Analyze This: Graphic Settings and UserOptions.ini -- Is Your Game Running Optimally?

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Thks for the vid but I used exactly your setting and nothing happened on my end. Maybe it has something to do with other settings as well.

Question is: What max distance bullet hole rendering can you get with that setting? I'm standard on 40+ meters now. Not sure what to do to max it out but if it works on your end, maybe you can get a clue because believe me, this is a very important attachment test setting.

I've seen dozens of YouTube weapon reviews and guides over the course and so far no one has ever been able to properly analyze and demonstrate the effects of fwd grips and to a lesser extend compensators. Everybody is mostly in the blind with this.

I'm moving a lot today but I'll give it a shot later on tonight when I settle in. I tend not to do weapon reviews for my YouTube unless it's a particular exception, since so many people cover them already in great detail. You may be right about this one particular thing, though. I'll give it a look.

In the meanwhile feel free to adjust other settings to mine to see if it makes a difference, not sure what it could be, but they're all there in the OP.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by ItZMuRdA

I'm moving a lot today but I'll give it a shot later on tonight when I settle in. I tend not to do weapon reviews for my YouTube unless it's a particular exception, since so many people cover them already in great detail. You may be right about this one particular thing, though. I'll give it a look.

In the meanwhile feel free to adjust other settings to mine to see if it makes a difference, not sure what it could be, but they're all there in the OP.

Checked in for you today Rolf. It's hard to confirm if the setting does anything beyond 65m, it's possible that it draws tracers and things at a larger range. It was really hard for me to test -- it might not.

I can say, however, regardless what the setting was on, bullet holes drew at a max of about 30 meters, so it doesn't seem to change that at least.

[Rolfski]

Thanks mate, I was already afraid of that. Having bullet holes rendered for a longer time at a longer distance for attachment test purposes, is a Quality of Life feature I requested but unfortunately didn't get implemented.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Thanks mate, I was already afraid of that. Having bullet holes rendered for a longer time at a longer distance for attachment test purposes, is a Quality of Life feature I requested but unfortunately didn't get implemented.

np. Glad to help, sorry to disappoint!

[blashyrk]

The title of this thread is perfect; no, my game isn't running optimally! It isn't running optimally for anyone, it's simply an unoptimized game .

I have AMD FX-8350 @ stock 4.0Ghz and I can't ever get more than 20+-5 FPS in big battles.

I tried every tweak, config and suggestion people have posted (yours included) and nothing seems to help. Ironically my older rig (AMD Phenom II X4 @ 3.0Ghz) never drops below 30FPS, I can't seem to understand what's making the difference.

Sorry for the rant, I do appreciate you trying to help us by posting this guide and I really hope someone has benefited from it.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by blashyrk

The title of this thread is perfect; no, my game isn't running optimally! It isn't running optimally for anyone, it's simply an unoptimized game .

I have AMD FX-8350 @ stock 4.0Ghz and I can't ever get more than 20+-5 FPS in big battles.

I tried every tweak, config and suggestion people have posted (yours included) and nothing seems to help. Ironically my older rig (AMD Phenom II X4 @ 3.0Ghz) never drops below 30FPS, I can't seem to understand what's making the difference.

Sorry for the rant, I do appreciate you trying to help us by posting this guide and I really hope someone has benefited from it.

It's not all about your CPU. What is your GPU? Nvidia or AMD/ATI?

Here is my rig.
AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 Ghz
8Gb (2X4gb) G. Skillz PC1600 DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 7970 B.E. 1 Ghz 3Gb GDDR5

I can get up to 114fps on near ultra settings.. but dips down to high 40s or mid 50s in extremely large battles. I should be getting better frames, but unfortunately the game is optimized for Nvidia.. hence the Nvidia PhysX ability in the game. With the game coming to the PS4 which is an AMD multi-core (8 cores) processor and it having a ATI video card then hopefully they will roll out better optimization for AMD/ATI users.

The crappy part to me is I get lower frames the lower my settings are set. I have to be at least on High for it to start using my video card more than my CPU. Custom settings with some things on high and ultra has netted the best results with things like Fog Shadow =off, Flora=off. There is more to finding the right settings that using the presets.

[blashyrk]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

It's not all about your CPU. What is your GPU? Nvidia or AMD/ATI?

