PDA

View Full Version : When the 4th patch for performance?



LambertoKevlar
12-01-2014, 12:48 PM
Five days and no news about the 4th performance patch on the blog....when it will arrive?

tomo92s
12-01-2014, 02:14 PM
Just there is a new patch a few days ago. Next will be probably in a month

danno77
12-01-2014, 04:25 PM
with Watch_Dogs it took them 6 months to release 'performance patch', so I guess next patch for ACU will come out in May 2015 :D

Anykeyer
12-01-2014, 05:17 PM
You really think they will noticably improve performance in this game? It was in development for years and you want miracles in 5 days. If you cant run it now - buy new hardware. Cant - forget about Unity.

Draegoth.
12-01-2014, 05:32 PM
You really think they will noticably improve performance in this game? It was in development for years and you want miracles in 5 days. If you cant run it now - buy new hardware. Cant - forget about Unity.

They better noticably improve performance, my rig can run any game on high/max settings and this heap of garbage can barely run on lowest settings, they better improve it or give me my money back.

topeira1980
12-01-2014, 05:48 PM
You really think they will noticably improve performance in this game? It was in development for years and you want miracles in 5 days. If you cant run it now - buy new hardware. Cant - forget about Unity.

performance optimization takes place in the final stages of the game development so i bet just a few months before release.
i truly hope that seeing how much the performance is criticized in ACU they will manage to find the culprit and fix it much much sooner. i really wish to play this game smoothly but the entire northern part of paris is running at mid 20s fps for me, which is about 10 frames less than the southern part. this is not a hardware issue. it's not like in the southern part the game is uglier.

Ideal_Logic
12-01-2014, 07:15 PM
Guys, guys. Just turn Anti-Aliasing way down. The games AA kills it. That should at least let y'all play the game and enjoy it for the time being.

topeira1980
12-01-2014, 07:55 PM
Guys, guys. Just turn Anti-Aliasing way down. The games AA kills it. That should at least let y'all play the game and enjoy it for the time being.

oh, right!! turn graphical settings down to gain FPS. why none of us thought of THAT?!



yeah, you get the sarcasm :-P

Draegoth.
12-01-2014, 09:02 PM
Guys, guys. Just turn Anti-Aliasing way down. The games AA kills it. That should at least let y'all play the game and enjoy it for the time being.

Everything turned down and off, still no stable framerate and never above 30, other games no problems on max graphics, its not my pc for sure.

Anykeyer
12-01-2014, 09:25 PM
They better noticably improve performance, my rig can run any game on high/max settings and this heap of garbage can barely run on lowest settings, they better improve it or give me my money back.

Most games sure look like heaps of garbage next to Unity on max.
My advice remains the same. Upgrade or forget about it. Dont expect miracles.

Draegoth.
12-01-2014, 10:54 PM
Most games sure look like heaps of garbage next to Unity on max.
My advice remains the same. Upgrade or forget about it. Dont expect miracles.

Thats nonsense, I've played games that looked much better then Unity does, the difference is that their devs cared and optimized their games, funny how games like Dragon Age Inquisition and Crysis 3, or Far Cry 4 run on max settings without a problem and Unity barely runs at all, next time you say something that dumb, please fact check it.

AmazingBeej
12-01-2014, 11:09 PM
Thats nonsense, I've played games that looked much better then Unity does, the difference is that their devs cared and optimized their games, funny how games like Dragon Age Inquisition and Crysis 3, or Far Cry 4 run on max settings without a problem and Unity barely runs at all, next time you say something that dumb, please fact check it.


Would you care to share your pc specs

I have an i5 3570 and gtx 970

I can run the game maxed out 35 40 fps really smooth no stutter, on my old gcard which was a 660ti i ran it on medium and got 30 to 35 fps smooth with only slight stutter, alot of people blame the game sometimes when its really to do with there rig. I'm not saying thats the problem but I would like to know your specs are thanks.

Also they have released 3 patches already and said they are working on a performance patch in the previous patch notes if you didn't notice.

TymrieL
12-01-2014, 11:52 PM
Would you care to share your pc specs

I have an i5 3570 and gtx 970

I can run the game maxed out 35 40 fps really smooth no stutter, on my old gcard which was a 660ti i ran it on medium and got 30 to 35 fps smooth with only slight stutter, alot of people blame the game sometimes when its really to do with there rig. I'm not saying thats the problem but I would like to know your specs are thanks

Also they have released 3 patches already and said they are working on a performance patch in the previous patch notes if you didn't notice.

Ow man i would kill for such fps as you are having, no matter the graphical settings i get 20 - 28 fps "running" unity on corei7 3820 @ 3.6 ghz oc'd to 3.9, 16 gb ddr3 n r9 290x DCII 4 gb that should earn me stable 60 fps at at least high or very high (don't need that ultra just need the 60 fps stable), since i am not a patch believer am waiting for a gtx 980ti or a new titan or whatever nvidia is cooking up in their kitchens, if it gets me 60 fps i will throw my money at nvidia.

InViz0
12-02-2014, 01:41 AM
35 FPS with a 980GTX Ultra All, No AA, no cpu/ram/ssd bottlenecks 2560x1440.

If you play with more FPS than this its because of your resolution or because the game has texture downgraded you for not having 4GB VRAM.

I had to buy a 2nd 980GTX for Farcry 4, DA: Inquisition, and Unity. None of these newer titles support 1440P 60FPS even with the best hardware; unless you spend $2000 on a GTX Titan Z card, I will let you guys know the results later today.

Luquatic
12-02-2014, 02:02 AM
35 FPS with a 980GTX Ultra All, No AA, no cpu/ram/ssd bottlenecks 2560x1440.

If you play with more FPS than this its because of your resolution or because the game has texture downgraded you for not having 4GB VRAM.

I had to buy a 2nd 980GTX for Farcry 4, DA: Inquisition, and Unity. None of these newer titles support 1440P 60FPS even with the best hardware; unless you spend $2000 on a GTX Titan Z card, I will let you guys know the results later today.

How does the GTX 980 perform on 1920x1080?
I'm thinking of getting one

Luquatic
12-02-2014, 02:04 AM
Upgrade or forget about it. Dont expect miracles.

I have GTX 670 SLI and the game stutters every 3 seconds, tried every available option without result.
Not every performance problem in the game lies with the hardware.

PunishedRated
12-02-2014, 02:07 AM
You really think they will noticably improve performance in this game? It was in development for years and you want miracles in 5 days. If you cant run it now - buy new hardware. Cant - forget about Unity.

Nothing to do with hardware, even two GTX 980's in SLI can't achieve a consistent 60 FPS. Also, what are console users suppose to do, upgrade their PS4 and Xbox One's?

shickapowow
12-02-2014, 02:15 AM
You guys should try "Adaptive V-Sync" and "Triple Buffering". And maybe have the GPU's power management set to "Prefer Max Performance" when playing certain games. All of this can be done via NVIDIA's control panel.

InViz0
12-02-2014, 03:05 AM
Nothing to do with hardware, even two GTX 980's in SLI can't achieve a consistent 60 FPS. Also, what are console users suppose to do, upgrade their PS4 and Xbox One's?

I JUST POPPED MY 2ND 980GTX IN

60 FPS 80% usage.

So you need 4000 CUDA cores, and 4GB of VRAM to maintain 60FPS at 1440P give or take lol

fashric
12-02-2014, 06:13 AM
You guys should try "Adaptive V-Sync" and "Triple Buffering". And maybe have the GPU's power management set to "Prefer Max Performance" when playing certain games. All of this can be done via NVIDIA's control panel.

The triple buffering option in the Nvidia control panel won't do anything as its only for OpenGL apps and does nothing in DirectX, it tells you this in the description.

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 07:09 AM
Thats nonsense, I've played games that looked much better then Unity does

Cool story


I have GTX 670 SLI and the game stutters every 3 seconds, tried every available option without result.
Not every performance problem in the game lies with the hardware.


No. It is hardware. In this case VRAM ammount. Disable aero, SLI, set texture filtering to high performance, set textures on low in game.
What would you like Ubi to do to 'optimise" Unity? Cut content? Repack all textures and make them all look like **** so they would fit in 2GB VRAM? Thats not gonna happen.


Nothing to do with hardware, even two GTX 980's in SLI can't achieve a consistent 60 FPS. Also, what are console users suppose to do, upgrade their PS4 and Xbox One's?

Who said you are entitled for conistent 60 fps (w/o even specifying resolution or AA level)? I have average 50 with occasional drops to 40 on max. The same as AC4 btw. But if you compare 2 game's visuals there's day and night difference,
Console users made a mistake when they purchased a console. Simple as that.

wootwoots
12-02-2014, 08:43 AM
No. It is hardware. In this case VRAM ammount. Disable aero, SLI, set texture filtering to high performance, set textures on low in game.
What would you like Ubi to do to 'optimise" Unity? Cut content? Repack all textures and make them all look like **** so they would fit in 2GB VRAM? Thats not gonna happen.


Oh yeah ? In that case smart guy, why can i run ACU with a signe GTX 670, without stutter, and with textures on high without issue ( except in somes interior )... ( with 30-50fps )

And why sometime it would run fine, and why the game with bug suddently ( after somes loading / cutscenes ) and i would have a huge framerate drop ( will go to like 25fps, when at the same play i should have 34-35fps ) and have "camera stutter"

Its clearly crap engine optimization fault xD ( Even worse if that engine have issue with SLI... in 2014 such issues ? seriously ? )

( and with the nividia setting as default, so, no texture filtering on high perf or anything else. )

BlackLord049
12-02-2014, 09:47 AM
It seems that sometimes the VRAM is not cleared correctly and then you could notice that the game is stuttering every 3 or 4 seconds. I don't know if it's affecting only single or SLI GPU but I have this issue with a SLI of 970 GTX and Vsync enabled. I think reboot is the best solution in this case because if you stop and launch the game again the issue quickly reappears.

topeira1980
12-02-2014, 10:29 AM
the center and north parts of paris runs at 20-30 fps on my R9 280 3gb vram. it's horrible.

now you might say - that's not the engine's fault. your hardware isnt enough to run the game smoothly.

but all the southern part of paris runs smoothly beyond 30 fps constantly.

explain that!

the game doesnt look UGLIER in that part. it doesnt have less NPCs. it doesnt have less interiors.

it's a faulty engine. it's crap optimization.


all those ppl who say "i get constant 50fps with my SLI 980 may not be aware that every single game besides unity probably runs at beyong 70fps on their machine. every WELL OPTIMIZED game runs better. much better. at least 30% better. sure, 40 fps is perfectly fine to run a game so they feel like it's well optimized, but a well optimized game can look as pretty but run better.
there is a bottleneck where the engine transfers data and orders from the CPU to the GPU in unity. UBISOFT said so themselves. this is what they are working on with patch 4.
i assume that when patch 4 comes out there will be a certain increase in performance but the game won't look any different. maybe such a patch will make ppl shut up about saying the game is fine.

on a 980 you SHOULDNT GET 50 FPS. you should get 80!

on a 670 you shouldnt get 20. you should get 30, at least. my R9 280 can run shadow of mordor or Far Cry 4 on over 60 fps on 1680X1050 on max graphical settings. it can also run ACU on almost maximum settings (only shadows on low, FXAA and environment detail on high) on 30 fps steady on the south of paris, yet north of paris on 20-25 fps on 900p with everything on medium.
same game. not the same performance.

if this is not crappy optimization i just dont know what is.

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 10:47 AM
Oh yeah ? In that case smart guy, why can i run ACU with a signe GTX 670, without stutter, and with textures on high without issue ( except in somes interior )... ( with 30-50fps )

And why sometime it would run fine, and why the game with bug suddently ( after somes loading / cutscenes ) and i would have a huge framerate drop ( will go to like 25fps, when at the same play i should have 34-35fps ) and have "camera stutter"

Its clearly crap engine optimization fault xD ( Even worse if that engine have issue with SLI... in 2014 such issues ? seriously ? )

( and with the nividia setting as default, so, no texture filtering on high perf or anything else. )

Obvious VRAM ammount issues. SLI has some additional requirements and when it stutters its usually at least twice as bad bc you still have the same PCIe bus and RAM speed, but have to swap twice the ammount of textures. Engine itself has nothing to do with this. All texture allocation between RAM and VRAM is handled by GPU driver alone. And games arent even supposed to be aware of SLI, it should work transparently. Thats why DRIVER updates add support/profiles for SLI in new games.
Educate youself before posting BS out of frustration. I do understand why you are frustrated. But what you post is nonsense.



on a 980 you SHOULDNT GET 50 FPS. you should get 80!
LOL. In a game thats so detailed and uses prebaked GI everywhere having 50 fps on a single card is awesome.

Slayer305
12-02-2014, 01:37 PM
Obvious VRAM ammount issues. SLI has some additional requirements and when it stutters its usually at least twice as bad bc you still have the same PCIe bus and RAM speed, but have to swap twice the ammount of textures. Engine itself has nothing to do with this. All texture allocation between RAM and VRAM is handled by GPU driver alone. And games arent even supposed to be aware of SLI, it should work transparently. Thats why DRIVER updates add support/profiles for SLI in new games.
Educate youself before posting BS out of frustration. I do understand why you are frustrated. But what you post is nonsense.


LOL. In a game thats so detailed and uses prebaked GI everywhere having 50 fps on a single card is awesome.

SLI should ideally work transparently but this isn't the case in practice. There are countless examples of games exhibiting rendering errors, crashes, terrible scaling and other issues and a patch from the developer was needed to make it work properly with multi-gpu. There was nothing that could be done driver-side. Far Cry 4's pitch black shadows problem with SLI is a nice example and ubi said it'll be fixed in the next patch.

ACU is stuttering every 3 sec. for me with SLI enabled even when I set it to all Low and 1280x720 to eliminate the possibility of vram limitations. Stuttering goes away if I set it to single-gpu mode even @ 1080p and max settings (w/o AA).

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 02:24 PM
Valid points. Thats why I said "should" in my own post. Some rendering techniques dont go well with multi GPU. Sometimes this is too a driver or technical limitation (like Rage being basically incompatible with SLI bc it uses CUDA to transcode textures). Does not mean the engine is garbage. And often those things are hard to change at this stage of development. Here we return to my original message: dont expect miracles.

Shrikeh12
12-02-2014, 02:38 PM
SLI should ideally work transparently but this isn't the case in practice. There are countless examples of games exhibiting rendering errors, crashes, terrible scaling and other issues and a patch from the developer was needed to make it work properly with multi-gpu. There was nothing that could be done driver-side. Far Cry 4's pitch black shadows problem with SLI is a nice example and ubi said it'll be fixed in the next patch.

ACU is stuttering every 3 sec. for me with SLI enabled even when I set it to all Low and 1280x720 to eliminate the possibility of vram limitations. Stuttering goes away if I set it to single-gpu mode even @ 1080p and max settings (w/o AA).

That's strange. I run SLI too (780's) and have no stutter with it enabled.
I am running driver 344.75

deep.neogy
12-02-2014, 03:42 PM
I don't think PATCH 4 will ever come out because UBISOFT has not declared anything about their next PATCH 4.You can check the latest plans for updating or improving Assassin Creed Unity on their official website
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-GB/community/liveupdates/index.aspx

CHosIN1
12-02-2014, 03:53 PM
I wouldnt expect major gains. i would expect stability more than anything. key word optimization just saying.

topeira1980
12-02-2014, 04:05 PM
LOL. In a game thats so detailed and uses prebaked GI everywhere having 50 fps on a single card is awesome.

im pretty sure ACU is not the only game using pre baked GI. GI isnt that new of a concept. NONE pre-baked GI is something i havent seen so far, though, but this isnt the case.

and AGAIN - the game runs perfectly fine for me on certain parts of the map while it runs like cr@p on other pars of the map.
if you have a high end card and the game runs fine for you (say above 50fps or so) than endulge me and make a test. see how many FPS you are getting in different places in paris. check south east of the map, south west, middle (island with notre dame), cafe theatre and a couple of parts in north paris. let me know, even in a PM if you want, if there is a difference in performance.

the same things that seem to give me a miserable 20 fps in northern paris doesnt seem to effects my FPS at all at southern paris. how come the same graphics that cause poor performance can sometimes matter and sometimes not? the game looks the same everywhere with the same amount of detail.

im pretty sure there is a certain way to find whats holding the game back in certain areas and mitigate the issues in these areas just like this is a none issue in OTHER parts of the game world. and no - it's not the crowds. the crowd DOES take a toll, but it isnt the biggest effect. i can be in a crowded area in south paris and the game runs just fine. the 200 ppl crowd might decrease 5 frames out of my 35 - 40 fps in south paris but it's still really smooth, but even with no more than 50 npcs around me (not just in front of me) in north paris i get around 20.

Mr_Shade
12-02-2014, 04:12 PM
As soon as there is any news on performance increases, we will post both here and on the Live Update site.


Please bear with us in the mean time.

topeira1980
12-02-2014, 04:58 PM
I wouldnt expect major gains. i would expect stability more than anything. key word optimization just saying.

as i said - i get about 20 fps in north paris and DOUBLE that in south paris. i DO expect the patch to make north paris to perform on par with south paris on my rig. i dont think im expecting much.
im not completely optimistic but this is what im expacting such a patch.

Zylkito
12-02-2014, 05:28 PM
10-20fps increase should be achieved. Minimum 10fps everything below.....

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 06:22 PM
im pretty sure ACU is not the only game using pre baked GI.

