PDA

View Full Version : AC4 only using 1 core? C'mon now! It's 2014...



Glaneon
01-06-2014, 03:28 PM
Game is running really poorly - and on my system I was surprised (I can run BF4 Ultra settings @ 1920x1200, 40-60fps)
So I checked my CPU usage and I see AC4 is only using a single core (BF4 uses 4 cores at around 80%)

CPU: Core i7-2700K (3.5GHz @ 4.4GHz), Hyperthreading DISABLED (goes from 8 core to 4 core)
memory: 8GB
video: nVidia 770GTX 4GB
drive: Samsung 840 EVO (500GB) & Mushkin SSD (120GB), both SATA3

I've already submitted the question to Ubi support but I'm shocked no one else is seeing the single-core issue.
AC3 ran great (on a slightly downgraded system, Core i5-2500K @ 4.4GHz & NVidia 560ti).

I'm not enabling HT on the CPU due to micro-stuttering on BF4 (CPU usage looks like 40-50% across 8 cores).

Glaneon
01-08-2014, 03:14 AM
I've seen I'm not the only one - but how can anyone play this at <30fps?
My CPU & video card are more than suitable.

ShootRawGuy
01-08-2014, 09:33 AM
I have non problems at all running it at Highest settings at all, @1920x1200. I have 60+fps stable. I have played 70+hrs and I have never noticed any lag or bad performance.

Frag_Maniac
01-08-2014, 11:21 AM
For me it definitely uses core 1 the most, at or near 100%, but the other three cores are running at 50% or better, so it's not like it's only using 1 core.

This is right after defeating the El Impoluto Legendary ship in the northwest part of the map on an i7 950 @ 3.2GHz with unparked cores.

http://imageshack.com/a/img827/7049/3v6g.jpg

Frag_Maniac
01-08-2014, 11:27 AM
I've seen I'm not the only one - but how can anyone play this at <30fps?
My CPU & video card are more than suitable.

If you have VSync on, this game will cap FPS to 30 whenever it dips below 60. To avoid this, force triple buffering externally with Direct3D Overrider.

YazX_
01-08-2014, 11:32 AM
I have non problems at all running it at Highest settings at all, @1920x1200. I have 60+fps stable. I have played 70+hrs and I have never noticed any lag or bad performance.

ok you bragged enough about your PC, now GTFO.

P.S: on your PC the game should hit 100-120 FPS taking into consideration you dont have Physx (that shows how much you know about Games' optimization)

Glaneon
01-09-2014, 12:21 AM
I'm in Havana at this point (the really bad performance was on the initial island, chasing the "guy") and it appears to be doing better ... but still.. not where I feel it should be.
I tried unparking the cores, makes no difference.

Tried playing with the buffering, rendering-ahead in NVidia control panel - seems to make little difference.

chessmasterTG
01-09-2014, 12:58 AM
Can someone tell me where i can get the patches to get chessmaster 10 to run with out the CD?

Thanks,

Frag_Maniac
01-09-2014, 03:33 AM
I'm in Havana at this point (the really bad performance was on the initial island, chasing the "guy") and it appears to be doing better ... but still.. not where I feel it should be.
I tried unparking the cores, makes no difference.

Tried playing with the buffering, rendering-ahead in NVidia control panel - seems to make little difference.

Have you looked at Task Manager after pausing some in-game action? If so, how does it compare to the screenshot I posted above as far as core usage?

You said 40-50% usage across 8 cores in BF4 with HT, but HT you can't really look at as 8 cores, more like 6 effectively. I'm more interested in knowing what your actual physical core percentage is across 4 cores in AC IV with HT off. The BF4 testimonials are irrelevant.

You can clearly see from my screenshot I'm barely averaging over 50% on core 2-3, so I'm not sure CPU core usage is your problem. The 770 should be a powerful enough GPU too. Seems like poor collaboration between Nvidia and Ubi on this. Have you tried various Nvidia drivers?

