Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.

Del Sol Valley was small on purpose

Comments

  • Writin_RegWritin_Reg Posts: 28,907 Member
    edited October 2018
    So_Money wrote: »
    am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3?

    how-to-donate-computer-1-500x500.jpg

    If anyone is playing this game on that pc - explain to me how. This game REQUIRES a 64 bit pc. It's a 64 bit game now since they upgraded it for Cats and Dogs and the Seasons EP..

    My goodness, I believe that pc is older than the pc I played Sims 1 on for crying out loud. LOL Too funny.


    Post edited by Writin_Reg on

    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.

    In dreams - I LIVE!
    In REALITY, I simply exist.....

  • DeKayDeKay Posts: 81,472 Member
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.
    My Top Song of the Day: Fancy Footwork by Chromeo
    FwDXXd5.gif
  • KiaraSims4ModsKiaraSims4Mods Posts: 2,782 Member
    ChadSims2 wrote: »
    Many more years of content to come guys, the game can only handle 11 lots because of performance now guess we should not expect any better in the years to come because its only going to get worse.

    XXXXX
  • Sid1701D9Sid1701D9 Posts: 4,718 Member
    The silly thing is TS3 would have ran better on a 64bit system, but it didn't come out on one. Yeah, that was the limit of The Sims 4 is 2 cores, but when they rewrote the base code to use 64 bit, that added the other core support. 32 bit only supported 2 cores and 2GB of memory, but 64 bit game can support multiple cores. There is a soft limit in windows 10 of 4GB of memory will cause a access violation, that's just to keep it from being picked up by virus scanners.
    Sid1701d-"I love my life, live my life and live to play, laugh and have fun."

    "Love will Fight, Love will Win and Love will Survive."
  • Writin_RegWritin_Reg Posts: 28,907 Member
    DeKay wrote: »
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.

    Why should my game play be sacrificed because some onne else computer is not up to par. You have an underpowered pc on any other game and complain to the company and they tell you to upgrade your pc or don't play. Even EA does that - so I don't care to hear that. My game play depends on my pc not someone elses and vice versa. We should not suffer the fate of little towns because of anyones pc but our own.

    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.

    In dreams - I LIVE!
    In REALITY, I simply exist.....

  • So_MoneySo_Money Posts: 2,536 Member
    edited October 2018
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    DeKay wrote: »
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.

    Why should my game play be sacrificed because some onne else computer is not up to par. You have an underpowered pc on any other game and complain to the company and they tell you to upgrade your pc or don't play. Even EA does that - so I don't care to hear that. My game play depends on my pc not someone elses and vice versa. We should not suffer the fate of little towns because of anyones pc but our own.

    Unfortunately for a lot of us, the game simply wasn't designed for (and I hate this term) "hardcore" PC gamers. Due to the breadth of the game's audience, if they didn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, they'd be leaving money on the table. And as we all should know by now, EA would never do that.
  • Aeroprincess87Aeroprincess87 Posts: 6,414 Member
    Wulfsimmer wrote: »
    So, we sacrificed open worlds for performance but now closed worlds will be smaller and smaller for performance as well?!


    Also...HOW?! One lot literally loads and renders at a time so how is having more worlds going to affect this if they don't load in until you click on them. Am confused, someone explain.

    Yep the logic is definitely lacking in that answer. I mean if it were an open world it would make sense, but the world is closed which means that only one lot loads at a time so having more lots wouldn't affect performance that much. And we know this because it didn't happen in the Sims 2. If they would have said it would increase the population and therefore negatively impact performance, that could be a semi-legitimate claim. However, if the lots were all empty, you could in theory place down venues in the empty lots which would not spawn more townies since we know EA likes to pull from random townies for all the various jobs around town. So either way, their point was moot.
  • MidnightAuraMidnightAura Posts: 5,809 Member
    Reksoh wrote: »
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    DeKay wrote: »
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.

    Why should my game play be sacrificed because some onne else computer is not up to par. You have an underpowered pc on any other game and complain to the company and they tell you to upgrade your pc or don't play. Even EA does that - so I don't care to hear that. My game play depends on my pc not someone elses and vice versa. We should not suffer the fate of little towns because of anyones pc but our own.

    Who says computer performance is the issue? The game itself has performance issues.

    This leads me to think the performance issues they are anticipating are performance issues within the game, not performance regarding the player's computer.

    I have to agree with this. We have two gaming PCs in the house, both above and beyond the games recommended specs and the sims 4 has performance issues. (Those same issues can be replicated on console)
  • slydog857slydog857 Posts: 68 Member
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    So_Money wrote: »
    am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3?

    how-to-donate-computer-1-500x500.jpg

    If anyone is playing this game on that pc - explain to me how. This game REQUIRES a 64 bit pc. It's a 64 bit game now.

