PDA

View Full Version : People are truly exagerating the problems with this game.



dbgager
11-12-2014, 09:02 PM
I am getting 30-50 fps with high settings ..and I have an Asus factory oced GFX 660ti and an AMD FX-6300 CPU. SOme cut scenes drop it to 22-23 fps for short amounts of time...but average about 40. Notice that the 30 fps is when there are at least 30 40 people on the screen such as in the opening sequence. And its only going to get better as they patch the game. I also turned up all the settings to ultra ..The difference in graphics quaity is minor. But drops my FPS down to about 15-25 range. So truly not worth it. For a constant 60 fps ..Your going to need a brute of a computer but the game is very smooth without 60 fps..So stop watching your FPS counter. Infact turn it off completelly. Just enjoy the game.

playlisting
11-12-2014, 09:11 PM
Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean that others don't. There are people with GTX 980s that are struggling to maintain a steady frame rate. People don't complain if there's nothing to complain about.

dericslab
11-12-2014, 09:11 PM
You are clearly in the minority here, but I hope your positive attitude rubs off on Ubisoft to repair the problems in game that most people seem to be experiencing.

Marcus101RR
11-12-2014, 09:13 PM
The issue with cutscenes is because of the hair, particularly when you meet elise, you can see the drops noticeably. It is the same issue reported a few years back when Tomb Raider released. If they fix the TressFX, or whatever it is called that makes hair have its own wavy crap and allows us to atleast disable that feature we would be hitting 50-60 fps, good to know that FX6300 can run it nicely, I have FX 8350 and some say that CPU sucks for this game.

Damian....
11-12-2014, 09:14 PM
I have to agree with the OP on this. I had many problems with the more recent AC games on the PC due to them being single threaded heavy. But if you meet the recommended spec for this game you will more than likely have a good experience. I am seeing great CPU/GPU utilization this time around on both my laptop and desktop, albeit my laptop has to run at low-medium settings, it still looks and runs better than the console versions. Those two versions are literal technical disasters.

thewhitestig
11-12-2014, 09:15 PM
Sure they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkzIGSyjLQ

x___Luffy___x
11-12-2014, 09:17 PM
I am getting 30-50 fps with high settings ..and I have an Asus factory oced GFX 660ti and an AMD FX-6300 CPU. SOme cut scenes drop it to 22-23 fps for short amounts of time...but average about 40. Notice that the 30 fps is when there are at least 30 40 people on the screen such as in the opening sequence. And its only going to get better as they patch the game. I also turned up all the settings to ultra ..The difference in graphics quaity is minor. But drops my FPS down to about 15-25 range. So truly not worth it. For a constant 60 fps ..Your going to need a brute of a computer but the game is very smooth without 60 fps..So stop watching your FPS counter. Infact turn it off completelly. Just enjoy the game.

nice to know this. i have a 660 ti amp edition and and i5 3550 3.3, im hoping i can run the game too.:)

dbgager
11-12-2014, 09:23 PM
Oh and I also turned the Antaliasing down from MXAA-2 to FXAA it looks the same to me..But was costing 7-8 FPS for MXAA.

Rekalty
11-12-2014, 09:26 PM
Sure they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkzIGSyjLQ
Oh, I'm sure Ubisoft will just brush that off as "It's intended, they're glitches with the Animus! - it's totally not caused by incompetence, sloppy programming, or simply rushing a product to the stores before it was properly finished and optimized."

dbgager
11-12-2014, 10:03 PM
Also I have noticed since the first few cutscenes in the opening sequence they are now maintaining nearly a constant 60 fps.

SensualTouches
11-12-2014, 10:06 PM
"The Game play is quite fun, however it is plagued by many bugs which as a former tester in the gaming industry how did this pass? Multiple immersion breaking bugs such as when people die, they stand back up again only to die once more. NPC's colliding with each other becoming a giant ball of body parts only to pop under the world then poping back again to reform as human beings. All kinds of clipping issues, and the worse is muddy textures, pixelation, and screen tears. This should not have been released like this, and most definitely needs to be addressed. I almost want to put the game down until these issues are fixed as it really breaks the immersion for me. Not to mention the movement controls being even more clunky and unresponsive.

Here are my specs:

I7-4770k 3.5 GHz
16 gb of G.SKILL Ripjaws Series DDR3 1600 Model F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL
GTX 770 with 4gb
Sabbertooth z87 mb

I should not be having these issues with my rig, and its Nvida card. So much for it being optimized for Nvida! Please, address these issues because once fixed it will be a fantastic game.

