• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #170 - Performance and other technical issues

Hello, my friends! This is Moah, Tech Lead of Stellaris typing. I can finally talk about what you’ve all been waiting for: How many new platypi will there be in Federations? After weeks of…

Well, apparently, I should be "more technical." But before we jump into the mysteries of the Stellaris code, I want to take the time to talk a little about the balance between adding new features, improving performance and stability – especially in terms of multiplayer and the dreaded out-of-syncs (dreaded at least by me).

The Delicate Balance
Stellaris, like most decently sized code bases, is like a complex game of Mikado or Jenga: every part is connected in some way to every other part. When you add a feature, you add more connections. If you’re careful, you add only a few, if you’re in a rush you add a bit too many. This generally leads to Unplanned Features (aka bugs). In addition, once we see them perform in the actual game, we tend to expand features in new, unexpected ways, leading to more Unplanned Features(tm).

Once we realize what is happening, we start being more careful. Maybe too careful. Checking too many things, too often, ensuring that this interaction that is supposed to never actually happen is actually not happening. Not now, not later. Not ever.

So you have removed the unplanned features, but the game is a bit, ah… too careful. Some would say slow.

So you remove some of these checks. You realize that you don’t need to loop around the galaxy, you can just loop around this one tiny planet. Then you go one step further, and think “well I can maybe do that check only every three weeks, and this calculation needed by all these checks, I could store it in here and reuse it until the next time it changes.”

So now the game isn’t so careful anymore, we’re back in unplanned feature territory. But if the caching (storing/reusing calculations) happens at different times on different machines, you get slightly different results (like asking a developer for something before and after they had coffee).

Slightly different results are what OOS thrives on! Clients and servers have 0.0001 cost difference, compounded over time, that corvette is bought on the server but not on the client.

So you remove your “smart” algorithm. You replace it with the correct algorithm. You lose half of what you gained in step 2 and reintroduce some bugs. Probably.
Rinse and repeat.

But enough about my morning routine! Let’s talk about…

Performance
Stellaris fans are like C++ programmers: performance is always on their mind. To be fair, it has also been on ours a lot lately. We know that it’s not all that it could be, especially in late game and with the bigger galaxies. With that in mind, we’ve taken time to improve performance in a bit more depth than we usually can. We looked at what was taking the most time, and as everyone knows that is…

G3Zg2ENmwufWgqUXGFjTEebkxlbQzYRGI0diuSOCrFfUcSl9Xn8EkYCyzAUtWAyCdVXt5biT3vv65T4n-EnA5YmHZXb_Gpp9ydvqh28lj_Oa7py3yU3MHETwURjuo1QD4sFZiZNB


Pops.

There are many reasons why pops consume a lot of time in Stellaris, but the main one is that by endgame we have SO MANY of them. SO So so so so many. And they do so much! Pops have to calculate how good they’d be at every job (they do so every 7 days). Then they have to fight every other pop on the planet to get the job they’re best at. They also have to check if they could have a specific ethic. If they could join a specific faction. How happy they are. How happy they could be. How happy they would be on that planet over there.
All these things trigger modifiers calculations. If you remember my last dev diary, you know that modifiers are the only thing more numerous than Pops in Stellaris. And they all depend on each other. Calculating them is like pulling on a thread and getting the whole sweater.


OK, but what did we actually do about it?
Well first, I’ll admit I may have been a bit pigheaded on the whole “we need to do the jobs distribution every day because we don’t know when new jobs are added.” We reexamined this assumption, and jobs distribution is now only done on demand. It was also rewritten to iterate over a lot fewer things.

We also noticed a few triggers going through every pop of an empire to check if one or more are enslaved, decadent, or other things that can be tested at the species level. So we made new triggers to test these things at the species levels. In the same spirit, we had events going through every ship to find a fleet, so we added triggers at the fleet level.

