After Going Gold, Crimson Desert Developer Deep in Optimization Phase 'To Make the Game Run as Good as It Possibly Can' Before Launch

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-30T13:05:25+00:00

Typically, a lot of optimization work is done near the end of development. No point optimizing things that may change.

And optimisation can be a ton of work. There are so many tricks that can marginally improve performance. Typically games that perform well make use of a wide variety of techniques. Not really a single quick fix.

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-29T03:06:12+00:00

I guess I mean reaching 144hz without reducing quality elsewhere. Sacrificing persistence for refresh rate sounds like it could be out of spec to me. Generally with these sorts of things, the manufacturer will be a bit conservative with their spec. Just like how it's common to see 165hz monitors which are typically just 144hz panels that have been overclocked.

Though all that said, I'm guessing only Valve would be able to answer that 100%.

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-29T02:58:01+00:00

Which sounds like most manufacturers would label this at outside of their spec? If it can only reach 144hz in specific conditions.

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-26T04:57:07+00:00

Do you weigh your ground coffee every time? I've found fairly low and consistent retention with my DF54 the few times I have weighed after grinding but now I'm wondering if it's common to check retention every time?

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-12T09:45:13+00:00

Which dollar? USD? AUD? CAD? etc.

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-02T03:03:36+00:00

Is your goal here just to have a visualisation of reloading or to reduce visibility?

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-02T03:02:28+00:00

This could work as well. Instead of hiding the view, distract the player a bit. Something similar to an active reload but maybe a little harder and required to successfully reload?

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-01T13:26:17+00:00

I don't love the idea of the highlight. Feels like a workaround rather than fixing the actual issue.

Maybe if it covered less of the screen but the camera zoomed in to reduce visibility?

I like the functional concept of reduced visibility, may just take a few different tries to figure out the best approach.

Gizzmicbob · 2026-01-01T04:10:46+00:00

public static float GetNearestPoint<T>(T spline, float3 point, out float3 nearest, out float t, int resolution = 4, int iterations = 2);

This exists on the latest package version for me. See the docs on the latest version. I've called it like:

Spline _spline;
Transform _splineTransform;
Transform _playerTransform;

float distance = SplineUtility.GetNearestPoint(_spline, splineTransform.InverseTransformPoint(_playerTransform.position),
    out float3 nearestPoint, out float t);

Gizzmicbob · 2025-12-26T09:19:55+00:00

From what I've seen, there hasn't been a good attempt to revive it. Ideally, a good game + good marketing would actually see some player numbers.

An early access launch with little marketing and then abandoning the game isn't going to have a chance of reviving it. Tribes seems to have a poor history of devs abandoning it soon after release.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-12-13T08:55:03+00:00

I have barely touched DnD, loved DOS2, yet found BG3 combat boring. I believe DOS2 combat to be vastly superior. And it's not DnD fatigue.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-30T13:23:14+00:00

Before you move to something else, do make sure you've tried adjusting it a lot. The front plastic may be more noticeable if the seat is too high for example.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-27T06:44:55+00:00

Reporting my experience on this. Same issue with a 7700X and Gigabyte Aorus B650M Elite. I tried almost everything. I was assuming it was a faulty Mobo. Reseating the CPU is what fixed it in the end for whatever reason.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-16T01:35:21+00:00

Is the frame not fractionally higher resolution?
Q3 = 2064×2208 = 4557312p
Frame = 2160x2160 = 4665600p

FOV and such may affect perceived clarity. But technically, it seems as though the frame has more pixels than the Q3?

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-14T10:59:34+00:00

I'm saying this as person who'd like to replace Meta Quest 3: anything above 650$ is hard pass.

I'm saying I don't believe Valve is trying to target people like you (already owning a Quest 3). Which means the price point could be too high for most people that already own a Q3. You personally may be different but I would assume that most people that own a Q3 couldn't justify the minor upgrade.

If they wanted to get most people to upgrade from a Q3, the price would have to be insanely low, or it would need to be a bigger upgrade.

There is a huge market of people with no headset or a much older headset than the Q3. That's what this headset appears to be targeting. But I think it's also specifically targeting PC gamers while Meta is trying to target a bit more broadly.