P.S. Stop releasing crap that isn't done all the way, people are getting really tired of this practice."

A post I made in their tech support forums so they can go ahead and look into these issues. The game is playable just breaks the immersion factor by the above stated bugs.

doughy12
11-12-2014, 10:24 PM
While I've had my disagreements with dbgager, I have to partially agree with him on this subject matter.

People keep saying the game has bugs and never actually explains what exactly they mean by BUGS...A bug would be glitching through a wall or falling through the games programming, hits not registering, running in the air, items not spawning, and things like that. All the videos people have posted so far show problems that are attributed to graphical problems because of literally every single thing I'm going over in this topic.

96% of the problems are people who have high end hardware jacking up the settings as high as they can for that reason, and then not expecting to have any problems.

Detect settings is not what settings the game is supposed to being played at, detect settings means nothing more than the settings your hardware can pick up, what your hardware can pick up for settings, and what settings the game can be run on are 2 completely different things.

The reality that people refuse to accept is that Slow Choppy and just bad FPS, screen tearing, and the like are all because of the settings being up way too high.

I got news for people, here is a wake up call or you, Having an i7 massive amounts of RAM a GTX 990 or titan means absolutely nothing when it comes to how a games settings need to be in order for it to run correctly. Having all that high end hardware DOES NOT MEAN you can just jack the settings up as high as you want. (Theoretically it should work) but in reality people who think that, have no understanding how games work.

Anyone that has a 780 or below should be running the game on MEDIUM settings, anyone with a 980 should be only using high settings, people with a titan Z should only be running the game at very high settings.

Saying you should be able to play it on ULTRA just because you have high end hardware is just not true and completely idiotic. It's like saying just because I have jet fuel I should be able to put it in my vehicle and travel faster than it can go

Also quit using the GeForce experience to determine what settings to use..The GeForce Experience is horrible for your computer and you don't need it to tell you how to run a game correctly.

fashric
11-12-2014, 11:02 PM
What is the point in this thread? All you have basically said is "Mine works ok everyone else is lying". If you feel personally offended by people bringing their issues with the game to these forums then you have more serious issues than worrying about white knighting for a corporation that doesn't even know you exist.

MrFisse
11-12-2014, 11:06 PM
Yeah OP, cant even run the game @ 60 fps with AA activated on 2 x 780 TIs in SLI. Everything is just FINE... tool

dbgager
11-12-2014, 11:07 PM
Like I said people exagerate...prime example substituting the word "lie" for the word "exagerate"....no further comment needs to be said. And the fact is poeple do exagerate whether you can admit or not.

dbgager
11-12-2014, 11:08 PM
So who needs this game to run at 60 fps to enjoy it Fisse..Obviously you don't play games for gameplay..only to watch an FPS counter.

doughy12
11-12-2014, 11:29 PM
What is the point in this thread? All you have basically said is "Mine works ok everyone else is lying". If you feel personally offended by people bringing their issues with the game to these forums then you have more serious issues than worrying about white knighting for a corporation that doesn't even know you exist.

Except that 99.9% of the issues people are complaining about ARE SELF CREATED BY THE SETTINGS BEING UP HIGHER THAN THEIR COMPUTER CAN OBVIOUSLY HANDLE and have absolutely nothing to do with the game itself. So it's beyond annoying to keep reading stupid user created complaints that are blaming then game instead of themselves and then instead of trying to see they're wrong, do nothing and then continue flooding the forum

So instead of saying I have high end hardware, I should be able to run it..blah..blah..blah People need to shut up, turn their settings down and accept that they're wrong.

If anyone is too dumb to understand that they need to turn the setting down instead of being an idiot and running it however they THINK it will run due to them having high end hardware should just quit gaming.

TURN THE SETTING DOWN TO MEDIUM AND 99.9% of the problems people are complaining about, WILL GO AWAY.

But of course instead of actually doing that, all most people are going to continue doing is arguing and saying they have problems.


WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME SMOOTHLY THEN PLAY IT ON MEDIUM

Wraith_of_sands
11-12-2014, 11:31 PM
problem is at low even medium settings this game looks atrocious in comparison with previous installments, which is not supposed to be the case

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-12-2014, 11:34 PM
problem is at low even medium settings this game looks atrocious in comparison with previous installments, which is not supposed to be the case

Doesn't matter about how it looks, it performs badly even on low. And there aren't enough settings to actually reduce the things that affect the CPU side of things. The game is mostly CPU intensive, and there's nothing to reduce some of those things.

fashric
11-12-2014, 11:38 PM
Like I said people exagerate...prime example substituting the word "lie" for the word "exagerate"....no further comment needs to be said. And the fact is poeple do exagerate whether you can admit or not.

Lying and exaggerating are the same thing.

pleb87
11-12-2014, 11:49 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people who say they have a GTX 980 but can't get 30 FPS either don't have a GTX 980 or have some other issue, like their machine is being used to mine bitcoins without them realising or something! From the videos I've seen that do show stable gameplay I'd say this game looks alright and most of the complaints are coming from people with systems lower than minimum or recommended specs or those trying to play in Ultra because they believe their PC should be able to handle it. Obviously this has been a bad port but such is the way of things... Years ago you'd get PC games ported to consoles that would be crap compared to the PC version (Quake 2 on PS1 lol) so I'm not surprised that nearly 20 years later the same problems are happening in reverse.

dbgager
11-12-2014, 11:51 PM
Hardly...

Lying:
the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness:

Exaggerate:
to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately:

Lying is to Exaggerating as kIlling sombody is to hurting them..They are different degrees..and hence calling an exaggeration a lie is in itself exaggerating. Because an exaggeration contain some truth and a lie contains none.

fashric
11-13-2014, 12:09 AM
Haha are you serious did you even read your own post?

Lying:
the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness:

Exaggerate:
to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately:

There is no difference a lie is a lie or it isn't. There is no grey area its black and white.

nonamename1
11-13-2014, 12:23 AM
Yes, they definitely are exaggerating for sure.

This games graphics are beyond anything I've ever seen. Right now, my 780 is really being pushed, and I'm running at near max settings (check GeForce graphics guide for my settings, because I'm using the recommended ones). I do see low 40s.

I will agree there is some sort of stuttering at times, it's definitely not 100% smooth as I wish it was. But, I think the game will get better with patches, graphics drivers, etc.

It is definitely playable though and last night three hours flew by while I was playing and I thought it had only been 20 minutes, lol. And in that three hours I barely accomplished anything! I mainly just wandered around the world just in awe at the sights, reading every little historical detail.

I'm positive I'll easily get 100 hours out of this game. I put 144 into Black Flag (I did two full play thrus) and I can see I might get more out of this.

Good use of $60.00, would spend again!

itoamanevernude
11-13-2014, 12:41 AM
The only problem I am having is the ACU.EXE crashing in certain parts in Paris. Some people have suggested to turn off overlays (Afterburner,in-game,etc) but that didn't seem to help. Other than that the game runs smooth for me @1080p Max, FxAA (g1 970,3570k 4.2ghz, 8GB ram) 344.65 drivers.

I think a big part of the problem is people that are trying to use the Ultra or High settings with 3GB cards. It just wont work and you wont get a smooth experience. Knock the settings down to Medium and be done with it. Now the crashing and glitches are another story.

Zmidd
11-13-2014, 12:44 AM
While I've had my disagreements with dbgager, I have to partially agree with him on this subject matter.

People keep saying the game has bugs and never actually explains what exactly they mean by BUGS...A bug would be glitching through a wall or falling through the games programming, hits not registering, running in the air, items not spawning, and things like that. All the videos people have posted so far show problems that are attributed to graphical problems because of literally every single thing I'm going over in this topic.

Erm, I haven't played this game yet (it's not out in my region), but thewhitestig posted a video in post #6 that show three of the five things you have just listed as bugs and said that all of the videos don't show.

EverAmbiguous
11-13-2014, 01:04 AM
I have an i5-3570k and an HD 7870 Ghz Edition. I'm getting 20-25 FPS when running around, plus stuttering. It's really quite unacceptable.

Certainly none of the glitches I'm seeing, but performance is abominable.

EverAmbiguous
11-13-2014, 01:07 AM
So who needs this game to run at 60 fps to enjoy it Fisse..Obviously you don't play games for gameplay..only to watch an FPS counter.

This is a silly statement.

