Del Sol Valley was small on purpose

"InfraGreen;c-16793284" wrote:

"Writin_Reg;c-16793166" wrote:

"Sigzy05;c-16792372" wrote:
Clearly open world was the issue.

No 32 bit was the issue in Sims 3 - it was starved for ram. The number 1 error in that game is Error 12 which one gets when the pc runs out of ram. But Sims 4 is a 64 bit game -not 32 bit like Sims 3. It has all and can utilize all the ram your pc can give it. My pc can have up to 32 gigs of ram. I run 16 right now but I could easily update to 32 gig if I wanted to. It is no point as this game does not even come close to using 16 gigs.

And if there is a performance issue in a 64 bit game - they really have to find another culprit in this closed world then lots and sims as it is definitely not that. Sims 2 could have up to 4600 sims and tons of lots on a 32 bit game ran on pcs people have not used in years. Who are they kidding?

Man I am so tired of the "open world killed TS3 and nothing else" canard. In fact everything will bog down bad programming and a 32 bit structure. And the one thing TS4 has going for it right now is smooth running for almost everyone aside from extreme outliers. They clearly haven't used their limit and I can't see how they'd even approach it in the next three years.

EXACTLY!

From the beginning of TS4 they've sacrificed much in terms of gameplay for "better performance." I think it's overkill, I understand that they want to appeal to the lower end PC users, but it's frustrating that in order to do so they have to take steps backwards from the previous sims games. I just hope that (if) Sims 5 is released they tailor it less to low-end PCs, and instead give us full and complete content.

"Tiarella;c-16792415" wrote:
@Sid1701D9: I assume they have hard data on what their customers' computers can do, unlike you or me.

I don't buy their excuse; I believe that $$$ is what is driving their decision. ('Want more lots? Buy more packs.')

But I'd be careful about talking about how most people have i5 computers or higher, because that's likely to be pretty irritating to all the simmers reading this who do not. Assumptions related to how much money people have (directly ties into what kind of computing power you have) are awkward at best. :)

I think the same, they needed something before the holidays to drive sales. In another post it was stating that it was a supposed “leak” with Get Famous, seems more like a ploy to gain revenue. Because a leak wouldnt come with full page article from Newsweek on the same day of acknowledgement. That’s probably also why it looks so lackingly put together.

There's a lot of people here making the assumptions that 'Smaller Worlds to reduce FPS drops, and improve performance is an invalid excuse' and I agree, but not entirely. Yes, it would help performance, we all have to admit it would improve performance, however, the fact that this game had performance issues IN THE FIRST PLACE is the problem, the fact stated above is true but what's also true is that this game performances well under average, and the people who said they are catering for lower-end hardware are 100% on the ball. A lower-end machine will statically preform better in this game to a certain degree. I have an i7-7700K, GTX 1080, 16GB and I still get performance issues in some worlds. There is one big problem and one simple answer/explanation to this:

It's 2014, and the sims team thought the best idea moving forward for CPU optimisation in this brand new game is to LIMIT the game to 2 CPU Cores, which was absurd for any game after 2011, to be honest. This was the worst development choice the company could have made, and for people who think the game has multi-core support, yes it does, but it still only uses 2 physical cores. Name 10 people who still use Dual-Core processors.

This then creates my problem, only 50% of my CPU is being utilised, I get performance issues, because the game doesn't use the entirety of a system! Too late to fix this now as it was part of the base code.

So, I appreciate smaller worlds to combat this, but they created the problem in the first place is what I'm saying.

"@Writin_Reg;c-16793166" wrote:

"Sigzy05;c-16792372" wrote:
Clearly open world was the issue.

No 32 bit was the issue in Sims 3 - it was starved for ram. The number 1 error in that game is Error 12 which one gets when the pc runs out of ram. But Sims 4 is a 64 bit game -not 32 bit like Sims 3. It has all and can utilize all the ram your pc can give it. My pc can have up to 32 gigs of ram. I run 16 right now but I could easily update to 32 gig if I wanted to. It is no point as this game does not even come close to using 16 gigs.

