>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[Nick Thomadis]

A new update is available!

Hotfix Update v1.1.8 6/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3656395358015158191 

[havaduck]

Grabbed a few screens to ilustrate:

4" nose fuse HE vs transport going though the Hull at at an angle, providing plenty of time for the impact fuse at the nose to go off, but nope. Actually there even one of the most rare full pens visible, that makes 2, had another one on the 1st transport. Maybe I am supposed to have my crew hammer-whack the tip of the shells before firing so they detonate in time?

 

Now the AP shells versus an completley boradside target: partial pen. After the obligatory overpenn fiesta from all previous angles.  So if I am hitting angled 1,5"+40 % armor its an overpen? But if I am htting 3"+40 % its an partial pen? And if it would actually go through it would straight transform into overpenn again? Just guessing but that seems about right ...

 

Thats the gun on my cruiser. I have no idea how to fix this. I need more pen but at the same time less velocity? Should I put short barreled 5" guns that cant hit shit on the cruiser instead? And how much pen? After all at least 11,6" (2500 meter) of pen cant go through 3"+40% = 4,5" at 1,200 meter perpendicular ........

 

[Suribachi]

Quote

• Fixed issue which did not allow Convoy battles to continue when all enemy warships were sunk.

I will be testing this soon.  If it is indeed squashed for good this is excellent news.

EDIT:  I will be wiping my campaign saves and starting fresh so anything I run into will be from a "new" campaign.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Suribachi

[o Barão]

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

A new update is available!

Hotfix Update v1.1.8 6/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3656395358015158191 

"Fixed issue which did not allow Convoy battles to continue when all enemy warships were sunk."

[Nick Thomadis]

v1.1.8 R
Quick fixed a temporary snap point issue when mounting barbettes.

[Suribachi]

4 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

v1.1.8 R
Quick fixed a temporary snap point issue when mounting barbettes.

Just in case.  Noticed the issue with towers, funnels and guns as well, not just barbettes.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Suribachi

[Nick Thomadis]

1 minute ago, Suribachi said:

Just in case.  Noticed the issue with towers, funnels and guns as well, not just barbettes.

It should be fixed too.

[havaduck]

I just did sent you a bug report during a battle when the front turret refused to train and align with a target, but the back turret would.

I found the reason: Its the SECOND main mast that ON the turret.

I did a refit on those ships, but obviously didnt put that there; I dont even know you could have 2 main masts ....... but obviously, you can.

 

€: I just deleted that thing, it also has no weight (thats some witchcraft right there). Now the front turret should be able to rotate freely.

Edited February 6, 2023 by havaduck

[Abuse_Claws]

I'm currently fighting a fleet of about 80 ships, 64 of which are DDs. The year is 1907. It's a lagfest and water is basically torpedo soup at this point. Credit where credit is due, the AI is now much better at managing multiple ships, so it is putting up a hell of a fight, but I'd say it's still a few too many ships in one battle. Please, please, introduce a ship count limit for TFs in some form

[Suribachi]

Decided this should be a feedback item rather than a feature item (the other thread):

Shoot Info window on the left side of the screen should show currently targeted ship hit calculations at all times unless a different ship has the cursor over it.  I do not need to know my chances of shooting the empty water next to my ship.

[ZorinW]

5 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Decided this should be a feedback item rather than a feature item (the other thread):

Shoot Info window on the left side of the screen should show currently targeted ship hit calculations at all times unless a different ship has the cursor over it.  I do not need to know my chances of shooting the empty water next to my ship.

1000%

[o Barão]

15 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Decided this should be a feedback item rather than a feature item (the other thread):

Shoot Info window on the left side of the screen should show currently targeted ship hit calculations at all times unless a different ship has the cursor over it.  I do not need to know my chances of shooting the empty water next to my ship.

1000% x2

 

Great suggestion. Would also fix the issue when we want to know how accurate is our guns , but it's impossible since the enemy is invisible at distances higher than 25km +/-

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It should be fixed too.

Still persists in version 1.1.8 R.  

As an example, using the Semi-Dreadnaught hull for Japan with 1897 tech and trying to place double barrel 6-inch Mark 2 turrets (should read as x2 6"/45 Gun in game) on the sides of the ship, along the superstructure, the mounting points seem to have 3 valid mounting spots each and the blue down arrow is not jumping from point to point.