Ofc. And prebaking is optimisation. wo it we would get 1 frame per 50 seconds, not the other way around
But you missed my point. ACU has incredible level of details and lighting complexity. In some scenes it achived the level previously seen only in prerendered CGIs and tech demos .On top of this its open world, there are no fake animated backgrounds. Its incredible it runs so well already. Yes, it doesnt scale down well, yes it requires a lot of VRAM, yes it got distance LOD issues and some other areas for improvements and tweaking, its not flawless.
You know whats funny? I didnt even know what my fps was untill yesterday. I left afterburner running by accident. You think I will go running around Paris with frame counter? No. I already finished almost everything in this game while it was version 1.2 and it always felt smooth. Thats what matters. I dont play with frame counters, they break immersion. And I keep my PC powerfull enough so I dont have to worry about stuff like this.

Zylkito
12-02-2014, 06:40 PM
Ofc. And prebaking is optimisation. wo it we would get 1 frame per 50 seconds, not the other way around
But you missed my point. ACU has incredible level of details and lighting complexity. In some scenes it achived the level previously seen only in prerendered CGIs and tech demos .On top of this its open world, there are no fake animated backgrounds. Its incredible it runs so well already. Yes, it doesnt scale down well, yes it requires a lot of VRAM, yes it got distance LOD issues and some other areas for improvements and tweaking, its not flawless.
You know whats funny? I didnt even know what my fps was untill yesterday. I left afterburner running by accident. You think I will go running around Paris with frame counter? No. I already finished almost everything in this game while it was version 1.2 and it always felt smooth. Thats what matters. I dont play with frame counters, they break immersion. And I keep my PC powerfull enough so I dont have to worry about stuff like this.

You know. Everything can look smooth if you make the animations slow and cinematic smooth. Sure playing it with 25 fps you feel smooth because it was made to be smooth.

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 06:43 PM
Thats stupid statement, I hope you understand why. If not I'll help you.
I didnt watch Unity. I played it.

Zylkito
12-02-2014, 07:04 PM
Thats stupid statement, I hope you understand why. If not I'll help you.
I didnt watch Unity. I played it.

I tried it too. The game doesn't feel like it has low fps. Compared to the older Assassins Creed it feels slower.

topeira1980
12-02-2014, 08:08 PM
Ofc. And prebaking is optimisation. wo it we would get 1 frame per 50 seconds, not the other way around
But you missed my point. ACU has incredible level of details and lighting complexity. In some scenes it achived the level previously seen only in prerendered CGIs and tech demos .On top of this its open world, there are no fake animated backgrounds. Its incredible it runs so well already. Yes, it doesnt scale down well, yes it requires a lot of VRAM, yes it got distance LOD issues and some other areas for improvements and tweaking, its not flawless.
You know whats funny? I didnt even know what my fps was untill yesterday. I left afterburner running by accident. You think I will go running around Paris with frame counter? No. I already finished almost everything in this game while it was version 1.2 and it always felt smooth. Thats what matters. I dont play with frame counters, they break immersion. And I keep my PC powerfull enough so I dont have to worry about stuff like this.

you are right. ACU is indeed one of the most beautiful games out there thanks to the lighting and wonderful details, but you missed MY point as well . both of them, it seems.

1) the game runs really smooth in certain parts of paris, yet really REALLY horrible in others. the lighting and details is the same in all locations but performance isnt.
explain that with a different explanation other than poor optimization in certain areas.

also i think dynamic GI will be in the division. and i think its also a part of the Unreal 4 games. not all. i think in batman it will be but batman is taking place during the night so it's not as prevalent. but doesnt matter. GI or not. my points about different performance in different locations remain.

2) i dont play with a counter either for the same reason as you, but my point wasnt that whatever fps you're getting isnt good enough. if the game runs well on your end than there is absolutely no reason for you to see what's your fps.
BUT i asked you to check for a different reason than make yourself feel good or bad about the game or your hardware. its to see if the game runs better in certain locations than others. to test, for ME, if even where the game works smoothly, it also performs better in certain districts than others, and if the poor performance districts are the same for everyone.

Anykeyer
12-02-2014, 08:24 PM
Well. Different districts have different art. I didnt really notice big difference in performance but the most taxing thing in this game is complex buildings, not crowds (they are fairly easy to draw actually). And ofc nothern/richer part has more of them.
True GI isnt possible in real time at this moment. Only some "1 crude bounce" fakes. Actually AC4 had a fake dynamic GI.

HomieeJo
12-03-2014, 12:24 PM
So if this game is not bad optimized you can surely explain me why the game is running on low with 720p and no AA the same when its on ultra with 1080p and FXAA? No you cant? Ok I tell you the game IS bad optimized because there are still problems with some GPU and CPUs working together. Example is the R9 280x and the i5-4670 or other i5 CPUs on the GTX 660 its the same. The GPU and CPU is never over 70% and the VRAM is a little higher than 2GB on High. So there is no way that the game is running fine and even Ubisoft said that there are problems and if you dont get it I really cant help you...

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 02:05 PM
You help me? Seriously? You dont even have your own educated opinion, spreading nonsense said by others.
If changing settings dont affect fps it simply means they change something that isnt bottlenecking fps. On many low end PCs its VRAM and geometry setup speed. Game uses 2GB even on its lowest settings and geometry complexity hardly even changes between low and ultra. And for the record 660 is below minimum specs. It doesnt even count as real 2GB card bc the last 512MB of its memory run on 1/3 of full speed.

Zylkito
12-03-2014, 02:12 PM
You help me? Seriously? You dont even have your own educated opinion, spreading nonsense said by others.
If changing settings dont affect fps it simply means they change something that isnt bottlenecking fps. On many low end PCs its VRAM and geometry setup speed. Game uses 2GB even on its lowest settings and geometry complexity hardly even changes between low and ultra. And for the record 660 is below minimum specs. It doesnt even count as real 2GB card bc the last 512MB of its memory run on 1/3 of full speed.

What a ********. You cleary have no idea. I tested the game low, medium, high, very high, Up to high it never filled the 2gb vram. Changing Settings from High to low is giving how much more fps 1-5 thats ridicolus for what the game looks on low.

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 02:17 PM
AMD and Nvidia GPUs use VRAM differently (usually usage is higher on nvidia cards) and behave differently when they dont have enough free VRAM. But you missed another part about geometry setup speed. Since GTX 400 Nvidia cards are much faster here, AMD even had to cheat in tesselation banchmarks so their cards wont look too bad.

topeira1980
12-03-2014, 05:10 PM
@AC_mako - So are you saying that this issue that so many AMD gamers get lower FPS is because of how AMD is using V-ram?
if this is the case does that mean that an AMD driver can fix this or should UBI fix this?

also, if V-ram is the issue than how come changing texture resolution doesnt help? afaik vram is what you need in order to run higher texture resolutions.
i can run the game (again, on my r9 280 3gb vram) on low textures and on ultra textures with the same fps and no hiccups or freezes that i can notice.
i didnt even think changing texture resolution should matter at all to fps. only some low textures pop ups and delayed LOD changes and such....

and if it's interiors that are causing lower FPS than why do you think the game crawls on my end when im not in an interior? the enterior might be near me (i dunno if it is. im following your logic) but i cant see it in view, not to mention that im not INSIDE it.
also i can play SP in a COOP location and as long as im in SP the game runs fine, but if i load the COOP mission and i am in the same location on the map than the frame rate drops about 30%.

p.s. - i read here on quit a few ppl who have similar GPUs yet different performance. i find it hard to believe that its all about computer maintenance and drivers. most likely two different ppl with the same 670 or r9 290 or what not (that's what i remember) have the latest drivers (since that's what everyone does if performance is poor) yet vastly different experience, fps wise.

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 05:44 PM
No. I dont know for sure what the heck is goin on with AMD and AnvilNext. It can be everything from driver issues to some hardware bottlenecks they dont tell us. I believe it can be caused by geometry processing speed. AMD often loses to nvidia in those tests, at extreme settings the difference can be huge (up to 4 times http://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/gm204/ts5_pn.png). That would also explain why there isnt much difference in performance on min and max settings on some cards, settings dont have any major impact on polycount. But thats just my assumption, I dont have AMD hardware at this time to test. At any rate I believe AMD is directly responsible for ignoring the problem for so long (since AC3).
On nvidia cards that meet min specs low VRAM and VRAM<>RAM swapping is the main problem. Nvidia cards often use more VRAM than AMD in the same game, Unity occupies 2GB on low and 4GB on ultra (1080p). SLI makes stuttering in low VRAM cases worse (this is the problem with SLI itself). Running windows 8 also makes it worse bc its desktop window manager uses much more VRAM than windows 7 aero and cant bec turned off as easily.
None of those things can be easily addressed in a patch as it would require updating most assets (textures/models).

HomieeJo
12-03-2014, 05:48 PM
Do you even know what you are talking about my problem is a bug Ubisoft said it is a bug and you cant say it is not just because you think so.
Others can play the game with a HD 7970 on high with 30FPS+ and I cant play it with my R9 280x (which is 5% more powerful with 1GB more VRAM) you serious?
It is a bug and whatever you say or try to say is not helping at all because you clearly have no idea about whats going on and you should let the developers do that.

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 05:56 PM
Do you realise its not even possible? This game doesnt differentiate between 7970 and 280x, it uses the same renderpath for the both cards.

HomieeJo
12-03-2014, 06:08 PM
So when its not possible why does it happen to me?
My PC:

XFX R9 280x Dual Fan Black Edition
i5-4670k stock tested it out with 4.2GHz no change at all
16GB DDR3 1600MHz
MSI Z87-G43 Gaming

So now tell me which of my system is not meeting the minimum requirements?
Oh wait it DOES meet the minimum requirements I forgot sorry...

AherasSTRG
12-03-2014, 06:17 PM
I don't know what you guys are talking about, but I can confirm that with my GTX 760 OC Edition, changing the settings from Low to Very High (restarting in-between ofc) only gave me 5-7 less FPS. The game was constantly running between 30 and 40 FPS no matter the settings. PCSS and TXAA however (Ultra High settings) did impact the framerate taking it down to 20s.

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 06:23 PM
So you met min specs with that AMD card which performs twice as bad than its nvidia counterpart in all AN games since AC3. Thats 2 years and 3 big games, ok? And you want this to be fixed in a patch? I got it right? Did you try to contact AMD about the matter?
Also I would like to see a video made by that magic 7970 owner you mentioned, with 30+ fps everywhere in this game.

whatever you say or try to say is not helping at all
What I try to say I said clearly already. Forget about this game if you cant run it and dont want to upgrade. You'll find its the most helpfull advice soon enough...

Mr_Shade
12-03-2014, 06:24 PM
Guys, lets stop the infighting please..

LambertoKevlar
12-03-2014, 06:37 PM
almost a week and no news about the fourth patch

HomieeJo
12-03-2014, 06:46 PM
I am not fighting I just want him to show that its NOT a problem with my system.
So here is just an example with an HD7970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOt7-r3XcjA
He is playing nearly Ultra and is getting 10FPS more than me with Low graphics. This is just an example I can give you more footage if you want to.
And btw I can play every other game on ultra too even Far cry 4 and if it says minimum requirements shouldnt it be playable at like 30 FPS or more on low?
Right now I have drops into 11 FPS and there are lots of other players experiencing the same and I would upgrade my video card but not if it meets the minimum requirements.
I dont even say I wanna play it on ultra no I just say I wanna play it with acceptable fps.

Anykeyer
12-03-2014, 07:00 PM
You made an assumption game runs the same in Paris and Versailes village. But in fact Paris is a lot heavier.

HomieeJo
12-03-2014, 07:04 PM
So here is another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDavmp2m9DY

Anykeyer
12-04-2014, 01:47 PM
This last video is kinda odd. Game runs too good for that system, he's obviously advertising games in description (and gets money from sales). and in another video his GPU runs at 60 degrees (way too low).

jeffies04
12-04-2014, 02:11 PM
This last video is kinda odd. Game runs too good for that system, he's obviously advertising games in description (and gets money from sales). and in another video his GPU runs at 60 degrees (way too low).

Yeah... there's no way. That's clearly a sales pitch.

HomieeJo
12-04-2014, 04:45 PM
Okay I give up dont wanna spend my time searching videos for you. But I really hope you are not a software developer because I would never live safe with you programming anything with your thinking. If they say it should run on my R9 280x it should run on my r9 280x if not its their mistake and they HAVE to fix it. You cant say in different business than gaming that it should run with it and it doesnt run with it and then say buy another hardware like you trying to do. But IF you really do this and if Ubisoft is trying to do this it was the last game I ordered from them in my life.

Strajder69
12-04-2014, 05:26 PM
Well I also have some performance issue regarding fps. My pc spec are ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX/R2.0, FX 8350 OC 4,5Ghz, Geforce 970GTX OC (gpu core 1500Mhz and memory to 8000Mhz), 8GB DDR3 1333Mhz. All settings are maxed except AA set to FXAA and I have 40-60 fps. In crowded areas fps drops to 39-40 fps. Now the strange thing is that even when I set all settings to low there is a very little boost in performance. My pc is more than capable to run this game on max with constant 60 fps not to mention on low settings so it's clear like a crystal that the game is badly optimized and that they need to release a performance patch asuming that they are capable to optimize their game engine in the first place.

topeira1980
12-04-2014, 05:43 PM
the minimum specs on PC is far beyond what the consoles have. even though consoles perform better in games i think AMD cards and certain hardware combination that far exceed the the consoles specs run the game WORSE. there are way too many PC users that have the game run on 20-30 constantly yet consoles seem to run it on 25-30 give or take most of the time.
a PC game needs to run BETTER than the consoles on hardware that surpass it, even if not by much.

my hardware IS the minimum specs and can run every other game on beyond 45-50fps on mostly MAX settings on higher resolution than the games ran on consoles (1680X1050 in my case, though sometimes 1080p) - way way better than the consoles. this proves that proper ports of console games SHOULD outperform the consoles version buy quit a lot.
ACU is different. it runs worse. it doesnt fit the equation of how PC ports should run. this is why the game is considered a horrible port, and even though AC_Mako, you seem to know a lot, i still think you're wrong. the game is heavy but there is no excuse for it to run THIS bad. sure, i dont expect it to run on 70fps like shadow of mordor or Ryse but half of that seems completely reasonable to me.
every game i have runs AT LEAST 15 fps faster than the consoles. my pc CAN run every game 15fps faster than the consoles.... IF the port is good.

but not ACU. ACU's port is a horrible mess. it runs WORSE than the consoles* no matter what settings i use. there is no other game where this is the case, therefor it's NOT my hardware's fault. it's the development's fault.

i dont think there is any reasoning around this fact.


*i dont own nor have i played the console's version of ACU, but i have seen plenty of Youtube videos that prove the game runs much better on consoles than on my computer. also there is no way in hell UBI would release a console game that runs the way ACU runs on my computer, so im sure my statement is true.

** p.p.s - AC_Mako - you said the game doesnt run well on AMD cards and that's partly AMD's fault.... but dont consoles have AMD GPUs inside them?

*** p.p.s - i guessed this before the game came out and now, more than ever, i believe i was right - the reason the minimum specs of ACU are so high is not because the game needs such a beasty hardware but because UBI didnt optimize it well and they figured that if your hardware is strong enough it can push beyond the horrid job UBI did in making the game run. if you build a really really bad road with a lot of bumps and cracks but set the minimum requirements of vehicles to drive on said road to be monster trucks and jeeps than you can almost hide the fact that the road is badly made.

topeira1980
12-04-2014, 05:47 PM
double post. sorry. delete this please.

Anykeyer
12-04-2014, 05:54 PM
Okay I give up dont wanna spend my time searching videos for you. But I really hope you are not a software developer because I would never live safe with you programming anything with your thinking. If they say it should run on my R9 280x it should run on my r9 280x if not its their mistake and they HAVE to fix it.
No, My way of thinking would make this game's box having a big red sticker "AMD isnt supported".
Guess they didnt really test this game on AMD cards. Most likely they put 7970 in min req just bc in most benchmarks it performs about the same as GTX 680. Except their own AN engine isnt "most benchmarks" and they should have known better. Maybe AMD didnt provide testing samples, maybe Ubi Kiev didnt even care, we'll never know the truth.


the minimum specs on PC is far beyond what the consoles have
No. PS4 GPU isnt actually far behind GTX 680 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs
Consoles run unity at 900p.PC min specs are likely for 1080p and game guide on geforce.com seems to confirm this


you said the game doesnt run well on AMD cards and that's partly AMD's fault.... but dont consoles have AMD GPUs inside them?
And game runs at 20-25fps on PS4, 900p with high details, medium textures, only basic SSAO, no PCSS or MSAA.

HomieeJo
12-04-2014, 06:25 PM
No, My way of thinking would make this game's box having a big red sticker "AMD isnt supported".
Guess they didnt really test this game on AMD cards. Most likely they put 7970 in min req just bc in most benchmarks it performs about the same as GTX 680. Except their own AN engine isnt "most benchmarks" and they should have known better. Maybe AMD didnt provide testing samples, maybe Ubi Kiev didnt even care, we'll never know the truth.

