Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Stone Gargoyle, Mar 1, 2014.
testing the game on Windows 10 build 10159
Have you tried on Win 8.1? Whats the performance difference between?
Guys where can I buy this game with DLC at lowest price possible?
How to you have more than 30 fps? and what did you do to make the game work with MSI AB?
Never mind I found the config and changed the fps from there.
Also got rid of those nasty intro movies .
Ended up dropping the resolution to 720p.
Was playing at 900p, but the more I played... the further I got into the game the worse the texture streaming got.
Got to the point in one Two Face fight, damn near no textures were loading at all.
As soon as I dropped the game to 720p, completely fixed. The textures are loading perfectly fine now.
Looking forward to Rocksteady's patch to fix the texture streaming, and reduce the memory usage.
But, happy side note.
Finished June at work, my sales numbers were beyond solid. So... definitely getting a bonus. And when that bonus comes in in July, getting me an EVGA GTX 970 and another 8gb or Ram. Happy days.
got it from kinguin 17€ premium edition
Yeap,the day that you have installed your new stuff and hit to play...from night to day wil be the difference. Nice upg will be. (what's wrong and speak like Yoda..too many Clone wars cartoon I think my eyes have seen LOL)
on windows 10 it's a little better , less stuttering
basically turned SLi off and it worked
Sources: Warner Bros. Knew That Arkham Knight PC Was A Mess For Months
Nice WB! This shows you that the reason they pulled the game is because of the Steams refund system and that they were losing sales. I hope now that we can refund PC games, publishers will spend more time on PC versions of the game. Next up for a failed launch this year is Assassin's Creed Syndicate if Ubisoft hasn't learned anything.
That just made my day >)
But... how can that be? Didn't people already say that Iron Galaxy was only given 8 weeks to make it? ugh. :bang:
Yes... because if it's posted on the internet it must be true, right?
Come on. Really?
It's obvious the reason they suspended PC sales was because of the refunds. And it's obvious Warner Bros screwed up and the PC version is a mess. It's only natural that WB made some stupid ass calls in relation to it.
This article says nothing that anybody with half a brain shouldn't have already figured out.
I consider myself one of the lucky ones who can actually play this game with everything maxed out and it's playable.. well sort of. It's extremely buggy and I've had a couple CTDs along with horrible batmobile performance, however for the most part I keep a stable 50-60+ FPS at 1440p DSR, especially when on foot and indoors.
Still, I have an OC'd 980. It shouldn't be like this.
Judging by the fact that unity was in a better condition than arkham knight, I'm pretty sure ubisoft won't screw up so hard, and they'll just update their minimum to reflect that "we never intended this game to run on potatoes". Maybe I'm just another hopeless AC fan that will eat anything they shove down my throat
But well, after 347.52 the game honestly runs fine for me. I have that 4 second freeze issue which only quad cores (non HT) have, but it mostly happens when I do an assassination out in the wild, otherwise works fine enough for me at 60fps.
By the way, for 1080p at 30fps with moderate settings, gtx680 min spec is very accurate, I just wish devs clarify what min/rec specs mean. Most people assume min means potato quality, but some games still look great on low. Though unity's distant textures if you had anything less than ultra high and 4gb vram are ps2 era textures. They need to work on their distant lods, and preferably push the game with 11.3/12 if they plan on bombing so many draw calls.
That is definitely up for debate.
Had Arkham Knight now had a 30fps cap would you still be able to say Unity was in better condition?
Personally, from my experience, I had worse issues with Unity and Watch_Dogs. Hell, I'm having worse issues from Dead Rising 3 then I am from Arkham Knight.
Dead Rising 3 you say? The only issue I had was that at above 60fps key presses like "hold down E" would blatantly fail. And running the game above 100fps made textures stream very slowly. Its kinda of the positive experience for me. Breaking a game by brute forcing it and forcing it to run fast.
Unity I touched only after I got my 970, and I can tell you the patches didn't do a thing expect v1.01 fixing sli, v1.03 removing the app, v1.04 dead kings. v1.05 breaks the rifts with artifacts. The only thing which improved the game dramatically was 347.52, after that I'd get upwards of 72fps and 66fps in the church area of the first assassination, the most demanding place in the whole game.
Right now with my oc'd 780 the game runs pretty much fine as well. I'm sure if I run the v1.01 (essentially launch patch version) it will pretty much run the same, but then I'd lose Dead Kings DLC support.
With watch_dogs the one main issue I had is that the game breaks if you import too many assets. Provided I can run vanilla fine, but definitly not gonna play that way with mods which improve it drastically. Marduk's merged mod gave me 55fps~ at ultra, so 50hz capped ran fine, however after some time the people and aiden would disappear with only the hands and all sorts of missing glitches.
I played Batman today to see what the problems are it was fine I enjoyed it and it looked good ...
Rocksteady could well have had a barely functional pc version for a while not wanting to put in the work and gave it to iron galaxy a few months before release to get it functional
It's already been proven the people that started the "8 week" rumor misread information on SteamDB.
So, that rumor has already been disproven. Sorry.
But, this new article on Kotaku... we didn't need.
It doesn't give anyone new information, it doesn't help. Anyone who has or for that matter, hasn't played Arkham Knight on PC already knows there are problems. It's common knowledge in the industry now.
The PC version of the game was horribly screwed up. And, with Warner Bros being the publisher... it is, again, common knowledge that they are the ones responsible.
The article.. tells us that. Again. Even though people have known this, for a week. What's it tell us, that a year ago before it was finished... there were problems. Big shocker there. If there were problems at release, one would like to assume there were problems a year ago as well.
It's obvious Warner Bros didn't get them fixed. People are dealing with them now.
What happened... isn't important. What is important is what WILL happen. The fixes, updates and patches. The work that Rocksteady and Nvidia are doing to improve the PC release. To make the game the game it should have been.
And, I know, people will that knowing why the release got screwed up will make things better in the future. Cause "now Warner Bros can be held responsible!"... ugh.
Sorry but how naive are we?
It that was true the industry would've changed years ago.
And, Warner Bros have already stood up and taken responsibility. They are fully aware of the situation that they've placed themselves in. And, unlike a lot of publishers, they didn't deny it or try to pass the blame to someone else.
They actually took it. Which, I give them props for. Yes, I'm still annoyed with them for screwing up the release.
But, will knowing the inner workings of why help me now? No. Them fixing the game and getting updates out will. So, I'm gonna sit back and wait.
I don't need to know they screwed up. I've got the game. I'm playing it. Let me spoil it for you... they screwed up.