RVonE's forum posts

Avatar image for rvone
#1 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@ds9143 said:

At the first resistance camp and I'm struggling to maintain 60fps. With 8x anti aliasing and everything maxed at 1440p I get around 45 fps, GTX 1070 and 4790k.

I knock everything down to medium preset, and it's still not staying at 60, somewhere between 50-60. Not bad, but if I tweak I can get slightly better quality and the same performance.

Sweet spot so far has been 2x AA, with medium shadows. Seems pretty good. Hope they iron it out. But it seems the game isn't made to run over 1080p at 60.

Like @crommi said, AA is very expensive in this game. I recommend turning it off and injecting an external solution that costs less. That way you shouldn't have to knock things down to medium. Definitely keep shadows on high.

Avatar image for rvone
#2 Edited by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@blommer4: You can't play it at all? Are you getting the white screen issue (which affects 780 cards more frequently, it seems)? If so, some people suggest turning AA and texture filtering off and force them through the nvidia panel. There are also some mixed reports on experimenting with either borderless or fullscreen settings.

Edit: thinking about it, since texture filtering seems quite safe, you might just want to turn off AA and inject FXAA or SMAA with ReShade (which is free).

Avatar image for rvone
#3 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@humanity said:

Trip report from my own time with it today. Played up until the Resistence Camp so a little past the intro and thankfully experienced none of the issues I've heard about. Was able to set it to fullscreen without any bugs and I'm pretty sure it's not stretching anything or at least I can't really tell (the game isn't really a looker anyway). Framerate was smooth to the point where I can tell why people point out the cutscenes in 30 FPS being an issue as the transition is a little jarring at times. Weirdly enough I feel like the cutscenes sometimes almost hitch or drop down to the teens range. No idea why they would include such poorly looking pre-rendered video.

Apart from that it's been pretty fun. The game is just the right amount of "Japanese weird" that I was looking for and having experienced in a while. The very first screen that announces "This game does not auto-save, find out for yourself how to save the game" got a laugh out of me.

Only thing left for me to overcome is finding some sort of alternate control scheme where I can shoot, attack and dodge without turning my hand into a nerve destroying claw.

Learning to play without lock-on definitely improves the experience, I feel. Only when I want to blow up a specific enemy with a pod program do I use lock on.

Now regarding the mapping, here's what I did:

  • start with the default mapping
  • LB: switch weapons (useful in combos)
  • LT: pod program
  • RB: action (because you don't need it as often as dodge and usually under less stressful circumstances)
  • RT: fire
  • B: dodge
  • up on d-pad: lock on

I've tried several different configurations and this allows me to be the fastest. Perhaps it will work for you too; so far, it's serving me well on hard.

Avatar image for rvone
#4 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

So, I'm not sure if this amounts to anything but I've limited the frames to 60 fps through nvidia inspector (others have used different software to achieve the same effect) and it seems to reduce the frame rate fluctuations and, but again I'm not sensitive to it, appears to smooth the frame timing a little bit.

Avatar image for rvone
#5 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@afabs515 said:

I'm running it on a 1080 with an i7 6400k processor. If AA is on, the framerate tanks. Without it, I usually get between 45 and 60 with the occasional drop. Cutscenes run like shit. I also have this weird bug where the game will switch from full screen to windowed mode, which isn't fun in combat.

Injecting a less expensive AA like FXAA or SMAA through ReShade seems to work well. So if you're looking for a little bit of AA, perhaps you can try that. I can also confirm that choosing windowed and then applying the borderless gaming app allows for a fullscreen-like experience. Maybe that will resolve your weird bug (haven't encountered it myself).

Avatar image for rvone
#6 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@humanity said:
@justin258 said:

@humanity: I saw my brother playing it earlier today. It ran very smoothly at 1440p on his 1070/6600K, though I'm pretty sure it's capped at 60FPS. Seemed like a fine port.

But then, my standards are fairly low, I guess? If it runs at a smooth 60FPS on a reasonable machine, I can change the resolution, I can rebind keys or has good controller support, and it doesn't crash, it passes all of my personal tests.