You know that the consoles have a HD7800 series in it? So this is an AMD card and it runs better on it than on the HD7970...
On PC you cant run acu with an HD7800 at all even on minimum configuration

So here is another video this time on R9 280x and it still runs better than on my R9 280x the rest of my setup is better than his...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJJTIi-uVcI

Anykeyer
12-04-2014, 06:41 PM
Unity doesnt run that well on consoles either, and it uses fairly low settings/resolution. And dont forget about consoles having different APIs and system software/drivers




So here is another video this time on R9 280x and it still runs better than on my R9 280x the rest of my setup is better than his...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJJTIi-uVcI

Looks more like 15-25fps instead of 22-35. I think you should check your system for unwanted software and run some performance benchmarks and compare them to average scores with the same spec. At least you'll be sure you actually get what you should from your system.
Also try running in offline mode with uplay overlay disabled to see if it helps. He sure does play in offline w/o uplay, after all its pirated version :)

HomieeJo
12-04-2014, 06:53 PM
I already tried everything and ubisoft also replied that they are working on a fix for it because I am not the only one having this issues

Anykeyer
12-04-2014, 07:01 PM
Its always easier to just sit and wait for miracles. But it rarely produces good results. We already had the same story of AMD and AC. Two times in fact.
At least AC 3 and 4 were worth it. ACU barely has anything good in it except its outstanding visuals.

HomieeJo
12-04-2014, 07:08 PM
I cant do anything more than deactivating every program on my pc and everything else. Also there is still the fact that my pc is not at his max GPU and CPU at 60% and Vram 2.2GB at high textures. Also everything I tried gave me maybe 1 FPS nothing more uplay deactivated no internet and everything else did nothing at all. By the way I am really not someone who is sitting and waiting for miracles if so I wouldnt have fixed every problem I had with my PC since now. But to this time I hadnt such problems as low FPS for no reason. But right now I watched some videos and the difference beetween my fps and theirs is that when I look at a wall where buildings like the notre dame are behind I am getting the same FPS when standing in front of the Notre Dame. When they look at the dircetion they get much higher FPS than when standing in front of the Notre Dame. So I have the theory that somehow its rendering everything thats in my look even when I cant see it.

matrex_a1990
12-04-2014, 08:39 PM
Unity doesnt run that well on consoles either, and it uses fairly low settings/resolution. And dont forget about consoles having different APIs and system software/drivers



Looks more like 15-25fps instead of 22-35. I think you should check your system for unwanted software and run some performance benchmarks and compare them to average scores with the same spec. At least you'll be sure you actually get what you should from your system.
Also try running in offline mode with uplay overlay disabled to see if it helps. He sure does play in offline w/o uplay, after all its pirated version :)


AC_Mako you really need to stop talking

first i have the same card r9 280x \ intel core i7 4770k \ 16 gb ram and the game like hell only 25-30 fps at the best and lag like hell

whatever you try to say your not a developer to know how this thing work its just a bla bla bla ...

i'am a developer and know how this think work and it's one word ubisoft release the game early its need more time in development

and if you really smart tell me did the QA didn't see any issue in this game before it release and if so why ubisoft didn't fix it "they need more time to fix it " !!

and if the game not optimized for amd well nvidia user have this issue too

and don't be fool in there system requirement because gtx 770 / 780 "witch they have 4 Gb of Vram" they have 30 fps at best scenario and both card work perfect in all other game "and all amd r9"

at last its company policy and they all change in the past we was able to play any game with the cd file without any issue and never need a patch even if they release one we never care because game work fine and we simply finish it without any issue

look at BF4 its optimized for AMD and work like hell it was also a company issue ....

VoxstelarRUM
12-04-2014, 09:45 PM
and don't be fool in there system requirement because gtx 770 / 780 "witch they have 4 Gb of Vram" they have 30 fps at best scenario and both card work perfect in all other game "and all amd r9"


Standard GTX 770 and 780 doesn't have 4 gb of VRAM, they have 2 gb of vram,... know your facts, beside that, I have a gtx 770 and my game runs perfectly at an average of 40-45 frames at 1080 with env. quality set to ultra, texture quality set to high, shadows high, FXAA, HBAO+ and BLOOM set to ON.

The only thing that makes my game unplayable at this moment is that the game is crashing like hell without error, too many bugs.

matrex_a1990
12-04-2014, 09:53 PM
Standard GTX 770 and 780 doesn't have 4 gb of VRAM, they have 2 gb of vram,... know your facts, beside that, I have a gtx 770 and my game runs perfectly at an average of 40-45 frames at 1080 with env. quality set to ultra, texture quality set to high, shadows high, FXAA, HBAO+ and BLOOM set to ON.

The only thing that makes my game unplayable at this moment is that the game is crashing like hell without error, too many bugs.


OMG really !!!

the fool one gonna buy the 2 gb and gtx 970 get 45 fps hardly !!!

Anykeyer
12-04-2014, 10:49 PM
AC_Mako you really need to stop talking

And you should not have even started



whatever you try to say your not a developer to know how this thing work its just a bla bla bla ...

i'am a developer and know how this think work


Just LOL. First, you dont even know me. Second. you dont work for Ubi.


and if you really smart tell me did the QA didn't see any issue in this game before it release and if so why ubisoft didn't fix it
Ubi Kiev probably didnt perform any extensive testing on AMD cards. Its nvidia title, so they get free testing samples and development/testing help from nvidia. Both Ubi and AMD ignored this problem for 2 years. For whatever reason all recent AC games run like **** on AMD cards, regardless of the patches and driver versions. So clearly they just ignore this.
Game itself was released in a fairly good shape actually. I didnt experience any bugs or crashes, QA obviosly did their job. Only online stuff is broken (every single piece of it), but its kinda a tradition for Ubi, dont remember a single time they had fully functional, bugs free and stable online.


look at BF4 its optimized for AMD
EA has long term partnersheep with AMD, Sherlock.
And you really picked a bad example of a game with flawless launch.

Strajder69
12-04-2014, 11:06 PM
AC_Mako I see that you presented yourself that you know what are you talking about regarding performance so let me ask you do you know why I have "bad" fps when my pc is capable runing this game at constant 60 fps??

Let me quote myself here:


Well I also have some performance issue regarding fps. My pc spec are ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX/R2.0, FX 8350 OC 4,5Ghz, Geforce 970GTX OC (gpu core 1500Mhz and memory to 8000Mhz), 8GB DDR3 1333Mhz. All settings are maxed except AA set to FXAA and I have 40-60 fps. In crowded areas fps drops to 39-40 fps. Now the strange thing is that even when I set all settings to low there is a very little boost in performance. My pc is more than capable to run this game on max with constant 60 fps not to mention on low settings so it's clear like a crystal that the game is badly optimized and that they need to release a performance patch asuming that they are capable to optimize their game engine in the first place.

Fatal-Feit
12-04-2014, 11:55 PM
AC_Mako I see that you presented yourself that you know what are you talking about regarding performance so let me ask you do you know why I have "bad" fps when my pc is capable runing this game at constant 60 fps??

Let me quote myself here:

I'm getting about the exact same performance (same rig). The simple answer is poor optimization.

Have you wondered around the Cafe Theatre yet? The FPS drops from 40-50ish to 29-30ish.

I've given up on trying to get consistent high fps in this game. I'm running on the same settings except with 2k res. At least the game will look more stunning since it performs poorly either way.

schkwiksch
12-05-2014, 12:46 AM
Ok so I just want to drop this here. I just started to play ACU because I waited for the 3rd patch which should improve the performance. I like to have high fps in games (120Hz monitor etc). I knew that it would never be possible to get 120 fps in ACU, so I thought with my PC I should kind of get.. maybe 60 fps?! on some settings between medium and high. The System:

Motherboard: ASUS Rampage IV Formula
CPU: i7-4930K OC on 4 Ghz
GPU: 2 x ASUS R9 290X DCII OC in Crossfire
RAM: 16 GB 2400Mhz
Game Installed on a Samsung EVO SSD

I rather have more fps than more details. I get eyecancer at 30 fps so I tried to get the fps a bit higher and what I experienced is absolutely unbelievable for me. I went ingame on a market where the fps get a bit lower and tested different graphics settings.

On this settings I got about I got about 26-31 fps
environment quality: ultra hight
texture quality: ultra high
shadow quality: high
ambient occlusion: HBAO+
anti aliasing: MSAA-4x
Blooming: on


On this settings I got about I got about 27-34 fps
environment quality: low
texture quality: low
shadow quality: low
ambient occlusion: off
anti aliasing: off
Blooming: off

So can anyone explain this to me? I just can't understand this.. how is this even possible? There's practically NO DIFFERENCE in the fps on both settings. The Only thing that seems to effect the fps a little bit is the anti-aliasing setting. Of course when I leave the market I have mabe 40 - 45 fps, but that counts for both settings.

nevio_m
12-05-2014, 01:32 AM
Adaptive V-Sync makes the game tear like hell. I swear by God the tearing is equal if not even worse than just shutting V-Sync off.

nevio_m
12-05-2014, 01:35 AM
You forgot to mention you must use poor's man AA, FXAA, and no V-Sync to get those results, resulting in a slightly jaggy and teared image. Which would be acceptable on a medium hardware, not on a top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art one. The game is badly optimized, period.

Stealth_Vennom
12-05-2014, 01:43 AM
I've given up, my 4690k (OC 4.3ghz, r9 280 non x, 8gb of 1866 ram can't seem to run this game at low setting's and get 18fps. I'm just going to uninstall it and wait til it's fixed to play in again.

nevio_m
12-05-2014, 01:47 AM
Obvious VRAM ammount issues. SLI has some additional requirements and when it stutters its usually at least twice as bad bc you still have the same PCIe bus and RAM speed, but have to swap twice the ammount of textures. Engine itself has nothing to do with this. All texture allocation between RAM and VRAM is handled by GPU driver alone. And games arent even supposed to be aware of SLI, it should work transparently. Thats why DRIVER updates add support/profiles for SLI in new games.
Educate youself before posting BS out of frustration. I do understand why you are frustrated. But what you post is nonsense.


Interesting. Then explain me why Black Flag had the very same stuttering issues with lower quality textures and less complex graphics, with the very same GPU.
Issues that were easily solved via an external software like D3DOverrider which allowed proper implementation of V-Sync and triple buffering. I bet my buttocks that it would do the same with Unity if the thing was compatible with 64-bit software (unfortunately the software was discontinued years ago, so it hadn't been updated to make a compatible version).
The everloving truth is that the Anvil engine is an unoptimized mess. I'm not saying it should run on every hardware at 60 constant FPS, but the mere concept that even an enthusiast pc hardware can't handle 4X MSAA plus V-Sync without it stuttering like in the middle of an earthquake because of the VRAM amount is beyond ridiculous.

USAdystopia
12-05-2014, 06:16 AM
AC Mako quote:

Ubi Kiev probably didnt perform any extensive testing on AMD cards. Its nvidia title, so they get free testing samples and development/testing help from nvidia. Both Ubi and AMD ignored this problem for 2 years. For whatever reason all recent AC games run like **** on AMD cards, regardless of the patches and driver versions. So clearly they just ignore this.
Game itself was released in a fairly good shape actually. I didnt experience any bugs or crashes, QA obviosly did their job. Only online stuff is broken (every single piece of it), but its kinda a tradition for Ubi, dont remember a single time they had fully functional, bugs free and stable online.


You don't really believe Ubisoft released a game without testing systems that 50% of PC enthusiasts are likely to own...do you! I've been a tester on more games than you have likely owned. So stop with your deliberately stup.. dumb...t statements!

pdc1983
12-05-2014, 06:20 AM
So I think I've gotten this game to run acceptably on my 280x (gigabyte windforce 3 gig). I actually have 2 cards on crossfire but the performance doesn't really suffer when cfx is disabled. The framerate still varies a lot for me but it never seems to dip below 30 like many of you are reporting. Perhaps it would dip if I explored other districts and what not ... not sure on that one (need to explore a bit more). Anyways, I've provided a couple of screenshots below to show my results. I'm running on 1080p. I turned on the ultra preset and then turned off soft shadows (using high), HBAO+ (using SSAO) and AA completely. I'm launching the game with radeonpro and using it to force SMAA (looks much better than FXAA imo) and dynamic Vsync (in game vsync disabled). Just wanted to post my experience in case it helps anyone. Happy gaming!

Screenshot of crowd (min fps):
http://i.imgur.com/iif4g0W.jpg (no cfx)
http://i.imgur.com/QsgqGqe.jpg (cfx)

Screenshot of scenery/nothing (max fps)
http://i.imgur.com/XMEI21t.jpg (no cfx)
http://i.imgur.com/2uqKKyM.jpg (cfx)

My Specs:
i5 4690k @ 4.4
Two 280x gigabyte windforce 3 gig
8 gig DDR3 1600
Win 8.1

EDIT: so the performance does drop in some districts (down to 22 fps in some cases). In any case, I think I'm getting better performance than others with similar setups.

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 09:30 AM
lf that you know what are you talking about regarding performance so let me ask you do you know why I have "bad" fps when my pc is capable runing this game at constant 60 fps??
Let me quote myself here:
My PC is more powerfull and I dont think it should run at constant 60 fps. Do you know any open world games with comparable visuals? How many of them run at 60 fps on your PC?

My pc is more than capable to run this game on max with constant 60 fps not to mention on low settings so it's clear like a crystal that the game is badly optimized
Already explained this. If changing settings doesnt change fps it doesnt automatically mean the game is badly optimised. It means the bottleneck is somewhere settings dont affect.
For many console ports settings are actually an afterthought. Game and its art is designed to run at specific hardware and fixed settings. Then they either add easy to implement exras (higher res, AA) or some ways to simplify rendering. Thats settings. They dont have different art, they just dynamically scale textures (often just by selecting hardware mip offset), swap shaders, etc. They are not guaranteed to make game run better or worse on your system. Because every PC is different and has its own strong and weak points. Game could be limited by something that isnt even changeable.


Interesting. Then explain me why Black Flag had the very same stuttering issues with lower quality textures and less complex graphics, with the very same GPU.
Issues that were easily solved via an external software like D3DOverrider which allowed proper implementation of V-Sync and triple buffering. I bet my buttocks that it would do the same with Unity if the thing was compatible with 64-bit software (unfortunately the software was discontinued years ago, so it hadn't been updated to make a compatible version).

AC4 doesnt stutter on 2GB cards, at least not on 770 I were using at that time. It doesnt even use all memory like ACU does on 2 and 3 GB cards.
Big fps drop due to double buffering is not stuttering btw. They happen for different reasons and look differently. And Unity has proper support for triple buffering.

IMRicko
12-05-2014, 09:38 AM
For anti aliasing, I suggest to enable in game FXAA + RadeonPro FXAA. No hit on performance and looks better than just RadeonPro SMAA

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 09:47 AM
You don't really believe Ubisoft released a game without testing systems that 50% of PC enthusiasts are likely to own...do you! I've been a tester on more games than you have likely owned. So stop with your deliberately stup.. dumb...t statements!

I didnt say they didnt test at all. Learn to read. But if your game has nvidia logo, you get hardware, help and even testing itself (nvidia tests your game and sends bug reports and/or suggestions). Its one of the benefits nvidia gets from this program. They get very early access and have enough time to prepare their drivers.
Then there is AMD, your game isnt in "gaming evolved", you need to spend money on GPUs (and you need a lot if you want to check every possible configuration), you test it by youself and if you get any issues running the game on AMD hardware you'll get no help from them as developer/tester.
So its safe to assume they didnt extensively test on AMD, at least not as much as on nvidia.

LambertoKevlar
12-05-2014, 12:06 PM
9 days and no 4th patch news

strigoi1958
12-05-2014, 12:07 PM
We have had complaints that the game was rushed... do we want them to rush the patch ?

LambertoKevlar
12-05-2014, 12:18 PM
i don't want a rushed patch,i want news about the patch,it's different

strigoi1958
12-05-2014, 12:24 PM
I guess all they could write is "we're still working frantically and testing" but I assume that's what they're doing... besides in my job every day people call me to ask "how far have I got" and "how long will I be" and I always reply "a lot closer to finishing if I didn't have to keep stopping with update reports" :D

Strajder69
12-05-2014, 12:26 PM
My PC is more powerfull and I dont think it should run at constant 60 fps. Do you know any open world games with comparable visuals? How many of them run at 60 fps on your PC?

Already explained this. If changing settings doesnt change fps it doesnt automatically mean the game is badly optimised. It means the bottleneck is somewhere settings dont affect.
For many console ports settings are actually an afterthought. Game and its art is designed to run at specific hardware and fixed settings. Then they either add easy to implement exras (higher res, AA) or some ways to simplify rendering. Thats settings. They dont have different art, they just dynamically scale textures (often just by selecting hardware mip offset), swap shaders, etc. They are not guaranteed to make game run better or worse on your system. Because every PC is different and has its own strong and weak points. Game could be limited by something that isnt even changeable.


Bottleneck?? This is exactly the answer I expected you would give me. Well my friend that one big pile of crap. There is no bottleneck with my pc and if in any chance there is then it would cause minimal to almost none impact on performance and thats because of bad game optimization. Game on low looks like crap which means that much of the options are disabled so the performance boost is inevitable presuming that game is well optimized which is not the case here, not to mention the crappy texture in a distance on ultra like I was playing the ****ing Rage (anybody remember that game).

Visuals of the game is not excuse for bad optimization, visuals are not even that good in a first place to justify insane pc requirements. Witcher 2, Crysis 3, Ryse Son Of Rome have much better visuals for me and they are run like a butter on my pc. Maybe my pc is not top tier high end but it is a high end pc and it is more then enough to run this game on constant 60 fps. You say that you have even more powerful pc and you cannot maintain 60 fps so what that tells you that the game is well optimized or ohh wait I think that you have some bottleneck issue.:p

Frankly I give a **** what you think and what you have to say I am not here to argue with you because I know very well how things work with ubisoft. This game is good, very good and has allot of potential but all that is ruined with bad optimization and whole bunch of bugs and that is a fact. Only a blind man, fanboy or even an ingronant fool cannot see that. What was strange to me is why are you so eager to defend ubisoft and justify their mistakes when they are so obvious and even acknowledged by the same company which you desperately try do defend.