As an observation, it seems like the game thinks the Control button is being held down constantly.

EDIT:  Please ignore this post.  I just realized that my game did not pick up the 1.1.8 R patch and I was on the 1.1.8 Live patch.  This issue is confirmed to be fixed in 1.1.8 R.  Apologies for the confusion.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Suribachi

[havaduck]

34 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

I'm currently fighting a fleet of about 80 ships, 64 of which are DDs. The year is 1907. It's a lagfest and water is basically torpedo soup at this point. Credit where credit is due, the AI is now much better at managing multiple ships, so it is putting up a hell of a fight, but I'd say it's still a few too many ships in one battle. Please, please, introduce a ship count limit for TFs in some form

 

There is, its the amount of crew. The problem is that the earliest tech alone raises that limit to 7000 crewman, which at that time are ~10 battleships allready, more if you cheap out on crew space. Now a BB might be ~700+, but a CA is 300+ and a CL 200+. If you go with 4-5 battleships there is plenty of space for a shitload of ship. Ad in the fact that 50 TBs probably cost less than 1000 of that limit, and you have the recepi for a legfest and shipsoup. 

What this limit does is eliminate the ridicoulous 200 BB doomstacks tough, so in that it was VERY successful. I see the enemy with running around with 3-6 (early game) + rest of the fleet, but not more.

[Suribachi]

@Nick Thomadis I have good news and bad news.

The Good News:  I have confirmed that in patch 1.1.8 Live R, if a player sinks all AI escorts, the battle does not end prematurely allowing the player to chase down and sink the enemy transports.  Great Work!

Now for the Bad News:  The bug that is causing the transports to spawn in with no superstructure modules is still present.  I have confirmed this on a fresh install of the game and a new campaign following all steps on one of my earlier posts on Saturday (page 19 of this thread).

EDIT:  In game report sent in as well.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Suribachi

[madham82]

16 minutes ago, havaduck said:

 

There is, its the amount of crew. The problem is that the earliest tech alone raises that limit to 7000 crewman, which at that time are ~10 battleships allready, more if you cheap out on crew space. Now a BB might be ~700+, but a CA is 300+ and a CL 200+. If you go with 4-5 battleships there is plenty of space for a shitload of ship. Ad in the fact that 50 TBs probably cost less than 1000 of that limit, and you have the recepi for a legfest and shipsoup. 

What this limit does is eliminate the ridicoulous 200 BB doomstacks tough, so in that it was VERY successful. I see the enemy with running around with 3-6 (early game) + rest of the fleet, but not more.

Indeed. This is where I would say just need to have a flat limit of ships for performance alone. Or at least, give us a campaign option to set a limit. That way people with potato PCs can manage it better, and those who really don't enjoy managing a huge fleet can do so too. Got a i7, 4090, and the patience of a saint to control that 100 ship TF...have at it!

[smsvu]

I’ve had some time to spend with the game, though I’m a relatively new player I’ll give some feedback:

The games basic concepts and mechanics have potential and there was thought put into it. Sadly I think somewhere along the way feature creep and over ambition have started to take it’s toll. This results in bugs, imbalances and impracticalitys that at the minimum reduce the enjoyment and at worst ruin the experience.

 

Half baked aspects and features. Things are added but often not really thought trough.

A wish from the community was an undo button in the editor, the team obliged and gave us one but it wasn’t really though through – some towers and turrets have gun/funnel-placements but undo only brings back the object that has been removed itself – if one accidentally deletes the main tower undo is completely useless.

Auto mirror. Sometimes it’s necessary to rotate turrets to make them fit or get the relevant firing angles (If they can’t rotate fully), the feature just ignores rotation altogether. Things that have been placed with it will be deleted together but not moved – pretty annoying if you’d like to move something that’s not on one of the predefined spots.

On the topic of moving things sometimes with super firing barbette the gun in front is moved with it, sometimes not – still not sure how I set it.