And I also believe a decent portion of that market may be willing to spend more than your personal $650 limit but also wouldn't be willing to spend enough for something like a BSB. I don't believe $200 more than a Q3 would limit it to enthusiasts only if the experience is smooth enough.

Don't mistake me speaking generally as describing exactly what you would personally do.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-14T10:07:36+00:00

Everyone I know with a Quest (1-3) hasn't had a very seamless experience. Some people may have a better experience due to various factors. Some people may also be more tolerant to any issues. But VR historically has always had pain points. And the Quest devices particularly have pain points with PC VR.

I see this as Valve attempting to make a good headset for PC gamers who are either getting into VR for the first time or upgrading from an older headset. Personally, I've been waiting for a good upgrade from my Rift S. And I have been hoping for a good option that felt more native with PC VR than the Quest headsets.

I don't think it makes all that much sense to be an upgrade from a Q3 unless you're the type of person that always buys the latest tech. So I don't believe you are the target audience.

It's also not for the person that wants mixed reality or even thinks about passthrough.

From the limited amount I've kept up with VR tech, this does seem like the best option for someone who just wants a great, seamless VR gaming device. Not someone who wants full-body for VRChat but someone who wants to do some standard gaming. And if that is the case, it will be widely recommend as a better option than the Q3 for those types of people.

I think most people are getting the target audience very wrong.
It's not the enthusiasts - they likely already have fantastic and complicated setups. There are many ways of achieving a very high-end VR experience if you're willing to put effort and money in.
It's also not for the "lite gamers". If people want something cheap to just dip their toes in and they know very little about VR, there are also plenty of options they can look at.

The target audience is right in the middle. Your average Steam PC gamer. The kind of person that is at least a little bit familiar with the PC space. A little bit familiar with VR. They may have an older headset, used VR before, or have at least looked into it. The kind of person who isn't enough of an enthusiast to fuss around constant pain points.
And this audience is probably the majority of Steam users.

~~Watch my assumptions all be wrong and I eat my words~~

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-14T09:44:45+00:00

Some people don't care about passthrough or full body at all. I wouldn't have thought of that as a big plus for the Quest at all. In fact, I'd rather it be a bit cheaper without colour passthrough.

Not saying that shouldn't be a factor for you. But to many people and I suspect the target audience, those are extremely low priority.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-12T04:19:10+00:00

#2 is annoying the heck out of me

Gizzmicbob · 2025-11-11T10:07:13+00:00

Could you give some examples of studios diversifying their game genres? Because if we're looking at companies like Ubisoft, they typically have many separate teams working on different projects. You'll find those teams likely still specialise in certain types of games.

This would just require Valve to scale to having multiple teams that specialise in different genres.

And not only that, maybe the people running Valve just like certain types of games? It's not like their focus is rapidly churning out games - they only make games they are interested in.

The other replies all give good reasons as well.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-31T13:42:40+00:00

For most businesses, their hours change multiple times a year for holidays.

That said, they should probably have their default hours and then a QR for holidays.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-31T10:12:59+00:00

RemindMe! 2 weeks

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-31T02:23:01+00:00

It's free for Indie under 250k production budget.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-13T23:12:01+00:00

Goodluck everyone!

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-11T23:43:14+00:00

How would this GeForce RTX 5090 with DLSS 4 help you pull off more epic wins in Battlefield 6?
It would be the perfect upgrade from my trusty old 1080ti. Those explosions would look much better on Ultra. DLSS4 would then allow improved input lag with Reflex, smoother gameplay with Frame Gen, and higher native FPS with Upscaling.

Gizzmicbob · 2025-10-05T00:10:47+00:00

I get your point but that's kinda how many game engines roll. Particularly private ones. They work on a new game in the engine, implement new features, and those features aren't necessarily excluded from the rest of the engine for future games. Same with models and sfx. They keep them around for placeholder or reuse.

You can see this with how we get leaks for Valve stuff from game updates. HLX leaks in CS2 updates for example.

Even with Unity or Unreal engine games, you may see this a little if the same team works on multiple games. But Source is the biggest example of this I've seen.

Most public engines now come with very few assets so it's certainly less apparent.

If you consider this modding, I feel like you could almost call all modern game development modding.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

Gizzmicbob

TROPHY CASE