PDA

View Full Version : What does recomended system settings even mean anymore?



Millor312
03-07-2014, 10:47 AM
Seriously. You cannot run this game probably even on the lowest settings and every option turned off at a stable frame rate with the posted recommended settings, unless you leave vsync on and have it capped at a ridiculous 30. Now what does that make minimum requirements? The minimum to even start the game without crashing instantly but nothing more?

I've got;
GTX 760
i5-2500k@4.2GHz
8gb ram

And I can't even get a stable 60 FPS when I have all extra options turned off, and just medium texture quality and shadows. I get mostly 59-60 FPS, but it drops to around 50 in some cases still. Reverting to default settings (and turning off vsync for obvious reason) I get like 40-50, and it jumps around a lot.

How is this okay? I greatly surpass the games recommended settings and I cannot get reasonable performance with the default settings, or even much lower settings.

Is there absolutely anything I can do to get reasonable performance or is ubisoft seriously this awful?

Mr_Shade
03-07-2014, 11:44 AM
Hi,

Traditionally - in PC software minimum requirements - are what are required to start the game and be able to play it.

You may find you need to have settings at low - or you can increase some, but it's the lowest that can run the game and be acceptable.

If you want to run at 1080p / 60 or above - then the base line minimum requirements, might not allow that.

Others maybe able to suggest settings etc which may help smooth things out though, since some have had great performance, on the same hardware as you, but again, don't forget resolution does play a part, since you did not say what you are playing at - so that might be helpful for them.

Millor312
03-08-2014, 12:41 AM
The problem is that with how the game runs, it's like the game was run at 800x600 at 30 FPS with all lowest settings for minimum requirements, and then maybe 1280x720 at 30 FPS and medium settings (with all options like AA/AO and such turned off) for the recommended requirements, and then nothing was optimized beyond that.

The game absolutely should not run this poorly. I am extremely concerned that the devs think they did such a great job with the PC version of this game, because it's pretty unanimous that this is probably their worst optimization job yet. 60 FPS and 1080p are standard for games this gen, especially on PC. If the game can't get a stable 60 FPS at 1080p even on the most basic medium settings with all extra options turned off, when using a system surpassing the recommended (not just minimum!) settings, then the optimization seriously needs more work, or you need to stop lying about your system requirements. I sincerely hope that the game is majorly optimized soon in a patch, but just the fact that it shipped this way, and then still hasn't been patched, I'm really losing hope.

Dellers
03-08-2014, 11:59 AM
FWIW the AC engine isn't particularly good for the PC, and never has been. It's very CPU heavy, and also quite heavy on the GPU because of all the DX11 features and so on in AC4. Black Flag looks quite a bit better than the older games, but even those run on a pretty ineffective engine, which means that BF had to be a very heavy game to run. All of Ubisoft's latest titles have been very CPU heavy when I think about it. Assassin's Creed 3, Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Far Cry 3 are definitely on the heavy side as well. You pretty much need an overclocked 4960X CPU to utilize SLI @ 1080p in FC3.
I'm looking forward to Ubisoft's up and coming titles though. Watch Dogs is apparently being developed for PC and then ported to the (new) consoles, which I assume will mean a better engine with better balance between CPU and GPU usage.

playlisting
03-08-2014, 01:29 PM
This game was not optimised for the PC at all. I've read that all the PC team did for AC IV was made sure it runs but that's about it. I've also read that they thought that if people can't run the game then they'll just buy a faster GPU which is ridiculous. You can't ask someone to spend 200 maybe 300 on a GPU to make the game run smoother. The only people I've seen that have reported 0 issues with lag is people with Titans and 780's, way up at the top end of GPU's. I have a GTX 670 and I can't have my settings on high without some sort of lag even though my PC far surpasses the minimum requirements. Ubisoft seriously need to take their PC customers into consideration when developing AC V. The only thing PC users got was the implementation of PhysX which doesn't even run well at all. Please pay attention to PC Ubisoft!

AherasSTRG
03-08-2014, 03:00 PM
You people just don't get it:
This game runs exactly as intended, as the developers wanted it to run. And that is 30 frames per second. This game was developed on the PC, but the developers had the PS4 and X1 in mind. Now, with their weak hardware and mediocre performance, there was no way those consoles could run the game at more than 30 frames per second, therefore, the developement team focused on maintaning 30 frames per second at any given moment. Thus, the absence of Tripple Buffering techniques, the fact that no matter the settings, it never ever drops below 30 frames per second, the framerate depending on the area you are, and not what's on the screen, geforce experience proposing settings that cap the performance at 30 FPS etc etc. As long as there are low standards of quality in the developement of the game, the PC - no matter its power or performance - will always have to compromise.
The best thing you can do is try to emulate the settings of the PS4 version, so that the game runs as it was firstly intended. That is:
Resolution: 1920x1080
Environment Quality: High (in Very High, all models are tesselated, which does not happen in the PS4 version)
Texture Quality: High
Reflection Quality: High
Shadow Quality: High
God Rays: Low
Anti-Aliasing: FXAA (PS4's Anti-Aliasing after the Freedom Cry patch is slightly better, but the difference is barely noticable)
Ambient Occlusion: HBAO+ (it's very well optimised and looks better than the PS4's SSAO equivelant)
Volumetric Fog: On (it makes the screen blurry though ==> less clear and lowers the quality, but the blurriness makes the low framerate look smoother)
PhysX: Off

With the above settings, you will have a similar or even sharper image quality than the one on the consoles, but with your GTX 760, you will be able to have 60 FPS 85% of time. You won't have 60 FPS at The Great Inagua Hideout, in the areas around warehouses and in the jungle you have to traverse before the assassination of Julien du Casse. In fact, in these areas, after the 1080p patch, not even the PS4 can maintain constant 30 frames per second. There have been some threads concerning the matter, one of which was written just a month ago. If you google "PS4 framerate around warehouses", it's the first URL that pops up. However, it seems that it has been deleted for some reason.

Revelations was one of the most optimised games I have seen. Even my old laptop could play it without any problem. When AC3 was about to come, I bought a whole new PC of 1000 euros to play it at 1080p / 60 frames per second. The game was a mess. I had to make compromises in order to be able to even play it. This year, believeing that such **** can happen only once in a franchise's story, I bought the GTX 760 to be able to play AC4 at constant 60 frames per second at high - not ultra - settings. I quite enjoyed it, but it was pretty clear, that the game was not intended to played at such a frame rate. I mean... Utilising 1 out of the 4 cores of my i5 3570? As students at University we are right now doing a better job, when creating apps for phones... After 2 disappointments in a row, I am not gonna upgrade my PC for any AC game in the future. At least, both games were fantastic in terms of gameplay.

As for the question at hand, a Watch_Dogs dev has said that the recommended requirements stand for 1080p / 30 fps at max settings.

rcole_sooner
03-08-2014, 05:38 PM
Oooooo... Watch Dogs is looking pretty sweet! Dang, Ubisoft, I don't play games in the Summer ... what are you doing to me! LOL!

AherasSTRG
03-08-2014, 07:21 PM
Oooooo... Watch Dogs is looking pretty sweet! Dang, Ubisoft, I don't play games in the Summer ... what are you doing to me! LOL!
You can still play it on November, while waiting for AC5 :p .

Millor312
03-09-2014, 02:02 AM
If ubisoft can't get their **** together I might as well become a real pirate.