Landwar – it’s there to solve the issue of regions without direct access to the sea not being conquerable, but seems to have never really been thought through. There is now something pretty decisive in a war the player has no real control over. There is no coordination between the branches. This is where the inconsistent concept of the player is not the government comes into play. Additionaly: Why is the manpower so spread out – in case of a military offensive (especially the attacker) will concentrate it’s forces (beforehand). Carriers are not planed, so adding an airforce doesn’t make any sense but it was pretty significant in the latter years – just something as food for thought. If the army needs the navy for logistics is highly dependent on the area so a general link doesn’t make any sense. (My observations suggest that the value is primarily influenced by naval strength and number of territories.)

Diplomacy options. Another example of the players dependence on luck/chance (RNG) and not the government. Even though help states if the player is not at war with a nation reduce/increase tension should be available – this is not really the case, I don’t know if it’s a bug or not but definitely an inconsistency. I personally think there should also be the option to just (at least suggest to) go to war with a major nation.

Naval Invasions are a great idea – but poorly implemented. I don’t know how much tonnage is actually needed beforehand (This is primarily an issue when it’s more than 100.000t). This robs the player of the option to plan the actions either way. There is no indication of how it’s progressing, just tonnage and time.

Dissolving nations. Nations don’t just leave a void if they collapse, their territories still exist, the wars they are involved in continue. What happens is colonies and some regions gain independence and a new nation is established. Right now I had an ongoing naval invasion in the western Philippines when Spain collapsed and the invasion was just canceled.

Minor powers / allies. They are a nice addition to fill the void between the major powers, but their alliances and their cancelation seem to be another case of randomness. The player has no insight into the relations to minors and no way to influence them – as allies or neutrals. The player can’t decide (or suggest) to go to war with one, just through random quests. For example to capture “Tonga” isn’t fun because from my point of view it’s pointless, there is no value to it (be it income, ports, oil, etc.), I’d rather go after northern Egypt for their oil and control over the Suez canal. The sale of ships is an alright feature, but again something the player has no meaningful control over. Normally nations don’t export their latest and finest warships to other nations, but the allies order just random ships and the player can just accept or decline (which from my understanding influences the relation to the ally). There was no thought put into their orders, if Sweden would like a fleet to rival and beat several major powers they can. Their orders don’t take the current capacities into account, their orders can not be delayed.

Releasing a hull without checking if one can place guns in all spots that are designed for it.

 

The UI is something that really holds the game back.

The load times are long – considering it’s a single player game without fancy graphics running locally on a good machine. (This is just something of note, I can’t judge how much can be done about it, so I’ll leave it at that.)

 

There is a lot of opinion to this.

 

World:

There are by default three to four large windows, that cover a significant portion of the screen at all times. These can’t be moved, resized or disabled. They make part of the map annoying to reach, because it is just a fixed image. Not the best solution from a usability standpoint but surely other considerations lead to the decision, so it’s fine. However this requires other things to be userfriendly, like adding a bigger dead zone on the sides to allow the player to easily reach the ports near the end. (Visible in the image – something funny I noticed for the first time when taking a closer look, there is something missing on the side - doesn't really matter though.)

In addition, when placing the ports nobody bothered, to think that ports more or less inside the edge are a bad idea.

Regarding the first window, the players nation. There is some useless information contained, like the date (it’s already on the bottom above continue), your max shipyard size (usage would make much more sense, as in worldview nothing connected to it can be done). Showing me my wars there but the ships only in the separate window in the top left is odd.

I don’t really care for the feed, there is way to much happening every turn to really read through it, for example if I don’t take notes the information about a nations discovery is absolutely pointless for me, as I’d also need to change view to cross reference it with my research. Something like being able to take a look at each countries research-tree with some form of overlay to the own would actually allow one to judge how the nations compare. There are a lot of events that don’t concern me, so reading about them is rather pointless. I don’t think I shouldn’t be able to receive it, but I need more control over it. For example instead of writing a line for every ship laid down, show how many of what type the nation is building in politics, as to keep track of it is otherwise to much work for very limited gain. Instead of informing me about every engagement, give me a way to look at all engagements of a nation and how they panned out, a view to view all engagements of a war would also be a nice touch.

For the map:

There is no easy way to identify the regions controlled by each nation. (like a political map) If I want to know if one of my territories is at risk of invasion in case of war there is no easy way to check, you need to manually take a look at all of them.