Glaneon
01-10-2014, 01:15 AM
That's how I came to this conclusion (having Task Manager running in background)

w/Hyperthreading off:
Core 1, 95%
Core 2, 20%
Core 3, 20%
Core 4, 30%

(fwiw, when I originally posted it was at 95/<5/<5/<5 )

On a side note, unparking the cores stops the stuttering in BF4 w/HT enabled. :)

I understand there's no direct correlation between BF4 (Frostbite engine) and AC4, but it's more a matter of "the computer doesn't suck" :)

Gold31415
02-13-2014, 03:34 AM
Assassin's Creed games have never taken real advantage of more than one core.

It's the way Ubisoft port to PC, not very state of the art as you can see.

Alphacos007
02-13-2014, 06:16 PM
Might be a dumb question, but did you try disabling the Physx Particles? I can run AC4 with proper FPS here and my computer isn't THAT good, it's just decent, and I have all maxed out, except for the Physx. If I activate them, I can't go more than 20 fps lol.

playlisting
02-13-2014, 07:18 PM
I seriously hope they pay more attention to making the PC version run smoothly for AC V. It's all well and good that they've added support for PhysX but the game runs so poorly it's a small minority that can actually use it, never mind having it set to high. They should focus on making sure that it uses all of the system it can so that the game runs well, then focus on making it look good. I have a PC well above the recommended specs and I can't enable PhysX without the FPS dropping massively. If you have a PC that is above the recommended specs for a game then you should be sitting comfortably at 60 fps, not getting it here and there.

More FPS > Amazing graphics.

Gold31415
02-14-2014, 02:39 AM
I know people with sli titans and they cant put physx on high.


Its simply a broken implementation.

playlisting
02-14-2014, 07:35 PM
Report this issue to Ubi support. The more people that report this issue the more the devs are aware that this is annoying people and the more likely it is they'll fix it.

https://support.ubi.com

TrasteTh
02-15-2014, 12:58 AM
I know people with sli titans and they cant put physx on high.


Its simply a broken implementation.

Sorry, but that doesn't sound right.
The reason i am playing the game at all was because i got a free copy with my Titan card last week, and wanting to test the card out i played the game. I have not been playing games for a decade but i was amazed with the graphics of AC4BF, somply flabbergasted by the light playing in the ocean Waves. You have all seen it of course, but my wrinkled old *** had not seen anything like it ever, and then i realized that the Graphics settings were not even maxed.
Even with Physix on high, on a single titan card, all other graphix maxed, it runs very smooth with only the briefest of glitches every now and again.

Now, ill tell you what is broken, and that is that save games are stored in the application folder, not in the user profiles.
Lost 70h of gameplay because of this and tha Windows 8 insists on wipeing apps on repair.

/Traste

playlisting
02-15-2014, 12:14 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't sound right.
The reason i am playing the game at all was because i got a free copy with my Titan card last week, and wanting to test the card out i played the game. I have not been playing games for a decade but i was amazed with the graphics of AC4BF, somply flabbergasted by the light playing in the ocean Waves. You have all seen it of course, but my wrinkled old *** had not seen anything like it ever, and then i realized that the Graphics settings were not even maxed.
Even with Physix on high, on a single titan card, all other graphix maxed, it runs very smooth with only the briefest of glitches every now and again.

Now, ill tell you what is broken, and that is that save games are stored in the application folder, not in the user profiles.
Lost 70h of gameplay because of this and tha Windows 8 insists on wipeing apps on repair.

/Traste

It will obviously run smoothly on your system. You have a $1,000 graphics card and I assume you have a powerful processor and fast RAM to go along with that. Now you have a VERY high end build for a gaming computer. Have you seen the recommend specs for this game? It's a GTX 470 and an i5 2400s. Someone with that computer is simply not going to be able to play this game at acceptable frame rates with decent looking settings. If they have PhysX enabled, then sometimes they may even be dipping in to single figures FPS-wise. You have to have a very powerful computer to have it all set to max and get 60 FPS constant. I have an i5 3570k and a GTX 670 and I cannot play the game maxed out with PhysX and get constant 60 FPS even though I am well above the recommended specs. This game is not well optimised at all for PC.

