Space Engineers (and It's logic defying poor performance)

Looks like It's just one of those days...

Ive used the onscreen display that comes with MSI Afterburner (You know, the purple text you see everywhere in performance reviews) to monitor my system's status while running space engineers and returned some really really strange results.

Spawning in, on a new world I'll appear on a planet and get around 20-30 FPS. I run a Radeon 6950, and a Athlon 750K. So normally you would point your finger at them as the culprit. However the system monitoring returns a very different story.

At no point running around the starter base on the planet did the GPU utilization exceed 78% nor did the CPU utilization reach 99% in fact the CPU utilization was even lower than the GPU's. The RAM aswell was not reaching load. All meager 8gb of DDR3.

So the question that now has me staring blankly at my screen is.

If space engineers isn't bottlenecking my system then why does it run like ass?

Surely MSI and Rivatuner aren't lying. Ive tested them in other games.

Why do you do this Space Engineers.

I haven't played in a while, so I don't remember how it performs, but have you checked vram usage. I sign know if you have a 1gb version or a 2gb version, but it could definitely be the bottleneck there. Also turn off the damn fxaa shit or whatever and try smaa if it's there.

1 Like

i've seen msi afterburn report wrong info (but thats with fury)

sounds like your cpu isn't feeding your gpu as fast as it can. Or game API is bad (i lean to this one more)

The game is poorly optimized, this has been known for well over a year. Blame the devs


Crtl + F12 brings up the ingame debugging screen.
What shall I say. You get 20 to 30 FPS wich is 15 to 25 more then I get (FX-8320 + Fury). The game was performing better before the "performance patches" about 8 months ago.
I have one map where I get 2 FPS but have a simspeed of 1.00. The load on the cores is two are running at 40 to 60% and the Fury does not even start the fans (meaning load is somewhere below Minecraft levels or below 55°C).

Took another look. The game is broken in any way and now the debugging screen is a mystery to use in itself.

Yep game is crap performance, I have no idea if they ever plan to fix it. You just need to turn everything off.

Empyrion is an alternative which has decent performance but not as many features and some aspects don't 'yet' look as good. Infact the Empyrion guys originate from Space Engineers dev, they left SE because of the focus on content over functionality and performance.

I would haft to agree, make the engine perform well. People really don't like playing at low fps! it ruins gameplay IMO

1 Like

Might have to look into Empyrion then... It is a damn shame

It's a Voxel based game, OP. It's very reliant on the cpu. And your Athlon 750k just doesn't cut it unfortunately.

Combined with the fact it's in Alpha, performance is going to be quite shit for another year or two. Maybe more, depending on how long they take to finish the game.

Actually, common misconception, SE does not use voxels.

Holy crap... really? What's your source?

That would totally explain why it looks like a total clone.

1 Like

Empyrion is buggy as all hell when you get into spaceship Territory. kept having issues with clipping leaving and entering my ships.

At least your game does not crash in the loading screen...
I now have both, Space Engineers and Empyrion. What can I say. I get triple the FPS in Empyrion that I get in Space Engineers (23 in SE, 77 in E).

I have no problem with fps in SE as long as I turn down the shadows and world viewing distance.

If I turn the graphics down one more step, I would be playing Super Space Invaders.


My biggest complaint with SE has always been

1) how little control the dev's seem to have over the physics engine. Spontaneous dock explotions, hinges that wack out, etc, make the game unplayable.

2) Mark Rosa's lack of focus. I knew SE was doomed to never get out of alpha when he announced medieval engineers. Like, seriously mark? FOCUS AND DELIVER THE PRODUCT WE ALL PAID FOR. Now his mind is totally off games and onto some stupid "change the world with Ai" crap. Typical entrepreneur cannot focus on one thing for long enough to actually finish it.

Yeah E is better for fps but content wise i think SE is better.

Amount of content or working content? I prefer working features over a metric boatload of features.

1 Like

just content. not working but just content. dont know just seems like it has more. cant play since i get about 10fps with my 860m

I have an R9 Fury and only just get 20FPS.
A friend of mine has an i7-6700 paired with an 980ti and gets 34 to 40FPS.
I am not sure what to do right now... Maybe just keep playing some first person shooter with few working features at 120 frames per second.

1 Like


SE computers: not reall usable because scripting API is way to complex and raw. (and this is coming from a software engineer)

SE docking clamps / hinges: spontaneously explode destroying everything

SE wheels: yea... no.... they fall off and then everything is destroyed.

SE flying through space: you can't walk around your ship and do things; you will touch the wrong thing and get slammed into a wall and die. Ships clip through eachother... etc.

Basically nothing in SE works correctly.