And if there is a performance issue in a 64 bit game - they really have to find another culprit in this closed world then lots and sims as it is definitely not that. Sims 2 could have up to 4600 sims and tons of lots on a 32 bit game ran on pcs people have not used in years. Who are they kidding?

You know, I was being sarcastic ahaha

I completely agree with you.

"slydog857;c-16794325" wrote:
There's a lot of people here making the assumptions that 'Smaller Worlds to reduce FPS drops, and improve performance is an invalid excuse' and I agree, but not entirely. Yes, it would help performance, we all have to admit it would improve performance, however, the fact that this game had performance issues IN THE FIRST PLACE is the problem, the fact stated above is true but what's also true is that this game performances well under average, and the people who said they are catering for lower-end hardware are 100% on the ball. A lower-end machine will statically preform better in this game to a certain degree. I have an i7-7700K, GTX 1080, 16GB and I still get performance issues in some worlds. There is one big problem and one simple answer/explanation to this:

It's 2014, and the sims team thought the best idea moving forward for CPU optimisation in this brand new game is to LIMIT the game to 2 CPU Cores, which was absurd for any game after 2011, to be honest. This was the worst development choice the company could have made, and for people who think the game has multi-core support, yes it does, but it still only uses 2 physical cores. Name 10 people who still use Dual-Core processors.

This then creates my problem, only 50% of my CPU is being utilised, I get performance issues, because the game doesn't use the entirety of a system! Too late to fix this now as it was part of the base code.

So, I appreciate smaller worlds to combat this, but they created the problem in the first place is what I'm saying.

Disagree with the overall statement in the fact the game was 32 bit when it came out and they overhauled it to 64 bit before Cats and Dogs came out - so any performance issues should by all rights have gone bye-bye.

Tell that to people who do not know how gaming, pcs and programming works - they will believe you, but don't say that to people who do know better. That is bogus assumption in a 64 bit game on the scale of the Sims.

"Pamtastic72;c-16793316" wrote:

"Jordan061102;c-16792488" wrote:

"Pamtastic72;c-16792482" wrote:
Me as soon as I saw the map:
https://media.giphy.com/media/1bKvE7bLe9v4L14mjy/giphy.gif

Thank's for making me laugh even when I'm angry as hell. :smiley:

I pre-ordered. I feel completely duped. Because has I not been so stupid I would have waited for it to go on sale. They hit it so far out of the park with seasons I stupidly assumed this would live up to that. I will never pre-order again.

Contact customer service and you can cancel.

I am just going to say it. I am angry! I am disgusted! I am so disappointed! I wanted this pack. I love the cas items. I thought the acting career looked intriguing and different. The fame system looks fun and seems to add long-term gameplay that I would have loved to have in my game. If this was a game pack I would be thrilled right now.

Once again I am saying that this EP is not worth the full EP price. The world ... I just can't. I do not even know what to say that I think will be listened to and heard.

I do not play in Brindleton Bay because it is too small. It is way too small. What was the excuse they told us then? They wanted the focus to be on the pets. Oh, wait sorry. They wanted the focus to be on the cats and dogs. The cats and dogs are so time consuming and expensive to make because of all those new animations. Now the excuse is performance issues.

Just come out and say we have a tiny budget and someone somewhere decided to spend much of that precious budget on expensive fake backgrounds. Someone somewhere decided that these fake houses were more important than actual usable space to actually play the game.

The world is so small it's sad. Like those homes on the beach, should have been actual homes. I am so sick of paying 40.00 for games that are worth 20.00!

"YankeesForever;c-16794444" wrote:
The world is so small it's sad. Like those homes on the beach, should have been actual homes. I am so sick of paying 40.00 for games that are worth 20.00!

Yeah but you could argue, and there will be some people who will argue this, you don't HAVE to buy them. If you don't feel they are worth $40, wait for a sale. Seasons came down in the Halloween sale (which has already ended... despite Halloween not even having been yet) for $30 approx. and that's 3 months. So if you are prepared to wait, do that. If not and you get it day one, then you can't say you are sick of spending $40, because YOU did.