Im getting 20 FPS max in battles. That means that I can't counter like I should be able too. Same for lockpicking--I can't do it properly because the framerate is so low. The gameplay suffers.

tomas_macmarogh
11-13-2014, 01:23 AM
I have noticed a few issues, places where it may hang up for a few secs. falling throw buildings or the ground. I think part if it is issues with my hard ware, It pushes the capabilitys of my pc... and seems to get worse when I have played a wile... but all in all my bugs are miner, (no blue screans or crash to desk top for me.) Thing is it can be hard to devleap a game that will run on every ones pc with out a glitch. no to pc gamers have the same rig. much easer with consals becouse there is not as much vareation between one playstation 4 and the next. where as it is much harder to predict how some combantaions of computer hard ware will interact with the game and the cant posably test on every posable combo. I have seen nothing that cant be patched. and nothing that as it stands now is game killing for me. but I understand how some people will have more issues then I am

doughy12
11-13-2014, 01:29 AM
Lying and exaggerating are the same thing.
That's totally untrue Exaggerating something true, is not the same thing as lying. If I say I won one million dollars in the lottery, and I really did with the lottery but only won five-hundred thousand, then what I said is a fact, I did win the lottery which makes it true, I just exaggerated how much I actually won.

Lying would be saying I won the lottery when I really didn't and how much I said doesn't matter because it's not even true.

And saying the game runs badly on low settings is an opinionated statement...not a fact. Because on medium settings the game runs and looks perfectly fine to me, but not to others.

doughy12
11-13-2014, 01:31 AM
This is a silly statement.

Im getting 20 FPS max in battles. That means that I can't counter like I should be able too. Same for lockpicking--I can't do it properly because the framerate is so low. The gameplay suffers.
then you better lower your settings and then you will be able to play properly.

fashric
11-13-2014, 01:35 AM
That's totally untrue Exaggerating something true, is not the same thing as lying. If I say I won one million dollars in the lottery, and I really did with the lottery but only won five-hundred thousand, then what I said is a fact, I did win the lottery which makes it true, I just exaggerated how much I actually won.

Lying would be saying I won the lottery when I really didn't and how much I said doesn't matter because it's not even true.

And saying the game runs badly on low settings is an opinionated statement...not a fact. Because on medium settings the game runs and looks perfectly fine to me, but not to others.

Nope saying you won more than you did is still lying lol. It doesn't matter which example you use exaggerating is still the same as lying. there is no point arguing about it.

Wraith_of_sands
11-13-2014, 01:38 AM
then you better lower your settings and then you will be able to play properly.
it matters not, absolutely
difference between low and high is something like 2 fps, not taking anti-aliasing in to consideration

doughy12
11-13-2014, 01:39 AM
Nope saying you won more than you did is still lying lol. It doesn't matter which example you use exaggerating is still the same as lying. there is no point arguing about it.
No because one is false and the other is true. Saying I'm lying about how much I won in either case, is saying I didn't even win the lottery in the first place. Exaggerating and lying are not the same thing.

doughy12
11-13-2014, 01:40 AM
I'm going to show all of you what MEDIUM settings are... Medium settings does not mean lower some of them and leaving other settings up to high.

Medium settings means turning down shadows and other crap

fashric
11-13-2014, 01:55 AM
No because one is false and the other is true. Saying I'm lying about how much I won in either case, is saying I didn't even win the lottery in the first place. Exaggerating and lying are not the same thing.

https://imgflip.com/readImage?iid=412211

Wraith_of_sands
11-13-2014, 01:57 AM
I'm going to show all of you what MEDIUM settings are... Medium settings does not mean lower some of them and leaving other settings up to high.

Medium settings means turning down shadows and other crap
Medium means Medium, if you put in general option on medium everything switched to medium, numbskull

dbgager
11-13-2014, 02:06 AM
Now that actually made a lot of sense Doughy..I have had some differing views with you. But that was actually well said.

MrFisse
11-13-2014, 02:08 AM
Dbgager: You don't see difference between FXAA and MSAA. Your opinion holds zero merit.

And no I do not play games to watch an FPS counter. I actually installed FRAPS only to check what the **** was going on in this game. But since I am not ******ed unlike you I do notice and feel when i get constant FPS drops. Going from 60+ fps to 20 in 1ms obviously affects the input from my keyboard and mouse making the game very hard to control. Being able to control my character properly in a PARKOUR game is something I value highly. You maybe have confused games with movies where you give no actual input.