Atwa013
12-05-2014, 12:46 PM
Wow, what a surprise...this topic like any other turned into mesuring virtual di.ks....
Who has better GPU or CPU....
I'm a little bit tired to constantly read about gtx9xx, or AMD2xx or SLI or Crossfire...
There are people who can't spent, like 3 or 4 paycheks on cards or processors...and they don't need to play on ultra, giga, mega settings and 90 or 120 fps...we just want to play the f.....g game....

zYnthethicz
12-05-2014, 12:58 PM
Wow, what a surprise...this topic like any other turned into mesuring virtual di.ks....
Who has better GPU or CPU....
I'm a little bit tired to constantly read about gtx9xx, or AMD2xx or SLI or Crossfire...
There are people who can't spent, like 3 or 4 paycheks on cards or processors...and they don't need to play on ultra, giga, mega settings and 90 or 120 fps...we just want to play the f.....g game....

Stay mad and poor.

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 01:52 PM
Bottleneck?? This is exactly the answer I expected you would give me. Well my friend that one big pile of crap. There is no bottleneck with my pc and if in any chance there is then it would cause minimal to almost none impact on performance and thats because of bad game optimization. Game on low looks like crap which means that much of the options are disabled so the performance boost is inevitable presuming that game is well optimized which is not the case here, not to mention the crappy texture in a distance on ultra like I was playing the ****ing Rage (anybody remember that game).


There is always a bottleneck. Something that limits performance. Do you know any game that always loads all GPU blocks, all CPU cores, all available RAM and VRAM? No?
How game looks has nothing to do with its technical side. Low and ultra have the same polycount and draw calls ammount, among other stuff that doesnt change.


Visuals of the game is not excuse for bad optimization, visuals are not even that good in a first place to justify insane pc requirements. Witcher 2, Crysis 3, Ryse Son Of Rome have much better visuals for me and they are run like a butter on my pc.
This game is NOT badly optimised. Period. Stop throwing words you dont even understand.
More complex visuals = lower fps. Lower fps != bad optimisation.
The fact that you compare Unity with witcher, crysis and ryse shows that you have no idea. Two of them arent even open world games. And all 3 look almost empty, they simply dont have that much stuff on the screen.


you desperately try do defend
Im not defending them. Im trying to beat some sense into a mob that has none.

HomieeJo
12-05-2014, 02:21 PM
I still dont get it Ubisoft said to me they are working on it and saying it is their problem and you still trying to say that it is working perfectly fine?
Thats like going to a bad street with a jeep and saying it is fine when others with normal cars are having problems and the streetbuilder himself says he is trying to fix it.

Strajder69
12-05-2014, 03:39 PM
Wow, what a surprise...this topic like any other turned into mesuring virtual di.ks....
Who has better GPU or CPU....
I'm a little bit tired to constantly read about gtx9xx, or AMD2xx or SLI or Crossfire...
There are people who can't spent, like 3 or 4 paycheks on cards or processors...and they don't need to play on ultra, giga, mega settings and 90 or 120 fps...we just want to play the f.....g game....

Well that is the sole reason of our argue here because no matter how good or bad pc you have, results are almost the same. Game is runing like crap on top end pc so you can get a picture how game runs on mid or low end pc. I can play game with my pc with fairly good 40-60fps on ultra but as I said I have high end pc but you or anybody else on the other hand who have much weaker pc tyou can only cry when you try to run this game even on low setting which brings us back to start that this game is simply badly optimized and that is why you cannot play game as you should.

AC_Mako this will be last thing which I will tell you regarding this matter, when 1000 (number is actually way to higher then 1000) different people with different and almost the same config say that they all have issues and then you step in, one single man saying that those 1000 people are idiots and that they do not know nothing and that you are the only one smart here, ask yourself again who is an idiot here.

"This game is NOT badly optimised". Jesus this is the most ******ed statement for a game performance I've seen since GTA IV (anyone remembers that game).

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 03:45 PM
I still dont get it Ubisoft said to me they are working on it and saying it is their problem and you still trying to say that it is working perfectly fine?
Thats like going to a bad street with a jeep and saying it is fine when others with normal cars are having problems and the streetbuilder himself says he is trying to fix it.

Ubi never said its their problem. If you heard it from support they usually dont have a clue (at least ubi support, idk where they get those guys).
The only official post about performance is this one
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm:152-185420-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32
Basically they say its not their fault but they will do their best. LOL


Well that is the sole reason of our argue here because no matter how good or bad pc you have, results are almost the same.

No, they arent.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_proz.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_1920.jpg


ask yourself again who is an idiot here.
You make things too easy for me by going straight to the point
The idiot here is you. Ignorant and stupid
And remember, you promised that was the last thing you say :cool:

Strajder69
12-05-2014, 04:11 PM
Ubi never said its their problem. If you heard it from support they usually dont have a clue (at least ubi support, idk where they get those guys).
The only official post about performance is this one
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm:152-185420-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32
Basically they say its not their fault but they will do their best. LOL



No, they arent.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_proz.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_1920.jpg


You make things too easy for me by going straight to the point
The idiot here is you. Ignorant and stupid
And remember, you promised that was the last thing you say :cool:

Those images do not prove anything as matter of fact it proves what I said in first place that this game is not nearly good enough to justify those insane pc config which are able to run this game above 60fps but thats not proof that fps will not drop down in heavily intensive scenes. When I turn of vsync I also have over 70fps in some areas and 40 in others.

You can call me whatever you want, I do not give a **** because I know who I am and who you are and all other people here also sees you like I do. :cool:

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 04:17 PM
Oh, so you just lied to me with that promise, ok...here we go again:
NO, your system is NOT capable of running Unity at 60 fps w/o ever dropping below. NO MATTER how hard they try to optimise it.

Fun fact: actually your system isnt able to run any of the latest demanding titles w/o dropping below 60 (I know, mine cant).


You can call me whatever you want, I do not give a **** because I know who I am and who you are and all other people here also sees you like I do.
Ignorant fools like you can be quite firm in their believes

Mr_Shade
12-05-2014, 05:46 PM
I still dont get it Ubisoft said to me they are working on it and saying it is their problem and you still trying to say that it is working perfectly fine?
Thats like going to a bad street with a jeep and saying it is fine when others with normal cars are having problems and the streetbuilder himself says he is trying to fix it.

Some systems are able to run the game great - others not so much - PC's are not cookie cut machines, there are a lot of differences between PCs - even ones with the same hardware, can have different software / performance.

The Patch, is trying to address performance over all - as well as fix some remaining issues - so those the required hardware with low performance should see improvements.

Mr_Shade
12-05-2014, 05:47 PM
Ignorant fools like you can be quite firm in their believes

I suggest you drop the infighting..


If you don't agree, walk away ;)

Afflictio.on
12-05-2014, 06:12 PM
I suggest you drop the infighting..


If you don't agree, walk away ;)

Im wondering, I know my GPU is under minimum req GTX 650 1gb, but wondering why my gpu's temp going 45 temp only and at other games like cod aw is hitting 55-60(high settings(20fps no shutters)


cod aw was just an example, tho has been tested

DarrenPark88
12-05-2014, 06:31 PM
Hey guys,

Just been following this thread along hoping to find something interesting on Patch #4. Be nice to me : p

To note my experience (I'll put my specs below) I'm actually getting pretty good frame rates (57-65) when observing using FRAPS however when I'm playing, the game does like to pause very briefly every few seconds making it feel like my frame rate is low.

I heard that Ubisoft mentioned they had a flaw in the "queuing system" of their engine and was curious if its linked?

Anybody getting similar behaviour?

MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Motherboard.
MSI GTX 970.
Intel i7 4770k (Haswell).
Kingston Fury Red Series 16GB DDR3-1866.
Crucial 512GB SSD.

akshatezio
12-05-2014, 06:41 PM
It's funny that according to some people the stuttering in the game is completely hardware issue as their hardware can't handle it? wow....
I'm also having these low fps issues in ac unity right from the start of the game. I have played so many games that heavily uses the hardware like watchdogs, crysis3, cod advanced warfare, far cry4 and i never had any problem in running them at least 30-35fps average on least high settings, watch dogs used to stutter a lot when it was first released and i wasn't able to play it properly on even medium high settings but now that game has been optimized so nicely that i am playing it at ultra settings at temeporal smaa on average 30fps, fc4 is performing same for me on ultra settings, and all playing on 1920X1080p.
my rig:
AMD FX 8150 (overclocked to 4.2ghz)
ASUS GTX570 DC 2
Corsair XMS3 8GB ram 1666mhz
MSI 990FXA GD65

Though GTX 570 is old now and below minimum specs, i still think that this game should be playable on everything set to low on 1280X720 resolution but now here's the weird part, there's no difference in fps, not even a little bit whether the settings are Ultra on even TXAA on 1080p or on just 640X480p, everything set to low/ off because the gpu usage deosn't goes up more than 60-70%, neither vram bottlenecks or any other thing gets bottleneck, even the ram usage doesn't goes up more than 4.5gb even though it needs at least 6gb ram to run nicely and here i have 8gb, the only difference in fps is when i look directly on ground or sky and at that time i get more than 40 fps average on veryhigh settings and 2xmsaa on 1080p, so i suppose this is wholly an issue in game and not on hardware.

Oh and in case, i forgot to tell that i can even play ac4 black flag on ultra settings (not with soft shadows) and 4xcsaa on 2k resolution using DSR and still get average 25-28fps

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 06:45 PM
Im wondering, I know my GPU is under minimum req GTX 650 1gb, but wondering why my gpu's temp going 45 temp only and at other games like cod aw is hitting 55-60(high settings(20fps no shutters)
Most likely because your GPU spends too much time swapping textures between RAM and VRAM instead of being busy with an actual work.



To note my experience (I'll put my specs below) I'm actually getting pretty good frame rates (57-65) when observing using FRAPS however when I'm playing, the game does like to pause very briefly every few seconds making it feel like my frame rate is low.

I heard that Ubisoft mentioned they had a flaw in the "queuing system" of their engine and was curious if its linked?

Anybody getting similar behaviour?

MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Motherboard.
MSI GTX 970.
Intel i7 4770k (Haswell).
Kingston Fury Red Series 16GB DDR3-1866.
Crucial 512GB SSD.
Thats weird for your system. Do you experience similar pauses in any other games? I would try disabling hyperthreading, just to see if it makes any difference. And if it does try disabling C-states and/or core parking instead.

DarrenPark88
12-05-2014, 06:52 PM
Thats weird for your system. Do you experience similar pauses in any other games? I would try disabling hyperthreading, just to see if it makes any difference. And if it does try disabling C-states and/or core parking instead.

I've not seen it before no and I'll try your suggestions and let you guys know, thanks!

Up until now I've only just assumed it may go away after Patch #4 being performance related. With some saying it may be sometime until we see that I thought I'd jump on here.

Wrath2Zero
12-05-2014, 09:20 PM
The game can't be fixed on the PC, they are issuing too many draw calls for DX11 to handle, even though they said ACU will have "mantle like performance" Pretty sure Ubisoft won't do that deep of a performance optimisation so the game will say broken despite some performance improvements.

Anykeyer
12-05-2014, 09:22 PM
It's funny that according to some people the stuttering in the game is completely hardware issue as their hardware can't handle it? wow....
I'm also having these low fps issues in ac unity right from the start of the game. I have played so many games that heavily uses the hardware like watchdogs, crysis3, cod advanced warfare, far cry4 and i never had any problem in running them at least 30-35fps average on least high settings, watch dogs used to stutter a lot when it was first released and i wasn't able to play it properly on even medium high settings but now that game has been optimized so nicely that i am playing it at ultra settings at temeporal smaa on average 30fps, fc4 is performing same for me on ultra settings, and all playing on 1920X1080p.
my rig:
AMD FX 8150 (overclocked to 4.2ghz)
ASUS GTX570 DC 2
Corsair XMS3 8GB ram 1666mhz
MSI 990FXA GD65

Though GTX 570 is old now and below minimum specs, i still think that this game should be playable on everything set to low on 1280X720 resolution but now here's the weird part, there's no difference in fps, not even a little bit whether the settings are Ultra on even TXAA on 1080p or on just 640X480p, everything set to low/ off because the gpu usage deosn't goes up more than 60-70%, neither vram bottlenecks or any other thing gets bottleneck, even the ram usage doesn't goes up more than 4.5gb even though it needs at least 6gb ram to run nicely and here i have 8gb, the only difference in fps is when i look directly on ground or sky and at that time i get more than 40 fps average on veryhigh settings and 2xmsaa on 1080p, so i suppose this is wholly an issue in game and not on hardware.

Oh and in case, i forgot to tell that i can even play ac4 black flag on ultra settings (not with soft shadows) and 4xcsaa on 2k resolution using DSR and still get average 25-28fps

k, I'll go though this one more time. Even with low textures game uses 2GB VRAM on nvidia cards. If you dont have 2GB driver will spend a lot of time swapping textures between RAM and VRAM, GPU will be starved, its usage will go down (also that performance counter doesnt actually tell the whole story, but its not important right now). In corner cases this leads to stuttering, but yours is obviously an edge case - you should also get a constantly low fps.
Second. This game's settings dont affect geometry complexity. At any level ACU has huge polygon count, way more than most other games (maybe all other games). Most culling techniques dont work well with open world games. I dont know what way Ubi uses but looks like they didnt solve that particular problem and game engine sends most of this geometry to driver (and I mean even all that stuff behind walls. nearly all outdoor games do the same).
On top of this AnvilNext uses deffered lighting rendering. You can read some basics here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_shading
Long story short: this drastically reduces pixel shading overdraw (basically to 0 unless you have transparency on the screen), works with MSAA and physical-based rendering (something that Unity heavily uses). but it needs to process all geometry twice. Thats probably where/why all outdated, low end and AMD cards (as they can be up to 4x slower than nvidia at processing geometry http://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/gm204/ts5_pn.png) fail.

Wrath2Zero
12-05-2014, 09:42 PM
The game doesn't use hardware tessellation and there is no LOD switching to lower detail as you move away. Basically the Hotel doesn't switch to a lower quality model so the frame-rates into the 20s as just by looking at it from a distance, even if you run by it, the frame-drops badly.

RaulO4
12-05-2014, 11:41 PM
this game IS un optimization .

my 970,3770 non k, 16gb of ram can max out the game with no AA, shadows high at 40 to 60 fps /1080

my friends has a 980, 4790k, 16gb of ram same setting runs 30 to 40 fps.

i have now upgraded my cpu to the 4790k and get.... a little bit better performance.

in the end unless my 970 is some super 70 that out performs an 980 or my luck is just that damn good.

i made sure that his pc is clean (since i am the one that build it)

this strange laps of performance with better hardware is strange also people with the same hardware gets even lower fps.

i try lowering my setting but i stay at 40 to 60 so no point.

something is not right within the coding thats holding back many people PC....

now its ubi so i dont even think the patch will help, it may just fix the random freeze or make the game more stable keeping a tighter fps range

nonamename1
12-06-2014, 03:36 AM
It's pushing the limits of directx.

there nothing anyone can do, it's as good as it can get right now.

Only DX12 can help by utilizing more direct access to hardware.

40fps is playable, stop whining.

Ryk_Feral
12-06-2014, 05:32 AM
Most people aren't even getting 40fps.
And it's not just the limits of directx it's pushing.

It's not whining.....it's people pissed off for over a week with no response from ubi about something so important related to this product.

nonamename1
12-06-2014, 06:35 AM
Most people aren't even getting 40fps.
And it's not just the limits of directx it's pushing.

It's not whining.....it's people pissed off for over a week with no response from ubi about something so important related to this product.

most people? how do you know that?

you're not hearing from people that are enjoying the game, you're only hearing the negativity.

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 08:35 AM
This thread is going in loops for a long time.
Thing is Ubi definitelly done a huge job optimising AnvilNext in Unity. If they would just put the same ammount of stuff on AC4 version of the engine everyone would get 2x lower fps.
If you know how to make it much better why dont you apply for a job at Ubi? Im sure you'll be the most valued game engine programmer they ever had.

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 11:20 AM
^^ game optimize,

-disconnect from the internet gain fps, which was ok since online was broken anyways
- lower end hardware getting more fps at the same setting than hardware at a higher level on a clean fresh pc (my pc 970,3770,16gb my friend 980,4790k,16gb)
- cant even run on console, one hardware to optimize and they failed as well
- get the same fps no matter the setting
- plus more
-dear god the amount of npc pops in, objects pop in, texture pop in, glitches , and more are biblical status

flat out there so much coding that needs to be rebuilt and smooth out.
i can 100% say there a lot of wasted bloated coding....and its not there fault. the few (many) times are code will be like that, if they had more time to do pre launch phase this wouldnt have happen, at least on console.
ubi pc team is very small,

Mr_Shade
12-06-2014, 12:06 PM
Im wondering, I know my GPU is under minimum req GTX 650 1gb, but wondering why my gpu's temp going 45 temp only and at other games like cod aw is hitting 55-60(high settings(20fps no shutters)


cod aw was just an example, tho has been testedHi,

Completely different game engine - the CoD one is taylored for online small maps / linear maps- also it's not an open world game with many interiors, unlike Unity.

Different games, can all use different rendering engines, so you can't always compare performance.


CoD performance might be higher than BF4 - which in turn might be lower than Tomb Raider for example.


Not shifting the blame etc - but different games, will perform differently..

Afflictio.on
12-06-2014, 12:23 PM
Hi,

Completely different game engine - the CoD one is taylored for online small maps / linear maps- also it's not an open world game with many interiors, unlike Unity.

Different games, can all use different rendering engines, so you can't always compare performance.


