PDA

View Full Version : PC version of Ghost Recon Wildlands



GustyX
06-23-2015, 06:12 PM
Some questions about the PC version:
- will be it a port from console or a real PC version?
- which is team is making this version?
- 30FPS locking ****? Dont do it....

And a big fear, and a request in the name of EVERY GAMER WHO PLAY ON PC (this or anything!)
- optimize the game!!!!!!!!!*
- dont make undue high system requirements!!!! On highultramega settings maybe its reasonable, but on medium settings????
and beside developres
Watch_Dogs, AC Unity, Future Soldier from Ubisoft. And there are so many games, which graphics wasnt' commensurate with system requirements, and beside, developers didnt make any optimization...
High system requirement without reason, without optimize= HORROR, NIGHTMARE.

See Batman Arkham Knight. Its PC version is a trash....

*At least follow the general expectation: lower settings=lower quality=more FPS, smoother gameplay. And vice versa.
Not low or high settings=low performance=low quality.

Cortexian
06-23-2015, 09:05 PM
It will be a proper PC version, as far as we could tell when talking with the developers in Paris. I'm not sure what you mean by "which team is making the PC version". Most PC versions come from the same development team/studio. There are dedicated people on the Wildlands team who's job it is to ensure that the PC version works and does everything we want it to.

I brought up all the normal PC performance concerns to the team when we were there. No FPS locking, no resolution limits, optimization, hardware compatibility for SLI / Crossfire, field of view sliders, and more...

That said, it's a beautiful game that I suspect will require a fairly powerful system to run on high graphics settings. Most open world games are like this. It doesn't matter how much a developer optimizes a game, eventually you need to invest into more powerful hardware if you want it to look better. It would be great if I could run all my games at 4K 60fps + using an integrated Intel Iris graphics processor, but that isn't a realistic suggestion.


*At least follow the general expectation: lower settings=lower quality=more FPS, smoother gameplay. And vice versa.
Not low or high settings=low performance=low quality.
Of course! If you get bad performance on lower settings, that just means it's time to upgrade your PC! I know it sucks to spend money, but PC gaming is a hobby like any other, and like a lot of hobbies there's a lot of money you can invest to it depending on your dedication to it!

GustyX
06-23-2015, 09:50 PM
Of course! If you get bad performance on lower settings, that just means it's time to upgrade your PC! I know it sucks to spend money, but PC gaming is a hobby like any other, and like a lot of hobbies there's a lot of money you can invest to it depending on your dedication to it!
Unfortunatly not that is the problem. I dont think, between low and high (not the absolut max.!) settings is minimal difference. I read many comments, how a game is badly optimized, because a performance is slim, low and high settings too, with minimal difference, on recommended or above config. Like AC Unity, W_D.
I did experience it too, with Future Soldier.

And sometimes (nowadays more often) there are games which nor on high end system run smooth, and gives low FPS, and lower teh settings doesnt help so much, which it should. But I had the system for it.

PC version of FS was made by Ubisoft Kijev. I thought on this, on "which team".

Yes, its such a hobby, but I do except, a game should run smooth on recommend sys configuration.


"No FPS locking, no resolution limits, optimization, hardware compatibility for SLI / Crossfire, field of view sliders, and more..."
Great to hear these!

Diedel443
06-23-2015, 09:53 PM
It will be a proper PC version, as far as we could tell when talking with the developers in Paris. I'm not sure what you mean by "which team is making the PC version". Most PC versions come from the same development team/studio. There are dedicated people on the Wildlands team who's job it is to ensure that the PC version works and does everything we want it to.

I brought up all the normal PC performance concerns to the team when we were there. No FPS locking, no resolution limits, optimization, hardware compatibility for SLI / Crossfire, field of view sliders, and more...

That said, it's a beautiful game that I suspect will require a fairly powerful system to run on high graphics settings. Most open world games are like this. It doesn't matter how much a developer optimizes a game, eventually you need to invest into more powerful hardware if you want it to look better. It would be great if I could run all my games at 4K 60fps + using an integrated Intel Iris graphics processor, but that isn't a realistic suggestion.


Of course! If you get bad performance on lower settings, that just means it's time to upgrade your PC! I know it sucks to spend money, but PC gaming is a hobby like any other, and like a lot of hobbies there's a lot of money you can invest to it depending on your dedication to it!

