Can we get the particle bug on AMD Systems in the Known Issues section? PCGH made a video on that and I still can't figure out a possible fix. Seems like a driver related issue.
I have a 2K screen and the game looks rather blurry at that resolution and I'm using %150 in game scaling. Is there something wrong with 2K or is it just my eyes ?
The TAA is very blurry. On consoles I was surprised to pixel count XOX at 1728p and Pro at 1800cp because it doesn't look it. Same deal here. If you disable all filtering and AA options, though, you'll get sharp pixels but loads of shimmering. It's a soft game otherwise.
The TAA is very blurry. On consoles I was surprised to pixel count XOX at 1728p and Pro at 1800cp because it doesn't look it. Same deal here. If you disable all filtering and AA options, though, you'll get sharp pixels but loads of shimmering. It's a soft game otherwise.
I have a 2K screen and the game looks rather blurry at that resolution and I'm using %150 in game scaling. Is there something wrong with 2K or is it just my eyes ?
I have a 2k screen as well, playing at 150% res is pretty sharp but you have to put screen filtering on low. Voila, vaseline look is gone. I also disabled motion blur.
Yeah really wish we could disable DoF separate from the other screen filters as even injecting lunasharpen doesn't help much for distant geometry. It's almost as bad as the DoF they used in FFXII:ZA.
So, I did a quick performance analysis of the different settings. The baseline is 1440p (100%) with everything turned up as high as possible on my 1080/R1700/144hz g-sync display. This gives me 45fps. Then I took every interesting setting down a notch from the baseline and measured the cost individually. Here we go:
all to the max: 45
LOD: +2 fps
TRAM: +1 fps
Geomapping: 0
Lighting: +2 fps
Shadows: +2 fps
Motion Blur: +1 fps
Ambient Occlusion: 0 fps
Anti Aliasing: +3 fps
Filtering: 0 fps
VXAO: +9 fps
Turf: 0 fps (in town) / +6 fps (countryside)
Shadowlibs: +3 fps
I didn't bother testing the settings below the second highest.
What do we learn?
VXAO looks great but is expensive.
Going from TAA to FXAA gains more than expected, but the game looks terrible with everything but TAA - not an option.
You might want to trade Shadowlibs for the highest shadow settings, I have to test this with screenshots.
AO, Filtering and Geomapping are basically free.
For now, my personal settings will be everything at max, except for VXAO, Turf and Shadowlibs. This nets me 57 fps, so the math checks out.
So, I did a quick performance analysis of the different settings. The baseline is 1440p (100%) with everything turned upp as high as possible on my 1080/R1700/144hz g-sync display. This gives me 45fps. Then I took every interesting setting down a notch from the baseline and measured the cost individually. Here we go:
all to the max: 45
LOD: +2 fps
TRAM: +1 fps
Geomapping: 0
Lighting: +2 fps
Shadows: +2 fps
Motion Blur: +1 fps
Ambient Occlusion: 0 fps
Anti Aliasing: +3 fps
Filtering: 0 fps
VXAO: +9 fps
Turf: 0 fps (in town) / +6 fps (countryside)
Shadowlibs: +3 fps
I didn't bother testing the settings below the second highest.
What do we learn?
VXAO looks great but is expensive.
Going from TAA to FXAA gains more than expected, but the game looks terrible with everything but TAA - not an option.
You might want to trade Shadowlibs for the highest shadow settings, I have to test this with screenshots.
AO, Filtering and Geomapping are basically free.
For now, my personal settings will be everything at max, except VXAO, Turf and Shadowlibs. This nets me 57 fps, so the math checks out.
No. They do actually change the image ever so slightly, but you really have to hunt for any difference. The settings work without restarting. The difference betweeen the highest and lowest variant is probably way more significant, but wants to play on the lowest setting?
So, I did a quick performance analysis of the different settings. The baseline is 1440p (100%) with everything turned upp as high as possible on my 1080/R1700/144hz g-sync display. This gives me 45fps. Then I took every interesting setting down a notch from the baseline and measured the cost individually. Here we go:
all to the max: 45
LOD: +2 fps
TRAM: +1 fps
Geomapping: 0
Lighting: +2 fps
Shadows: +2 fps
Motion Blur: +1 fps
Ambient Occlusion: 0 fps
Anti Aliasing: +3 fps
Filtering: 0 fps
VXAO: +9 fps
Turf: 0 fps (in town) / +6 fps (countryside)
Shadowlibs: +3 fps
I didn't bother testing the settings below the second highest.
What do we learn?
VXAO looks great but is expensive.
Going from TAA to FXAA gains more than expected, but the game looks terrible with everything but TAA - not an option.
You might want to trade Shadowlibs for the highest shadow settings, I have to test this with screenshots.