CoD performance might be higher than BF4 - which in turn might be lower than Tomb Raider for example.


Not shifting the blame etc - but different games, will perform differently..

all i want to say is that every game i play my gpu is hitting 55-60 temp and i can see the difference between the graphical changes, low-high. That happens only to unity

Mr_Shade
12-06-2014, 12:29 PM
If it's only 1GB - it might not be under the same load - since it might be using the HDD to cache more - depends on the game and settings.

You are lucky that the game runs at all, I'm surprised, so it keeping cool is a bonus.

Leo_2301
12-06-2014, 04:29 PM
I hope Patch 4 is released soon and it fixes the crashing bug... I'd be happy since the game has never started for me...:(

goug
12-06-2014, 04:57 PM
Why some Gpu can't be use at 100% ?

It's seems to be one of the more expected performance bug.

All user whith a Nvidia GTX650 Ti for example, run under 20% of Gpu in the game, Unplayable, even with very low graphic options, and below 720p !

You can find here a proof of optimisation problem:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWwlrMi3C4

Small area, different characters, no reason for these kind of drop (frame rate and Gpu usage)

USAdystopia
12-06-2014, 05:24 PM
I didnt say they didnt test at all. Learn to read. But if your game has nvidia logo, you get hardware, help and even testing itself (nvidia tests your game and sends bug reports and/or suggestions). Its one of the benefits nvidia gets from this program. They get very early access and have enough time to prepare their drivers.
Then there is AMD, your game isnt in "gaming evolved", you need to spend money on GPUs (and you need a lot if you want to check every possible configuration), you test it by youself and if you get any issues running the game on AMD hardware you'll get no help from them as developer/tester.
So its safe to assume they didnt extensively test on AMD, at least not as much as on nvidia.


You're defending your statements...an obvious sign that you don't know what you're talking about.

goug
12-06-2014, 06:01 PM
If it's only 1GB - it might not be under the same load - since it might be using the HDD to cache more - depends on the game and settings.

You are lucky that the game runs at all, I'm surprised, so it keeping cool is a bonus.

Gtx 650 Ti with 2GB, same problem, because the Gpu isn't load more than 20% !

The same engine with an open world, WatchDog for example run perfectly well on this kind of popular graphic card. The Gtx 750, quite the same card, a little bit less powerfull, run ACU at 35 Fps all med Full HD ...

So, no luck at all ! And we are trying too keep cool ... There's a problem of Gpu usage on some particular cards !

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 06:47 PM
Why some Gpu can't be use at 100% ?

It's seems to be one of the more expected performance bug.

All user whith a Nvidia GTX650 Ti for example, run under 20% of Gpu in the game, Unplayable, even with very low graphic options, and below 720p !

You can find here a proof of optimisation problem:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWwlrMi3C4

Small area, different characters, no reason for these kind of drop (frame rate and Gpu usage)
GPU load counter doesnt tell you entire story. There is much more to this than a single number.
This particular video illustrates what I was talking about on page 11. Fps is limited by geometry while game engine performs next to no culling before sending it to driver. There isnt nearly us much stuff behind that wall in girl's direction.


You're defending your statements...an obvious sign that you don't know what you're talking about.
LOLed at this. So baseless claims is a sign that you do know? Go away.

EvilKaru
12-06-2014, 07:00 PM
Guys plz, stop fighting with AC_Mako, is not worth it. He's just a fan Ubisoft boy, so he will defend Ubisoft till the end. The fun part is that AC Unity didnt win anything and is the buggiest game of 2014 :). Not even nominated GOTY.. Pathetic Ubisoft. Numbers ALWAYS speak for themselfs

goug
12-06-2014, 07:20 PM
Fps is limited by geometry while game engine performs next to no culling before sending it to driver. There isnt nearly us much stuff behind that wall in girl's direction.



You're Wrong, there's plenty of characters in the building behind the girl, nothing behind the sunny wall ...

It's a bug ... And I can find other example like this. If you compare with a 750, basiclty the same card, there's no bug like this ...

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 08:11 PM
No. There is a lot of stuff to the right of his initial direction (that where they both came from) and behind sunny wall (you visit it in later missions). When his fps drops it drops bc of polygons overdraw (and also a lot more draw calls). They are invisible in the final frame but they arent culled.
Second. Game cares not about the actual nvidia card it runs at for as long as it supports the same DX feature set. If there is difference between cards its bc the hardware itself is different, and maybe driver.
Third. 750 are 650 arent the same card. They belong to different generations, maxwell is newer and only nvidia knows every detail.

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 08:28 PM
Mako, just stop talking about things you do not understand.

As of someone that studying under this field by professionals that has work in this field i can safely say you have no idea what you even talking about.


second 700 and the 600 are the same cards with different specs. only the 900 are Maxwell.

now even going to talk about how and what could effect gpu %,


dude you should really stop ubi will not pay you, their stock cant be saved, dont worry ACV will be out next year at Nov.

Ryk_Feral
12-06-2014, 08:31 PM
Guys plz, stop fighting with AC_Mako, is not worth it. He's just a fan Ubisoft boy, so he will defend Ubisoft till the end. The fun part is that AC Unity didnt win anything and is the buggiest game of 2014 :). Not even nominated GOTY.. Pathetic Ubisoft. Numbers ALWAYS speak for themselfs

Agreed.
I just hope at least word on patch 4 comes out soon.
I just went back and replayed previous games for the hell of it.

Since the release of unity, I finished again ac1, ac2, brotherhood, revelations, ac3, and black flag........awhile back.

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 08:45 PM
Guys plz, stop fighting with AC_Mako, is not worth it. He's just a fan Ubisoft boy, so he will defend Ubisoft till the end. The fun part is that AC Unity didnt win anything and is the buggiest game of 2014 :). Not even nominated GOTY.. Pathetic Ubisoft. Numbers ALWAYS speak for themselfs yea, never seen someone cry about something with all the proof looking the other way... hes ether a blind fanboy or a troll

game is so optimize that my hardware 970, 3770 non k, with 16gb of ram out perform my friend pc of 980, 4790k, and 16 gb of ram at the same setting. So high level that my fps from 40 to 60 wont change no matter what settings i set it too.... If this game would have won any award is because of ubi throwing money.

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 08:48 PM
And another portion of baseless claims from a clueless kid. Oh well. Care to enlighten us with your findings then? Why fps drops on 650 in that video? Pls no "oh, its a bug". You would just look stupid that way.

with all the proof
Wake up. Do you even know what proof is? There should be a logical connection between every cause and effect. You see effects but you dont undestand why. So all you do is cry "bugs" and raise your pitchfork.


game is so optimize that my hardware 970, 3770 non k, with 16gb of ram out perform my friend pc of 980, 4790k, and 16 gb of ram at the same setting.
And so the most logical conclusion is that this is somehow ubisoft's fault, right? We all know game works better on 980 as it is supposed to be http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-new-ac_1920.jpg
You said you built that PC for your friend so why dont you start from the most obvious and probable cause? Oh ofc...


He's just a fan Ubisoft boy
Ha. For the most part Im Ubisoft hater but you can call me "my master"

Afflictio.on
12-06-2014, 09:14 PM
And another portion of baseless claims from a clueless kid. Oh well. Care to enlighten us with your findings then? Why fps drops on 650 in that video? Pls no "oh, its a bug". You would just look stupid that way.

Wake up. Do you even know what proof is? There should be a logical connection between every cause and effect. You see effects but you dont undestand why. So all you do is cry "bugs" and raise your pitchfork.


And so the most logical conclusion is that this is somehow ubisoft's fault, right? We all know game works better on 980 as it is supposed to be http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-new-ac_1920.jpg
You said you built that PC for your friend so why dont you start from the most obvious and probable cause? Oh ofc...


Ha. For the most part Im Ubisoft hater but you can call me "my master"
to prove you that this SS is wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O4nKl-F3g0

Lignjoslav
12-06-2014, 09:24 PM
So... not even a hint on when the patch can be expected?

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 09:32 PM
And another portion of baseless claims from a clueless kid. Oh well. Care to enlighten us with your findings then? Why fps drops on 650 in that video? Pls no "oh, its a bug". You would just look stupid that way.

Wake up. Do you even know what proof is? There should be a logical connection between every cause and effect. You see effects but you dont undestand why. So all you do is cry "bugs" and raise your pitchfork.


And so the most logical conclusion is that this is somehow ubisoft's fault, right? We all know game works better on 980 as it is supposed to be http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-new-ac_1920.jpg
You said you built that PC for your friend so why dont you start from the most obvious and probable cause? Oh ofc...


Ha. For the most part Im Ubisoft hater but you can call me "my master"

you really think ACU is the only game we tested? he outperforms me every single game there is,how it should be not even OC, not my first pc i build nor my last.
My other friend has almost the same setup with my rig but a 4770k and he gets lower fps than mine... he cant even break 30. and his cpu can/is OC.

since then i have upgraded my cpu to 4790k myself and it seems im stuck on that 45 to 60 range again no matter what setting.

Dude with all platform not just pc you have bugs,glitches,LOD not working right (well i hope it was not design to be that hash of a transition) , random Freeze...

my game random for no reason freezes... Come on man open yours eyes master,

again im not going to talk about that vid because it does show all the information. low gpu usage can happen in a few ways one way happen in arma3. where some of the work load is on the cpu on low settings but when switch to a higher graphical setting you gain fps because it now using the gpu.

and so on......master

Ryk_Feral
12-06-2014, 09:33 PM
So... not even a hint on when the patch can be expected?
Nothing so far.
That's pissing most people off even more than not having the patch yet.
Man......if they could just give at least SOME update.......it would calm down many people.

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 10:00 PM
im not going to talk about that vid because it does show all the information. low gpu usage can happen in a few ways one way happen in arma3. where some of the work load is on the cpu on low settings but when switch to a higher graphical setting you gain fps because it now using the gpu.

If you dont want to read what overdraw means perhaps a few videos can make you start thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5gz3oT65oM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOOnEocXwXo
Even unreal and cryengine (almost universally considered as the most optimised game engines) send a lot of invisible geometry to driver.
Low performance in that 650ti video is not CPU bottleneck, its not a bug and its not caused by bad optimisation. That card simply cant hande that much geometry (which exceeds most games there is by far). And there isnt a single setting in this game that reduces geometry complexity.
And I repeat this again: GPU load meter doesnt show you everything. If you ever used nvidia performance kit (its freely available btw) you'll understand, otherwise its too much to explain here.


to prove you that this SS is wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O4nKl-F3g0
Even a few seconds if this is enough to prove my point about overdraw.
As for benchmark screenshot itself its from a different system and settings. They used very powerfull CPU to make sure it wont hold back the strongest cards. Testing scene is fairly crowded versailes market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtmnXYVZOeA

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 10:14 PM
If you dont want to read what overdraw means perhaps a few videos can make you start thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5gz3oT65oM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOOnEocXwXo
Even unreal and cryengine send a lot of invisible geometry to driver.
Low performance in that 650ti video is not CPU bottleneck, its not a bug and its not caused by bad optimisation. That card simply cant hande that much geometry. And there isnt a single setting in this game that reduces geometry complexity.
And I repeat this again: GPU load meter doesnt show you everything. If you ever used nvidia performance kit (its freely available btw) you'll understand, otherwise its too much to explain here.


Even a few seconds if this is enough to prove my point about overdraw.
As for benchmark screenshot itself its from a different system and settings. They used very powerfull CPU to make sure it wont hold back the strongest cards. Testing scene is fairly crowded versailes market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtmnXYVZOeA

again i said i wont comment on that video because of the lack of info, and i was point out arma 3 not ACU.

but again like i said 3 pc one with more power and the other almost the same specs perform worst than my system.

980 pulling less than my 970,
hes 970 cant break 30 while my 970 can

both of their cpu was better than my 3770 non K,

in other games their fps are a little bit better (the 980 perform much better)
but when it comes to ACU i drew the lucky CODE award of 40 to 60 fps no matter what setting.....

If the lowest Setting perform the same as the max (no AA, and shadows on high) than what the point of having the graphics on low, so i played it on max....

the game is not optimize, if you think this is than please dont sign up for programming any game because i dont want to deal with this on every game. in a good note go sigh up for ubi since it seems you have the same understanding of what optimize is.

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 10:22 PM
Dude with all platform not just pc you have bugs,glitches,LOD not working right (well i hope it was not design to be that hash of a transition) , random Freeze...
my game random for no reason freezes... Come on man open yours eyes master,

Yes, there are bugs in this game, its obvious. But you make strange assumptions. If there are bugs in one place it doesnt mean the entire game is bugged. Its not.



but again like i said 3 pc one with more power and the other almost the same specs perform worst than my system.

I have no such problems and its hard to believe they even exist the way you say. There must be something in those systems that affects performance. If its "just bugs" then why it persists between game restarts?


the game is not optimize, if you think this is than please dont sign up for programming any game because i dont want to deal with this on every game. in a good note go sigh up for ubi since it seems you have the same understanding of what optimize is.
LOL. Please dont ever apply for a job at any IT company. You still believe in magic and show no interest in understanding why exactly anything happens.

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 10:35 PM
^^^ well we agree on something thinking by closing your eye and screaming optimize will make it magical so, got some sad news for you..... it doesn't work like that

my Teachers had the LoLs with ACU coding, why did they push ACU out the door like this is just laughable. it didnt even run right on consoles,
hopefully now they understand what ubi have been doing to pc gamers all this time

oh man hard to believe i know right, but hey that UBI optimize right there for you. they can do things no other can

Anykeyer
12-06-2014, 10:40 PM
my Teachers had the LoLs with ACU coding,

You realise how stupid that sounds, right? They have access to the source code? How many game engines they made themself?

RaulO4
12-06-2014, 10:49 PM
You realise how stupid that sounds, right? They have access to the source code? How many game engines they made themself?

one was EX dev in COD for a few years and now in inde/teaching game design.
the other has work on a few places if i can remember EA/Activation also work on 2k bioshock 1 also a teacher plus he helping to redesign this controller prop http://geekshopgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/n-control-avenger-xbox-controller-mod7-4-269824-13.jpg


the new design that i saw is better but still cant get my head around the comfort



the lols of his story about programming, he always says when you programming make sure that "taking a break when you need it" is in the contact because sometime you just need to walk away.

also both of them are designing their engine for their small games i wont talk about it because one is under sony nda the other reason is respect. if you can understand

anyways this is pointless and should get back to ACU, 3rd patch had over 300 bugs fixes so that smooth out some glitches let see how patch 4 does.

my guess its ubi, that it will only stabilize the engine and maybe my friend can hit 40 to 60 with that 980.

maybe i should grab his card and put it into my rig and see what happens.

Lignjoslav
12-07-2014, 12:14 AM
There is a status update on Ubiblog. The info on the 4th patch is that we can expect more info next week. link (http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm%3A152-187731-16&ct=tcm%3A148-76770-32)

Ryk_Feral
12-07-2014, 01:35 AM
There is a status update on Ubiblog. The info on the 4th patch is that we can expect more info next week. link (http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm%3A152-187731-16&ct=tcm%3A148-76770-32)

Finally. This should help quell some of the unrest.
Hopefully more info will be available in a few days.

goug
12-07-2014, 01:55 AM
Third. 750 are 650 arent the same card. They belong to different generations, maxwell is newer and only nvidia knows every detail.

I will not try to answer to everything you said, because sometime you're quite right ... but please, just stop defend everything like an affront.

Sorry, there are some "performance issues" if you prefer this term, and user want to report them.
I work in video game industry, I just made a quick demonstration of this performance lack, and sure we can investigate more.

The Gtx750, a mainstream cards, which run ACU pretty well in mid setting, is a maxwell architecture, but the first generation ! and first maxwell architecture is the same than the keppler one ! just some reorganisation of command block for better energy optimisation !

Gtx 650 Ti can't run the game like a simple Gtx750 ! even with more Unified Shaders or bandwidth, pixel and texel rate.

So, yes, there is a performance issue, please, don't argue that.

Anykeyer
12-07-2014, 08:58 AM
The Gtx750, a mainstream cards, which run ACU pretty well in mid setting, is a maxwell architecture, but the first generation ! and first maxwell architecture is the same than the keppler one ! just some reorganisation of command block for better energy optimisation !

Gtx 650 Ti can't run the game like a simple Gtx750 ! even with more Unified Shaders or bandwidth, pixel and texel rate.


Its not just energy efficiency. According to nvidia 128 maxwell ALUs have 90% performance of 192 kepler ALUs. Control logic got major update to achieve this and none of us knows every detail, they only give some high level explanation, each SMM now has 4x more schedullers/dispatchers.
ACU isnt limited by pixel performance on low settings, its polycount and draw calls.
Anyway, I belive Ubisoft can fix it on their side but this would require a massive work involving art team, they would have to create new low poly models for entire game, and rebuild Paris marking non-important objects so engine will know what stuff it can disable w/o changing gameplay and introducing new bugs. IMO its very unlikely they'll do this. I would expect something like this from Blizzard and Valve, they perfect their games for years, but not from Ubi with their annual release cycle. They already try to detract attention from Unity with that AC Victory "leak"



anyways this is pointless and should get back to ACU, 3rd patch had over 300 bugs fixes so that smooth out some glitches let see how patch 4 does.

You misunderstood me. I dont deny this game has bugs. But if you think there is a room for any big performance boost w/o changing the art you're wrong.
There wont be any news headlines like "patch x for ACU improves performance by 30%, official minimum requirements are now lowered to Core 2 and GT 630". Thats what my original message was. Dont expect any such things.

HomieeJo
12-07-2014, 11:01 AM
, but not from Ubi with their annual release cycle.