Or you try to play one of the many games that no amount of Hardware will fix, like arkham night right now and many many other games, a lot of them horrible console ports.

Cortexian
06-24-2015, 12:23 AM
Or you try to play one of the many games that no amount of Hardware will fix, like arkham night right now and many many other games, a lot of them horrible console ports.
Yes, obviously there are optimization passes that can be done to make the game playable.

My point is that the dev team needs to make a decision at some point about how much they're going to let you disable in order to improve performance. There's only so many things they can let you disable before the game no longer looks like a game they want to release to the public... If you don't meet the minimum hardware requirements, you need to upgrade to play the game properly...

RaulO4
06-24-2015, 03:33 AM
sorry Cortexian but

every UBI devs says the same thing when it came to the pc version of almost every game they release.

Samething said about AC,WD, and so on.

UBI is a see to believe and i would like to remand about one thing.

STEAM REFUND.

dont work as it should and my money will go straight to my pocket.

Cortexian
06-24-2015, 03:49 AM
Well, I played the PC version in Paris and it was already fantastic. It looked just as good, or better than what was shown in the trailer.

I saw, and I believe. Unless they manage to break the core game they have running right now, this will be an awesome PC game.

wellsorama
06-24-2015, 01:19 PM
Any idea, or can you say what kind of hardware was being run on the PC you used there?

SanityAgathion
06-24-2015, 02:38 PM
I think Ubisoft will do OK with PC version. I know there were some hooplas with other titles, but in general they make good PC versions. Certainly better than recent Batman. With Wildlands there is a big potential for stutter though, due to vast landmass it needs to load real-time.

What I am afraid of is that after recent disaster with Arkham Knight, companies will think twice before even considering PC versions. Where considering = "we develop for consoles, but will at least somehow slap it onto onto PC last moment to shut their mouths". I mean, we are just a bunch of whiny self-entitled kids bagging about their super-expensive rigs, that pirate every game, right? :(

Cortexian
06-24-2015, 06:45 PM
Any idea, or can you say what kind of hardware was being run on the PC you used there?
I asked, and I was told that it was irrelevant since by the time the game comes out there will be all new hardware.

Makes sense I guess. No point in trying to come up with system requirement guidelines this early.

TOG_Vulcan
06-25-2015, 07:54 PM
I asked, and I was told that it was irrelevant since by the time the game comes out there will be all new hardware.

Makes sense I guess. No point in trying to come up with system requirement guidelines this early.

I think that guy means the system that runs the demo you've played at Paris, not the system requirements for the game when it comes out.

Cortexian
06-26-2015, 05:22 PM
Yes, exactly.

I asked what the PC hardware was that we used in Paris, and he said it didn't matter because by the time the game comes out the hardware in the computers we used will no longer provide a baseline to figure out what kind of power you'll need to run the game.

They didn't want to tell us, because if they told us specific hardware and then we (the people they invited to Paris to play the game) communicated that information and said the game ran really well... People would jump to conclusions and say "Oh, well that means we'll need hardware exactly like that to play the game".

The game hasn't been optimized yet, so in all likelihood the computers they had running it were overpowered and not representative of the kind of hardware they'll be targeting when the game actually comes out.

GiveMeTactical
06-28-2015, 03:10 PM
Knowing very well the history of UBI since 2005, I can bet a few things... my house if I have to.

1.- This will be yet another unoptimized console port by the time it launches

2.- UBI will try to blame this port on the Pirates... nice way to bamboozle people out of their money.

3.- There will be no difference, even with high end rigs, between minimum and maximum settings... console ports can only do so much, less when poorly optimized.

4.- The potential will always be there but UBI, classic UBI... will try to get away with the bare port so the majority of people that pre order, more so those with less pc knowledge. will get the the short end of the stick.

5.- Patches (or updates (nice marketing gimmick) will do what they always do... fix things that were not broken and brake things that were working.

6.- DLC will be abound even though the game is still broken... making the Single Player even shorter than what normally would be.

7.- Third Person View is for kids who can't handle the real sim of a First Person Shooter, this is why this also tells me that it will be a port.

Flame suit On for the normal fanbois... Bring it! LOL

Bookmark this thread so whenever the game launches we can have a laugh or UBI can make me eat crow... I highly doubt it even though I am hoping they will but after 10 years of the same old thing, I am sure I got nothing to loose.