Second, We’ve also reworked the approach to checking if pops can change ethics (and also made it work again), or if they can join factions.

Finally, we’ve looked for (and found) opportunities to use more multi threading.

But enough talk! What’s the result? Well, if a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s the answer at 30000 words a second:


The video compares the performance of 2.5.1 “Shelley” to 2.6 “Verne'' when running a save game from the community, which can be found attached to this post, with over 20000 pops. It was recorded on my work computer (Intel Core7-7900X @ 3.30Ghz, 10 cores and 20 threads, and AMD R9 Fury). You won’t necessarily get the same results, the exact difference in performance will vary with your computer, and the exact situation in your own save games, of course. On average, we’ve found something between 15% and 30% improvement in late game situations.
This save is just ideal to showcase the impact of the pops improvement.

DYxcPB_pqZfHKxxtAj0sh_Y3nx7zXM4OMcUHTkgNsDK9csuQgEECkgc6jVmUEgWpoa6lD2e9kfYdssD61j2I57mhM0XcyT20wfu8fFIZbP-Usqnw2PShuEAD0_-n-ZTNFcH0NJR6


What is this average anyway? How do you know?
Well, we have synths playing the game all night, every night. In the morning, we check how far they were able to go. We also ask them how many errors they encountered, what their endgame looked like, whether they got any OOS and then put all of that in tables and graphs, with many colors. Then we wipe the synths, so they don’t ask pesky questions about souls and whatnot.

EwNw1Mhvr5FLcwYQYuZClsoMxr8qHs3nF3VPqExEcAJrWCvISTEc2fcl3fNLWzQlWKdxuDLAGHEagL9FXOrtio6XazmKpx_rsR7Ri58Ts2tFbq7OcWPdsIG_ayumIutkMGm2VnD_


In conclusion
Although we keep performance in mind and do our best to keep it reasonable, we’re happy we had a chance to take a deeper dive into the issue. Hopefully the changes will spark as much joy for you as it did for us, and we’re looking forward to your feedback!

Next week will feature another dev diary about the other thing you’ve all been waiting for… MORE PLATYPI!

PS: The save file we're using is from the community, one of the performance threads. We are however unsure where we originally got it from. So if you recognize it, or if it's yours please tell us so we can credit you properly.
 

Attachments

  • perf_massive.sav
    4 MB · Views: 289
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am shocked at how slow the original version is on the CPU on the right....I never realised it was THAT bad for some people. Wow.

Edit: Fair Play Paradox, this update was sooo needed. I just feel bad for complaining now I have seen how slow it is for others. Sheesh.
 
One of our betas asked me to post this picture. I quote their comments after the picture:
View attachment 546890
"@moah grab this picture and say that it is from i5-3570K based PC"
"hmm, the ratio of improved to old build showed slowdown up to year 2300 by about 10 percent on average... after that it was gaining speed, being 50% faster by year 2500
I think that can be explained by having more pops in first 100 years and improvements not kicking in yet and then it is winning, becoming super fast by the end. more than impressive"
"I think it is in fact linear and, again, tied to pops count, but due to wars happening at different times it has this funny shape (edited)
so in the end it is like two times faster, taking into account increased number of pops"

So the new, improved, performance patch slows the game down in early game?


Yeah. I'm done. That's just... Embarrassing.
 
I am happy with what I saw. I also agree with a previous poster that a slider where you could halve the pops but keep the same production overall would be great.
I do not need 200+ pops on a world to get the feeling that it is massive. Other people probably do and with a slider, those craving speed to run bigger galaxies would
be happy just as those playing smaller size galaxies or finding bigger amounts of pops more immerging.
Bonus would be a slider for fleet size too.
 
So the new, improved, performance patch slows the game down in early game?


Yeah. I'm done. That's just... Embarrassing.