And this is exactly the problem to develop a game like Assassins Creed Unity in only 2 years without bugs and good optimization is impossible...
EA already learned it they give their developers now more time for their games and as you can see at Dragon Age they did their job quite well. I played and I had literally no bug at all in 20 hours of playtime. The hard thing is they had more time to develop and didnt need to make a new engine...
Ubisoft still didnt learn from their failures as EA did with BF4 they still want to create a new AC every year but you cant do that because its getting more complex to develop than in the past. And more complexity needs more development time...
I dont say and never said their developers did their job bad but in THIS little time they really couldnt do it better.
So right now Ubisoft is for me a worse company than EA and that means a lot because I had really bad problems with EA in the past

RaulO4
12-07-2014, 11:02 AM
Its not just energy efficiency. According to nvidia 128 maxwell ALUs have 90% performance of 192 kepler ALUs. Control logic got major update to achieve this and none of us knows every detail, they only give some high level explanation, each SMM now has 4x more schedullers/dispatchers.
ACU isnt limited by pixel performance on low settings, its polycount and draw calls.
Anyway, I belive Ubisoft can fix it on their side but this would require a massive work involving art team, they would have to create new low poly models for entire game, and rebuild Paris marking non-important objects so engine will know what stuff it can disable w/o changing gameplay and introducing new bugs. IMO its very unlikely they'll do this. I would expect something like this from Blizzard and Valve, they perfect their games for years, but not from Ubi with their annual release cycle. They already try to detract attention from Unity with that AC Victory "leak"


You misunderstood me. I dont deny this game has bugs. But if you think there is a room for any big performance boost w/o changing the art you're wrong.
There wont be any news headlines like "patch x for ACU improves performance by 30%, official minimum requirements are now lowered to Core 2 and GT 630". Thats what my original message was. Dont expect any such things.

i was just talking about patch 3 as a whole and not aiming anything at you, and pretty much agree on patch 4, i bet on a 5 to 10% maybe 15 if we are really lucky, but the biggest improvement should be on the stability, 30% would be a god send, that would take a whole year and a rebuilding of some sector of coding to get that.

like you said valve would do, and new sets of low poly to high poly LODs to smooth things out, the leak ACV only makes things worst for them.

sepp-lol
12-08-2014, 12:19 AM
i5 4690k @ 4.3
8gb
R9 280x

I can't even play at 30 fps locked, drops to 23 - 25
Release this patch already.

RVSage
12-08-2014, 04:03 AM
And this is exactly the problem to develop a game like Assassins Creed Unity in only 2 years without bugs and good optimization is impossible...
EA already learned it they give their developers now more time for their games and as you can see at Dragon Age they did their job quite well. I played and I had literally no bug at all in 20 hours of playtime. The hard thing is they had more time to develop and didnt need to make a new engine...
Ubisoft still didnt learn from their failures as EA did with BF4 they still want to create a new AC every year but you cant do that because its getting more complex to develop than in the past. And more complexity needs more development time...
I dont say and never said their developers did their job bad but in THIS little time they really couldnt do it better.
So right now Ubisoft is for me a worse company than EA and that means a lot because I had really bad problems with EA in the past

Well let me some things straight here

*Ubi is no EA.. for heaven's sake... Both technologically and customer-orientation wise.. Ubi are way better (Seriously no one will give you free games and DLCs ... Surely Note EA.. remember what happened with BF 4)

Okay here is some other important points

*Until Black Flag.. I never had major FPS issues or bugs.. as long as I met the requirements...

But why Watch Dogs and Unity have so many issues???

Well Watch Dogs and Unity are "True-Next-Gen" games.. No games match their overall graphic quality and scale... In their "respective" time periods..

*The primary reason for bugs.. is because these are complete overhauled graphics and AI engines.. Squeezing out as much performance possible from next-gen hardware

This sets Ubi apart..

Their attempt is commendable
Should they have done better?? And waited some more time for Unity release??? "Totally YES"...............But given their attempt...I AM CONFIDENT THAT THEY WONT REPEAT IT... Dont judge because their revolutionary attempt was not the up to the mark in their first attempt.....

With my confidence in Ubi devs.. I am telling you future instalments will be way better.. And they will make it annual because they can.. They have done it since ACII to blackflag.. perfectly (near perfect)..

When they do.. I am pretty sure the same people cursing them today.. Will come back and take back their words

AC Victory will show you they can pull off annual installment.. It takes guts and lots of talent to pull off such next-gen stuff.. And they will do it...

Wrath2Zero
12-08-2014, 04:58 AM
Well, the game doesn't seem to cull geometry very well if at all and I can stand in places at get 20fps just for looking at a wall, yet some other places I get 30+ easy with loads of people showing.

http://i.imgur.com/o8br0ip.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/VOQYVIb.jpg

And yet this place is fine with more showing.

http://i.imgur.com/QJxzRQp.jpg

strigoi1958
12-08-2014, 05:02 AM
maybe so but your screen shots are stunning

RaulO4
12-08-2014, 01:52 PM
Well let me some things straight here

*Ubi is no EA.. for heaven's sake... Both technologically and customer-orientation wise.. Ubi are way better (Seriously no one will give you free games and DLCs ... Surely Note EA.. remember what happened with BF 4)

Okay here is some other important points

*Until Black Flag.. I never had major FPS issues or bugs.. as long as I met the requirements...

But why Watch Dogs and Unity have so many issues???

Well Watch Dogs and Unity are "True-Next-Gen" games.. No games match their overall graphic quality and scale... In their "respective" time periods..

*The primary reason for bugs.. is because these are complete overhauled graphics and AI engines.. Squeezing out as much performance possible from next-gen hardware

This sets Ubi apart..

Their attempt is commendable
Should they have done better?? And waited some more time for Unity release??? "Totally YES"...............But given their attempt...I AM CONFIDENT THAT THEY WONT REPEAT IT... Dont judge because their revolutionary attempt was not the up to the mark in their first attempt.....

With my confidence in Ubi devs.. I am telling you future instalments will be way better.. And they will make it annual because they can.. They have done it since ACII to blackflag.. perfectly (near perfect)..

When they do.. I am pretty sure the same people cursing them today.. Will come back and take back their words

AC Victory will show you they can pull off annual installment.. It takes guts and lots of talent to pull off such next-gen stuff.. And they will do it...


BF4 and DGA looks great and runs great, they at least Patch their games beyond the 3rd month and not just drop it dead. ACV also please WD and ACU true next gen..... that lol

is EA good? no... but i got DA3 yesterday and didnt enjoy it,

EA gave my money back

Anykeyer
12-08-2014, 02:22 PM
Well, the game doesn't seem to cull geometry very well if at all and I can stand in places at get 20fps just for looking at a wall, yet some other places I get 30+ easy with loads of people showing.

Yes. Finally someone did some testing and saw for himself what I was talking about :)
Your last shot looks better than the others but there is almost no overdraw so technically its the easiest to render even if your eyes would beg to differ.
Its not completely ubisoft programmer's fault, as I demonstrated earler even unreal and cryengine dont cull most of the geometry in similar cases. Most culling techniques were developed with completely sealed indoor areas in mind.

RaulO4
12-08-2014, 05:21 PM
ok too sum up this thread,

the game is not optimize.

the patch 4, we can expect a maybe 5% of fps increase maybe if we lucky somewhat more. the biggest improvement should be on stability.

30% increase or more will take a year which will not happen.
it will take a rework or rebuilding of the code sector that are slowly down the game.

you can have two programs that does the same thing which the same quality but one does it 5 to 10% slowly because its a much more bulking code. they have that bulking code


ubi better increase the programming Team by a large sum for all platform
dont think they will add any LOD that would help because that will take too long and most of the team already switch to ACV. (which they should have done since its basic 101 on optimize in games, its the bible in open world) they didnt.

Wrath2Zero
12-08-2014, 06:27 PM
Yes. Finally someone did some testing and saw for himself what I was talking about :)
Your last shot looks better than the others but there is almost no overdraw so technically its the easiest to render even if your eyes would beg to differ.
Its not completely ubisoft programmer's fault, as I demonstrated earler even unreal and cryengine dont cull most of the geometry in similar cases. Most culling techniques were developed with completely sealed indoor areas in mind.

Yep, it's hard not to miss. The part where you go near the Hotel to find Elise is stupid, it drops into the 20fps just by walking a few meters just as you go over the wall to get into the hotel. Also, the part where you see Elise and there are loads of people dancing, it's 30+, then walking into the next room which is smaller with 3 people in drops into the low 20s for no reason.

RVSage
12-08-2014, 06:45 PM
BF4 and DGA looks great and runs great, they at least Patch their games beyond the 3rd month and not just drop it dead. ACV also please WD and ACU true next gen..... that lol

is EA good? no... but i got DA3 yesterday and didnt enjoy it,

EA gave my money back

Lol I dont think so I am wrong with that claim.. In their respective time periods of release they were the best looking games..and had maximum NPCs with AI..

RaulO4
12-08-2014, 07:43 PM
Lol I dont think so I am wrong with that claim.. In their respective time periods of release they were the best looking games..and had maximum NPCs with AI..

in their time, no they are not, i played both and have both, WD at max with mod didnt look the best nor gameplay/looks were next gen, (maybe that because i was playing pc and those graphics are the nrom. ACU looks great but i dont think its the best right now.

Marco171084
12-08-2014, 07:56 PM
Guys I have these problems:

1) I cannot complete Versailles 100% because I miss a flag that doesn't show on the map
2) I have 4 or 5 assassination missions to complete but they too don't show on the map
3) I cannot find the 3 dlc missions (Chemical revolution etc.) and I own the season pass.

WTF?

HomieeJo
12-08-2014, 08:06 PM
Guys I have these problems:

1) I cannot complete Versailles 100% because I miss a flag that doesn't show on the map
2) I have 4 or 5 assassination missions to complete but they too don't show on the map
3) I cannot find the 3 dlc missions (Chemical revolution etc.) and I own the season pass.

WTF?

They changed it you have to search now because there is not everything on the map anymore

Aenigmatix
12-08-2014, 08:40 PM
Guys I have these problems:

1) I cannot complete Versailles 100% because I miss a flag that doesn't show on the map
2) I have 4 or 5 assassination missions to complete but they too don't show on the map
3) I cannot find the 3 dlc missions (Chemical revolution etc.) and I own the season pass.

WTF?

... Flags? I'm assuming you mean the cockades.

Do you have any Helix credits? You should. I earned some in-game without having to purchase any.

If you have some Helix credits, go to the Estore and buy the Cockades time saver pack. That helped me find a few missing cockades in Versailles and Paris.

topeira1980
12-08-2014, 11:41 PM
AC_Mako, can you explain to me in lamers terms why you think there are areas in the game that have about 30% less frames per second?

i dont know what overdraw is or culling geometry so i find it hard to keep up with you two :-P


also, i'd like your opinion on how come every game out there performs better on my computer than on consoles by quit a lot yet ACU performs WORSE. as i've said i've seen countless YT videos of the game on consoles and while they do seem to occasionally have FPS drops they still seem smooth in almost all places including locations like cafe theatre where in MY game this articular area is about 15fps whlie on consoles it looks as smooth as about 25fps or 30fps. same with notre dame which looks smooth on consoles yet about 23fps on my computer. and im running the game on LOW and on 900p on my r9 280 3gb vram, i7 4770 3.4ghz and 8gb ram.

Wrath2Zero
12-08-2014, 11:48 PM
It basically means that the geometry behind objects is being drawn at full detail rather than lower detail. What usually happens is that everything you see it drawn in high detail near you but low detail away from you and areas behind any walls shouldn't render in high detail because it's occluded.

I've only used Unreal Engine when culling but basically you put boxes inside the walls to stop anything behind it being rendering on screen until you actually see it. ACU doesn't seem to do that, though one could argue that buildings are open so it's drawing the buildings behind each other that are open too. I'm not sure what Ubisoft mean by "edge cases" in their explanation of the optimisation they're doing, just hope they're not just going to target 30fps optimisations.

RaulO4
12-09-2014, 02:56 AM
AC_Mako, can you explain to me in lamers terms why you think there are areas in the game that have about 30% less frames per second?

i dont know what overdraw is or culling geometry so i find it hard to keep up with you two :-P


also, i'd like your opinion on how come every game out there performs better on my computer than on consoles by quit a lot yet ACU performs WORSE. as i've said i've seen countless YT videos of the game on consoles and while they do seem to occasionally have FPS drops they still seem smooth in almost all places including locations like cafe theatre where in MY game this articular area is about 15fps whlie on consoles it looks as smooth as about 25fps or 30fps. same with notre dame which looks smooth on consoles yet about 23fps on my computer. and im running the game on LOW and on 900p on my r9 280 3gb vram, i7 4770 3.4ghz and 8gb ram.

do it simple, let say you have a map, it has a underground and a top.

if the player is underground than you will use this Culling tech to tell the gpu "A man, you dont need to render this right now" to hide the top of the map.

with ACU he does have a point this is somewhat harder to do with open world. the game is rending things the player just doesnt see.

Anykeyer
12-09-2014, 07:17 AM
Clips in this post show what overdraw is http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/964355-When-the-4th-patch-for-performance?p=10417120&viewfull=1#post10417120



I've only used Unreal Engine when culling but basically you put boxes inside the walls to stop anything behind it being rendering on screen until you actually see it. ACU doesn't seem to do that, though one could argue that buildings are open so it's drawing the buildings behind each other that are open too. I'm not sure what Ubisoft mean by "edge cases" in their explanation of the optimisation they're doing, just hope they're not just going to target 30fps optimisations.

You have to be very carefull when placing portals manually, else you risk getting rendering bugs. Unity's open world nature makes it really hard to determine where and when its safe to cull geometry.
But while Unity doesnt seem to cull any geometry at all its rendering method (deffered lighting) makes sure that none of the invisible geometry actually gets the pixel pass (which usually is the hardest for GPU).

pdc1983
12-09-2014, 07:54 AM
AMD has released new drivers (14.12) that have optimizations for this game. They have done wonders for my crossfirex setup with this game and the release notes say that they have enhancements for single GPU configs as well.

HomieeJo
12-09-2014, 11:40 AM
Confirmed the new AMD driver gives me in Cafe theatre where I previous had 8 FPS 30FPS...
Its magical what AMD did their its not even a performance boost for me additional the fps is much more stable now and doesnt drop extremely :)

Overall the new driver gives more than 20FPS more than before it so its a must have for every AMD user

NSGiB
12-09-2014, 11:43 AM
AMD has released new drivers (14.12) that have optimizations for this game. They have done wonders for my crossfirex setup with this game and the release notes say that they have enhancements for single GPU configs as well.

It doubled my Fps from around 20 to around 40 at Cafe Theatre and Notre Dame. Using a single 7970 card. Ultra high environment and textures, high shadows, ssao, bloom and fxaa.
Game mostly at around 40-50 fps now running around in the streets and >50 on roof tops. But I think I noticed more blurry textures on buildings in the distance.

akshatezio
12-09-2014, 01:16 PM
AC_Mako, first see this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbo8tl0_ujk&feature=youtu.be
The guy who recorded this video have an fx8350cpu, r9280x gpu, where he was earlier getting just 20fps just like me on no matter on which settings he play the game, after updating to AMD's latest omega driver, he's getting 50+ fps everywhere and no stuttering at all
Now if you know so much about graphics engine and have so much trust in nvidia and ubisoft's optimization, then just answer me this that if this low fps people were getting was because of their hardware capability then how come amd is able to optimize the game for their gpu even more better than nvidia actually that people are now getting so much great fps? because this simply states that all this low fps issue really is because of poor optimization which amd has already solved now....
now what do you have to say in defence of the game? :p

Anykeyer
12-09-2014, 01:48 PM
Again with this ****? If you dont have any idea how things work why do u make so far fetched assumptions?
New AMD driver didnt change any of the Ubisoft's code, did it? They changed their own programming and it helped a lot. Which means the problem was on their side all along.
New drivers dont optimise games. They are optimised for games.
There are 4 major stages in rendering stuff on your screen.
First, there is engine's rendering front end. Its where all major work on game's side is done. It calculates where and when everything goes, the whole rendering process (and just how game looks) is determined on this stage. Usually front end is cross platform, the same code runs regardless of your console/PC. This part has always been good. Ubisoft may have bad programmers in their online services department but core engine guys sure know what they are doing.
Second, engine rendering back end. It feeds rendering instructions to API. This part of the engine determines which API game supports and is platform specific. Previously (in AC3/4) it was a weak link for sure, and Ubisoft's own technical director admitted this http://www.dsogaming.com/interviews/ubisoft-talks-acu-tech-multi-core-cpus-lighting-system-mouse-acceleration-next-gen-development/. But for Unity they did some great work in this area of the engine, allowing it to handle much more draw calls and better combine them in batches.
Third, there is API. On Windows PC its DX11, purely Microsoft's code. It has problem dealing with lots of small batches and cant properly multi-thread. Thats why improvements on the 2nd stage are so important. MS plans to make some improvements in DX12 but games wont automatically support it, they would have to be updated.
And finally there is device driver. It takes commands from DX and converts them in a low level code that GPU understands. Its the only bit of code that actually deals with the hardware directly, and its driver's job to efficiently utilise all GPU blocks.
You dont need to be a nobel prize winner to understand where the weak link were in that chain.

topeira1980
12-09-2014, 04:48 PM
Again with this ****? If you dont have any idea how things work why do u make so far fetched assumptions?
New AMD driver didnt change any of the Ubisoft's code, did it? They changed their own programming and it helped a lot. Which means the problem was on their side all along.
New drivers dont optimise games. They are optimised for games.
There are 4 major stages in rendering stuff on your screen.
First, there is engine's rendering front end. Its where all major work on game's side is done. It calculates where and when everything goes, the whole rendering process (and just how game looks) is determined on this stage. Usually front end is cross platform, the same code runs regardless of your console/PC. This part has always been good. Ubisoft may have bad programmers in their online services department but core engine guys sure know what they are doing.
Second, engine rendering back end. It feeds rendering instructions to API. This part of the engine determines which API game supports and is platform specific. Previously (in AC3/4) it was a weak link for sure, and Ubisoft's own technical director admitted this http://www.dsogaming.com/interviews/ubisoft-talks-acu-tech-multi-core-cpus-lighting-system-mouse-acceleration-next-gen-development/. But for Unity they did some great work in this area of the engine, allowing it to handle much more draw calls and better combine them in batches.
Third, there is API. On Windows PC its DX11, purely Microsoft's code. It has problem dealing with lots of small batches and cant properly multi-thread. Thats why improvements on the 2nd stage are so important. MS plans to make some improvements in DX12 but games wont automatically support it, they would have to be updated.
And finally there is device driver. It takes commands from DX and converts them in a low level code that GPU understands. Its the only bit of code that actually deals with the hardware directly, and its driver's job to efficiently utilise all GPU blocks.
You dont need to be a nobel prize winner to understand where the weak link were in that chain.