Gold31415
02-15-2014, 04:04 PM
Yeah, just google ac4 physx, and read the many many posts of people (all with gear 670gtx and up) complaining that physx high coding dips into single digit fps.

Wrath2Zero
02-16-2014, 04:22 AM
Guys,


As of the latest game update, the PhysX detail levels are as follows:

Low: Enables PhysX weapon effects and smoke bomb effects. PhysX particles interact solely with characters.
Medium: In addition to character interaction, PhysX particles now interact with objects and the environment.
High: As above, but with the addition of camp fire smoke, chimney smoke, and other environmental PhysX effects.


For High, we recommend a multi-GPU SLI system if you’re also using the game’s other high-end graphics

jeffies04
02-16-2014, 12:14 PM
Yeah it was the chimney and campfire smoke killing me when it first rolled out without low-med-high adjustments. Now I set mine to low or medium and can play fine. I don't need to see the smoke whirl around when I run though a campfire, so it's fine.

I have a gtx780 and run it maxed pretty well... but even if I scale my settings way back I would say the game looks great.

I appreciate that they put the power in the game for those that can run it, but they made a great looking game for everybody else who can run "normal" settings.

I know the game has some performance issues... but I also think there are a lot of people who see that because the high end settings are there that they're getting slighted by not being able to use them. I think those people would feel a lot differently if the game didn't put those high end settings in front of people if their system couldn't handle them.

YazX_
02-17-2014, 01:33 AM
but I also think there are a lot of people who see that because the high end settings are there that they're getting slighted by not being able to use them. I think those people would feel a lot differently if the game didn't put those high end settings in front of people if their system couldn't handle them.

and what if your system can handle them and you are not getting proper FPS and game lags so much?!

the main issue is in CPU utilization, this game is heavily dependent on CPU and yet it doesnt properly utilize it which will also bottleneck your graphics card(s), as i said it before, as long as Xbox360 and PS3 are in the picture, dont expect to get good ports for PC, Ubisoft is not going to optimize the game for PC, anyway, if Ubisoft decided like other companies to dump old gen consoles -HOPEFULLY- to push better graphics and performance, then future games will suck your CPU to its max potential as next gen consoles are pretty much a low end gaming PC.

Wrath2Zero
02-17-2014, 01:44 AM
Well, the PS4 wasn't even optimised out of the box well, 900p 30fps capped, the patch made it 1080p but still 30fps locked so clearly they couldn't even do it for the PS4 with 8 cores.

YazX_
02-17-2014, 12:06 PM
Well, the PS4 wasn't even optimised out of the box well, 900p 30fps capped, the patch made it 1080p but still 30fps locked so clearly they couldn't even do it for the PS4 with 8 cores.

exactly as the master version was created on old gen consoles, optimizing the game for PC and next gen will require more time, resources and efforts, this translates to extra cash which is in Ubisoft point of view is not needed as long as the game can sustain 30 FPS on next gen and PC.

jeffies04
02-17-2014, 12:30 PM
and what if your system can handle them and you are not getting proper FPS and game lags so much?!


You have no arguments from me, here. There are definitely resource issues. I'm talking about having to differentiate between those PC users who have genuine performance issues, and those who think they have genuine performance issues. I've spoken to a few, but then I see their specs and have to tell them they've got it set way too high.