AO, Filtering and Geomapping are basically free.
For now, my personal settings will be everything at max, except VXAO, Turf and Shadowlibs. This nets me 57 fps, so the math checks out.
No. They do actually change the image ever so slightly, but you really have to hunt for any difference. The settings work without restarting. The difference betweeen the highest and lowest variant is probably way more significant, but wants to play on the lowest setting?
No. They do actually change the image ever so slightly, but you really have to hunt for any difference. The settings work without restarting. The difference betweeen the highest and lowest variant is probably way more significant, but wants to play on the lowest setting?
Maybe the settings aren't working correctly then? Seems silly to have a selection of settings which have no visual or fps difference especially when shadows are usually a fps killer in open world games.
So I decide to get it. £35 is okay. Absolutely huge 100GB and that's before I get the 4K textures. I got decent performance and IQ from the demo. With a little bit of tweaking should be able to get something a tad better in the full game (I hardly tweaked the demo at all). But dang, no way this fits on my SSD (unless I un-install Forza 7 which I'm still playing).
Those are the classics and shouldn't net you any additional performance unless something is wonky with your setup to begin with. Leaving this settings on default is perfectly fine for the vast majority of games out there.
Another comparison, Shadows highest Shadowlibs off vs. Shadows high Shadowlibs on. The former is 2-3 fps faster.
The main difference can be seen on the mountains in the background and on our hero. From my understanding, Shadowlibs do only apply on the self shadowing parts of a character, nowhere else. Look at the dog tags.
The TAA is very blurry. On consoles I was surprised to pixel count XOX at 1728p and Pro at 1800cp because it doesn't look it. Same deal here. If you disable all filtering and AA options, though, you'll get sharp pixels but loads of shimmering. It's a soft game otherwise.
I have a 2k screen as well, playing at 150% res is pretty sharp but you have to put screen filtering on low. Voila, vaseline look is gone. I also disabled motion blur.
Any setting to reduce hair/grass shimmering other than downsampling? Usually TAA in other games gives an aliasing-free and shimmering-free image so the blur is an okay trade-off but in this game it doesn't, at least for those elements.
Also going by the pics above VXAO and AO are independent and you can enable/disable both or either? So would it be best to just enable VXAO and disable regular AO rather than use both at once? Seems like overkill in theory?
Another comparison, Shadows highest Shadowlibs off vs. Shadows high Shadowlibs on. The former is 2-3 fps faster.
The main difference can be seen on the mountains in the background and on our hero. From my understanding, Shadowlibs do only apply on the self shadowing parts of a character, nowhere else. Look at the dog tags.
I don't know what to think about performance. Still in the demo for me but... i can run Battlefield1 and Star Wars Battlefront 2 maxed out @1440p - 60FPS locked with a GTX 980.
First time i was "holy shit the port is so good, the game is so much beautiful on PC than consoles, holy shit the turf effect is so good", but performance wise i'm still tweaking here and there to have 60FPS but i'm average ~45fps @1080p
So, I did a quick performance analysis of the different settings. The baseline is 1440p (100%) with everything turned up as high as possible on my 1080/R1700/144hz g-sync display. This gives me 45fps. Then I took every interesting setting down a notch from the baseline and measured the cost individually. Here we go:
all to the max: 45
LOD: +2 fps
TRAM: +1 fps
Geomapping: 0
Lighting: +2 fps
Shadows: +2 fps
Motion Blur: +1 fps
Ambient Occlusion: 0 fps
Anti Aliasing: +3 fps
Filtering: 0 fps
VXAO: +9 fps
Turf: 0 fps (in town) / +6 fps (countryside)
Shadowlibs: +3 fps
I didn't bother testing the settings below the second highest.
What do we learn?
VXAO looks great but is expensive.
Going from TAA to FXAA gains more than expected, but the game looks terrible with everything but TAA - not an option.
You might want to trade Shadowlibs for the highest shadow settings, I have to test this with screenshots.
AO, Filtering and Geomapping are basically free.
For now, my personal settings will be everything at max, except for VXAO, Turf and Shadowlibs. This nets me 57 fps, so the math checks out.
It doesn't, what looks like light brown mass is actually real turf, looks better in motion. Also, Turf adds interaction with foliage (trampling down individual paths in high grass and stuff like that).
When I played the demo it crashed after a few minutes playing, the time was totally random, not matter what I was doing, it could be one minute after loading, just after loading or after 15 minutes. What is funny is that I downloaded the origin version when it leaked so that I could test it and went the whole chapter 1 without any issues.
Today I started playing the steam version...actually, not even that. As soon as the game finished loading it crashed. Anyone having the same issue? How's the leaked origin version plays so fine and the steam version (even the demo) crashs so often? This is bumming me out, I think I might refund if I can't get it to work.
