So, I heard so much about the PC version being gorgeous and, while my rig isn't as powerful as most, it definitely outperforms the consoles by a fair margin so I decided to get a copy. Luckily it's also a pretty solid game but I really don't think it looks great.

EDIT: After the latest patch and Nvidia driver, I can now play the game with everything maxed out (minus Post Processing which I keep at low) at 1920x1080 at a steady 30FPS. I still don't think it looks incredible. Decent, but not even the best looking game of this year or even close. Does DX11 really fix the LOD pop in I can see in the distance or the lack of shadows on grass and trees? I'd love to see some high-res comparisons between DX9 and DX11 if anyone has some.

Anyone else feel the same? I mean it looks fine, but not much better than Far Cry 2 did on the PC and that at least I could get running at 1920x1080 at 30FPS. They've definitely improved the engine but I can't see the difference that readily, either that or I'm seeing its predecessor through rose tinted specs.

Playing on a 660Ti in DX11 and the game looks stunning. Running in DX9 is probably holding you back a lot graphically, yes.

DX9 is old as hell so yeah, that probably explains a portion of it.

A quick anecdotal thing - Saints Row the Third was having issues for me on DX9. I started it in DX9 because I thought my graphics card (HD 7770) could handle it better. Boy, was I wrong. I got the same pop-in and graphical glitches that you're describing with Far Cry 3. So I started it in DX11 and voila! No more of those issues and I'm running it on High settings, VSYNC off, 60FPS.

I'm not saying that Far Cry 3 will do the same, but maybe you should try putting it on DX11 and seeing if that fixes your graphics problems?

EDIT: What's your graphics card?

Does anybody know if you can load FC2 maps in to FC3's editor? I'd love to see somebody do a walkthrough of two maps on the two versions of the engine and see just how much has improved.

@pandorasbox said:

Does anybody know if you can load FC2 maps in to FC3's editor? I'd love to see somebody do a walkthrough of two maps on the two versions of the engine and see just how much has improved.

Good question. I would like to know that too.

Duder what are you talking about? This game is absolutely fantastic graphics wise. Try DX11 or upgrade your PC.

Why would you still run DX9 instead of 11? If you can have those kinds of settings, I'm sure your graphics card supports it. And yes, that changes a whole lot. You can have the greatest hardware there is, but if you don't have the software that "controls" it as best as possible, you won't get much out of it.

@Vitor said:

So, I heard so much about the PC version being gorgeous and, while my rig isn't as powerful as most, it definitely outperforms the consoles by a fair margin so I decided to get a copy. Luckily it's also a pretty solid game but I really don't think it looks great.

Is it because I'm only running it on DX9? I've got everything set to Ultra except for Post Processing and I've disabled SSAO so I can get a solid 30FPS at 1600x900.

However, even then I still get plenty of pop-in and draw distance issues and performance seems way worse when indoors which is weird, especially as there don't seem to be that many more light sources or shadows.

Anyone else feel the same? I mean it looks fine, but not much better than Far Cry 2 did on the PC and that at least I could get running at 1920x1080 at 30FPS. They've definitely improved the engine but I can't see the difference that readily, either that or I'm seeing its predecessor through rose tinted specs.

Turning off SSAO is going to make any game uglier. SSAO makes models and vegetation look good. Also, i'd lower everything to HIGH so you could get SSAO and 60 FPS. I don't get how you can tolerate 30 fps on a PC game.

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

@Vitor said:

Is it because I'm only running it on DX9?

Yes. Direct X 9 came out in 2002.

The graphics are awesome, I got a GTX 660ti and it works great on ultra with an average of 70FPS. Here, take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1TaxydFGt8Y

@Strife777 said:

Why would you still run DX9 instead of 11? If you can have those kinds of settings, I'm sure your graphics card supports it. And yes, that changes a whole lot. You can have the greatest hardware there is, but if you don't have the software that "controls" it as best as possible, you won't get much out of it.

My card doesn't support DX9. I can outperform most console games easily but it struggles with more demanding PC-centred stuff.

Usually fine performance-wise but I do need an upgrade which I'll likely get after Christmas.

@Deusx said:

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

I'd rather get 30FPS at 1920x1080 than 60FPS at 1280x720.