I'd like to think we'd see an improvement if or when they once again create a new engine that isn't just old-gen-with-next-gen-capabilities, but an actual next-gen engine. I think we'd see some better utilization of PC resources. I would hope, anyway. Not to get off topic in the wrong forum, but I'm really interested to see how they do it with Watchdogs, which looks like a resource hog of its own...

youngy93
03-06-2014, 01:47 PM
Hi, I recently had this issue and this solved it for me. After some time speaking to somebody on a geforce forum and doing some research, I tried changing the affinity in the control panel (The number of cores the AC4 exe was using) from my default 4 cores down to 3. Before whilst on 4 cores, cpu- was maxed and there was practically no usage on the other 3 cores, and this was causing stuttering in game and lower that expected FPS. After changing it however, I noticed that the load on CPU0 tropped and that the load on cores 1+2 went up, and that my game instantly saw better FPS and no longer stuttered as it did moments before.
I will post some screenshots of a before and after shot of my resource monitor to show how I mean. If you want to try this for yourself, search how to change the affinity of a program using your OS. In windows 7, you can do this bt going to the process in the task manager (AC4SP for single player, AC4MP for multiplayer), right click it, choose 'set affinity' and altar the CPU setting as you see fit.
The only issue with this being is that you have to change the affinity every time you launch AC4. OR, you can make a .bat (batch) file in order to launch the game with the affinity already set. I did find though that, changing the affinity using a .bat file rather than whilst I was in game effected the use of my CPU's and that the load on my CPU0 would again be maxed out, yet the usage of cores 1+2 would still be somewhat more, but not more than before. It is all a bit messed up and weird for me and am a little frustrated at how much messing about it has taken to get this right.. eventually, but considering the game time and the gaming experience I have gained through playing ac4 so far, it is worth it for me ;) Though that is not to say I would like to do it again in the future...

Here are those images which I have uploaded to photo bucket.
Before (Using 4 cores) note how cpu0 is at 100% for the most part. The usage drop because I exited ac4 before taking this screenshot.
http://s893.photobucket.com/user/youngy93/media/AC4CPUUsage.png.html?sort=3&o=1

And the after shot (On 3 cores) CPU0 is now running below 90% for the most part and cores 1+2 are now engaged even more than before. Frame rate has increased and my game no longer stutters, and this screenshot was taken 25 minutes into playing during a large gun battle against a small british fleet and a level 60 man o' war hunter (Hella of a lot'a smoke :)
http://s893.photobucket.com/user/youngy93/media/AC4on3cores.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Hope this helps, and if anybody has any insight into this, please do because I am open to all suggestions (reasonably..) and anything that can not only help me, but anybody else hoping to resolve the same issue. oh, and for my system specs for whatever reason:

Win7 x64 pro
Gigabyte z87-HD3 board
Intel i5 quad 4670k 3.4ghz (Haswell)
Gigabyte GTX660 GPU 2048MB
8GB Ram

I run ac4 on ultra, except I have physX low (Had it off when running on 4 cores because It just seemed to affect my FPS so much), V Sync off (set to adaptive in the nvidia control panel with triple buffering enabled), motion blur off and AA set to MSAA 2x.

Wrath2Zero
03-09-2014, 03:51 PM
^ Works good, disabling core3 in the affinity options actually makes the game run better with hardly any lag. Ubisoft fobbed me off saying my Q8400@3.2Ghz won't fast enough for my gfx cards(which is true) but it doesn't explain the bad threading issue.

As I've said all along, it's poor threading but Ubisoft support can't get that through their heads because all they care about is your specs and can't look past that. Someone report this who has an i5 or FX piledriver.