Yeah sure I could lower the game settings or well actually I have, since I have turned off antialiasing completely (something I hate to play without btw) and I am not even playing the game at my native resolution but 1920x1080 instead.
But sure I own a
3770K @ 4.6 ghz
8 gb of 2666 mhz ram
2 x intel 520ssds running raid-0
2 x gtx 780 TIs (overclocked)
and a Motherboard, PSU to be able to run it all properly

just to play games on ****ing medium settings. A game that is not even looking that good, just the textures and the LOD distances alone make it look like total crap. I am starting to understand why they ripped the ability to activate tesselation ingame (still left in the .ini though).

This game is poorly executed and you guys defending it are friggin ******bags!

doughy12
11-13-2014, 02:25 AM
Medium means Medium, if you put in general option on medium everything switched to medium, numbskull
Your reply shows you have no idea what medium settings are. There are a number of other settings outside the general options that need to get turned down in order for it to ACTUALLY BE on medium you dimwit.

EverAmbiguous
11-13-2014, 02:32 AM
then you better lower your settings and then you will be able to play properly.

You should pay more attention to the posts rather than assuming that everyone is jacking up their settings to Ultra.

I have everything as low as it can possibly go. Everything is on low, AA is flat out turned off.

doughy12
11-13-2014, 03:10 AM
You should pay more attention to the posts rather than assuming that everyone is jacking up their settings to Ultra.

I have everything as low as it can possibly go. Everything is on low, AA is flat out turned off.

There is more to it than just putting the settings all the way down. See this topic I made:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/948492-People-really-don-t-know-what-medium-settings-are

EverAmbiguous
11-13-2014, 03:29 AM
There is more to it than just putting the settings all the way down. See this topic I made:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/948492-People-really-don-t-know-what-medium-settings-are

You have no idea what you're talking about. First off, there is no blanket hard-and-fast "an i5 is only medium, an i7 is high," because each CPU has a different clock speed. An i7's two benefits over an i5 are hyperthreading, along with the cache. AC Unity does not use hyperthreading. I'm not sure about the cache. Additionally, my CPU is overclocked to 4.2 gigs per core, which is higher than ANY, I repeat ANY, stock i7 processor. You're, quite simply, wrong.

Most amusing is your implication that V-sync can't be used. V-sync is actually a framerate LIMITER. It LOWERS your pc needs.This, if nothing else, tells me that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

Resolution: you are completely wrong. A lower resolution means that your video card is rendering LESS pixels at a time, and thus, can actually work faster. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Most of the rest is referring to medium specifically, so I can't speak to it. However, with regard to these, you're totally wrong. Totally.

mcketten
11-13-2014, 03:32 AM
I'm sorry, but no.

I have an i7-4790k, 4.0 ghz - this processor is the latest generation Haswell and was released on June 2, 2014.
16 gb DDR-2100
2x GTX 760 2gb
Game on a 256gb SSD
All drivers up to date.


If I want to play it in 1920x1080, I have to drop settings down to low on everything. Even then, 30fps is good - sometimes I get up to the 40s, but I stay around 20-30 most of the time. The cutscenes can be atrocious, with drops down to the teens or lower.

I have disabled in-game vsync and AA. I use nVidia's own vsync and AA and see almost no performance difference from it on or off, yet if I turn the in-game stuff on, I can see massive FPS drops.

To get the game stable at 60fps, I had to drop resolution down to 1366x768. Interestingly enough, at this level I can max all graphics settings. Even more interesting, if I increase the resolution, my framerate will tank, but the GPU and CPU usage does not go up. Even though there is still room to squeeze a few extra percentage points of power out of both.

This doesn't even include the bugs. Some of the most obvious, of course, are the pop-ins. Then there are the microstutters - that often cause me to fail a mission or get attacked.

I have also: fallen through the world on multiple occasions, become stuck inside an NPC who popped in on top of me, become stuck on a goat because I thought I could run past or around it, been stuck on numerous ledges and roofs because Arno suddenly decides he can't climb.

Then, it became worse: I started having the game lock up, only allowing me to use camera. Then came the CTDs - in the Pantheon and Saint Michel districts, just approaching them causes the game to immediately dump to desktop. Which is where I am at now: I cannot advance the game because all of my primary missions are in those two districts, or close enough that the game wants to render them. My save location is near the edge of Pantheon - which means I have about a 50/50 chance whenever I spawn in to simply crash because it tries to load Pantheon.

Yes, the game is as bad as people are saying. It lacks any optimization, does not make effective use of hardware at all, and, to top it off, comes package with game-breaking bugs.