    On top of that, I believe that pc is older than the pc I played Sims 1 on for crying out loud. LOL


    There is no good excuse for a 64 bit game to be saddled with this puny world. NONE. People accepting that will get just that rest of the game as they are telling Maxis that is okay. YOU show me a 64 bit game any where out there with performance issues that is as small as Sims 4 is! I truly would buy that game just to see it for myself on my computer - because I cannot believe that reasoning.

    Oh my lord. The game is both 32-bit and 64-bit compatible! You can change the bit-mode in the settings inside of the origin app! And there are preformance issues regardless because 64-bit only solves the memory problem, memory issues result in stuttering, i.e. a smooth framerate with sudden spikes in CPU/GPU causing the FPS to drop down to 0 for a split second and back up, FPS Drops in general are not solved by more memory, it's the 50% Quad-Core CPU limit thats hurting a lot of people's games...
    Specs:
    i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz
    Gigabyte G1 Gaming Edition: GTX 1080 8GB
    16GB RAM
    2 x 1TB HDD - Toshiba @ 7200 Rpm

    maxresdefault.jpg
  • Writin_RegWritin_Reg Posts: 28,907 Member
    Reksoh wrote: »
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    DeKay wrote: »
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.

    Why should my game play be sacrificed because some onne else computer is not up to par. You have an underpowered pc on any other game and complain to the company and they tell you to upgrade your pc or don't play. Even EA does that - so I don't care to hear that. My game play depends on my pc not someone elses and vice versa. We should not suffer the fate of little towns because of anyones pc but our own.

    Who says computer performance is the issue? The game itself has performance issues. I know YOU personally dont have them because you have said multiple times in multiple places that your game runs completely smooth and thats great for you. But I have a computer well above the recommended specs and I still ran into issues of time distortion and simulation lag after CL came out. After a year, they fixed it for a little while and then it came back again after Seasons.

    I get that you dont have any performance issues but plenty of us do and it doesnt necessarily mean we have low end computers. After all, these are issues that the gurus themselves have confirmed, replicated, and even made efforts to fix-- none of which would be possible if they couldnt reproduce those issues themselves.

    This leads me to think the performance issues they are anticipating are performance issues within the game, not performance regarding the player's computer.

    Whoever I was replying to - that's who said it.

    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.

    In dreams - I LIVE!
    In REALITY, I simply exist.....

  • EA_DavidEA_David Posts: 282 EA Community Manager
    Hi, this has been a heated thread, please try to keep things constructive & civil. Please don't insult other forum-goers and keep your posts on-topic.
  • elanorbretonelanorbreton Posts: 14,518 Member
    Wulfsimmer wrote: »
    So, we sacrificed open worlds for performance but now closed worlds will be smaller and smaller for performance as well?!

    Also...HOW?! One lot literally loads and renders at a time so how is having more worlds going to affect this if they don't load in until you click on them. Am confused, someone explain.
    Do we have an explanation for this yet? I've read through the thread and can't seem to find an answer.
  • Atreya33Atreya33 Posts: 4,404 Member
    edited October 2018
    Pegasys wrote: »
    The reason why I'm asking is I have never come even close to running out of room. Yes it might be tight in a specific world, or I might be tired of a world, or I might have to kick out some townies, but there's always been a number of lots available even with my biggest save (my largest save right now is something like 7 generations spread across a handful of worlds.) I do have all game/EPs, and I will let sims age and die, however, so maybe there's that?

    I have not run out of room yet either. But I like to stay within one setting for my sims. It just feels unrealistic for them to travel across the globe instantaneously to get a coffee or go to the library. So I like neighborhoods where I can plop down 3 or 4 families and still have at least one venue. I understand if The Pinnacles have less lots because it's very exclusive but the cheaper neighbourhood could have done with some extra lots.

  • Kali_DurgaKali_Durga Posts: 197 Member
    EA_David wrote: »
    Hi, this has been a heated thread

    keep it cool shisters.
  • Kali_DurgaKali_Durga Posts: 197 Member
    So_Money wrote: »

    Unfortunately for a lot of us, the game simply wasn't designed for (and I hate this term) "hardcore" PC gamers. Due to the breadth of the game's audience, if they didn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, they'd be leaving money on the table. And as we all should know by now, EA would never do that.

    so what? GTA 5 and Sims 3 are extremely heavy games but still they're the top sellers. this excuse is being used since 2014 and people should stop saying it already.
  • MidnightAuraMidnightAura Posts: 5,809 Member
    To be fair the target market for GTA is not the same market as the sims 4. They aren’t catering to people with low end computers and they aren’t trying to. That’s the difference. The sims 4 has always and will always appeal to people right across the board that’s been obvious since the beginning with the specs and the game itself.
  • NatKingSimNatKingSim Posts: 757 Member
    Felicity wrote: »
    You know, Sims 3's worlds generally had 60 - 120 lots. I get the feeling that the entirety of Sims 4 will have fewer lots than just one store world of Sims 3. Why is this an issue with a closed world? Or is it a size thing? I know console users are limited in size, and it's really difficult to delete/disable a pack once you buy it.