YazX_
03-09-2014, 04:35 PM
Hi, I recently had this issue and this solved it for me. After some time speaking to somebody on a geforce forum and doing some research, I tried changing the affinity in the control panel (The number of cores the AC4 exe was using) from my default 4 cores down to 3. Before whilst on 4 cores, cpu- was maxed and there was practically no usage on the other 3 cores, and this was causing stuttering in game and lower that expected FPS. After changing it however, I noticed that the load on CPU0 tropped and that the load on cores 1+2 went up, and that my game instantly saw better FPS and no longer stuttered as it did moments before.
I will post some screenshots of a before and after shot of my resource monitor to show how I mean. If you want to try this for yourself, search how to change the affinity of a program using your OS. In windows 7, you can do this bt going to the process in the task manager (AC4SP for single player, AC4MP for multiplayer), right click it, choose 'set affinity' and altar the CPU setting as you see fit.
The only issue with this being is that you have to change the affinity every time you launch AC4. OR, you can make a .bat (batch) file in order to launch the game with the affinity already set. I did find though that, changing the affinity using a .bat file rather than whilst I was in game effected the use of my CPU's and that the load on my CPU0 would again be maxed out, yet the usage of cores 1+2 would still be somewhat more, but not more than before. It is all a bit messed up and weird for me and am a little frustrated at how much messing about it has taken to get this right.. eventually, but considering the game time and the gaming experience I have gained through playing ac4 so far, it is worth it for me ;) Though that is not to say I would like to do it again in the future...

Here are those images which I have uploaded to photo bucket.
Before (Using 4 cores) note how cpu0 is at 100% for the most part. The usage drop because I exited ac4 before taking this screenshot.
http://s893.photobucket.com/user/youngy93/media/AC4CPUUsage.png.html?sort=3&o=1

And the after shot (On 3 cores) CPU0 is now running below 90% for the most part and cores 1+2 are now engaged even more than before. Frame rate has increased and my game no longer stutters, and this screenshot was taken 25 minutes into playing during a large gun battle against a small british fleet and a level 60 man o' war hunter (Hella of a lot'a smoke :)
http://s893.photobucket.com/user/youngy93/media/AC4on3cores.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Hope this helps, and if anybody has any insight into this, please do because I am open to all suggestions (reasonably..) and anything that can not only help me, but anybody else hoping to resolve the same issue. oh, and for my system specs for whatever reason:

Win7 x64 pro
Gigabyte z87-HD3 board
Intel i5 quad 4670k 3.4ghz (Haswell)
Gigabyte GTX660 GPU 2048MB
8GB Ram

I run ac4 on ultra, except I have physX low (Had it off when running on 4 cores because It just seemed to affect my FPS so much), V Sync off (set to adaptive in the nvidia control panel with triple buffering enabled), motion blur off and AA set to MSAA 2x.

this doesnt mean that the poor utilization of CPU issue is fixed, the only thing that this trick accomplished is to reduce Core0 usage from 100%-90% to 60%-70% and add the 30%-40% to other cores. i have i7 with 8 cores, i can see that the TOTAL utilization is the same for CPU, yes sure Core0 is used to be 90% and got to 50%, but on the other hand it just added 5% to other cores which renders the same issue, so it wont fix the poor optimization, maybe on 4 cores CPU it would eliminate some lags but not by far.

Wrath2Zero
03-09-2014, 06:18 PM
Well, the point is that it spreads the load across the cores better so there are no stalls like on core0. It seems to me what's causing the issue the is poor use of core0, which might account for the lag.

YazX_
03-09-2014, 10:09 PM
Well, the point is that it spreads the load across the cores better so there are no stalls like on core0. It seems to me what's causing the issue the is poor use of core0, which might account for the lag.

well thats one reason, but even if you spread the load, the game never reaches half usage of each core on 8/12 cores, this is caused by poor optimization as its old gen consoles port same as previous ACs and Ubisoft never took the time to optimize it, they just tested it for bugs and made sure it can sustain constant 30 FPS same as next gen consoles. so its like you have 4/8/12 cores but the game is using 2.5 cores in TOTAL, so no matter how you spread the load, it will remain 2.5 cores.

Wrath2Zero
03-09-2014, 11:09 PM
well thats one reason, but even if you spread the load, the game never reaches half usage of each core on 8/12 cores, this is caused by poor optimization as its old gen consoles port same as previous ACs and Ubisoft never took the time to optimize it, they just tested it for bugs and made sure it can sustain constant 30 FPS same as next gen consoles. so its like you have 4/8/12 cores but the game is using 2.5 cores in TOTAL, so no matter how you spread the load, it will remain 2.5 cores.