Nvidia triple buffering only works for OpenGL so wouldn't help here. You can kinda force triple buffering in Windows 10 by running the game in Borderless Windowed rather than Fullscreen.
I know, but it has strangely helped me in a few Ubisoft titles ( Assassin creeds/WD2) when enabling it, it has helped smooth out the game, reducing stutters , but increased input lag.
VXAO ON - HIGH AO
http:///C4Hc.jpg
VXAO ON - AVG AO
http:///D4Hc.jpg
VXAO ON - NONE AO
http:///E4Hc.jpg
VXAO OFF - HIGH AO
http:///F4Hc.jpg
VXAO OFF - AVG AO
http:///H4Hc.jpg
VXAO OFF - NONE AO
http:///L4Hc.jpg
Hopefully I didn't get mixed up after taking each, but they should be labeled correctly. Yes, VXAO ON-AO OFF does indeed look like that.
It seems like for both VXAO and Regular AO, the Average setting either doesn't do anything OR extends coverage farther into the distance. My screens are CQ here, so the difference might not show up.
Seems like if you are performance limited but want the looks in cut scenes or in battle, you should decided between VXAO ON-NONE AO and VXAO OFF-HIGH AO.
EDIT:^^^I guess I can try to look for some in hammerhead really quickly.
According toOachkatzlschwoaf's post, it seems that AO does not cost any fps, but it seems to have a different result on my rig. I will test it later tonight.
It's a bit weird because HBAO+ should be a part of VXAO by default since VXAO is world space and doesn't work too well with small details (without a huge performance hit anyway). If it's not in this game then yeah, you should enable SSAO as well since it will provide better contact shadowing for smaller intersections, in addition to VXAO's large scale shadowing.
So initially I wanted to hit 1440p but I decided to drop it down to 1080 just so I could throw on the extra bells and whistles (GTX 1070 here). Jesus this game is gorgeous. I really need to get an SSD to slide it over to though. These load times are killer.
It's a bit weird because HBAO+ should be a part of VXAO by default since VXAO is world space and doesn't work too well with small details (without a huge performance hit anyway). If it's not in this game then yeah, you should enable SSAO as well since it will provide better contact shadowing for smaller intersections, in addition to VXAO's large scale shadowing.
I feel dumb whenever someone posts comparison screenshots, because no matter how hard I look, I fail to notice the differences most of the times. Would be nice to mention the differences you find in your posts if possible. That dog tag difference Oachkatzlschwoaf mentioned was really helpful for example.
Everybody is all about 4k, vxao, nvidia turf works and I'm just sitting here thinking: The game looks awesome, even without Gameworks and sub 4k. It's a huge step up over the console version, especially tessellation, light effects, improved draw distance and texture quality helps to improve the graphical fidelity. Maybe not a groundbreaking "next gen" lead, but add 60 fps and the hugly improved loading times to it and you get a significant update, imo.
Performance wise: I'm not able to use any kind of gamework features at 1440p on my 7700k/1080 setup if I want to play at 60fps, but running at ultra non gamework settings is possible. That said: I'm still in chapter 2... we'll see how later, more impressive areas perform.
IQ wise 1440p --> 1080p looks better then whatever resolution PS4PRo is using to downsample to 1080p. 1440p on a native 1440p display looks awesome too, now my 1440p HDR display needs to arrive and I'm happy.
Everybody is all about 4k, vxao, nvidia turf works and I'm just sitting here thinking: The game looks awesome, even without Gameworks and sub 4k. It's a huge step up over the console version, especially tessellation, light effects, improved draw distance and texture quality helps to improve the graphical fidelity. Maybe not a groundbreaking "next gen" lead, but add 60 fps and the hugly improved loading times to it and you get a significant update, imo.
The draw distance (and by that I mean the draw distance for everything, including obviously standard geometry but also foliage and shadows) really stood out for me in the demo.
It's the best I've seen in any open world game of this fidelity.
And I also agree that the tesselation is also impactful in some scenes.
They won't do me any good, but has someone made some screenshot comparisons with normal vs. the high-res texture pack yet?
I just finished playing for a while and it runs way better than I expected. I'm on an antique 16GB memory, 4.2 GHz i5-3570k system. I'm running a GTX 770 2GB at 1680x1050 because I don't want to spend bitcoin money on a new graphics card and can't really justify it...and yet it doesn't look horrible. I used the low preset and turned a couple of things up, and most everything just runs smoothly at 60 fps up through the hotel thus far.
Keyboard and mouse controls worked okay after adjusting sensitivity, audio was a bit loud but I balanced it, no crashes or major bugs I've seen besides some flickering on clothes and fur very early on.