This will be a wait and see after a few months if I want to pay 20 bucks for the game... but there is always hope! LOL

docwatson223
02-03-2017, 11:39 PM
Finished the open bata this AM and can say that twin water-cooled 980ti's had major issues (flickering, choppiness) playing this at anything over 'medium'. SLI integration is missing and the video code needs some serious revamping.

jtb2
02-04-2017, 12:03 AM
same thing here on 970's. everything looked fine in the alpah and TT. now all the bushes look like they're having seizures.

MadMattProulx
02-04-2017, 12:10 AM
Yea and what If you have a PC that is top of the line? Wait till next year for upgrade ? Thanks.

topeira1980
02-04-2017, 12:35 AM
But does the game look ugly on medium?!?!
THIS is what you need to ask yourselves.
now, I didnt play the beta so take what im saying as words of a bystander.

what if UBI called "low" HIGH, called "medium" - ULTRA and called "high" - UBERULTRAWOW?
would you accept it then that the game runs fine on ULTRA?

question is when you get the game to run at your favorite 50 or 60 fps (if you can get that high) than does it look sub par?
If it isnt than let it go. it's just the f#*king name of the settings. it's not an indication of a visual quality.
It's like crysis all over and people dont learn.

If the game, on low, looks like garbage and constant pop-ins and ugly shadows and effects and stuttering and yada yada\ yada than there's a good reason for an uproar, but if it looks good on low than its a good looking game that can look even better after patched. if someone set the game to certain visual settings and let you play it without telling you what settings the game was on - that would have been the test. if you loved what you saw and how it ran than that should have been called "high".

However, i do agree that a game should run on 60fps on high end rigs with 980 etc. at the very least on LOW. beyond that it's a matter of how ugly or beautiful LOW is.

HumblePraiser
02-05-2017, 05:17 AM
But does the game look ugly on medium?!?!
THIS is what you need to ask yourselves.
now, I didnt play the beta so take what im saying as words of a bystander.

what if UBI called "low" HIGH, called "medium" - ULTRA and called "high" - UBERULTRAWOW?
would you accept it then that the game runs fine on ULTRA?

question is when you get the game to run at your favorite 50 or 60 fps (if you can get that high) than does it look sub par?
If it isnt than let it go. it's just the f#*king name of the settings. it's not an indication of a visual quality.
It's like crysis all over and people dont learn.

If the game, on low, looks like garbage and constant pop-ins and ugly shadows and effects and stuttering and yada yada\ yada than there's a good reason for an uproar, but if it looks good on low than its a good looking game that can look even better after patched. if someone set the game to certain visual settings and let you play it without telling you what settings the game was on - that would have been the test. if you loved what you saw and how it ran than that should have been called "high".

However, i do agree that a game should run on 60fps on high end rigs with 980 etc. at the very least on LOW. beyond that it's a matter of how ugly or beautiful LOW is.

So I have never actually answered on any video game thread in my life, but I will now to let you know just how bad things are with any Ubi game that comes out nowadays. I'll start by telling you my specs, I have an older PC so I already know going into any modern game that I will not max anything out. Anyways, my specs are a i5-3570k watercooled, 16GB of ram and a GTX 770 4GB, these are really the main things you need to know about.

I got into the beta yesterday and have already finished the missions with the help of some friends. Super short beta, game is really fun with friends but it is lacking so bad. The performance is best described as "Doo Doo". The game is NOT a good looking game, even when maxed out, it also doesn't look the same as the footage they have shown, at least it doesn't to me (Again nothing new here with Ubisoft). The game auto adjusted itself to Medium settings, and after running it for a bit, it couldn't hold 60 FPS 99% of the time, so I decided to run some test, i set some settings down to Low and kept some at Medium, again same thing, no solid 60fps. Okay let's try Low, guess what, it now can hold 60 FPS like 99.5% of the time with some massive dips randomly, these dips also happen on any setting. So okay, Low and Medium aren't working so well, let's try high for the hell of it, max of 40 FPS, and max of 33 FPS on Very High.

Gonna throw in another reminder here that the game is NOT, I repeat NOT that good looking, even when maxed. But I finally chose to limit my FPS to 30 and set it to high, which works, sort of... It stays at 30 and every once in a while it will have an insane dip, like ridiculously bad unbelievable dip, also setting terrain quality to very high doesn't matter because when driving the textures can't load in fast enough so the terrain looks the same as it does on Low. And don't get me started on the driving and flying, it is just sad how bad it is, helicopters just bob back and forth and cars will hop around and slide off the road if you attempt to turn. PLEASE UBISOFT GET SOMEONE WHO KNOWS VEHICLES TO WORK ON YOUR DAMN CARS! It's like every car in the game is front wheel drive and wants to understeer every turn.