Yeah, may explain why it only uses 3 cores, last gen consoles have 3 cores and funny you disable one core on a quad and you get better threading with less lag.

youngy93
03-10-2014, 03:44 PM
Thanks for letting us know it worked for you too. You are right that it isn't a sure fix but it does seem to help. I did report this back to ubi after realising it worked for me, and they sent me another 'solution' which I have tried. It seems to have worked which I am unsure exactly why, or whether or not it actually has made a difference is another thing. I personally feel it improved the performance while using all 4 cores the same as it did when I disabled core3. I will simply copy and paste the message I got from them here and you can try it for yourself if you wish, as any feedback as to whether you too think this has made the difference will be appreciated by anybody with this issue :)

Message from ubisoft support is as follows:

"Can you navigate to the Documents\Assassin Creed IV Black Flag
Can you open the file AssassinBlackFlagMP.ini and Assassin4.ini in notepad can you then compare the lines listed below then any difference in Assassin4.ini file can you modify it. Save the changes and try the game again.

AdapterVendorID=
AdapterDeviceID=
MonitorDesc=
DisplayWidth=
DisplayHeight=
RefreshRate=
MultiSampleType=
VSync=
EnvironmentQuality=
TextureQuality=
ShadowQuality=
ReflectionQuality=
CharacterQuality=
PostFX=
VolumetricFog= "

Double check through all of the values in both INI files because they aren't all in the same order as each other and missing one out might effect whether or not this works for you. If I remember correctly, the values in my assassins4.ini file were greater than the values in my AssassinBlackFlagMP.ini (Not 100% sure) but regardless, I used the values from the .ini file that were greater. I.E if 'AdapterVendorID= 3124' in one .ini and 'AdapterVendorID= 0' in another, I would replace the 0 with 3124. Thanks

pittbull4200
03-10-2014, 05:18 PM
Game is running really poorly - and on my system I was surprised (I can run BF4 Ultra settings @ 1920x1200, 40-60fps)
So I checked my CPU usage and I see AC4 is only using a single core (BF4 uses 4 cores at around 80%)

CPU: Core i7-2700K (3.5GHz @ 4.4GHz), Hyperthreading DISABLED (goes from 8 core to 4 core)
memory: 8GB
video: nVidia 770GTX 4GB
drive: Samsung 840 EVO (500GB) & Mushkin SSD (120GB), both SATA3

I've already submitted the question to Ubi support but I'm shocked no one else is seeing the single-core issue.
AC3 ran great (on a slightly downgraded system, Core i5-2500K @ 4.4GHz & NVidia 560ti).

I'm not enabling HT on the CPU due to micro-stuttering on BF4 (CPU usage looks like 40-50% across 8 cores).

8+ year old system here runs game great

-1st Gen E8400 core2 duo Dual Core 3ghz
- 4x1gb DDR2 reaper memory
-evga 780i FTW motherboard
-evga 660 superclocked GTX

settings very high

HDMI connection full 1080p on Asus 24in 2ms


All game companies overrate to help their promoters such as intel and nvidia so people will upgrade it works in a circle

Wrath2Zero
03-10-2014, 06:41 PM
I'm missing 4 values from that list.


MonitorDesc=
MultiSampleType=
CharacterQuality=
PostFX=

VikMorroHun
03-10-2014, 08:43 PM
Hi, I recently had this issue and this solved it for me. After some time speaking to somebody on a geforce forum and doing some research, I tried changing the affinity in the control panel (The number of cores the AC4 exe was using) from my default 4 cores down to 3.