I dunno at this point. I held off on buying the PS4 version because I just upgraded my PC so I thought hey why not right, lets get that rock solid 60FPS especially since the game doesn't seem that technically demanding. Now half the people in this thread are saying it's a terrible port, while the other half like yourself are saying it works fine. I'm actually contemplating just getting the PS4 version because the alternative is taking part in what I absolutely hate, mainly the wonderful "PC lottery" where your components either agree with a game and it's a smooth ride or it's a nightmare with constant crashes, frame drops and lord knows what else and all you can really do is sit there and wait for a patch.

I guess I could get a refund if it acts like complete ass, I've never done this before but apparently it's a pretty easy process? It's just a shame that this isn't a uniform "works awesome!" across the board. Just when PC ports started being a sure-bet.

I've played about 20 hours on PS4 and have now played through until maybe the first hour of the first time you get to the open world section on PC. I'm running Steam's built in frame counter which shows me a fluctuating frame rate between 57 and 61 fps. So it tries to lock itself to 60 which is fine. If I pay attention, I can see that there are some frame time issues but I'm not really sensitive to that. The most jarring thing is that pre-rendered cutscenes (not all of them seem to be pre-rendered) run at 30 fps. The switch from 60 to 30 produces noticeable stuttering before it smooths out.

I'm playing 1080p fullscreen, 2x AA, 16x texture filtering, V-Sync on. On a gtx1070, i5 3570k, 16GB memory, SSD.

That this port isn't rock solid is disappointing (also given the fact that it didn't release at the same time as PS4) but I'd say it's serviceable. The PS4 version is decidedly less fiddly in the sense that the performance is just what it is, obviously.

I'll do some more testing soon with borderless and ReShade soon.

Avatar image for rvone
#7 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

The first game, for all its flaws, had a lot of charm and instilled in me a great sense of wonder. The second game, while wildly different from the first in a lot of respects, was firmly rooted in a galaxy that was well established in the first game and also did a lot of wonderful things for the characters and their development. I love the first two games and have played them start to finish many times over.

For some reason, with everything that was shown about the game so far, Andromeda doesn't appeal to me and I can't really express why.

Nier: Automata on the other hand...

Avatar image for rvone
#8 Edited by RVonE (4993 posts) -

Man, I'm so excited to get my hands on this game; it's definitely at the top of my list right now.

Avatar image for rvone
#9 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

@rvone: Like I said, it's modest for the most part: GTX 960 2 GB, FX 8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB RAM. And I play on a 1680 x 1050 monitor which gives me a bit of extra wiggle room.

I never expect to be able to hit 60 FPS on this PC when I buy games, but I have been able to for the most part, even at mid-high settings. And even when I can't I can at least get my games running smoother than their console counterparts.

I guess the much higher than usual recommended requirements for Dishonored 2 should have been the giveaway for me, but for some reason I figured they were exaggerating.

I'm definitely going to be much more cautious in the future when buying games.

Yes, while I'm not sure what the game is doing that makes it so demanding (poor optimization, probably) but it can be rough. Most of the different setting don't impact performance that much (HBAO+ seems to impact it the most along with water and shadows). I've seen several people mention that after the second beta patch they're able to gain some additional frames by switching either to borderless or full screen, so perhaps you could fiddle with that some more?

For what it's worth, the game is really good if you get it to run acceptably.

Avatar image for rvone
#10 Posted by RVonE (4993 posts) -

So the performance patch for the PC version just came out. Some people are seeing massive improvements, but it's barely helped me at all. It increased my frame rate in the Royal Observatory from 20 FPS to 25 FPS on low settings. I don't think I'll be able to finish the game at this point, which is super disappointing because Dishonored is one of my favorite games. This is the first AAA game that's been too much for my modest PC since I built it a year ago.

Out of curiosity, what specs are you running?

As to the patch: it made things a lot more stable for me and am able to run a mostly consistent 60 fps with most settings on very high (running 1080p on a GTX1070). I also like the new TXAA sharpness options.