You're not accounting for a few things:
1. New features, especially the origins that add additional AI players at the start of the game.
2. A 3570k is a 4 thread, 4 core CPU. It can't take full advantage of the performance tweaks that moved processing out of the main threads, and in fact might suffer some extra overhead in managing them. A modern CPU or even an older one with hyperthreading support would benefit from these changes.
 
You're not accounting for a few things:
1. New features, especially the origins that add additional AI players at the start of the game.
2. A 3570k is a 4 thread, 4 core CPU. It can't take full advantage of the performance tweaks that moved processing out of the main threads, and in fact might suffer some extra overhead in managing them. A modern CPU or even an older one with hyperthreading support would benefit from these changes.

As an owner of a 3570K I don't mind not seeing as much of a bump as someone with a modern day rig [Like Ryzen 5 3600 ; 16 GB ; Good SSD ; 4GB+ modern video card ; etc.] Others may disagree with me but if my 8 year old CPU isn't powerful enough to drive a game in 2020 then I can't be crying too much.
 
Question: What are the stats of the galaxy? We know that it is a massive size galaxy, but I wish to know more specifics.

- What were the habitable worlds settings? 1x habitable worlds with this improvement would be noticeable, but if this was tested on a galaxy with more than average habitable worlds would be an outstanding fix!
- How many AI empires were present? Is it safe to assume the galactic overview came from this game save test?
- Was the game tested without any mods?
 
One of our betas asked me to post this picture. I quote their comments after the picture:
<snip>
"@moah grab this picture and say that it is from i5-3570K based PC"
"hmm, the ratio of improved to old build showed slowdown up to year 2300 by about 10 percent on average... after that it was gaining speed, being 50% faster by year 2500
I think that can be explained by having more pops in first 100 years and improvements not kicking in yet and then it is winning, becoming super fast by the end. more than impressive"
"I think it is in fact linear and, again, tied to pops count, but due to wars happening at different times it has this funny shape (edited)
so in the end it is like two times faster, taking into account increased number of pops"
Looks like somebody fell prey to early optimisation previously ;-) But 15-30% gain with heterogenous hardware is nothing to sneeze at. Congrats.
I already decided it is horribad. Nothing is going to convince me otherwise.
Fixed that for you.
 
Quick question for @Moah: what would be the drawback of just calculating pops once a month, since jobs only produce resources on a monthly tick?
 
Quick question for @Moah: what would be the drawback of just calculating pops once a month, since jobs only produce resources on a monthly tick?

From my experience with a mod that does something similar, there's a lot of constantly updating colony state triggers that would also need to be moved update on the monthly tick. If you remember playing immediately after the new pops system launched, you would get a low stability warning after settling a colony, because the lone pop on it was unemployed. That bug, and many like it, was fixed by performing daily updates.

You can make the system work on a monthly economy tick basis, but it does involve hunting down all areas that the code makes assumptions that pop placement has been calculated.
 
First impression is that this looks like a huge improvement.

I also wish to say is that I feel bad for not believing other players when they rightfully complained about terrible late game lag.
 
Quick question for @Moah: what would be the drawback of just calculating pops once a month, since jobs only produce resources on a monthly tick?
Was answered previously:
That's exactly why. Immediate feedback is important to know what's going and plan ahead.
From my experience with a mod that does something similar, there's a lot of constantly updating colony state triggers that would also need to be moved update on the monthly tick. If you remember playing immediately after the new pops system launched, you would get a low stability warning after settling a colony, because the lone pop on it was unemployed. That bug, and many like it, was fixed by performing daily updates.

You can make the system work on a monthly economy tick basis, but it does involve hunting down all areas that the code makes assumptions that pop placement has been calculated.
Thats an open invitation for plenty of bugs. In that case, I'd rather eat the updates.
 
While the initial post and vid had me very sceptical, the demonstration in the stream [specs are i7-7700 at 4 cores and 8 threads and 4.2 GHZ] looks promising. Kudos for that.

@Moah, thank you for your hard work and for bringing us some good news.