I've played console games most of my life, a locked 30FPS really isn't an issue. 60 is better, but anyone claiming that 30FPS is 'unplayable' is just being the worst kind of PC elitist.

im playing with everything on max and it looks fantastic

and as everyone is saying its due to dx9 that it does not look as good.

@Vitor: I agree and I see where you're coming from. In that case I would suggest disabling v-sync and maybe playing it on mid settings so you can get the most out of every frame. I mean, fps count is a big deal once you're used to playing games at that frame rate. Believe me, there is a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps.

@Deusx said:

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

No, it's fine. Number of frames above a certain number don't matter, it's how steady the FPS holds. 30 FPS steady and 60 FPS steady are nearly impossible to tell apart, and even less so if the game has lots of motion blur and visual filters. Calling 30 FPS horrible is wrong, objectively. Steady 30 is, in absolutely no circumstances, a bad thing.

@Vitor said:

Is it because I'm only running it on DX9? I've got everything set to Ultra except for Post Processing and I've disabled SSAO so I can get a solid 30FPS at 1600x900.

Why are you even asking? Obviously if you're not even running the game at medium type settings (1080p + DX11), obviously it's not going to look that amazing...

@The_Nubster said:

@Deusx said:

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

No, it's fine. Number of frames above a certain number don't matter, it's how steady the FPS holds. 30 FPS steady and 60 FPS steady are nearly impossible to tell apart, and even less so if the game has lots of motion blur and visual filters. Calling 30 FPS horrible is wrong, objectively. Steady 30 is, in absolutely no circumstances, a bad thing.

I agree it's not a bad thing but I can really notice the difference. That's what a life of PC gaming does to you.

@Deusx: You do not need a life of pc gaming to recognise the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

My system is above the recommended specs but below the optimal specs (according to canirunit.com) what kind of settings could I run, frame rate, and so on worth it over console?

@Carryboy: As long as you have at least 4 gigs DDR, a good CPU (i5 sandy bridge - i7), and a GTX480 or supperior, you'll be fine. I have 8 gigs DDR3/i5 2500/GTX560Ti and it runs smoothly on ultra at 60fps.

@Deusx: CPU is where i get fucked, i got 8 gigs of ram a hd 6870 and a AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor which even with my limited knowledge im pretty sure is arse.

Am I right in thinking the console version runs at 30 ish with poorer graphics? If so id be happy with the same frame rate and better graphics.

@Vitor said:

I'd rather get 30FPS at 1920x1080 than 60FPS at 1280x720.

I've played console games most of my life, a locked 30FPS really isn't an issue. 60 is better, but anyone claiming that 30FPS is 'unplayable' is just being the worst kind of PC elitist.

Nothing wrong with 30, but there is a noticeable difference. The whole point of getting this game on the PC is play it at a higher resolution with better detail and frame rates. By doing what you are doing now (and trying to justify doing) is defeating the whole purpose.

If that is how you are going to play it, you might as well have just bought the 360 or PS3 version. You'd probably be getting better performance than you are now with what you're doing.

@Carryboy: It's not that bad, you would have a much better experience at 30fps on your PC. I can guarantee that. The console version looks jarring in comparison even in medium graphical settings.

@Deusx: Ok thats really helpfull, thanks for the advice.

@Carryboy said:

@Deusx: CPU is where i get fucked, i got 8 gigs of ram a hd 6870 and a AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor which even with my limited knowledge im pretty sure is arse.

I've got the previous generation of that processor (Athlon II X3). I've learned to love lower graphics settings and http://pcgamingwiki.com for its helpful performance boosting suggestions.

@Krakn3Dfx said:

Playing on a 660Ti in DX11 and the game looks stunning. Running in DX9 is probably holding you back a lot graphically, yes.

What settings you got going for that and what's the framerate cuz I just got a 660 ti?

@Ravenlight: Cool thanks, Im really hoping someone on here has similar specs to mine and can tell me what fps it runs at highest settings (except antialliasing and all that stuff) it is around 30 im sold less and ill go 360.

