Looking at the Vram usage..and their suggestion to mount the game on a SSD to reduce lag...I found that my 4gb thumb drive used as Ready Boost actually helped. Windows 7 is basically limited to one, but with Windows 8> you can have multiple
The problem I have with this game is the mouse control. I will say this..and all of you that play with a keyboard and a mouse, not a controller..will understand..this game has some type of auto-pilot that drives the damn jeep or thing. None of this A-D-W-S crap. I haven't reached that point yet I hope it's true. Old Delta Force players know what I mean...your' mouse steers.
Looked at it again and besides the 720p of the screenshot itself, the scene looks like Anisotropic Filtering was off or low for starters (that was at least easy to notice)...
To get back to the topic...the purpose of the post was to allow FC4 players to see what all those game setting are and what they do..both visually and performance (fps) wise. It's hard to remember that almost every PC game is playable @30fps. You just have to adjust your settings. The attitude "I'm going to play on Ultra because my card is good enough" is seldom correct.
Ultra sounds cool. So does "Surface Format Optimization". Neither one is necessary....and can cause problems. I play at the above settings and can smell the pine trees.
About the ultra thing nowadays .... what the f**k went wrong with games like The Evil Within ???
I mean, ok, it's id's tech5 crap engine, but still.
I can play resi 6 on 1 gpu with 1gb vram with max settings and get 60 fps, but on EW i get max 35 indoors (crossfire not supported) ?
And the game looks like s**t compared to older games of the genre ?
Add the need of 4gb vram (!) to run the game smooth on "ultra" to that.
So yes, in this kind of ports, the word placebo is an understatement to say the least.
Then you have games like crysis 3.
Compare a high res video with one gameplay on high, and another on "ultra".
No difference whatsoever to the untrained eye, big performance hit however.
If you have the rig to justify ultra settings, go right ahead.
Brag all about it and rub it in my face.
If you don't, and won't settle for less, it's just plain stupid ...
@stumped: sorry man for the earlier derail of the thread. Not intentional or wanted. Just can't pass by some posts. Call it a flaw in my character ... i'll try to restrain myself next time (no promises).
Nothing to worry about..the forum is for users...and every user is not computer savvy. Wrong information leads to wrong assumptions which leads to erroneous expectations and posts. Someone has to call a spade a spade.
Yep, that's Id tech 5 for ya. The so-called 'Megatextures', while cool, take up a LOT of diskspace, and require a lot of Graphics memory to play smooth. And for what? Unique textures throughout the entire game... I usually don't notice/aren't bothered by the fact that other games re-use textures (like Crysis 3), and they often look better and take up less disk-space/vid-mem. And don't have such low detail textures in general.Yes I know diskspace is dirt cheap nowadays, but video memory isn't.
And I've played both Rage and Wolfenstein, and yes the 'Megatextures' look cool at first, but I really stopped to actively notice them not that far in the games.
And it makes the games unnecessary laggy, even when looking worse than the first Crysis (released in 2007)...
I don't know why multi-GPU isn't supported in Id-Tech 5, like in that other post on this forum, some modern games just don't support it at all, even when they obviously need it (Company of Heroes 2 is another one).
Oh yeah .... i played those id games myself.
Lots of fun i must admit.
Still, rage and wolfenstein performed much, much better, both with 1 gpu of my HD6990 and my HD5970 and a gtx570, than The Evil Within.
And it just makes me sad, because i'm a horror genre addict when it comes to games, and i'm forced with 30fps locked to even have a smooth experience.
But it's a cult game, and i'm loving it so far (i've yet to play it extensively), so all is forgiven.
About the original Crysis .... that game is definetely a grand example of how a pc game should be made, performance wise (ok, not exactly when it came out; too heavy), graphics wise and, most importantly, gameplay wise.
Then there are story driven games along with great sound/ art mood, like "the cat lady" or "the vanishing of ethan carter", that remind us what it means to be entertained by virtual games.....
I'm going off-topic here, so that's that.
Since i'm partly responsible that the thread went a little off, i would like to urge more users that have been playing with Far Cry 4 to tell us how the game is performing for each one.
Have you all found that sweet spot of graphic galore and gameplay nirvana ???
The game is just beautiful.
Do share .....
I don't have the game, but it's on my wishlist. However: Does it add much to FC3's gameplay experience? I mean I liked FarCry 3, but I don't think I like it as much as the general consensus about it. I liked the storyline, but found the rest quite repetitive (but that's probably just me).And what I read about FC4 is 'great antagonist, wonderful graphics', and 'more of the same', which doesn't sound like 'instabuy-material' for me.
Retrieving data ...