Laggy Gameplay

Alright so i just finished my game and i packaged it out and everything worked… i played it and it looks cool but when put it on a USB so my brother can play on his Laptop he told me the
game was Laggy and the movement was slow. i don’t know why that is because my Laptop plays it fine with no problems?
Oh… and the game is not even that Heavy it’s all lowpoly very lowpoly not even 200 assets in the map?

Same thing is happening with me, never got around to asking about it.

Even using a default map I get 10 fps compared to 300+ running in pie

What’s the hardware specs?

Did he install the game or is he running off the USB?

lol - not sure if trolling … or … valid …

I’ve seen people try to run UE4 game .exe’s out of zipped folder, all sorts of stuff. It’s not a troll post, a question.

My packaged game, both development and shipping run at faster fps than in the Editor.

However, I did profiling to determine where time was being spent and we made changes to improve it. Prior to optimizing the game was sometimes slower packaged. It mostly had to do with textures. Removing the substance plugin and all it’s textures and instead using Unreal’s Materials solved the majority of our fps problems.

lol i know man i was just messing with ya. I have seen some ppl try and run from crazy places. You had a legit point, but, some times i overlook the human error factor lol.

Have you been tried to turn off debug objects in editor? Just press G (game view mode) This usually gives 20-30 fps improvements for me, and that’s a lot.

When running in the Editor I want to debug, often I am running the Editor from Visual Studio as well. If your settings are correct, regardless of the fastest you can get it to run in the Editor, the packaged shipping build should be faster. If it isn’t there is something wrong.

Indeed, just mention the editor ui that gets out the equation makes things many times faster. I just have figured that turning off the debug lines can better represent the expected performance, and the improvement is significant which helps to optimize the entire map as well.

That’s great until you want to debug it. I wouldn’t ever trust it as a bench mark though. Very early in a project, literally in the first couple weeks you should be making at least weekly builds to measure performance, otherwise if you wait until the end fixing a problem could become a nightmare. For example we were struggling at 8 to 10 fps on our packaged version but it ran ok in Editor 6 months ago. Today it is fine at 60 fps, but we had to change a lot of things to get it there. If we’d waited until the first showing we would really be hating it.

Any other hints (beyond textures) as to what those factors were @mikepurvis?

At first glance of OP post, it seemed like scalability was lower in the editor than packaged build.
But since that point hasn’t come up, and with your revelations above this is a bit disconcerting…
(UDK Editor / PIE never differed much from the packaged version, or was never slower for sure).

It’s hard to separate slowdown play in Editor versus packaged.

But, we had 3 major fps hits.

The first was very large Substance Textures that covered all of the terrain as well as all the creatures had substance, making them smaller, and with Unreal’s Material showed a large performance increase.

The second was the amount of the scene we were drawing. Basically, line of sight was too long with an Isometric camera view. Pulling the camera down to a 3rd person perspective as well as breaking up the environment more to limit line of sight distances showed large increase.

Third, there was some Blueprints being done in tick. Anything that didn’t absolutely have to be done in tick was moved out and what remained was re-written in C++ so there is nothing in Blueprint Tick now, and very little in C++ tick.

Good to know , cheers!

Alright i packaged out the default third person map to try on my Laptop and it still is doing the same thing. On my Laptop i am getting 60 frames but when i play on my Brother’s Laptop i get 15 to 17 Frames…

My Laptop Spec’s are

Alienware: Cpu: i7 / Ram: 16gb’s / Graphics: 4gb’s

My Brothers Laptop Spec’s are,

Hp: Cpu: i7 / Ram: 8gb’s / Graphics: 1gb’s total shared

Those aren’t proper specs that anyone can judge anything with, but by the sounds of it, the second HP laptop has a ****** integrated card that can’t really run games.

The 2nd part of the second thing is what i am currently working on myself. Sometimes i just want these long “picture perfect” views, and, unless ppl are running 2x 1080GTX cards … it would be painful lol. But this has been a big boost for me as well.

Third thing is a VERY common “mistake”. Not really BAD, but, this can be very painful to performance, dang “ticks”. Blueprint ticks, sadly, seem to do far worse then the cpp ticks. No idea why, but, it is what it is. I have noticed some of the youtubers and marketplace items will use ticks all over the place (blueprints). Thats one thing that should only be used if its 100% necessary, and, imho, only used via cpp …

Good follow up on the gains . thats UE gold right there for people that dont realize this until its too late.

I dont see a real problem. I would never use laptop for a benchmark, ever, but, if thats what ya got, then, thats what ya got!
I would say the Alienware (aka Dell XPS) would be the “upper low-end” and the HP would be the “low low-end side” of it. Really, if you have a friend with a 760-960 nVidia (i dont know the AMD side cards… maybe a 200 series?) that would be your desktop upper mid-range and a much better average to guess by.

General guess on average systems would be like an i5 (or a 6 core AMD @3.0ghz+) with 8GB RAM … 200 series AMD card, or, 760+ nvidia … HDD speeds and type wont matter much … I want to say even the AMD 200 series was based on the 900 nvidia series? Been a long while since i was using the ATI/AMD cards.

My guess is that your brother’s laptop is using the integrated Intel GPU which is very low end.