Thank you very much. I had the same problem and I tried everything except the affinity trick (though I was familiar with it from other games) and I was starting to think I could never be able to play this game normally. My system specs:

Core i5-2500K 4.1 GHz
16GB RAM
Win7 x64
Geforce GTX 660 Ti (331.82)

Generally the game runs well (with PhysX completely turned off) but the first core is at 100% load constantly and I experience crashes regularly. There are several locations in the game where I could not move further because of CTDs. Through intense testing I realized if I lower the resolution to 1680*1050, disable anti-aliasing (or use FXAA), and use only minimal shadows, the game starts to equally utilize all CPU cores. Now with three cores I can play the game with cool graphics (and the resolution matches my monitor) too. :D
I will look into the .ini files too but I never played multiplayer before.

jeffies04
03-10-2014, 10:50 PM
Thank you very much. I had the same problem and I tried everything except the affinity trick (though I was familiar with it from other games) and I was starting to think I could never be able to play this game normally. My system specs:

Core i5-2500K 4.1 GHz
16GB RAM
Win7 x64
Geforce GTX 660 Ti (331.82)

Generally the game runs well (with PhysX completely turned off) but the first core is at 100% load constantly and I experience crashes regularly. There are several locations in the game where I could not move further because of CTDs. Through intense testing I realized if I lower the resolution to 1680*1050, disable anti-aliasing (or use FXAA), and use only minimal shadows, the game starts to equally utilize all CPU cores. Now with three cores I can play the game with cool graphics (and the resolution matches my monitor) too. :D
I will look into the .ini files too but I never played multiplayer before.

Hey, what shadow setting were you using before?

I tried this the other day too and it actually seemed to work out pretty well.

youngy93
03-11-2014, 04:25 PM
I will look into the .ini files too but I never played multiplayer before.

Yeah I never played multi player on this system, which I may be completely wrong here, but I think that may be one of the issues. Because the settings are conflicting in the launcher between SP and MP settings. This sounds odd I do realise, but the reason that I think this is because as I posted the thing about creating a .bat file to launch the game with only 3 cores running... You have to double click the bat file once to open the uplay launcher and again to actually launch the game, however, if you double click the bat file to open the uplay launcher, THEN launch single player using the 'single player' button in the uplay launcher, the game just crashes on start up (or atleast it does for me). From this, I can only imagine that the launcher has something to do with the settings in game, because using the bat file to launch it with 3 cores, then clicking the single player button in uplay would try and launch it with 4 cores, so they would conflict, causing the crash on start up. Maybe this is the same issue if the ini files have different values? they are some how linked through uplay so the game settings are conflicting. Again, I'm probably wrong but this is the only way I can imaging the .ini settings between single player and multi player would cause an issue with the cpu usage.

As for wrathzero..


I'm missing 4 values from that list.


MonitorDesc=
MultiSampleType=
CharacterQuality=
PostFX=

Those values (for me atleast) are only in my AssassinBlackFlagMP.ini. If these values aren't in yours, I don't know if it would be worth trying to add them. I will copy my values here if you wanted to try that, as well as all the values from both my .ini files as a reference.

MonitorDesc=
MultiSampleType=0
CharacterQuality=2
PostFX=1


Here are the .INI files as a reference.

Assassin4.INI

[Graphics_DX11]
AdapterVendorID=4318
AdapterDeviceID=4544
DisplayWidth=1920
DisplayHeight=1080
RefreshRate=60
DisplayableRefreshRate=60
AntiAliasingMode=3
VSync=0
EnvironmentQuality=4
TextureQuality=2
ShadowQuality=6
ReflectionQuality=2
GodRays=2
MotionBlur=0
SSAO=3
UseVolumetricFog=0
ApexParticles=0


AssassinBlackFlagMP.INI

[Graphics_DX11]
AdapterVendorID=4318
AdapterDeviceID=4544
MonitorDesc=
DisplayWidth=1920
DisplayHeight=1080
RefreshRate=60
MultiSampleType=0
VSync=0
EnvironmentQuality=4
TextureQuality=2
ShadowQuality=6
ReflectionQuality=2
CharacterQuality=2
PostFX=1
VolumetricFog=1

Wrath2Zero
03-11-2014, 05:23 PM
Never mind, though it was single player options. :p