 I think) into it. I say it did a great job making this far. The only disappointment I have is coop is only for anomaly, otherwise it's fake coop. Just hanging around near your friends couldn't even fight sentinels together without triggering their own waves of invasion.
I used to run NMS on an old 760, it basically looked like this half the time. You might not think the dropping frames on planet entry is that much of a deal, but honest to god it's a whole different experience dropping onto a planet now with no lag or frame drops. That being said, it's amazing it runs at all like this!
This is interesting, to put it mildly! I used to play No Man's Sky a couple of years ago, still using the same HP OMEN 15-dc0003na. That is, i7-8750H, 16GB (it was 16GB then, but is now 32GB), 1TB + 1TB SSDs, and GTX 1050Ti. That setup (with thermal throttling due to fans/heatsink) managed about 30FPS at 1080p medium, which I was happy with. Medium still looks good. Wonder how the same system will cope now, given the 1050Ti is below the minimum requirement of a 3GB 1060.
Might've been the CPU. I had a Dell G3 with a (thermal throttled to hell and back) i5-8300H and 1060 Max-q, and I would get unplayable perf in some games. Some of those I can now play just fine on my 5700G's integrated GPU.
@@capsulate8642 Well at least I don't think the PC thermally throttles as much as it did back then, so I'll have to try. Having said that, the PC (or should I say laptop) did constantly hit 90-100 C before I cleaned the cooling system, so the CPU (and later on GPU, as they both use the same heatsink system) was thermally throttling itself! I guess the only way to avoid thermal throttling is (a) clean the cooling system every 6 to 12 months, or (b) undervolt the CPU...
the game didn't really get more demanding. they just updated the specs to stuff that's actually available. should actually do better now because of fsr help
Nice video as always! I still say you could add a small bit of gameplay at the end where you limit the FPS to a bit below the typical average so the GPU can breathe a little, like in this case maybe 40 FPS would be nice? The idea being to reduce the overall clunk a little and a smoothen the overall framerate, hopefully giving a little quality of life improvement. A more consistent 40 versus a janky 45? I know which one I'd pick.
Love when games allows for resolution scale to be lowered so dramatically. I like playing in super low settings when I’m on battery power and/or running it off the iGPU
The saddest thing about watching your videos after around 4-5 years or so is that I have pretty much my dream system these days. I got into pc gaming with the help of channels like yours, shame that I don't watch all that often anymore. I've graduated from budget gamer when I was younger to being the kingpin. Thanks for the videos mate.
@@SianaGearz I'm just saying that I no longer super fall into the budget category for gaming, which is primarily what I watched him for when i was younger.
It's like you read my mind! New pc parts coming today, and I was wondering if I should get this game or not, the concept seems so cool and it's nearly endless
@@honkmandeluxe i3 10100f, 16gb ddr4 3200mhz, and an RX 470 4gb. Good enough for the games I play, also the PC was very very cheap for the performance. Cost me under $200 to build with used parts
I've been playing NMS since last year with AMD Ryzen 3200G's integrated Vega 8 graphics plus a very standard 8 GB of RAM with no issues. Of course I acknowledge the level of processing power my setup is limited to, so I ran most my playtime with the standard lowest graphical settings (the ones that are actually playable) and still getting a consistent 60 frames per second especially in space and space structures, with some hardly noticeable fluctuations on some planets.
Playing at that sort of resolution will probably take about 20 years off your eye sight lifespan! That's worse than what the HD3450 needs in order to run GTA 5.
No Man's Sky is surprisingly CPU heavy and light on the GPU side. I can run 5k2k no problem on a 2070 super but even my 12600k struggles with 1% and .1% lows when on a planet. It's cool that it runs this well on intel UHD though. I think storage read speeds is maybe the biggest bottleneck, but i don't have any PCIE 4/5 to test that hypothesis on.
I didn't know resolution scaling was an option and used to play the game at 800x600, on Intel HD (not UHD) graphics 630, it usually was playable unless there was a storm, in that case it would be like 15FPS max.
I play some of the expeditions on occasion on a 2060S and noticed if the refresh rate is over 75hz my card pushes 86c. I do play at 1440p to match my monitor with shadows on standard and I can get 60 fps+ at under 74c. Animations are CPU bound I believe so I have that on high 5900x.
It's impressive how a relatively cheap modern APU can run NMS so well and almost lag-free. I remember playing the game on FX 6300 + HD7790 and the stutters were all over the place with 30 fps on the lowest + 720p.