@Vitor said:

So, I heard so much about the PC version being gorgeous and, while my rig isn't as powerful as most, it definitely outperforms the consoles by a fair margin so I decided to get a copy. Luckily it's also a pretty solid game but I really don't think it looks great.

Is it because I'm only running it on DX9? I've got everything set to Ultra except for Post Processing and I've disabled SSAO so I can get a solid 30FPS at 1600x900.

However, even then I still get plenty of pop-in and draw distance issues and performance seems way worse when indoors which is weird, especially as there don't seem to be that many more light sources or shadows.

Anyone else feel the same? I mean it looks fine, but not much better than Far Cry 2 did on the PC and that at least I could get running at 1920x1080 at 30FPS. They've definitely improved the engine but I can't see the difference that readily, either that or I'm seeing its predecessor through rose tinted specs.

Dude, you answered your own question. Even the Xbox 360 and PS3 are able to use some DX10 effects and features. You have to go to 1600x900 to get 30 fps? Yeah, you are no where near seeing it as good as it can be. You are running the Xbox 360 version but at higher res, think of it that way.

@Carryboy said:

@Ravenlight: Cool thanks, Im really hoping someone on here has similar specs to mine and can tell me what fps it runs at highest settings (except antialliasing and all that stuff) it is around 30 im sold less and ill go 360.

Usually disabling vsync and turning antialiasing way down does the trick for me on most games.

I also found this last weekend: http://www.razerzone.com/gamebooster

I'm not entirely sure what it actually does but I've gained 5-15 frames with pretty much every game I have with it running.

@Carryboy said:

@Deusx: CPU is where i get fucked, i got 8 gigs of ram a hd 6870 and a AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor which even with my limited knowledge im pretty sure is arse.

Am I right in thinking the console version runs at 30 ish with poorer graphics? If so id be happy with the same frame rate and better graphics.

You have the same rig as me and I am playing it at a mixture of high/very high/ultra and I get a consistent 40fps and it looks really good. Completely maxing it makes little noticeable difference.

@wewantsthering said:

@Vitor said:

Is it because I'm only running it on DX9? I've got everything set to Ultra except for Post Processing and I've disabled SSAO so I can get a solid 30FPS at 1600x900.

Why are you even asking? Obviously if you're not even running the game at medium type settings (1080p + DX11), obviously it's not going to look that amazing...

The Witcher 2 looked amazing on low settings. Some games do look great regardles.

@The_Nubster said:

@Deusx said:

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

No, it's fine. Number of frames above a certain number don't matter, it's how steady the FPS holds. 30 FPS steady and 60 FPS steady are nearly impossible to tell apart, and even less so if the game has lots of motion blur and visual filters. Calling 30 FPS horrible is wrong, objectively. Steady 30 is, in absolutely no circumstances, a bad thing.

I'd actually disagree there. I can definitely feel the difference between 30 and 60 when it's available, I just don't think that the '60FPS or nothing' mentality is that easy to defend. 30FPS is fine, 60FPS is ideal though. Either way, I don't think I'm playing a lesser game because of it.

@Vitor: That's really what I was getting at. Unless you were raised on nothing but 60 FPS (which I was not), it's hard to tell the difference, and most people only realize it when they're told that a game is running at 60 FPS. 30 FPS is more than enough for anything game-related, especially during a single-player session. I can acknowledge that CoD feels smoother than most games (even though it doesn't maintain 60 FPS all the way through), but CoD on 30 FPS wouldn't be a shitshow like most PC gamers seem to think. Whenever anyone mentions anything about frames, you get super-defensive PC gamers who will treat anyone who doesn't play at 60 FPS like lesser human beings, and that's just ridiculous.

@The_Nubster: Yeah, we're on the same wavelength then. I've actually been a little annoyed at some of the responses so far here - things like 'get a new card', 'dx9 is 10 years old lol' and stuff like that aren't helping.

After the latest Nvidia driver update and game patch, I can now run the game at 1920x1080, with SSAO on and with everything but post processing maxed. And I still think the game looks 'OK'. I can see LOD popping in the distance, the trees and grass lack shadows and I can't believe that all of this would be remedied by a switch over to DX11.

Although I'd love to see some high-res comparisons to prove me wrong.

best looking game i've played

Post processing at low? There's your problem.