AC-Mako -

1) i tried following the YT links you provided and also read what the other guy posted. so Culling is removing polygons and geometry that isnt visible and overdraw is drawing said geometry?

2) now, that AMD have improved my AMD cards' at about 30% and the game is now smooth as silk to quit a lot of us - what do you recon will the performance improvements of patch 4 do?
i assume you think that this patch will do very little if nothing at all to performance since you believe the engine is already optimized, but UBI is working on SOMETHING, so SOMETHING must improve, performance wise....
i'd like to hear your guess...

3) Do you think that Nvidias cards now perform sub par to AMD?!? if you DO (not that i think you have a first hand way to judge, though) than do you think that Nvidia's performance issues should be resolved by nvidia and not UBI?



What most ppl on this thread, including me, felt about how bad ACU performed is that the game doesnt perform as good as it should and that it isnt hardware's fault. the fact the game ran better on consoles than on PCs (mostly AMDs) was a proof that there is no need to buy new hardware, like you stated.
but most of us were wrong. while we all believed this is a SOFTWARE issue we thought only UBI can improve it, while the truth was that a 3rd party (AMD) has provided the miracle we were hoping for. so we were partly right - we DONT need to upgrade. it IS a software issue. Our hardware CAN make the game run better. but it WASNT ubis fault. not on AMD cards at least. it wasnt UBIs poor optimization on AMD cards. it was AMDs crappy optimization (or however you call this bad hardware performance).

UBI claimed it was AMDs fault that they didnt do what they needed in time for the launch and apparently ubi was right. we know why now - they probably wanted to release the drivers with all the new tech and it was a very large driver upgrade and they couldnt pull it off.

Anykeyer
12-09-2014, 05:37 PM
1. overdraw is when one polygon is completely obstructed by others but is still sent to API/driver for processing. culling is removing those invisible polygons on game engine level.
problem is - in many cases seen in open world games its impossible to cull w/o constructing the entire scene first on CPU. its so taxing most engines simply send it all to graphics card bc that way they lose less performance (so in a sense this is actually an optimisation).
2. cant predict, but i guess it will be minor and mostly affect some very specific cases/places
3. dont know and actually dont care. nvidia owners didnt lose fps bc of that amd driver, so they should not be upset

part of this is ubisoft's fault, bc AMD doesnt have early access to games like nvidia has, so they cant properly prepare their driver for game's release
but those ppl who actually develop the game arent repsonsible as they arent in charge of those decisions

Ryk_Feral
12-09-2014, 05:40 PM
What most ppl on this thread, including me, felt about how bad ACU performed is that the game doesnt perform as good as it should and that it isnt hardware's fault. the fact the game ran better on consoles than on PCs (mostly AMDs) was a proof that there is no need to buy new hardware, like you stated.
but most of us were wrong. while we all believed this is a SOFTWARE issue we thought only UBI can improve it, while the truth was that a 3rd party (AMD) has provided the miracle we were hoping for. so we were partly right - we DONT need to upgrade. it IS a software issue. Our hardware CAN make the game run better. but it WASNT ubis fault. not on AMD cards at least. it wasnt UBIs poor optimization on AMD cards. it was AMDs crappy optimization (or however you call this bad hardware performance).

UBI claimed it was AMDs fault that they didnt do what they needed in time for the launch and apparently ubi was right. we know why now - they probably wanted to release the drivers with all the new tech and it was a very large driver upgrade and they couldnt pull it off.

Well it's not really either video card manufacturers fault. Nvidia was having the same problem as well.
It's really a chaotic issue.......some systems with mid-high specs could run it........some people with low spec ran it fine, etc...
What AMD did was release a driver that basically works around some of the issues. Nvidia did that as well earlier (when the optimization in geforce for it were brought out)......and even with that the issue is still there.
The driver they released isn't really a complete fix for the issue......just something similar to a workaround to help.
Hopefully patch 4 will take care of some of the issues causing the FPS problem.

Think of it like tuning your cars engine to run on a road with w few potholes.
My opinion is Ubi released it before it was ready.

Nocturnal626
12-09-2014, 05:46 PM
I just want to play the game i payed for already!!! This is getting out of hand. So done with Ubisoft

topeira1980
12-09-2014, 05:46 PM
1. overdraw is when one polygon is completely obstructed by others but is still sent to API/driver for processing. culling is removing those invisible polygons on game engine level.
problem is - in many cases seen in open world games its impossible to cull w/o constructing the entire scene first on CPU. its so taxing most engines simply send it all to graphics card bc that way they lose less performance (so in a sense this is actually an optimisation).
2. cant predict, but i guess it will be minor and mostly affect some very specific cases/places
3. dont know and actually dont care. nvidia owners didnt lose fps bc of that amd driver, so they should not be upset

part of this is still ubisoft's fault, bc AMD doesnt have early access to games like nvidia has, so they cant properly prepare their driver for game's release

thanks for the answers.

not every day i actually learn something from forums (besides that some ppl are idiots, but i kinda know that one).

2. yeah. some areas perform much worse than others.... we'll see. now that i can enjoy the game on my "slightly below minimum specs" rig with more than 30 fps i dont care that much anymore.

3. no. nvidia didnt suffer because of the new AMD drivers, but i assume that if the AMD improvements is universal for AMD users than all the nvidia gamers that still have a game that doesnt perform well should look to nvidia to improve their exprience.... or mayeb, if nvidia got their game copy early than what they did until this point is all they COULD do...

im just curious about what might happen behind the scenes there....


i wonder if there is a lesson here for ubi. if part of the bad rep they got from ACUs problematic performance was due to the fact that AMD didnt get a chance to optimize their drivers early enough than maybe next game UBI WILL send the code to AMD early as well, so this doesnt happen next time.

wootwoots
12-10-2014, 02:26 AM
So... still no news.. :(

Ryk_Feral
12-10-2014, 02:48 AM
So... still no news.. :(

There was some news over the weekend I believe it was.
Pretty much 'we're testing patch 4 now' to sum it up.

Wrath2Zero
12-10-2014, 03:27 AM
AC-Mako -

1) i tried following the YT links you provided and also read what the other guy posted. so Culling is removing polygons and geometry that isnt visible and overdraw is drawing said geometry?

2) now, that AMD have improved my AMD cards' at about 30% and the game is now smooth as silk to quit a lot of us - what do you recon will the performance improvements of patch 4 do?
i assume you think that this patch will do very little if nothing at all to performance since you believe the engine is already optimized, but UBI is working on SOMETHING, so SOMETHING must improve, performance wise....
i'd like to hear your guess...

3) Do you think that Nvidias cards now perform sub par to AMD?!? if you DO (not that i think you have a first hand way to judge, though) than do you think that Nvidia's performance issues should be resolved by nvidia and not UBI?



What most ppl on this thread, including me, felt about how bad ACU performed is that the game doesnt perform as good as it should and that it isnt hardware's fault. the fact the game ran better on consoles than on PCs (mostly AMDs) was a proof that there is no need to buy new hardware, like you stated.
but most of us were wrong. while we all believed this is a SOFTWARE issue we thought only UBI can improve it, while the truth was that a 3rd party (AMD) has provided the miracle we were hoping for. so we were partly right - we DONT need to upgrade. it IS a software issue. Our hardware CAN make the game run better. but it WASNT ubis fault. not on AMD cards at least. it wasnt UBIs poor optimization on AMD cards. it was AMDs crappy optimization (or however you call this bad hardware performance).

UBI claimed it was AMDs fault that they didnt do what they needed in time for the launch and apparently ubi was right. we know why now - they probably wanted to release the drivers with all the new tech and it was a very large driver upgrade and they couldnt pull it off.

Even the consoles have bad performance so it's not like AMD fixed their game for them ,they just fixes issues at the driver level. It still doesn't fix the core of the problem which is draw calls, the game is still effective broken on the graphics API level thanks to Ubisoft bottlenecking DX11 with too many draw calls for it to handle and knowing this, so they broke the game anyway. The driver just fixes performance, it's just a workaround in the end and the game is bad even on consoles as stated.

The game still needs patching and cannot be fixed because of DX11 having a peak limit of 10,000 draw calls, Ubisoft could have used Mantle and avoided the issue to degree since theoretically Mantle can do 100,000 draw calls with the game doing 50,000. AMD's fault on the driver side, maybe, they didnt' get much chance to work with them after all and Mantle would have solved the draw call issues but Ubisoft just ignored it anyway and released a fundamentally broken game, claiming before hand that the PC version would have "Mantle like performance" Clearly not because they broken DX11 doing it.

There is also one other matter to resolve, the game runs better on Intel CPUs because of their single-thread performance and their CPU can prepare the draw calls quicker so on a user level it might not seem so broken because of the CPUs brute force. IF you want to look at how an efficient engine is coded, try FrostBite, Dragon Age Inquisition has beautiful multithreading, AMD's FX-8350 is 4fps behind the Intel Extreme 8 core, while in Unity an i3 beats a the 8350.

USAdystopia
12-10-2014, 06:00 AM
Quit making up silly posts.

Wrath2Zero
12-10-2014, 09:55 AM
If you're talking to me then you might want to research what I said because Ubisoft said it, their engineer said it and it's all based on fact.

Anykeyer
12-10-2014, 10:28 AM
Even the consoles have bad performance so it's not like AMD fixed their game for them ,they just fixes issues at the driver level. It still doesn't fix the core of the problem which is draw calls, the game is still effective broken on the graphics API level thanks to Ubisoft bottlenecking DX11 with too many draw calls for it to handle and knowing this, so they broke the game anyway. The driver just fixes performance, it's just a workaround in the end and the game is bad even on consoles as stated.
Oh. And what they had to do then? Wait for DX12? Make it run on Mantle and forget about DX and nvidia? DX is widely accepted standard. No matter how bad it is.
Forget about making a true next gen game and cut it down to nothing just because someone says "you should stay at 10k calls"?


game still needs patching and cannot be fixed
Get your **** together. It cant be unfixable and fixable at the same time. If its unfixable it means its perfect.


because of DX11 having a peak limit of 10,000 draw calls
Who said that? Its obvious it DOES handle those draw calls Unity throws at it.


Ubisoft could have used Mantle
For what end? Last I checked only AMD supports mantle.


Mantle can do 100,000 draw calls
Who said that? AMD? Do you always so blindly believe PR?


claiming before hand that the PC version would have "Mantle like performance"
And they have proven it. As DX11 handles those 50K it isnt supposed to (according to AMD PR).


IF you want to look at how an efficient engine is coded, try FrostBite, Dragon Age Inquisition has beautiful multithreading, AMD's FX-8350 is 4fps behind the Intel Extreme 8 core
ROFL.
8 core i7 extreme is 2 times more powerfull, yet your stupid DAI gets only 4 fps? That game must be really GPU limited... Except it shouldnt, bc it has severely outdated visuals.
And at the same time Unity does scale well between 8 and 16 threads http://www.tomshw.it/forum/attachments/giochi-per-pc/134683d1415914283-assassins-creed-unity-discussione-ufficiale-http-www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-test_gpu-action-assassins_creed_unity-test-ac_proz.jpg 5960X has lower frequency. yet the performance gain is clear.

Wrath2Zero
12-10-2014, 11:06 AM
I quoted who said it in the other post, they know more about it then you dude, the Ubisoft engineer said about their own engine not some marketing shill.

Anykeyer
12-10-2014, 11:20 AM
No, they dont.
All the fuzz is coming from this stupid news post http://wccftech.com/ubisoft-points-finger-amd-technical-bugs-assassins-creed-unity

But if you like to remain blind and stupid its your choice.

Mr_Shade
12-10-2014, 11:25 AM
Can we please stop the bickering..


AMD have released new drivers - which can significantly improve performance, so we would recommended downloading them asap.


As with all titles - driver revisions can and do improve performance - so it's important to update when they become available ;)

Strajder69
12-10-2014, 12:14 PM
This thread has become so hilarious.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg61/ericwillgymnast216/gifs/hardlaughing.gif

DarkSolitudeX
12-10-2014, 12:34 PM
anyone know what that small update was on uplay? Couldn't have been more than a few megabyte.

MAD52
12-10-2014, 04:41 PM
anyone know what that small update was on uplay? Couldn't have been more than a few megabyte.

Yes, according to YazX_

"i checked and its "uplay_install.manifest" file, this file is used when installing the game after downloading , seems there are some installation problems reported by users and this file was updated to solve those"

Numbtoyou
12-10-2014, 09:29 PM
Even the consoles have bad performance so it's not like AMD fixed their game for them ,they just fixes issues at the driver level. It still doesn't fix the core of the problem which is draw calls, the game is still effective broken on the graphics API level thanks to Ubisoft bottlenecking DX11 with too many draw calls for it to handle and knowing this, so they broke the game anyway. The driver just fixes performance, it's just a workaround in the end and the game is bad even on consoles as stated.

The game still needs patching and cannot be fixed because of DX11 having a peak limit of 10,000 draw calls, Ubisoft could have used Mantle and avoided the issue to degree since theoretically Mantle can do 100,000 draw calls with the game doing 50,000. AMD's fault on the driver side, maybe, they didnt' get much chance to work with them after all and Mantle would have solved the draw call issues but Ubisoft just ignored it anyway and released a fundamentally broken game, claiming before hand that the PC version would have "Mantle like performance" Clearly not because they broken DX11 doing it.

There is also one other matter to resolve, the game runs better on Intel CPUs because of their single-thread performance and their CPU can prepare the draw calls quicker so on a user level it might not seem so broken because of the CPUs brute force. IF you want to look at how an efficient engine is coded, try FrostBite, Dragon Age Inquisition has beautiful multithreading, AMD's FX-8350 is 4fps behind the Intel Extreme 8 core, while in Unity an i3 beats a the 8350.

hahaha...ok. Thanks, I needed a laugh today! Its amazing that my computer runs this game just fine, but dang that peak limit! I guess my computer must be quantum and get those draw calls in the future! And consoles use lower level API's, similar to mantle ( sony has a modified opengl, which surpise! doesn't suffer from the draw call limit of DX), but still have the issues.... man people hear a buzzword and glob onto it like nothing else.

Lignjoslav
12-10-2014, 09:53 PM
anyone know what that small update was on uplay? Couldn't have been more than a few megabyte.Can't say what it is, but the game version hasn't changed even by 0.01, so it really can't be anything major.

This thread needs a thorough cleanup, most posts are completely offtopic.

WabeWalker
12-10-2014, 10:07 PM
Unity's engine is incredible.

The lighting blows me away. As does the work done on the NPCs. As does the incredible detail that's gone into the environment - the buildings, the streets, the rivers and the green spaces are all magnificent.

I have this game completely maxed out at 2560x1080, and it's running at 60fps and is just wicked smooth. Not a single stutter to speak of. This is easily the best open world experience I've ever had in terms of engine smoothness, especially considering the sheer amount of detail onscreen. Seeing Arno running through the streets, so fluidly, is a joy.

My two gtx 980s run at 90% most of the time, and it's easy to see why. There's nothing in my library (open world) that looks anything like Unity. My previous gtx 680 sli setup would've been clobbered by this game. People saying this game isn't optimized are idiots. The fact is, you need cutting edge hardware to run this game well. Who was that guy on YouTube who said Unity doesn't look any better than Black Flag? ROTFWL! Unity utterly blows Black Flag out of the water.

Unity is the surprise hit of the year for me. I had no desire to play this game... I mean, none... but I got it free, along with Far Cry, when I bought my two 980s. Technically speaking, this game is a wonder, and if I wanted to show people what my pc is capable of, Unity is what I would show them.

Far Cry 4 on the other hand - a game which I dreamt about all year, and couldn't wait to play - is a stutter-fest, and just completely broken. I've spent 15 hours trying to get Far Cry 4 to run smoothly, and have failed to do so.

i only wish every title was as mind blowing as Unity. I cannot believe this is happening, but right now Unity is competing for my game of the year. Just completely unexpected.

nonamename1
12-10-2014, 10:15 PM
Unity's engine is incredible.

The lighting blows me away. As does the work done on the NPCs. As does the incredible detail that's gone into the environment - the buildings, the streets, the rivers and the green spaces are all magnificent.

