You may ask “why did they remove the models and keep all of the assets in the game?”. You see, the maps are actually in the game but the models are removed.
The game will freeze and lead you back into the Island map. I attempted to see if you can go into the DLC maps in Ark on Switch and the result is you cannot. What Studio Abstraction Games did was they minimized all of the meshes and even removed a ton of models but not the assets or coding that makes it function. If let’s say Scorched Earth is removed out of the files, the game won’t function properly because there was many patches for Scorched Earth that affected also too other maps in the game. Basically Ragnarok, the Center, Aberration, and Scorched Earth are basically what make Ark work on Switch. or should I'd think.Here’s the thing, when they were porting Ark: Survival Evolved to Switch, they had to keep all of the DLCs in or the game would not function properly. Though, with the optimization they put into SE it might run better on that cpu with that gpu. the optimization of this game is abysmal). While the e3-1231 v3 is not a bad chip for many things, this game really loves higher speed cpu's and uses a LOT of cpu power at times so being 3.2ghz with a 3.8ghz turbo might not be enough 'horsepower' at times (okay lots of times. While the CPU can be bottlenecked by RAM speed, and even issues with the motherboard it is installed into. The GTX 980 is a very good card, but it can be bottlenecked by the cpu and/or motherboard. A lot of games from recent times (last couple of years) show marked improvement in play with 16gb over 8gb of RAM (from my experience). I'd be leaning more towards the RAM, DDR3 1600 is on the low end of medium speed, upgrading to 2133mhz RAM might help (as well as going to 16gb). Looking at your specs it's likely one of two things (if not both, though the mobo could be an issue I've never had good luck with Gigabyte boards), either the RAM or that Xeon cpu. Though, I have yet to deal with any of my mega build projects in SE yet so I can't say there won't be issues caused by having hundreds of structure pieces in view. But they were entirely due to beyond the norm situations.Ĭomparatively Scorched Earth gets an average of 95fps, with a range of 71-112fps on my new machine.
Now, I will admit, in those few cases I just wrote of, there were at times hangups and fps drop into the low 10-20fps range.
Outside of some issues when dealing with some really rediculously large builds, and a few issues with having a server loaded with a metric crapton of mods, I've always been able to run the game in the 60fps range or better. Honestly, outside of the graphics cards, it's all 4-6 year old hardware that's technically a few generations behind.
All hardware has the most up to date drivers possible (save my new machines BIOS, since it simply will not flash correctly, locks up every attempt). I run ARK with all the settings on Epic, all the LOD set to highest, and pretty much all the graphical checkboxes selected. MSI 970a-G43 Motherboard (Which has issues, can't flash to most current BIOS) Just to give perspective I'll give my hardware specs for my old and new machines and my experienced fps ranges on Epic settings at 1080p.ĪMD A10-6800k APU (OC'd to 4.4ghz stable)įX 8350 (OC'd to 4.4ghz stable, limited by a mildly disfunctional mobo) Honestly I think the issue a lot of people are having is bottlenecks between CPU and GPU, or bad configurations on their hardware. It's strange that I've never had any major issues running ARK with relatively high fps (barring a couple of things I will write about below), and I'm using a computer many would consider to be pretty average (even before I built my new computer).