my game runs just as good as witcher 3 i run on ultr settings i also do not have any popouts or whatever
PC
1440p
7700k
980 TI
16gb Ram
50-60 fps
At 1080p, sure. Who plays at 1080p in 2018
1 Like
i play at 1440p
Lol Jokerproductions made an analysis where there are issues at Ultra on 1080 Ti unless some settings are lowered to High and even there there are dops in some places. I am finding it hard to believe you get no pop in or drops using a 980 Ti, which is significantly less powerful and at 1440p! Wow
The only other explanation for this is that Nvidia fucked up bigtime on drivers for 1080 and 1080 Tis
im with you i think 1080 tis got fucked, but yeah i run a 980 ti classi
It can be the only explanation. By now the forum is filled of complaints with 1080 and 1080Ti owners with a few 1070. It might be that Nvidia is not even paying attention to the 1000 series which is ridiculous
does your card run at 100% while playing ?
Yep 99% most of the time. VRAM usage is PATHETIC though. My card has 11GB and the game uses no more than about 3.5GB. No overheating issue whatsoever. tested with or without overclock.
This is the only game so far where last gen cards are outperforming 1080 Tis. Derfinitely a driver issue
there was a few people saying there 970s were running good too
Yep I saw, which I simply could not understand. But so far I have seen loads of 1070, 1080 and 1080 Ti owners complaining about shoddy performance while the 970, 980 and 980 Ti owners are all saying the game is smooth as butter on their system. So I think it is safe to say its definitely driver issue
That’s reaching a bit but it’s decent. Still pop-in and stutter every now and then.
You have a potato face!
Words can have similar meanings and yet not be the same
Yes, reduction also carries a negative connotation. Cutting back a feature for any reason should have a highly negative connotation. It was reduced, cutback, downgraded, made lesser. All of these are negative, all of them should be. If you’re just going to ignore the context then there’s no point in having a discussion.
You like the game, that’s great, but trying to change the connotation of what is absolutely negative is not honest. You should have simply said: “Yes the game suffered an obvious downgrade or degradation in graphics for performance reasons” and left it at that.
This “PC” use the words I want you to use because I don’t like it is disgusting, it’s great that you like the game separate that from whether or not degraded graphics is good or bad. Rather than wetting yourself over whether or not you should call it a “Reduction” or a “Downgrade” you should stick to honest discussion on why it happened.
At the end of the day you’ll never win a battle on tone, by dictionary definition there was undeniably a downgrade, that’s a matter of fact that simply cannot be argued as there’s clear evidence.
Such downgrades are’s usually a given experience in game development, you aim high and realize that what you want won’t fit in your budget be it polygons or computation time. I’ve experienced this myself when working with game development, sometimes things work out (such as using Static Mesh Instances to reduce draw calls) and sometimes you just have to reduce polygons or objects in the scene.
I think the game looks great myself, and I don’t have any performance problems at all then again I have a powerful machine so I doubt I would have anyways. I’d rather have more content but that’s just me.
Your perception on the matter is incorrect. I chose not to use downgrade not because I dislike the word but because it inaccurately defines what took place.
I also find is comical that you claim “PC” when you use the classic SJW technique of telling me what I should have said, becuase you don’t actually understand what I said.
No, I should not have because that is simply not what happened. The textures were never downgraded nore reduced the entire argument the OP has always made has been around the density of forests.
The Graphic fidelity was never reduced the, orientation and quantity of trees was changed and this has people upset over aesthetics.
Reducing the quantity of trees and shrubs is not the same as downgrading the graphics.
1 Like
Framerate drops in Beta where tied to IA calculations, not to graphics, and it’s the same today. Many preformance reviews are pointing out that bad framerate is tied to a 100% CPU usage, a bottleneck caused by the main thread of CryEngine 3.
Do you remember the time it takes to sleep in beta, and the time it still takes now during the last hour 
. Problems today are the same as before. To be fair they certainly improved their IA quite a lot, we can’t say the contrary and they certainly put a lot of work doing so, but regarding graphics they didn’t optimise them well, they just cut many of the assets and graphics previously included in beta, this probably to save some more FPS they didn’t managed to gain by improving their game IA calculations.
I’m almost sure that if you cut IA routines from beta you can achieve a good stable 30 fps already , I’m reading on most performance reviews that this game isn’t using all of VRAM a GPU can handle, so we should at least already (on PC maybe) be able to select higher resolution textures.
To conclude, we are not arguing that graphics of this game are bad…they are just not as good as what they provided in beta so we are trying to understand why and to have some explanations, as a baker i think i can ask them.
2 Likes
Yesterday, I still compared Beta itself and the release. I have no questions to release.
The foliage/vegetation assets are different in the official release. It’s pretty easy to tell by wandering around in the beta.
I’m more disappointed at the lighting/volumetric fog/effects being downgraded/removed. The foliage for the most part does look better in the beta. This could of also been dialed back for gameplay purposes (so you can actually see where your arrow lands for example) but why the complete switch? Are these foliage assets more in-line with the ecology?
Either way an explanation would be nice.
1 Like
Wow, what an ignorant post!?
I’m a person who made thousands of textures, 3d models, lightning templates, and who designed maps.
And you don’t know what you are talking about.
2 Likes
You’re probably right that the graphics have been downgraded from beta however i also remember that the beta ran like crap even compared to how it runs now!
the graphics are still amazing for an open world RPG and i’m happy with trade off since i don’t have a supercomputer running at home just an amd rx 480. Could they have kept the original graphics as options for people with more powerful pcs? Maybe, but that would have involved more testing and resources and pc is just one platform, the consoles having limited power.
i’m sure in time we will get amazing gfx mods for this game on pc.
So what sort of PC would be able to run the original version of the game? Would the average gamer be able to afford it? If I had access to Skynet would that run it?
1 Like