I have this game completely maxed out at 2560x1080, and it's running at 60fps and is just wicked smooth. Not a single stutter to speak of. This is easily the best open world experience I've ever had in terms of engine smoothness, especially considering the sheer amount of detail onscreen. Seeing Arno running through the streets, so fluidly, is a joy.

My two gtx 980s run at 90% most of the time, and it's easy to see why. There's nothing in my library (open world) that looks anything like Unity. My previous gtx 680 sli setup would've been clobbered by this game. People saying this game isn't optimized are idiots. The fact is, you need cutting edge hardware to run this game well. Who was that guy on YouTube who said Unity doesn't look any better than Black Flag? ROTFWL! Unity utterly blows Black Flag out of the water.

Unity is the surprise hit of the year for me. I had no desire to play this game... I mean, none... but I got it free, along with Far Cry, when I bought my two 980s. Technically speaking, this game is a wonder, and if I wanted to show people what my pc is capable of, Unity is what I would show them.

Far Cry 4 on the other hand - a game which I dreamt about all year, and couldn't wait to play - is a stutter-fest, and just completely broken. I've spent 15 hours trying to get Far Cry 4 to run smoothly, and have failed to do so.

i only wish every title was as mind blowing as Unity. I cannot believe this is happening, but right now Unity is competing for my game of the year. Just completely unexpected.

I agree with everything except what you said about Far Cry 4. I think it's pretty similar to FC3, you should have no problems running this to 60 or even higher.

strigoi1958
12-10-2014, 11:39 PM
This thread needs a thorough cleanup, most posts are completely offtopic.

True but at least it occupies people while they wait :D

Sorry for going OT again but... FC4 has lots of issues in SLI so possibly turn off a card. I enjoyed the first play through so much I couldn't spend any time on Unity and even now I'm playing a 2nd time while playing Unity... it is THAT good.

M4EOzzy
12-11-2014, 12:47 AM
Unity's engine is incredible.

The lighting blows me away. As does the work done on the NPCs. As does the incredible detail that's gone into the environment - the buildings, the streets, the rivers and the green spaces are all magnificent.

I have this game completely maxed out at 2560x1080, and it's running at 60fps and is just wicked smooth. Not a single stutter to speak of. This is easily the best open world experience I've ever had in terms of engine smoothness, especially considering the sheer amount of detail onscreen. Seeing Arno running through the streets, so fluidly, is a joy.

My two gtx 980s run at 90% most of the time, and it's easy to see why. There's nothing in my library (open world) that looks anything like Unity. My previous gtx 680 sli setup would've been clobbered by this game. People saying this game isn't optimized are idiots. The fact is, you need cutting edge hardware to run this game well. Who was that guy on YouTube who said Unity doesn't look any better than Black Flag? ROTFWL! Unity utterly blows Black Flag out of the water.

Unity is the surprise hit of the year for me. I had no desire to play this game... I mean, none... but I got it free, along with Far Cry, when I bought my two 980s. Technically speaking, this game is a wonder, and if I wanted to show people what my pc is capable of, Unity is what I would show them.

Far Cry 4 on the other hand - a game which I dreamt about all year, and couldn't wait to play - is a stutter-fest, and just completely broken. I've spent 15 hours trying to get Far Cry 4 to run smoothly, and have failed to do so.

i only wish every title was as mind blowing as Unity. I cannot believe this is happening, but right now Unity is competing for my game of the year. Just completely unexpected.
Okay, just because the game runs well for you, does not mean it's optimized well. You're running dual 980s. That's a high level, niche build. VERY few PC gamers have that build. That far exceeds the recommended specs. So you're not really one to objectively say the game is optimized well. When the game runs poorly, even for those that meet the recommended specs, there's a problem.

If the game was optimized well, there wouldn't be a need for a patch dedicated to improving performance.

Wrath2Zero
12-11-2014, 12:52 AM
hahaha...ok. Thanks, I needed a laugh today! Its amazing that my computer runs this game just fine, but dang that peak limit! I guess my computer must be quantum and get those draw calls in the future! And consoles use lower level API's, similar to mantle ( sony has a modified opengl, which surpise! doesn't suffer from the draw call limit of DX), but still have the issues.... man people hear a buzzword and glob onto it like nothing else.

LOL, "runs fine" enjoy your NPC popping and breakage. Also, as said, both consoles have a much higer draw calls because they're close to the metal APIs and low level, so please be quite and sit in the corner because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Anykeyer
12-11-2014, 01:31 PM
Okay, just because the game runs well for you, does not mean it's optimized well.

Just because it doesnt run well for you doesnt mean its not optimised.
Code optimisation doesnt mean just raw speed, it means efficiency. Is that a hard concept to understand?
To judge optimisation quality you have to take into account the ammount of work the engine has to do and if there are more efficient ways to do the same (or better). There isnt a single game out there with that much stuff. Maybe you wont agree and say "game X looks prettier". But prettyness is subjective. Numbers are not. By the ammount of details and lighting complexity this is the most advanced open world game, by far.

Voyager456
12-11-2014, 04:20 PM
Now i understand high minimum req. this game has little to none scalability going from 900p lowest settings to 1080p highest settings 4-5 FPS more on a heavily overcloacked gtx 970 also getting 60 FPS in font of the notredam
is impossible no mather what settings i put gg ubisoft.

RaulO4
12-11-2014, 08:59 PM
game works fine guys, it just doesnt run on set hardware (console) and does not run on 90% of pc hardware.

but guys this engine is the most advance.

you see that lighting? that advance because no other game uses baked lighting.

this game is the most advance open world because of those high poly.

/sigh

CHosIN1
12-11-2014, 09:05 PM
something on a positive note witcher 3 got delayed because this monstrosity, least next-gaming companies maybe stop releasing refuse.

M4EOzzy
12-11-2014, 09:19 PM
Just because it doesnt run well for you doesnt mean its not optimised.
Code optimisation doesnt mean just raw speed, it means efficiency. Is that a hard concept to understand?
To judge optimisation quality you have to take into account the ammount of work the engine has to do and if there are more efficient ways to do the same (or better). There isnt a single game out there with that much stuff. Maybe you wont agree and say "game X looks prettier". But prettyness is subjective. Numbers are not. By the ammount of details and lighting complexity this is the most advanced open world game, by far.
Umm, yeah, but because the game doesn't run well for, let's say, oh I don't know, 90% of the people playing it, even those who meet recommended requirements, even those on consoles with set specs across the board, does. Is that a hard concept to understand? Because it runs so poorly the developer has had to release multiple patches addressing performance, does. Is that a hard concept to understand? Because the CEO has publicly apologized for the performance and bugs, does...seeing a pattern yet? Understand yet?

Anykeyer
12-11-2014, 09:26 PM
dude, the most advance game? lighting is baked and its not real time... that not advance at least some games mix the baked with some real time lighting for fire effects.Many games use baked lighting. Its actually an optimisation. (see what I did here?). Doom 3 doesnt have any light maps. Should we call it the most advanced engine ever made?Unity actually has some dynamic light sources which can even affect volumetric fog and rain particles. Lighting complexity is not just some kind of toggle between static and dynamic. There are different lighting models, they differ by the ammount of stuff they take into account (like different materials properties) and how close they are to real life light behaviour.If you know even a single open world game that has comparable level of visuals complexity you're welcome to name it.
Umm, yeah, but because the game doesn't run well for, let's say, oh I don't know, 90% of the people playing it, even those who meet recommended requirements, even those on consoles with set specs across the board, does. Is that a hard concept to understand? Because it runs so poorly the developer has had to release multiple patches addressing performance, does. Is that a hard concept to understand? Because the CEO has publicly apologized for the performance and bugs, does...seeing a pattern yet? Understand yet?No. Bc I dont care how well it runs for you or anybody else. Is that clear enough or should I repeat? Cry me a river, I dont give a ****
"Doesnt run well" is subjective thing and has nothing to do with optimisations. You have to take into account what kind of game it is. The only open world game worthy of "next gen" title.

shickapowow
12-11-2014, 09:45 PM
Hahaha, AC Mako tellin it like it is.

RaulO4
12-11-2014, 10:07 PM
Many games use baked lighting. Its actually an optimisation. (see what I did here?). Doom 3 doesnt have any light maps. Should we call it the most advanced engine ever made?Unity actually has some dynamic light sources which can even affect volumetric fog and rain particles. Lighting complexity is not just some kind of toggle between static and dynamic. There are different lighting models, they differ by the ammount of stuff they take into account (like different materials properties) and how close they are to real life light behaviour.If you know even a single open world game that has comparable level of visuals complexity you're welcome to name it.No. Bc I dont care how well it runs for you or anybody else. Is that clear enough or should I repeat? Cry me a river, I dont give a ****
"Doesnt run well" is subjective thing and has nothing to do with optimisations. You have to take into account what kind of game it is. The only open world game worthy of "next gen" title.

but noo mako its the most ADVANCE lighting, it should be real time not baked like every other game.

i mean its advance right? it should do things like no other game can do. not just shader setting down by a super pc than bakes it into the game.

that not advance that is called Art design, which every game has done. The only few things about this game that screams polish was the amount of detailed settings the art design teams have put before baking/rending is that. but that is called detailed and not advance lighting. Cryengine is advance lighting, because some can be use in Game with playable frames.

Details does not make the game world more advance just more immerse and if that what you called next gen than gta 5 kills it with the amount of different details from small to the large spacing.

mmm that doesn't make it more advance. well at least gta 5 lighting has day and night cycles.


in short, using Tech that has been in use for the last gen hardware is not advance. Advance is when well in English advance the tech forward.
a example of this was half life 2 which its physics another is Crysis. in terms of tech. ACU baked lighting has been done before

.....

and your last part, well if you want to be blind and believe the all knowing crying Optimize when everyone else cant run it.
and no this is not an open world that worthy of next gen, next gen is not Up scale texture and poly. that been the norm of pc for years.

if it is than there will be no NEXT GEN until an open world pc only game that uses pc hardware with proper coding and not design a game for old hardware like ps4.

When i see an open world that the AI and the complexity of the gameplay couldn't be done before than that is next gen.


Yes my game runs fine (by the gods watches over me) 47-60 fps (the norm is around 50, in increase of 3 fps with win 8.1)
but just because god is on my side does not mean its design well or i should be F very one else.

and since optimize is base on subjective. Well you need to past way over their recommended Specs needed to play this to even play it.

M4EOzzy
12-12-2014, 12:50 AM
Many games use baked lighting. Its actually an optimisation. (see what I did here?). Doom 3 doesnt have any light maps. Should we call it the most advanced engine ever made?Unity actually has some dynamic light sources which can even affect volumetric fog and rain particles. Lighting complexity is not just some kind of toggle between static and dynamic. There are different lighting models, they differ by the ammount of stuff they take into account (like different materials properties) and how close they are to real life light behaviour.If you know even a single open world game that has comparable level of visuals complexity you're welcome to name it.No. Bc I dont care how well it runs for you or anybody else. Is that clear enough or should I repeat? Cry me a river, I dont give a ****
"Doesnt run well" is subjective thing and has nothing to do with optimisations. You have to take into account what kind of game it is. The only open world game worthy of "next gen" title.
Totally clear, Ubi fan blinded by your zeal. Clearly talking to you is a complete waste of time. Won't make that mistake again.

Wrath2Zero
12-12-2014, 01:07 AM
Crysis 3 features:

Realtime Global Illumination
Cascaded Light Propagation Volumes for Real Time Indirect Illumination.
Grass has full collision detection and shadow rendering receive and cast.
Volumetric Clouds
Fog Shadows
Realttime Caustic water effects and realtime reflections
Physically-based Textures and Colour
Realtime Directional Ambient Occlusion
Cascaded shadow mapping
Photo-based hemispheres
Light shafts
DX11 only based renderer for PC
Tessellation
Displacement mapping
Parallax Occlusion Mapping with silhouette
Shadow Penumbras Variables
Realtime Local reflections

Joyner08
12-12-2014, 03:01 AM
Just because it doesnt run well for you doesnt mean its not optimised.
Code optimisation doesnt mean just raw speed, it means efficiency. Is that a hard concept to understand?
To judge optimisation quality you have to take into account the ammount of work the engine has to do and if there are more efficient ways to do the same (or better). There isnt a single game out there with that much stuff. Maybe you wont agree and say "game X looks prettier". But prettyness is subjective. Numbers are not. By the ammount of details and lighting complexity this is the most advanced open world game, by far.

Fanboy or apologist, take your pick.

I have never seen someone so vehemently defend a broken product before. Ever.

I wish Unity ran to the standard well made games run at today. It is impressive and very pretty, but it does have issues that your excuses do not cover.

RaulO4
12-12-2014, 03:11 AM
Crysis 3 features:

Realtime Global Illumination
Cascaded Light Propagation Volumes for Real Time Indirect Illumination.
Grass has full collision detection and shadow rendering receive and cast.
Volumetric Clouds
Fog Shadows
Realttime Caustic water effects and realtime reflections
Physically-based Textures and Colour
Realtime Directional Ambient Occlusion
Cascaded shadow mapping
Photo-based hemispheres
Light shafts
DX11 only based renderer for PC
Tessellation
Displacement mapping
Parallax Occlusion Mapping with silhouette
Shadow Penumbras Variables
Realtime Local reflections

and all running with playable better frames.

too bad the gameplay was more like C1 and not C1

Anykeyer
12-12-2014, 08:02 AM
Crysis 3 features:

Realtime Global Illumination
Cascaded Light Propagation Volumes for Real Time Indirect Illumination.
Grass has full collision detection and shadow rendering receive and cast.
Volumetric Clouds
Fog Shadows
Realttime Caustic water effects and realtime reflections
Physically-based Textures and Colour
Realtime Directional Ambient Occlusion
Cascaded shadow mapping
Photo-based hemispheres
Light shafts
DX11 only based renderer for PC
Tessellation
Displacement mapping
Parallax Occlusion Mapping with silhouette
Shadow Penumbras Variables
Realtime Local reflections

Even AC4 engine had every single bit of this.
Unity adds some new cool stuff like physical-based rendering. Yes, they decided to drop realtime GI for now. Their pre baked solution looks better and much more realistic. Current hardware simply cant handle stuff like this in real time.

RaulO4
12-12-2014, 08:12 AM
i give up, this is just laughable at this point

Carfax83
12-12-2014, 08:18 AM
Crysis 3 features:

Realtime Global Illumination
Cascaded Light Propagation Volumes for Real Time Indirect Illumination.
Grass has full collision detection and shadow rendering receive and cast.
Volumetric Clouds
Fog Shadows
Realttime Caustic water effects and realtime reflections
Physically-based Textures and Colour
Realtime Directional Ambient Occlusion
Cascaded shadow mapping
Photo-based hemispheres
Light shafts
DX11 only based renderer for PC
Tessellation
Displacement mapping
Parallax Occlusion Mapping with silhouette
Shadow Penumbras Variables
Realtime Local reflections

Comparing Crysis 3 to AC Unity is stupid. They are completely different games. AC Unity being a completely seamless open world game has far greater scope and complexity than Crysis 3, which is a moderately linear game with loading points for different chapters.

With all of it's issues, AC Unity is still the most advanced game ever released to date technologically speaking.. No current game even comes close, including Dragon Age Inquisition.

Anykeyer
12-12-2014, 08:21 AM
Fanboy or apologist, take your pick.
I have never seen someone so vehemently defend a broken product before. Ever.
I wish Unity ran to the standard well made games run at today. It is impressive and very pretty, but it does have issues that your excuses do not cover.

Totally clear, Ubi fan blinded by your zeal. Clearly talking to you is a complete waste of time. Won't make that mistake again.
You know whats funny? Before this thread 60% of my posts were Ubisoft hating, 40% giving others tech tips (which would be unnecessary if Ubisoft was perfect).
Suddenly I became Ubisoft apologist. ROFL.
Yes, this game has bugs but we talk here about visuals complexity and performance. For the ammount of stuff this engine has to handle it does incredible job. It is highly efficient at doing what it does. Saying its not optimised is just insane.
If the game doesnt run well for you its bc your hardware cant handle it, not bc the engine is bad. Im tired of explaining such a simple concept over and over ago, so I'll just quote nvidia this time:

Next, we come to the hot topic, 'optimization'. Frequently referenced in heated online debates, 'optimization' is commonly and incorrectly used to describe a game's general level of performance, be that good or bad. Instead, optimization should be used to determine a game's comparative performance. "Does the game running on engine x output more graphically intensive scenarios than game y using the same engine?" "Does the new game in a franchise run better than the previous version, and with improved graphics?" "Does a game utilize all available CPU cores, and to a high degree of utilization, in comparison to a similar game or a previous game in the same franchise?" "Is the game in question significantly nicer-looking than another similar game, yet running better?" These are just some of the questions that should be asked when determining if a game is 'optimized'.

YazX_
12-12-2014, 09:44 AM
Ok back on topic, 4th patch is coming on DEC 15th, here is the official announcement:

http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm%3A152-188597-16&ct=tcm%3A148-76770-32

NineteenHealer
12-12-2014, 09:53 AM
lol it comes out on my birthday XD can't wait.

strigoi1958
12-12-2014, 12:36 PM
Ok back on topic, 4th patch is coming on DEC 15th, here is the official announcement:

http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/community/liveupdates/live_updates_details.aspx?c=tcm%3A152-188597-16&ct=tcm%3A148-76770-32

Great and the thread is back on topic... Idk why so many threads turn into console vs pc or optimized or not, or nvidia vs AMD :confused: pick whatever you can afford or prefer and live with it.

And in a forum as soon as you stop arguing the point and start attacking the other person by name calling... not only is it disrespectful... you automatically lose. It's like admitting you cannot find anything else to make your point and out of frustration turn your anger into a personal attack... :(