My rig was built to run the Star Citizen alpha. It runs it beautifully, on Very High settings. 60fps solid. It is truly a next-gen game, even the alpha, as it is designed with the hardware of two years from now in mind. There is not another game I have played recently that I cannot, at a minimum, pull 50fps solid on High or Very High/Ultra settings. Even Watch_Dogs I was doing okay (40 was my target with the highest settings, sometimes I dropped slightly below.) I have not had to drop resolution below 1080p in years.

No, this game is fundamentally broken. It was not ready for release, and they knew it. That is why they delayed it two weeks, that is why they announced two patches before it even was playable, and that is why they extended the review embargo to twelve hours after the game was launched.

doughy12
11-13-2014, 03:48 AM
Since you're classifying an i5 it in the same category as an i7 then You have no idea what an i5 is

I got news for you, an i3 and i5 are nothing more than a regular quad core with a lower price and a fancy name. It's marketed like that so people think they're paying for something other than what it is.

i3 and i5 are not even close to an i7

and there is no point in continuing this with either of you because all you'll do is argued flawed points and won't ever get it.

EverAmbiguous
11-13-2014, 04:01 AM
Since you're classifying an i5 it in the same category as an i7 then You have no idea what an i5 is

I got news for you, an i3 and i5 are nothing more than a regular quad core with a lower price and a fancy name. It's marketed like that so people think they're paying for something other than what it is.

i3 and i5 are not even close to an i7

and there is no point in continuing this with either of you because all you'll do is argued flawed points and won't ever get it.

Please, don't be a troll and run away. Please, let's continue this discussion.

Source: (http://ark.intel.com/products/65520) and (http://ark.intel.com/products/80807).

The only actual difference between the specs of each CPU is the cache and the hyperthreading on the i7. Each individual CPU has its own clock speed. For example, mine is 0.6 GHz more than yours is stock, but I have it OCed to 4.2, which makes it 1.4 Ghz higher than yours.

I should specify, some i7s have more cores and various features, but there is absolutely UNEQUIVOCALLY no hard-and-fast "i7 is better than i5."

I'll repeat again, you have no idea what you're talking about. And I noticed you didn't respond to my comments about v-sync or resolution.


If you're right, shouldn't you be able to prove it with facts?


Second edit: I like how you don't even know specific CPUs. You call yours "i7 @2.8 ghz." Do you actually know the name?

MrFisse
11-13-2014, 04:02 AM
Since you're classifying an i5 it in the same category as an i7 then You have no idea what an i5 is

I got news for you, an i3 and i5 are nothing more than a regular quad core with a lower price and a fancy name. It's marketed like that so people think they're paying for something other than what it is.

i3 and i5 are not even close to an i7

and there is no point in continuing this with either of you because all you'll do is argued flawed points and won't ever get it.

Actually he did not, he is pretty much spot on. The i7 is also a quad core you imbecille. The difference is the L3 cache and the hyperthreding support and a little higher mhz on the i7. The i5 has 6mb of l3 and the the i7 has 8mb. Overclocking an i5 could easily make it outperform any stock i7. The gaming difference according to several test sites between the i5 and i7 is around a mere 10% at most. Making your settings invalid. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

mcketten
11-13-2014, 04:03 AM
Since you're classifying an i5 it in the same category as an i7 then You have no idea what an i5 is

I got news for you, an i3 and i5 are nothing more than a regular quad core with a lower price and a fancy name. It's marketed like that so people think they're paying for something other than what it is.

i3 and i5 are not even close to an i7

and there is no point in continuing this with either of you because all you'll do is argued flawed points and won't ever get it.

Wow, you really have no clue, do you? You are just making stuff up.

Pro-tip: spend some time researching performance standards, CPU comparisons, etc.

Just because it is an i5 doesn't mean it is worse than an i7, and just because it is an i7 doesn't mean it is better than an i5.

Also, be aware that some PC users out there spend a lot of time on this stuff and see right through uninformed BS.

Here is just a simple example: the differences here are so miniscule there is zero reason to think they would translate into noticeable performance issues.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K

fashric
11-13-2014, 04:05 AM
Since you're classifying an i5 it in the same category as an i7 then You have no idea what an i5 is

I got news for you, an i3 and i5 are nothing more than a regular quad core with a lower price and a fancy name. It's marketed like that so people think they're paying for something other than what it is.

i3 and i5 are not even close to an i7

and there is no point in continuing this with either of you because all you'll do is argued flawed points and won't ever get it.