There is no way to filter the map, in a war I only care for my enemies and allies, but the map is now filled with tons of icons, for every task-group, port, oil, etc. (For another example if I just want to reorganize my fleet I only care about where my taskforces and ports are) The view for coordination should be clear, not confusing – otherwise a core mechanic goes from fun to a chore.

There is no overview over current uprisings and revolts, that can be accessed during a turn, so have fun finding them...

There seems to be no cosistent way to see all ongoing wars and how they stand.

Taskforces are a good idea. But managing them is not really fun. Currently they are limited by crew, for invasions and ports their tonnage is important, for coordination and planning time until arrival is relevant – these three in formations are missing from the short overview and are also not present in the menu which in general contains a lot less information about your taskforce than the hoverwindow (if you want to know the tonnage, get your calculator or waste a turn heading to a port, want to know how long it will take, just move them again...). The Nearest port on the otherhand seems rather pointless, as I can only land in allied or own ports. In addition, their path doesn’t get highlighted when hovering over it.

To much popups lead to them just beeing annoying. Limit them to important things and provide summaries (more work I know but better).

Let me access the other pages, if I’m asked how would you like to handle x, then I can only see the consequences, but don’t know how my relation with the power is or how much capacity is available.

 

Politics:

Something minor, but “Nation’s people” for unrest is a strange wording, especially because in worldview it’s still called unrest…

As said, also showing the ship type for refit, repair and building would be nice – again for planning. Regarding other nations ships, a solution to denote sales (of the building) and some information about their ships, because differences matter – especially because nations normally tailor their navies to their requirements and enemies. (A lot has been mentioned before)

Again something not thought through, elections I only get a popup and a feedmessage once per term to know what my government is comprised of …

(The image is not politics, but there I can't see it there either)

Again regarding information, the player doesn’t really know if the level of oil is good or bad, the power percentage (something that seems pretty arbitrary to me)

Fleet:

Show taskforces and allow setting of role from the fleet view.

Allow selection of all, for example to set them all to “In being” after a war.

Allow scrapping, suspending and resuming for multiple at the same time.

Some way to jump from Fleet to a specific ship in worldview.

Editor:

Show angles when moving the barbette.

Regarding UI two highlighted sections

(Yes towards the end I wrote less, in some regard because there is less to complain but also because I can’t go on and on, these serve more as examples and are by no means complete.)

 

Battle:

There is no way to arrange the ships bevorehand, so first thing is to manually arrange them like I want them and at the positions I designed them for – this leads to extreme chaos and the ships violently crashing and blocking each other – in reality this would be catastrophic.

Reordering ships inside diffs is also something that would be great, as would be reordering diffs.

Choosing the flagship and the diffs leaders manually

Merchant ships are in divs, likely so protection can be assigned. But then why can’t I at least give them directions and reorder them based on speed. (I noticed there are different ships with different top speeds grouped together in one dif, something that in reality would never happen.)

There are sometimes armed freighters, why can’t I control their weapons in battle. Again taking away control from the player is a balancing act.

I still haven’t found a way to manually assign targets to each sides secondarys…

 

Gameplay:

Balancing is key in a game about development like a fair and competent AI. (A generator that understands the concept of primary vs secondary armament, selects somewhat fitting barbettes for the guns and reacts reasonably to torpedos, I've developed the method and habit of torping "manualy" from knifefighting range)

The research tree should be somewhat logical, don’t let me research something that decreases me below my current level if I understand the game correctly.

Avoid redundancies, like a overall max displacement construction and displacement-limits per type. What’s the point – I can build 20.000t battleships, so I should be able to build torpedo boats with maximal displacement. (It makes balancing a bit easier, but isn’t logical)

I as a player like to make decisions and have influence, if I’m stuck with randomness at every turn I feel like my decisions don’t really matter and I’m limited in my influence on the games progression. (The feeling is the issue, for example if I win and keep asking to finish the war several times)

For example don’t force me to put torpedo tubes on TB and DD’s – I might just want to build designated mine layers/sweepers. (Also for current purpose build ships) My mine layers should take paths that avoid enemies and don’t try to corner a full taskforce …

Give me the option to build escort ships.

 

 

This is a lot, a 4 page document to be precise. There is a lot of critique in this and some of my frustration might be shining through – I hope you can look past it.