For a game that has apparently been in production for 4 years, this is so disappointing but expected from a Ubisoft studio. Also you cannot say that I need new hardware, I can run Witcher 3 on Medium with higher FPS than this game. THE DAMN WITCHER, the game that looks so lovely even on low, so clearly Ubisoft isn't and will never put in the effort to cater to the PC market because they just assume we are all made of money and can go buy new hardware every time they release a broken game. My final point is that no matter what they call their settings, the game will never run at 60 FPS, and I am not the only person who thinks this way, look at other threads with people who have even better hardware and struggle to run High.

Dave3d07
02-05-2017, 05:35 AM
I dont 'struggle' to run high.
I have an I7 6 core, 16gb ram, and a Titan X video card, and it runs fine for me on High (what it defaulted to, less dof and 2 other video settings, plus fov maxed) with a 2k screen (2560x1440 @ 120hz).
You are correct that the game doesnt look very good, even on high, but it ran smooth for me. Unlike other Beta's out there right now.

HumblePraiser
02-06-2017, 04:24 AM
I dont 'struggle' to run high.
I have an I7 6 core, 16gb ram, and a Titan X video card, and it runs fine for me on High (what it defaulted to, less dof and 2 other video settings, plus fov maxed) with a 2k screen (2560x1440 @ 120hz).
You are correct that the game doesnt look very good, even on high, but it ran smooth for me. Unlike other Beta's out there right now.

I would really hope that you don't struggle on high settings with a TitanX. But what you're telling me is that you're okay with your $1200 GPU ($1560 Canadian and costs more than some peoples entire systems) not running this game easily on very high? That makes no sense, I'm going to reference Witcher 3 again, I am sure you can max that game out or come very close to it with a rig like that, so why can you not max out a game that doesn't come anywhere near the same level of graphical amazingness? I get that you're playing at 1440p but that is still not an excuse for the game not maxing out.

That is the type of stuff I will never understand, I will also never get how Ubisoft gets away with things like this every year and with every game. I know this is a beta and I am hoping that all these issues will be fixed by launch, this is also why they need to release betas more than a month before release so they have time to work on things without feeling rushed.

rob444_
02-06-2017, 10:43 AM
I'm playing the game on high and it runs totally crap.
I've tried running it on low and it runs totally crap and performance difference were minimal to none.
My friend experience exactly the same thing.

Feels like we're running a debug version of the game collecting tons of data (therefor high performance drop - like Battlefield series (3-4)) but I don't know.
I'm pretty confident my PC should be able to play this game at 60 FPS or more even on low....


PC specs:

Windows 8.1 x64
Intel Core i7 4790K 4GHz, 8MB
MSI GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB
ADATA 16GB (2x8GB) CL9 1600MHz XPG

markvrk
02-06-2017, 10:56 AM
For what it's worth, and to those using AMD graphic cards - revert your drivers. Had a notificaiton yesterday that new drivers were available, updated, performance dropped significantly....reverted to previous version (Device Manager - Display Adapter - Graphic card - Driver tab - Revert to previous version) and the game ran much, much better.

fighter3005
02-26-2017, 06:07 PM
Guys.... I played the closed Beta.

My System then:
I7 6700K
16gb Ram
R9 280x

I set it to very high, and indeed, It ran like crap (25-30fps)
Then the Open Beta came.

My 2nd System:
fx6100 (OC to 4.0Ghz)
8gb ram
r9 280x

Guess what. The game is not running on 60 fps at very high. BUT it is constantly above the 30 fps line!
(OK, these Dips at some specific points on the map are anoying, but It is still Beta and already looks better than last time)
System is by te way a mid range system from 3-5 years ago!!!

My 1st System:
I7 6700K
16gb ram
rx 480 8gb

Set the game to Ultra. Constant over 30 fps and absolutely fine. Keep in mind: the rx 480 is a mid range graphics card!

To be fair, some consoles are less powerful and can archiev 30fps. But in every Xbox or playstation is the same Hardware.
On the PC side of things are so many options to go with, that it is way more dificult to optimize a game.

(Of course this is my personal opinion. And I am sorry for my English.)