There is a MOD that seems to fix that stuttering issue when entering and leaving a planets atmosphere. It pretty much happens with ALL combinations of hardware, it happened with my older GTC 1080 Ti and still happens with my RC 6900XT until I installed this mod. The mod is named Remove lag when leaving planets over on the Nexus.
Because of huge variability in PCs, system requirements are always a bit hit-and-miss. You might have a PC that should run a game easily and generally does but stutters frequently or one that shouldn't, but copes admirably on medium settings due to fortunate wins on the silicon lottery, good configuration and effective cooling. Low frame rates bother me a lot less than stutters!
I noticed while playing this game, the more RAM the system has the less stutter the game produces. I upgraded to 32GB of RAM with my R9 5900X and RX 6700XT combo and noticed insane performance stability and increases for most titles, including No Man's Sky
I have been playing that game since day one. I never stopped playing it. Have taken a break here and there thou. I remember that the original game was only a few to several gigs big. So all those six years of updates have fattened it up since then.
Is there anything you can do with getting rid of the flickering? It seems that would cause some big headaches with any amount of time spent playing the game.
With that title, perhaps you could test Among Us with whatever oldest most potato parts you could get your hands on considering all that's listed on Steam for minimum system requirements is SSE2 instruction support for CPU (so Socket 423 Pentium 4 from like 2000-2001 for example) with just 1GB RAM, DX10 Graphics (GT 210 should be just fine) & 250MB available storage space with Windows 7 SP1+ for OS.
Among Us actually runs fine on my Samsung Galaxy Tab S4, and would probably also run fine on my Galaxy S9 Plus. So I think any PC with enough horsepower to load a basic web browser on Windows 7+ should be able to run Among Us.
I played the day one version of this game on my old PC back in 2016. I had a GT430, 4GB of ram, and an i3 540. I could barely get 15fps on 720p. Fast forward to November of 2017. I downloaded the game again on my brand new laptop with an i7 7500U and a 940MX. My God. It was the same as before. Four years later, I downloaded the game on my new PC and it runs like a dream.
@@yeetus59 You won't believe what I used to play with that card. I installed GTA V on its first day of release and got around 25-35 fps. As soon as I switched to Win 10 from 8.1, my fps went up to 45-60. I even ran Rainbow 6 Siege on it, but it wasn't enough for a competitive experience.
@@yeetus59 It probably won't. My friend had a GT640 back in the day and we used to play games together as two nvidia bois. He could easily play Cod Advanced Warfare whereas I never got past playing Ghosts. I could get around 50-80 (!) fps on Black Ops 2, but then it all came crashing down after Ghosts was released. P.S: I had pre-ordered Ghosts back then, so it still hurts to this day xD
I used to play NMS on my old PS4 a few years ago, it had horrible stutters and the FPS was probably 30-40 FPS most of the time Playing it again on my new PC with an RTX 3060 and it’s a completely different experience
I pre-ordered this on PC, stopped playing not long after. Now, in 2022 it's in my top 3 most played games 😂 especially when you are stoned af, awesome chill fun! It's shame for them it took this long to become polished, and the battles they encountered after release because of it, hard lessons. (also atm world Pirate encounters seem to be a bit too excessive imo) AS for the micro-pauses, yes that is 144% world/space aka zone-loading. My game is running on an 8 core/0 thread 5ghz and its stored onto x2 raid0 nvme 970pro sticks, it doesn't matter how fast it is-the pauses will be there, unfortunately. (i imagine MAYBE a time difference in how long the pause is could be a factor for slower systems?)
Just a note- the steam version runs much more smoothly than the gamepass version. I’m not sure if it’s the lack of true full screen support from how Microsoft store games are implemented. I can’t wait to see how the switch handles this game though. Subnautica series had a terrible crashing issue when I played through them on switch.
It would be awesome if you tried FSR 2.0 DLSS mods and see how they perform on low end graphics. ^^ I know there is one for No Man's Sky for example. Thanks for the video though!
I love NMS I started playing in 2020, it’s such a chill game. If you keep a open mind and use a little imagination it can be endless fun IMO. Kind of like how you can grow medical herb like Gek Nip and run around the galaxy selling it as contraband! Nip Nip for all! 🌱💚🦎
Surprised that intel hd can play the game the performance its actualy not bad. And more devs should be like this updating the system requirements its a big help for us consumers.
My old laptop with 8gb RAM, an i7 and like intel HD 500 graphics or something plays NMS on lowest settings. It actually looks pretty decent too and runs fairly well. The only issue when entering or leaving a planet, the FPS drops to like 5 lol
Because nvidia uses tensor cores which are only in new cards, what do you want them to do? Come at your house and put tensor cores in your older gpu? :))
imagine being a fanboy and not knowing wtf is what. Nvidia uses tensor cores, you cant magically create tensor cores on AMD gpus. AMD just got behind in the race sadly.