Oh dear an i7 is an i5 with hyperthreading and a bit more cache (2mb) both of which have no effect in 90% of games. Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 are the only two I can name off the top of my head. You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about, again. http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=0&itemid=1061

PS. You should apply for a job at Ubisofts system requirements dept. you would fit in nicely.

dbgager
11-13-2014, 04:17 AM
I'm sorry, but no.

I have an i7-4790k, 4.0 ghz - this processor is the latest generation Haswell and was released on June 2, 2014.
16 gb DDR-2100
2x GTX 760 2gb
Game on a 256gb SSD
All drivers up to date.


If I want to play it in 1920x1080, I have to drop settings down to low on everything. Even then, 30fps is good - sometimes I get up to the 40s, but I stay around 20-30 most of the time. The cutscenes can be atrocious, with drops down to the teens or lower.

I have disabled in-game vsync and AA. I use nVidia's own vsync and AA and see almost no performance difference from it on or off, yet if I turn the in-game stuff on, I can see massive FPS drops.

To get the game stable at 60fps, I had to drop resolution down to 1366x768. Interestingly enough, at this level I can max all graphics settings. Even more interesting, if I increase the resolution, my framerate will tank, but the GPU and CPU usage does not go up. Even though there is still room to squeeze a few extra percentage points of power out of both.

This doesn't even include the bugs. Some of the most obvious, of course, are the pop-ins. Then there are the microstutters - that often cause me to fail a mission or get attacked.

I have also: fallen through the world on multiple occasions, become stuck inside an NPC who popped in on top of me, become stuck on a goat because I thought I could run past or around it, been stuck on numerous ledges and roofs because Arno suddenly decides he can't climb.

Then, it became worse: I started having the game lock up, only allowing me to use camera. Then came the CTDs - in the Pantheon and Saint Michel districts, just approaching them causes the game to immediately dump to desktop. Which is where I am at now: I cannot advance the game because all of my primary missions are in those two districts, or close enough that the game wants to render them. My save location is near the edge of Pantheon - which means I have about a 50/50 chance whenever I spawn in to simply crash because it tries to load Pantheon.

Yes, the game is as bad as people are saying. It lacks any optimization, does not make effective use of hardware at all, and, to top it off, comes package with game-breaking bugs.

My rig was built to run the Star Citizen alpha. It runs it beautifully, on Very High settings. 60fps solid. It is truly a next-gen game, even the alpha, as it is designed with the hardware of two years from now in mind. There is not another game I have played recently that I cannot, at a minimum, pull 50fps solid on High or Very High/Ultra settings. Even Watch_Dogs I was doing okay (40 was my target with the highest settings, sometimes I dropped slightly below.) I have not had to drop resolution below 1080p in years.

No, this game is fundamentally broken. It was not ready for release, and they knew it. That is why they delayed it two weeks, that is why they announced two patches before it even was playable, and that is why they extended the review embargo to twelve hours after the game was launched.

Well your problem is in the first place a GFX 760 is below minimum requirements for this game and the fact you have 2 of them in SLI does not improve that much. If your lucky you get 60% improvement in FPS in SLI..and if the game is CPU dependent you can actually get less than 1 of those cards alone since SLI uses your CPU to work...so you end up in a situation where the CPU was or was close to your bottleneck in the first place and even becomes more so with SLI. You can buy a GFX 760 for $180. 1 GFX 780 will kill 2 760s any day of the week. A 770 probably even would. No trying to put down your computer but I would not expect GFX 760s in SLI to perform any better than they are in your setup. Chances are the game is not even optimized for SLI...

mcketten
11-13-2014, 04:27 AM
Well your problem is in the first place a GFX 760 is below minimum requirements for this game and the fact you have 2 of them in SLI does not improve that much. If your lucky you get 60% improvement in FPS in SLI..and if the game is CPU dependent you can actually get less than 1 of those cards alone since SLI uses your CPU to work...so you end up in a situation where the CPU was or was close to your bottleneck in the first place and even becomes more so with SLI. You can buy a GFX 760 for $180. 1 GFX 780 will kill 2 760s any day of the week. A 770 probably even would. No trying to put down your computer but I would not expect GFX 760s in SLI to perform any better than they are in your setup. Chances are the game is not even optimized for SLI...

No, that is not my problem. There is no earthly way this game should require those levels of GPU power unless they deliberately ignored any form of optimization.