    Whatever -- this is kind of ridiculous that the game can't even handle a ton of lots with a closed system.

    I suppose that kills the last hope of CAW.

    But you were also limited to that single world -- you couldn't travel or move from Sunset Valley to Sunlit Tides, for example, without a mod like NRaas Traveler (later they did add the ability to move from one world to another, but you lost all your previous relationships; you couldn't move to Isla Paradiso and call your folks in Riverview to catch up on family gossip). The worlds had to be big because they had to contain everything needed to play the game, including all the base game rabbit hole buildings. With Sims 4 you don't have to have every venue in every world. You can have a library in Willow Creek, a lounge in Oasis Springs, nightclub in Windenburg and karaoke bar in San Myshuno and still get to everything easily.

    I really don't like my sims travelling to another world to just to visit a library.
    bI7Zx0.gif
    Download below
  • KiaraSims4ModsKiaraSims4Mods Posts: 2,782 Member
    My biggest problem is not that the world isn't open, but the fact you can see a lot but you can't travel to it. Like you are right in front of it but a loading screen occurs - this should have been avoided.
  • citysimmercitysimmer Posts: 5,950 Member
    edited October 2018
    My biggest problem is not that the world isn't open, but the fact you can see a lot but you can't travel to it. Like you are right in front of it but a loading screen occurs - this should have been avoided.

    But that's what open world is... Are you referring to open neighborhood?
    Proud black simmer 🖤
    MfVGMbL.jpg



  • Writin_RegWritin_Reg Posts: 28,907 Member
    edited October 2018
    citysimmer wrote: »
    My biggest problem is not that the world isn't open, but the fact you can see a lot but you can't travel to it. Like you are right in front of it but a loading screen occurs - this should have been avoided.

    But that's what open world is... Are you referring to open neighborhood?

    By design open world and open neighborhood fall under the same requirement. Closed world - doesn't matter about neighborhoods - it matters about lots - 1 is a closed world, 2 or more falls under open world design. That is why the devs even said - it is the same thing - that open neighborhood falls under open world territory and would not be in Sims 4. I saw that reply on twitter like just a week or two ago when someone queried the Gurus on that very question. As apparently most people assume they are not the same thing - but they are. The neighborhood being open does not matter.

    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.

    In dreams - I LIVE!
    In REALITY, I simply exist.....

  • FelicityFelicity Posts: 4,979 Member
    So_Money wrote: »
    am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3?

    how-to-donate-computer-1-500x500.jpg

    Oh man, you found a picture of my old 486. It rocked the heck out of Star Control 2.
  • FelicityFelicity Posts: 4,979 Member
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    citysimmer wrote: »
    My biggest problem is not that the world isn't open, but the fact you can see a lot but you can't travel to it. Like you are right in front of it but a loading screen occurs - this should have been avoided.

    But that's what open world is... Are you referring to open neighborhood?

    By design open world and open neighborhood fall under the same requirement. Closed world - doesn't matter about neighborhoods - it matters about lots - 1 is a closed world, 2 or more falls under open world design. That is why the devs even said - it is the same thing - that open neighborhood falls under open world territory and would not be in Sims 4. I saw that reply on twitter like just a week or two ago when someone queried the Gurus on that very question. As apparently most people assume they are not the same thing - but they are. The neighborhood being open does not matter.

    But open neighborhoods would have far fewer Sims to compute for than an open world. What I think is going on is 20 sims on a lot is a pretty good starting point as it can bog people down when you go higher (and given the simulation lag there already is, it may be too high for many systems). 20 people is fine on 1 lot, but spread over 4 or 5 would make them all look fairly empty.
  • DeKayDeKay Posts: 81,472 Member
    Writin_Reg wrote: »
    DeKay wrote: »
    In view of the input from the folks who know computers and 64 bit, which strongly points to there should be no performance issues, am wondering what the 'low end' EA is reportedly targeting is? 486-66? Maybe a P-3? The by now old TS2 could handle a heavier load. What gives with this version?

    Maybe older laptops that don't have good graphics card and processor.

    Why should my game play be sacrificed because some onne else computer is not up to par. You have an underpowered pc on any other game and complain to the company and they tell you to upgrade your pc or don't play. Even EA does that - so I don't care to hear that. My game play depends on my pc not someone elses and vice versa. We should not suffer the fate of little towns because of anyones pc but our own.

    I agree. But sadly, that's what he devs chose to do when they advertise TS4 as a game that could play on lower end computers. 😐
    My Top Song of the Day: Fancy Footwork by Chromeo
    FwDXXd5.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top