@Deusx said:

@The_Nubster said:

@Deusx said:

Play on DX11 and lower your resolution man, how can you play at 30fps on a pc? That's horrible. Go for a steady 60.

No, it's fine. Number of frames above a certain number don't matter, it's how steady the FPS holds. 30 FPS steady and 60 FPS steady are nearly impossible to tell apart, and even less so if the game has lots of motion blur and visual filters. Calling 30 FPS horrible is wrong, objectively. Steady 30 is, in absolutely no circumstances, a bad thing.

I agree it's not a bad thing but I can really notice the difference. That's what a life of PC gaming does to you.

I had a life of console gaming and I was very quickly able to tell the difference. And it was a glorious difference. I can still play games at 30 and it doesn't bother me when on a console, but on PC if it ain't a constant 60 then something's getting turned off. Lower resolution, cut out that SSAO, turn off that anti-aliasing, knock it down to medium. Maybe that makes me nuts but I like 60. The only thing I don't want to give up is VSYNC.

Fuck, people are actually complaining about the graphics? On PC with high settings it looks a dream.

@Krakn3Dfx said:

Playing on a 660Ti in DX11 and the game looks stunning. Running in DX9 is probably holding you back a lot graphically, yes.

Same here. I'm extremely impressed how seemingly the 660ti runs the game on Ultra.

Yeah a little. I am running the game running smooth on Ultra setting with DX11 and while it looks pretty, and has all the high res textures, the game world doesn't look as pretty as say Just Cause 2. That game had some of the prettiest water and skies I have ever seen in a game.

Far Cry 3 Screenshot Thread

I7- 930, Gtx 680, 8 gigs of ram, installed on ssd. running on ultra with all the bells tuned on, post processing at 4x. Running at steady 45fps. 1920x1080. Game looks amazing. Don't mind running at 45fps . I'm going to upgrade my motherboard and CPU when the new intel chips arrive next year.

@Vitor said:

EDIT: After the latest patch and Nvidia driver, I can now play the game with everything maxed out (minus Post Processing which I keep at low) at 1920x1080 at a steady 30FPS.

"1920x1080 at 30FPS" I would consider this barely playable...... :/.

@Phyrlord said:

@Vitor said:

EDIT: After the latest patch and Nvidia driver, I can now play the game with everything maxed out (minus Post Processing which I keep at low) at 1920x1080 at a steady 30FPS.

"1920x1080 at 30FPS" I would consider this barely playable...... :/.

Very high settings at 1080 at 30FPS is apparently barely playable.

Jesus, I knew that PC elitism could be bad, but way to go over and beyond the call of duty with that one. I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, if not, you live one hell of an over-privileged gaming life.

@Vitor: I don't know what kind of world you're living in where wanting 60 FPS in a PC game can be considered elitism. I can't see how wanting something better is elitism. If you're going to say you can't feel or see a difference between 60 and 30 FPS and/or that you prefer 30 FPS over 60 FPS then don't bother, I know you'd be lying. Perhaps "barely playable" is bit of a stretch but it's still not good and I'd gladly lower my settings from ultra to high if it means I get solid 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS or even occasional drops to 30.

Graphics quality has less to do with a game being playable than FPS.

It depends on the game, really. Smoothness of gameplay is often impacted by framerate differently between different games. I've always found Crysis to be oddly smooth and playable even at average framerates around 35 FPS and minimum dips to 25 (not to say higher framerates aren't nicer). Meanwhile, in Far Cry 2, mouse lag slowly starts becoming meaningful once you start going below about 45 FPS, with anything below 35 being obnoxiously unresponsive to me. I haven't played Far Cry 3 yet, but I suspect it'll be the same for me.

Keeping in mind that my numbers are with V-sync turned off, so no added mouse lag from that. I always find V-sync mouse lag unacceptable, with or without triple buffering.

I'd be curious to find out what the technical reasons are behind different games being affected by framerate differently.