I'm sorry, but the reaction to their minimum requirements is not some one-off thing. There is a reason people are gobsmacked by those requirements: the game does not remotely deliver an experience visually that warrants such requirements.

Why? Because there was no optimization - it is very clear. They did nothing to make the game function better.

You conveniently ignored how any other game runs fine. Why would that be? Because this game is so amazingly next-gen that it requires such high settings? Sorry, no. Even those people running amazing rigs are having issues, and when they get full graphics out of it, there is NOTHING to make the viewer go, "Wow, I can see why it requires 2x 4gb 980s to get these settings."

dbgager
11-13-2014, 04:41 AM
I disagree. Its the best looking game i have ever seen..Like the title of the thread says.."People Exaggerate"...and I"m not talking about myself because I am truly impressed by the visuals in this game. Maybe you should take it off low and adjust everything Ultra for a second and just look at the potential before you make that comment.

mcketten
11-13-2014, 04:48 AM
I disagree. Its the best looking game i have ever seen..Like the title of the thread says.."People Exaggerate"...and I"m not talking about myself because I am truly impressed by the visuals in this game. Maybe you should take it off low and adjust everything Ultra for a second and just look at the potential before you make that comment.

Go look up Star Citizen alpha gameplay and come back and say this is the best game. I run that fine on Very High settings with this rig. The difference? The guys at SC are not a) trying to develop for 3 different platforms and b) know their stuff when it comes to building for a PC. They also scale back when they reach limitations, instead of just going, "Hell, we'll say it is too next-gen for you to run."

dbgager
11-13-2014, 04:54 AM
lol..Yea the guy at UBisoft are a bunch of i diots.. They have only been making AAA tiles since the 1980s. Star CItizen. This is that companies first game...and had to be funded through donations. The guy who is heading that project used to work at ORiGIN on the WIng Commander games.

mcketten
11-13-2014, 05:03 AM
lol..Yea the guy at UBisoft are a bunch of i diots.. They have eonly been making AAA tiles since the 1980s. Star CItizen. This is that companies first game...and had to be funded through donations.

Your ignorance is creeping through.

Hell, some of the guys at CIG came from Ubisoft Montreal. But almost everyone at CIG has had several decades of experience in making AAA games. Ranging from former producers at EA and Blizzard, to Chris Roberts himself who made all of the Wing Commander games, Freelancer, Starlancer, Strike Commander, etc.

The fact of the matter is your first part is somewhat accurate - AAA title does not mean AAA quality. Ubisoft has had a very pronounced history of making horrible ports. Watch_Dogs, AC4, AC3, Far Cry series (funny part about that, CIG uses the same engine and gets far better performance out of it...weird.)

However, think as you want. The fact of the matter is, this game is stressing your rig far more than it should - and far more than warranted with the fidelity and level of detail presented.

I guarantee there are serious optimization issues - and if they bother to try to fix them, you will see massive increases in FPS for just about everyone.

You remember how I said I can run it with full graphics at 1366x768? And that if I increase the resolution, the FPS tanks yet my GPU and CPU usage doesn't increase? That is indicative of lack of optimization. The usage of both should proportionally increase with decreased performance, not stay relatively static.

doughy12
11-13-2014, 05:06 AM
Go look up Star Citizen alpha gameplay and come back and say this is the best game.
He said it was the best LOOKING game he has ever seen.

Learn to read.

mcketten
11-13-2014, 05:08 AM
HE said it was the best LOOKING GAME he has ever seen.

Learn to read.

Son, learn to understand context.

Now, let the adults talk.

IDreaml
11-13-2014, 05:12 AM
Sure they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkzIGSyjLQ


The irony here is I wish those were the gliches I'm experiencing. I'm getitng the entire scene popping in and out of the game.

MrFisse
11-13-2014, 05:13 AM
I disagree. Its the best looking game i have ever seen..Like the title of the thread says.."People Exaggerate"...and I"m not talking about myself because I am truly impressed by the visuals in this game. Maybe you should take it off low and adjust everything Ultra for a second and just look at the potential before you make that comment.

But that is pretty much the issue at hand. We can only look at the max settings. Not play on them. The game looks good maxed out, when you are not moving, as soon as you do the texture and model pop ins are there ruining everything. And the texture detail even a few meters away are really poor in many areas. The LOD scaling in this game is beyond bad. It is a shame really especially when the game hogs 3,5 gb at max texture setting (without aa).