Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 4, 2018.
So i9 9900k will be a nice fit for this game
I have to say - even though I'm not on board with the battlefield series since, well, they screwed the BF3 community by netcode suffocation, this does look very impressive graphically.
Cap off to DICE, but, it really is no better than what other studios are pulling out of the bag right now, and...I can still see classic GFX glitches, like pop-up, LOD changes etc
That video shows the Ti getting as low as mid/high 1600s.
A 2000mhz clock should give it a 15-20% boost.
And as always, just using sli profile from previous battlefield games gets you perfect sli scaling
Means instead of getting 40ish fps, i get capped 58 fps (g-sync) with 60% gpu load. Sadly changing the render res to anything but 100% makes the game go CRAZY ! So can't use any downsampling, as i would otherwise have done...
Seeing this tells me we dont need ray tracing.
its a passing interest but not needed at all.
I disagree, but I'll meet you halfway: Real-Time ray-tracing is not really necessary, but when light-maps get baked into levels/maps for games by using ray tracing - that's fine and dandy.
Real time lighting and reflective effect off to the side out of field of view so no standard methods will work in that situation wont be noticeable unless its pointed out during a pause.
Honestly i think ray tracing is just hype and just a drain on rendering when alternative methods work just as well visually.
In fact i would say not having ray tracing is better because game developers have to put in the time instead of relying on the game engine to do all the work for them.
You get better results if its done manually,When things are automated something is lost. The creative element takes a hit , eventually all games will look and feel the same.;
Raytracing is the holy grail of computer graphics, I really don't see why you wouldn't want a move in that direction to be honest. The amount of time spent on trying to fake realism with shadows, lighting, reflections, etc. should be spent on producing a better quality game.
Wonder how much more work is that. I, on the other hand, say, that spending more time on AI or graphical bugs like body glitches through textures would mean so much more for games than spending time on producing real time lightning.
How’s the gameplay? I didn’t like bf1 gameplay wise (graphics are awesome though). Bf1 just reminds me of cod, too much constant killing, dying rinse repeat and not enough down time and strategy. Bf3/4 was better in this regard, more realistic.
While raytracing seems great in theory I see it being alot like physx AMD will be locked out of it or won't be able to achieve it efficiently and it won't be adopted.
Then you have no idea what raytracing is lol
Ah, does that mean what you said earlier about getting less fps in BF V vs BF 1 is no longer true? Poorer performance in BF V was just due to poor sli scaling for you.
Nah, before adding sli bits, i was only using single gpu. Look at hilberts vid - when running around with the 1080 ti, he is down into the 50s, where in amiens (equivalent map in bf1) he would have been above 70 the entire time
Ah, ok, cheers.
Well, almost 60 fps in 4K - happy that I game in 1440p then
You can't turn off AA its either TAA-low or TAA-High and as you know TAA makes things blurry as hell, people are saying that in the alpha you had all the other options for AA, this is really a bad decision from DICE if this is in the full game I am not buying it I run on 2560x1440 and AA is not relevant for me and if I put AA on it will be FXAA on 2. Also this AA always on thing is what makes people thing the game is running worse.
2x 1080ti @ 4k bf1 sli bits 100+ fps ultra settings.
They call it taa low, but it's really just fxaa, not temporal anti aliasing. Only taa high is.
But i agree with you that it sux that we don't get the option to turn aa off.
Just remember to set aa to taa low, as taa high increases the latency alot with sli.