Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Stone Gargoyle, Mar 28, 2014.
Looks like lots of micro stutter?
BTW, if anyone has CHS enabled, take a look at this:
CHS Ultra enabled
As you can see with CHS enabled, the shadows in the distance are not being rendered, likely to mitigate up the horrible performance loss with it enabled.* AMD's CHS is the worst contact hardening soft shadows I've ever seen in a game.. uke2:
The detail of the trees shadows on the ground go from detailed to grey blob with CHS also.
Not sure what AMD is trying achieve with CHS.
Hack to get rid of the annoying intro videos:
Thanks. HR at least allowed to skip it all.
Did you try setting ingame sensitivity to 0% and adjusting DPI on mouse?
I'm playing with 800DPI and it's pretty comfortable w/o vsync obviously
that is shadowplay in GFE 3.0.3 beta basically doing that all the time for some reason
Put about two hours into it so far, really like it.
It's Deus Ex... it's Human Revolution, only improved. Looks way better, combat feels better. Movement... all improved.
And, solid 60fps performance wise with settings mixed at High and Very High.
Though, I did disable MSAA and I'm using the TAA option. Combined with the Sharpening option the game looks really crisp and clean.
I haven't tried TAA with sharpening off yet, so not sure how much "blur" it actually adds.
I'm looking forward to dropping a LOT of time into this on my day off on Thursday. But for now, I'm happy with what I've played. And can't wait to play more.
I can say, this is probably the last time I bother pre-loading through STEAM.
The last few times I've pre-loaded, it's only been a pain in the ass to start the game up when it's released.
And, DX:MD was easily the worst. With my download getting stuck at 87% and refusing to move.
When trying various options to get it to do something, STEAM gives me a "Disk Write Error"... upon checking, a lot of people got this error when trying to unpack their pre-loads.
And, several other cases of this same error with previous pre-loads.
I was able to download DOOM's 60+ gigs quicker then I "unlocked" my already pre-loaded Deus Ex.
Same can be said for Rise of the Tomb Raider. I pre-loaded it and had to sit and wait for over 30 minutes to it to decide it was ready.
Now, my ISP was down most of today. And, chances are even though it's back up... there's still issues. That could've contributed to this wondrous experience.
But, it just seems STEAM doesn't get why people want to pre-load games. It's supposed to speed up the process, make it so you can get into the game quicker.
Where as, it most cases... it's quicker to simply download the game directly on release.
Good to know as per 970s perf.
I found HR to be one of those games that i could and did binge play. Im hoping this version is the same. I remember when the leaked HR e3/gamescon etc build was floating around, i downloaded it and had to stop myself from playing too much uninstalled then went and preorded it.
Most modern steam games unpack for like an hour on HDD. It depends on how well game is archived: Deus Ex preload was only 19GB and release steam folder is 45GB. Doom was 50+GB download IIRC and folder is 62GB. Though I doubt it would take less time to download game vs preload it as either way it would have to be unpacked first.
Looks like the performance is quite low for the graphics level the game is producing and i can't stop thinking that it is intentional. I bet the dx12 update makes the game fly on AMD cards. These AMD/Nvidia sponsored titles are frustrating...
Yes I do have it.
Half the scenes are filled with low poly models and the character models are severely lacking.
Haven't progressed far yet so I won't bother commenting on the gameplay yet.
It is a joke of a port, crysis 2 looks better on dx9 and a gtx260 could handle that 50-60fps no problem, but this needs ten times the power haha, typical case of lazy devs not doing their work because the latest and greatest card will do for demonstration to the standard boss publisher that doesn´t play games and can´t tell the difference between an fx6300 and an i7.
What's your secret? Have you run the benchmark? When I run it there are plenty of dips below 60 which sucks, same settings as you.
My average (same settings/resolution though with Contact Hardening set to On instead of Ultra and Shadows to High) on the benchmark is 67,9FPS.
Hmm, in this test:
The 480 is not far behind 980Ti, and the Fury X has better performance than the 980Ti and not that far behind the 1080. Wonder how it will be when Dx12 is included..
But quite different results in this test:
Ultra preset except CHS (disabled) and AO (temporal component disabled).
CHS and AO is perhaps the thing that makes AMD better, much like the Gamework settings in The Witcher 3?
They have done something wrong.
Even GTX 980 Ti is getting 62 Fps average on Ultra setting @ 1080p.
Waiting dx12 to create magic on pc. Meanwhile I stopped using of version and bought Xbox one version which, u guys won't agree on me, looks acceptable on console. Pc version Can take my attention when dx12 comes. For now I won't refund.
Anyway. I prefer sneaky play style and first level, I did it all without firing a bullet. Iam playing in hard difficult. Yet still easy. Enemy AI is predictable as we all know for this kind of game. Maybe next levels will be harder.
Wish there was no auto save or quick save for hard difficulty, loving fallout 4 survival difficulty at this level.
Being sneaky is more rewarding? I mean gives more xp etc?
agree. lazy ****ty port.
290x OC and i drop to 30 fps on HIGH settings without MSAA, without contact shadows, 1080p, WTF?
I'm note this : pc geeks wants their systems stressed. So a bad code will give them what they want? And geeks will talk about drivers, sli bits, United tweaks etc. U know what I mean? A good developed game will run fine and no one will talk about sli bits or driver issues.
This is like, on TV shows they invite unnormal people to studio. Because normal people r not attractive and won't gain u ratings. And sponsors. The more sht people u show the more sponsors u gain.
The reason for the difference is because TPU used the in game benchmark utility, and PCGH.de used the actual game itself.
The game benchmark seems to inflate AMD's results a bit compared to the actual game itself.
Ok, thanks for the answer.