GiveMeTactical
02-26-2017, 11:06 PM
To be fair, some consoles are less powerful and can archiev 30fps. But in every Xbox or playstation is the same Hardware.
On the PC side of things are so many options to go with, that it is way more dificult to optimize a game

I am wondering how the Old Redstorm team managed to do this back in 2001 or how other console ports (CoD, MoH, BF) in the past have managed to make a decent port to PC game up to 2015-ish... perhaps because they were paying a bit more attention to detail? or was it perhaps because the game was done on a PC for PC and then ported to consoles?

Whatever the case maybe, it seems like they only care to give PC players the basic so they can buy the game and then hope the game gets fixed or hope they will forget and buy the next flavor of the month next time around.

Jamielinux
02-27-2017, 03:38 AM
Things that need to be fixed in the pc version.


Controller support anything other then a xb1 controller will cause massive fps loss regardless of game settings. eg ps3 controller plugged in will cause the game while in focus to run about 19 fps and 75 when not focused, (you can test by just running borderless windowed mode and tabbing out of the game into another program on another screen.)

Fix for now is to run a xbox controller to pc or just remove any controller from your pc if its not a xbox one controller. Fixes fps issues.

Texture loading on pc can go from fast to slow , no reason to it seems if you do not use cars or trucks the texture loading is fine , helicopters dont seem to be affected.

Ultra texture / tessellation settings dont seem to be any improvement over high even though it adds another 1.5 gb of vram usage. Very high textures with 1.4 texture scaling gives the same effect without the performance hit.... (but it causes a lot of HDD swapping even with GPU's with massive amounts of vram.)

NPC AI seems to do nothing in doors .

Mouse sensitivity in game feels off to slow.

Test systems

i7 6700hq
GTX 970m (6gb version.)
16 gb ddr 4 memory
windows 10

Secondary test system

i7 6820hk
GTX 1070 SLI 8gb (sli disabled for the game.)
32 gb ddr 4 memory.
window 10

The massive hdd swapping seems to happen when there is slow texture loading.

Edea-XiaoLin
02-27-2017, 04:20 AM
But does the game look ugly on medium?!?!
THIS is what you need to ask yourselves.
now, I didnt play the beta so take what im saying as words of a bystander.

what if UBI called "low" HIGH, called "medium" - ULTRA and called "high" - UBERULTRAWOW?
would you accept it then that the game runs fine on ULTRA?

question is when you get the game to run at your favorite 50 or 60 fps (if you can get that high) than does it look sub par?
If it isnt than let it go. it's just the f#*king name of the settings. it's not an indication of a visual quality.
It's like crysis all over and people dont learn.

If the game, on low, looks like garbage and constant pop-ins and ugly shadows and effects and stuttering and yada yada\ yada than there's a good reason for an uproar, but if it looks good on low than its a good looking game that can look even better after patched. if someone set the game to certain visual settings and let you play it without telling you what settings the game was on - that would have been the test. if you loved what you saw and how it ran than that should have been called "high".

However, i do agree that a game should run on 60fps on high end rigs with 980 etc. at the very least on LOW. beyond that it's a matter of how ugly or beautiful LOW is.

Hi i have played closed and open beta and i get around 40-60 fps(on medium) and it looks great to me
about my specs i have not the recommended setup ;) but the game runs kinda smooth for me
I got an I3(3220) GTX 960(4gb) and 8GB ram i consider this low spec hehe but its enough to run GRW
didn't expect to run the game so smoothly as it did actually,so the Dev's did a great job from my sight

I will buy the game 100% bcs i like wht i saw on the Beta's.btw i play lone wolf only so i cannot say anything about coop/multiplay
hope this helps
sayonara

CrunkFu
02-27-2017, 09:44 AM
Finished the open bata this AM and can say that twin water-cooled 980ti's had major issues (flickering, choppiness) playing this at anything over 'medium'. SLI integration is missing and the video code needs some serious revamping.

I was playing with a single 1070 and it played very robustly at Ultra or whatever the highest setting was. I wonder why the 980's would have any problems unless SLI is totally missing...? I figure a 980 should be about as good... I don't even have that great a CPU. 3550 intel I5 or something. Do you think there are some new components in the 10 series that are going to give everyone with a 9 series some negative workloads?

Anyway. I enjoyed the graphics and thought that it was as smooth as it could be. Sometimes the game gets stuck but I understand that a lot is happening with it's framework.