I’ve primarily scratched the surface with examples, as there is a lot to be discussed and thought about – but there seems to be a team that is capable and willing to make a good game, I just hope the higher powers at play will let that happen, as UAD is promising. There are still issues that made me decide to stop now – I’ll surely come back to take a look, let’s hope the team has enough time to finish what they started. (Though 6 months are little time…)

 

Conclusions:

• The player should feel like being in control and able to influence what happens – not dependent on RNGs. Like in the description: “Design your warships the way you want them, command fleets, […]”
• Balancing and AI are still not where they should be.
• The game is complex so explaining how it works and presenting the necessary information's is key. The current help is no where near sufficient and the UI needs a significant overhaul.

(Please not that this was based on version 1.1.7 Live R - so no improvements could have been taken into account.)

EDIT: Minor notes, added missing images, removed image refference, added version disclaimer

Edited February 7, 2023 by smsvu
Minor notes, added missing images, removed image refference, added version disclaimer

[Fangoriously]

Just had a 'task force attacks undefended port' mission that had a few enemy warships and a bunch of transports, the mission ended as soon as the warships sunk, not after i could sink the transports, like they thankfully do now on the convoy raid missions.

[Arkk]

I am experiencing back to back wars with the US as Japan. The very next turn after sorting out the peace treaty the US will again declare war on me or it will say that negotiations broke down even though we just signed a peace treaty. This is a game I started before the most recent hotfix but after the patch.

[havaduck]

18 hours ago, madham82 said:

Indeed. This is where I would say just need to have a flat limit of ships for performance alone. Or at least, give us a campaign option to set a limit. That way people with potato PCs can manage it better, and those who really don't enjoy managing a huge fleet can do so too. Got a i7, 4090, and the patience of a saint to control that 100 ship TF...have at it!

 

Not only for performance reasons, for gameplay/fun/enjoyment reasons too. Fighting steel had a setting to generate battles that lets you adjust the size of the whole affair.

 

But appart from that, I dont think a big rig would actually help. Granted mine is around 10 years old (mostly) with the GPU being 6 years but lets take a look: 4,5 Ghzs Ivy Quad with 16 GB ram and a 1070 with ~2000 chip clock it can hold. The game and OS are both on a Sata 3 SSD.

I had this battle when a war broke out with russia. My CLs were undergoing a lengty refit so in order to fight the russian taskforce (remember 7000 crew limit?) it pulled these ships from 2 of my ports. Thats 27 vs 39 = 66 ships. Thats nothing, I have thought these lovely 150, 200 ships battle before.

 

Thats the hole thing paused.  Runs ok, I guess. At least acceptable with the W10 software Gsync. GPU could go over 30 frames. And the CPU has massive reserves.

 

Now with 1x Time ....... oh lord. Now the GPU is doing power saving because its so under-uterlized and the CPU utelization drops massively too ............. as does the framerate. 5 frames is not acceptable. Usually I try to not pause the game to issue orders as a difficulty thing, makes me overlook torpedoes and eat them but I barely loose ships so ......

Thing is I HAVE TO PAUSE to actually scroll because is stuttering so badely, it tages ages to scroll. When its paused, performance goes up at least 5 times and its "fine".

 

Maybe unfortunate perspective ....... nope. The engine simply cant cope with a full battle. And while its better than in the beta, these newest changes have dropped a battle being rather unplayerable from 150-200 ships down to just 60. Thats a massive performance loss. I guess its the engine handling the new targeting, but unable to utelize more hardware recources efficiently to compensate.

 

No offence, but I tried the first itteration of the previous beta and ....... ships would go in snake lines, I couldnt target anything and performance was EVEN WORSE. So I do know there has been improvement there but still, insisting on these large battles and then that framerate is .......... just cruel.

I know its a licensed engine and there is so only so much a small team can do, but then work within the limitations. Have Denmarks straight battles or any of Guadalcanal ones at max instead of freaking Jutland or Leyete Gulf.

 

Like, I am able to suffer, I played Wing Commander over 30 years ago on a Amiga 600 which is essentially an Amiga 500 (constroll stick of the pilot would move according to maneuver ..... whoa!), an while I do get sentimental just looking and listening to a YT video the framerate was ........... ass. Absolute undiluted ass. Thing is, it was stable. I never ran better or worse, so you would adapt to it. And it was over 30 years ago.