@xMrSunshine said:

@Vitor: I don't know what kind of world you're living in where wanting 60 FPS in a PC game can be considered elitism. I can't see how wanting something better is elitism. If you're going to say you can't feel or see a difference between 60 and 30 FPS and/or that you prefer 30 FPS over 60 FPS then don't bother, I know you'd be lying. Perhaps "barely playable" is bit of a stretch but it's still not good and I'd gladly lower my settings from ultra to high if it means I get solid 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS or even occasional drops to 30.

Graphics quality has less to do with a game being playable than FPS.

Yeah, seriously. I'm able to run it fine around 40 to 60 at 1080p mostly maxed out but I hate having micro stuttering so I dropped it to 1600 x 900 and I now have a solid 60 with rare dips. Playing locked at 30 sounds crazy to me because I was able to lock it at 30 with the game's v sync to try it out and....ugh. Smooth gameplay > graphical flair.

@xMrSunshine said:

@Vitor: I don't know what kind of world you're living in where wanting 60 FPS in a PC game can be considered elitism. I can't see how wanting something better is elitism. If you're going to say you can't feel or see a difference between 60 and 30 FPS and/or that you prefer 30 FPS over 60 FPS then don't bother, I know you'd be lying. Perhaps "barely playable" is bit of a stretch but it's still not good and I'd gladly lower my settings from ultra to high if it means I get solid 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS or even occasional drops to 30.

Graphics quality has less to do with a game being playable than FPS.

Wanting 60FPS should of course be the goal if you can comfortably manage it, telling someone that 1920 x 1080 at 30FPS is barely playable is nothing but elitism. I've already stated numerous times in this thread that the difference between 60 and 30 is easy to tell apart, but for a lot of people, myself included, 30 is absolutely fine. I just take issue with people talking down to me and anyone else who posts that they're comfortable with that, almost as if they're completely in the wrong and crazy to think so, just as that guy did.

The comment I was answering wasn't a friendly suggestion or just someone sharing their view, it was someone trying to force their opinion on me and be a dick about it in the process. Maybe I've misread the tone, but it hardly adds anything to the conversation.

@The_Nubster said:

No, it's fine. Number of frames above a certain number don't matter, it's how steady the FPS holds. 30 FPS steady and 60 FPS steady are nearly impossible to tell apart, and even less so if the game has lots of motion blur and visual filters. Calling 30 FPS horrible is wrong, objectively. Steady 30 is, in absolutely no circumstances, a bad thing.

Whoa....what? I would like to think anyone who plays games can easily spot the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I mean...it's an obvious and glaring difference, not subtle in the least bit.

I'm running a pretty mid level system (GTX470, i5 655k, 4gb ram), so I disabled the DX11 to get 50-60fps @ 1080p, all settings on HIGH except post effects (which is a GPU hog). Maybe it's because I'm used to playing on consoles, but I think it looks pretty damn impressive even in DX9. Was running it locked @ 30fps in Ultra and it was fine, but prefer the frames to the effects.

@Brendan said:

DX9 is old as hell so yeah, that probably explains a portion of it.

What? The Witcher 2 still looks better than Far Cry 2 and that's Dx9.

I can't say for sure but Dx9 only seems to disable ambient occlusion and anti-aliasing. I haven't tested it myself since 11 runs great.

Too bad v-sync doesn't seem to work, I get tearing with it on or off even, tried forcing it in the Nvidia control panel and it's no better.

@thetenthdoctor said:

I'm running a pretty mid level system (GTX470, i5 655k, 4gb ram), so I disabled the DX11 to get 50-60fps @ 1080p, all settings on HIGH except post effects (which is a GPU hog). Maybe it's because I'm used to playing on consoles, but I think it looks pretty damn impressive even in DX9. Was running it locked @ 30fps in Ultra and it was fine, but prefer the frames to the effects.

I get 50-60 FPS (mostly 60) on my GTX 470 using Dx11 /w SSAO (1080P) and the enhanced alpha whatever thing, all on ultra, well actually I toned down the shadows to high because I literally cannot tell the difference, even on low they look pretty much the same but you get a pretty big performance boost going from ultra ---> high.

However my 470 is heavily overclocked, so I guess that goes towards explaining how I'm getting away with this performance. I'm getting 8GB of RAM tomorrow too so wondering if I'll get any boost there since the game recommends 8GB when I'm currently running 4. (I got a good deal on this RAM)