Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Xzibit, Feb 15, 2012.
Don't waste your money, wait for Ubi to fix their game.
yes so it is the game problem as all other games run well...hitman had few issues but still enjoyed it hope this gets fixed
It's the way things are heading, Arkham City is a cpu thrasher too and the only thing you can do is throw a modern cpu at it.
Nope, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany games used much CPU before, even AC2 was kinda cpu hungry (i remember on my 4770 same fps than people with a 5850 and same processor, with a phenom 2).
BC2 was BF3 parent (tech wise) and was also cpu hungry, with only 32 players, its destruction and such what makes BF hungry, not players.
well i whacked shadows down to normal and am running very high aa, rest on high.
have only done the first mission (zero probs) and running about Boston taking in the scenery. it does go down to 47fps or so but only momentarily. (well panning around from the highest vantage point wasnt 100 percent smooth).
still gonna give this one time for maybe a patch/driver release and in the meantime will play something else and toy around a bit with sweetfx+fxaa inj tool.
I have exactly the same problem as you in sli..Pretty weird honestly. All maxed out (except ambient details that are on High and not very High) and i get stable 60fps everywhere (even on boston and new york)..The only ****ty thing is that I have so much weird flickering on the snow and it's not really playable like this :bang: I've tried to change sli's profile in nvidia inspector (changing with the black ops 2) and i've resolved the flickering but I have fps drop to 45-50...Same thing changing sli in nvidia control panel to Alterned frame rendering 2 so I hope there will be soon a patch!
I don't know exactly how TXAA looks compared to the mode used by my GPU, but 4xMSAA + FXAA definitely doesn't do as good a job as 8x multisampling did in previous games. There are a lot more rough edges, but like I said, there's no way my card would be able to handle AA form used in previous titles when on the frontier. It doesn't bother me anyway; I think the game looks good as it is.
As for multiplayer, I did try it out, and it indeed feels like a totally different game. It's not something I have time or will to invest in, so I just deleted the entire "multi" folder, which saved me around 5 GB or space . I was also able to get rid of punkbuster, though I wish they asked me if I wanted it installed instead of forcefully installing it without my knowledge. :thumbdown
Anyway, I decided to finish replaying Revelations (only have a few hours left) before continuing my AC3 session (stopped at the end of sequence 3), and it's amazing how much different it feels. I've been thinking why that is, and I've come to a conclusion that it's mostly because of much better animations. As we all know, animations in previous titles were already great, but AC3 is on a whole other level. Its great how your character no longer has only one walking or running posture (if you walk or run up or down a hill, it will look how it's supposed to look now). Not to even mention the combat animations. I love how Haytham swings that sword (and finally, he can actually block attacks from behind) with a certain style that just wasn't there in previous games. It gives him character, as weird as that sounds. I wonder if Connor's animations are different? Would be cool if they were, considering he is a different person that should employ his own fighting style.
Also, MK controls actually feel really good in AC3. I see no need for a controller at all. I actually didn't in previous titles either, but the camera had a tendency to get a mind of its own, especially in some platforming levels. MK just felt weird there.
AC3 also loads a lot faster (I think loading was artificially imposed in previous games, since HD activity usually lasts only around 2 seconds, and yet I have to wait in the loading screen for quite a bit longer than that). Menus also open up much faster.
That's about it for now. I'm sure I'll have less good things to say when I play more, as UBI always puts trivial things (such as collecting flags and feathers, doing crappy side assignments with no story to them, buying landmarks and renovating stores, etc.) in their games that serve no purpose other than increase the length of the game. So far, however, I'm happy with AC3.
Here are two pics with AA on High (1) and with(2) TXAA
I can't see the difference.
Sigh, you trolling again xzibit? Reported cos quite frankly you're becoming so unoriginal.
We all know you hate ass creed 3 and nvidia.
I wouldnt mind if at least u had some kind of humour/originality but really it's just boring and you're trying to take the thread south...
I can see a difference.
Buy new glasses then :roll:
Yeah, i can see it too, quite clear from looking at the ropes.
It's supposed to be for motion, so comparing stills is never going to be accurate anyway.
sprinting/free run also has varying speed when you are using a supported controller (xbox/xinput controller), while pressing the right analog trigger, lightly, your character will sprint but pressing it more/100% will make him sprint much faster. If i remember correctly, the previous titles didnt have it.
And yeah, TXAA is best observed in motion.
Whats the performance hit with TXAA like, can you take some screens with msi/fraps on.
How is he trolling? I cant tell the difference either.
Tried playing with only 1 GPU. The minimum fps in Boston went up a few (GPU usage 90%) but otherwise no better than SLI. MSAA+FXAA runs a few frames better than TXAA but I prefer TXAA. I refuse to play games at less than 50fps. I didn't spend a ****load of money on this rig for crap performance. I think these console-focused developers are still trying to wrap their heads around DX11 optimization.
I've got a week off of work starting tomorrow and was hoping to have an AC3 marathon, so I'll have to find some other games to occupy my time until they fix the performance.
very sad.....we spend so much on buying a game and this happens......i almost though it was my cpu that was causing it ..
For now, it looks like both your CPU and GPU are holding you back.
My GPU runs at max nearly all the time (max settings +mid level AA), as does one of my CPU cores, the others are near 50%.
Theres no guarantee a faster CPU will help me as my GPU is maxed anyway, even less chance for you unless you use lower quality settings.
My fps range mostly from 50 to 60fps, occasionally dipping to 44fps.