Today is different. And the game is no longer in early access either. If I would consider this game and quickly watch a YT video only to see it stuttering by at 4-5 FPS, I would assume one of those hack-job games and give it a pass. This same PC can run things like Vermintide II just fine on medium/high settings in 4k.

I'd be curious to see somebody with a modern Intel xxxx Lake or modern AMD Zen processor run this, if a more modern micro architecture helps (because I highly doubt more cores will), but I dont think so ....

Edited February 7, 2023 by havaduck

[ZorinW]

19 minutes ago, havaduck said:

I'd be curious to see somebody with a modern Intel xxxx Lake or modern AMD Zen processor run this, if a more modern micro architecture helps (because I highly doubt more cores will), but I dont think so ....

I am running it on a Ryzen 9 5950X and the performance is still rubbish on occasion. No surprise there, since the game doesn't use more than one core...

[o Barão]

11 minutes ago, havaduck said:

I had this battle when a war broke out with russia. My CLs were undergoing a lengty refit so in order to fight the russian taskforce (remember 7000 crew limit?) it pulled these ships from 2 of my ports. Thats 27 vs 39 = 66 ships. Thats nothing, I have thought these lovely 150, 200 ships battle before.

Thats the hole thing paused.  Runs ok, I guess. At least acceptable with the W10 software Gsync. GPU could go over 30 frames. And the CPU has massive reserves.

Now with 1x Time ....... oh lord. Now the GPU is doing power saving because its so under-uterlized and the CPU utelization drops massively too ............. as does the framerate. 5 frames is not acceptable. Usually I try to not pause the game to issue orders as a difficulty thing, makes me overlook torpedoes and eat them but I barely loose ships so ......

Thing is I HAVE TO PAUSE to actually scroll because is stuttering so badely, it tages ages to scroll. When its paused, performance goes up at least 5 times and its "fine".

Maybe unfortunate perspective ....... nope. The engine simply cant cope with a full battle. And while its better than in the beta, these newest changes have dropped a battle being rather unplayerable from 150-200 ships down to just 60. Thats a massive performance loss. I guess its the engine handling the new targeting, but unable to utelize more hardware recources efficiently to compensate.

No offence, but I tried the first itteration of the previous beta and ....... ships would go in snake lines, I couldnt target anything and performance was EVEN WORSE. So I do know there has been improvement there but still, insisting on these large battles and then that framerate is .......... just cruel.

I know its a licensed engine and there is so only so much a small team can do, but then work within the limitations. Have Denmarks straight battles or any of Guadalcanal ones at max instead of freaking Jutland or Leyete Gulf.

o7! @havaduck in large battles, are you using "NH II" option A or option B?

 

I ask you this, because the option A uses a RTX shader, that improves the graphics but with worse performance. In small battles with good rig you will probably not notice any difference, but in large battles the rig will probably struggle.

 

In that case, where you need more GPU power, I recommend switching to option B. Option B does not include the RTX shader and the performance impact is irrelevant. 0–2 fps.

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

are you using "NH II" option A or option B?

Sorry, I don't know that abbrievation, can you define "NH II" please?  I would like to check my settings for it as well.

[smsvu]

There is a strange increase in memory use while staying on the loading screen of a custom battle. Yes it's 100 Ships, but still there shouldn't really be happening anything while idle.

It happened again with the same designs, during the design phase (autogenerator) the use looks normal but then starts to increase a lot.

Note the first derivative decreases but there is still an increase

Edited February 7, 2023 by smsvu

[o Barão]

22 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Sorry, I don't know that abbrievation, can you define "NH II" please?  I would like to check my settings for it as well.

Of course.

"NH II" stands for "New Horizons II". A reshade visual modification I made for UAD.

In this new version, I also included an RTX Global Illumination version to improve the visual quality, which is enabled by default. The option A.

So when you are in the game and use the "Home" key, this panel will show up.

• At the top, we can see the option A is selected.
• In the effects table we can see the RTGlobalIllumination effect and a few others.
• At the top left, we have two arrows that we can use to select another versions. Click on one of these arrows to select the other version I made.

• Now the Option B is on.
• Instead of using the RTX effect, I applied an ambient light effect. The visual quality is not the same but similar, however the performance impact in this version is almost irrelevant. 2 fps loss at max.