@@keyrif7111 NVIDIA made upscaling that will only work on their new/high end cards. AMD made upscaling that work with all brands and cards from 5 years ago. Factsmatter. Also, I have a 2060S.
I don't know if anyone has posted this, but on NexusMods there's a No Lag mod that can be installed to remove the stutter when leaving atmospheres. It works very well and has been updated for 4.0
Heh, I got this on sale recently and saw that then thought why are the dedicated GPUs that high? Must be some fancy driver thing? It does look great all maxed out, a well made/maintained game.
I feel like nowadays the minimum specs requirement is just a "it will run, but you won't play it." kind of ordeal. While for the recommended they're saying this is the recommend pc to run the game at the highest settings for a stable 60fps.
I have a little problem collecting older gpus and building systems based on parts avaliable when the gpu was released I have a main system with a 2060 super and i5 10600k . When I saw the old minimum said a gtx 480 would be fine but now it's changed I decided to test a few cards so I got my i7 990x system out of the display and used a gtx 580 1.5gb , gtx 580 3gb ,gtx 670 ftw 2gb and for fun a r9 290x 4gb and honestly every single card ran fine the gtx 580 1.5gb struggled to stay on 30fps but all the others hit 30gps and up the 2gb gtx 670 was great at 720p it got over 40fps with solid frame times the only one that really had a problem was the 290x because it got really hot trying to run it and started having artifacts on the screen
Exiting planet stuttering is common for everyone, I guess. There's a mod to fix that but I can't seem to have it worked. My rig are pretty old and weak (it was only mid end 7 yrs ago, imaging how it fares now) but still can play smoothly and crisp. It does get worse well fighting sentinels tho.
i5-4590, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 660 OEM 1.5 GB and I just finished this game in cca 60 hours on 720p stock low if I recall correctly or doing something mild with LowSpecsExperience (good software), it was suffering during heavy combat and entering the atmosphere, but never in space combat, and that is where the combat should be, I don't like ground combat in this relaxing game, it's very good now, and with 12 or so GB of storage, it's a steal, not really taxing on your hardware, fun to play and get lost in, apart from a few minor bugs, a very good experience, if you haven't, you should totally play it
I've played this game so many times, I bought it at launch, knowing what it was, and it was good enough, then, though the over-promise and under-deliver did lots of harm.
Man, i bought this on launch day for PC too, and I was pissed because I played it for 2 hours and like 2 minutes and Steam refused my refund on it. But well, I'm kinda glad, because it's actually kind of good now.
I love No Man's Sky. I discovered it this past month thanks to Xbox PC Game Pass and I've loved it. I bought it on Steam and transferred my save over (with some save game editors) and I've continued to dive into the game when I just need a relaxing moment.
I also run a 12400F system. Amazing single core performance, and the multi-core performance is even around 28% faster than my X99 Haswell-EP Xeon with 12 cores and 24 threads.
I started to play this when it got VR update. Haven't played this as normal desktop game. Only problem is that this is trying to run only on few cores so 80/90 fps limit for VR can be hard sometimes even with i9-9900k. Now with i9-12900k it's little better but I would like to see all cores in use.
the game is built on a quad-core basis, so it'll use up-to 4 cores when needed on Intel. AMD at least skirts around this by bouncing bits of requests to all the available cores, so you may see a bit more FPS (+5 to +7%) running say, a Ryzen 7 5800X over your i9 12900K. one thing to take account in is the 12th gen took a 8% performance hit with the way intel changed their cores and core layout, which as a computer nerd myself is still confusing.
I hate No Mans Sky not because the games sub par but because of what it contributed to, which was the early access world where they sell unfinished games under the promise 😏(if you can call it that) to finish the games later which has caused a whole generation of sub par games that took years to achieve what they set out to do whilst still taking money from customers using micro transactions and ridiculous DLC prices/content.
Ok…but hear me out…that pixel-art-esque 10% resolution scale, while destroying any semblance of “detail”, is kind of awesome looking? I’m not saying I’m about to disable the 1650ti in my Legion 5 laptop in favor of the integrated graphics of the 4600H, but it does look interesting to play in that style
I have over 1500 hrs played on Steam. Unlike you, I got it shortly after launch when it went on sale of over 50% off. I didn't much care for it at first, but after the patches and fixes, it's one of my favorite games.