Here is my rig.
AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 Ghz
8Gb (2X4gb) G. Skillz PC1600 DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 7970 B.E. 1 Ghz 3Gb GDDR5

I can get up to 114fps on near ultra settings.. but dips down to high 40s or mid 50s in extremely large battles. I should be getting better frames, but unfortunately the game is optimized for Nvidia.. hence the Nvidia PhysX ability in the game. With the game coming to the PS4 which is an AMD multi-core (8 cores) processor and it having a ATI video card then hopefully they will roll out better optimization for AMD/ATI users.

The crappy part to me is I get lower frames the lower my settings are set. I have to be at least on High for it to start using my video card more than my CPU. Custom settings with some things on high and ultra has netted the best results with things like Fog Shadow =off, Flora=off. There is more to finding the right settings that using the presets.

I'm using ATi HD 6870 and each and every time my framerate dips to miserable levels, the game shows [CPU] as the hog...

I also have 8GB (2x4GB) Kingston HyperX something something RAM @ 1600Mhz

[ChipMHazard]

Where are my manners. The least I can do after asking for this video so many times is thank you. So thanks for this, Murda

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Where are my manners. The least I can do after asking for this video so many times is thank you. So thanks for this, Murda

lol, thank you good sir.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by blashyrk

I'm using ATi HD 6870 and each and every time my framerate dips to miserable levels, the game shows [CPU] as the hog...

I also have 8GB (2x4GB) Kingston HyperX something something RAM @ 1600Mhz

Try using higher graphic settings and see if you get better frames. Some settings will force your video card to do more work. Motion Blur and Ambient Occlusion seem to make the game start to use my GPU more.

My in game settings are..
Overall Quality: Custom
Graphics Quality: High
Texture Quality: Ultra
Lighting Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Off
Fog: unchecked (off)
Effects Quality: High
Terrain Quality: High
Flora Quality: Off
Model Quality: High
Particles: High
Motion Blur: checked (on)
Ambient Occlusion: checked (on)

Try some of those and see what happens. Tweak some of them if you need to. The game still tells me I am CPU bottlenecked.. but those settings seem to net me the best results so far.

[Phreec]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Thks for the vid but I used exactly your setting and nothing happened on my end. Maybe it has something to do with other settings as well.

I believe you also need UseLod0a=1

[blashyrk]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

Try using higher graphic settings and see if you get better frames. Some settings will force your video card to do more work. Motion Blur and Ambient Occlusion seem to make the game start to use my GPU more.

My in game settings are..
Overall Quality: Custom
Graphics Quality: High
Texture Quality: Ultra
Lighting Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Off
Fog: unchecked (off)
Effects Quality: High
Terrain Quality: High
Flora Quality: Off
Model Quality: High
Particles: High
Motion Blur: checked (on)
Ambient Occlusion: checked (on)

Try some of those and see what happens. Tweak some of them if you need to. The game still tells me I am CPU bottlenecked.. but those settings seem to net me the best results so far.

I tried maxing the game out (other than shadows and flora) like you suggested, and again, everything is well until I get stuck in a massive biolab/techplant fight, where I get 20-25FPS.

Perhaps it has something to do with me running Windows 8 x64? I vaguely remember someone somewhere saying that the game runs worse on Windows 8 for some reason... I'd appreciate if someone could confirm or disprove this.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by blashyrk

I tried maxing the game out (other than shadows and flora) like you suggested, and again, everything is well until I get stuck in a massive biolab/techplant fight, where I get 20-25FPS.

Perhaps it has something to do with me running Windows 8 x64? I vaguely remember someone somewhere saying that the game runs worse on Windows 8 for some reason... I'd appreciate if someone could confirm or disprove this.

I seem to remember Higby saying that Windows 8 wasn't a focus at the time (back in beta).. but that could have changed. I've heard that Windows 8 isn't well support in general because of some choices Microsoft made when the new operating system. Largly having to do with the app/game store that is part of Windows 8 that attempts to cut out other online digital stores like Origin, Steam, Google Play and Uplay. Again, that is what I have heard... not sure how true that is either. If anyone can correct me then it would be appreciated.

[Rolfski]

Window 8 app store = (touch) metro environment only. Has nothing to do with this game. PS2 is desktop environment which won't go anywhere soon, so there's no reason for SOE not to optimize it for Windows 8, that will be on most people's gaming rigs the coming years.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Window 8 app store = (touch) metro environment only. Has nothing to do with this game. PS2 is desktop environment which won't go anywhere soon, so there's no reason for SOE not to optimize it for Windows 8, that will be on most people's gaming rigs the coming years.

Windows 8 Is Not Good For Gamers

For the past several days, I've been playing with a very nice laptop that has Windows 8 Professional installed on it. Many others, like our sibling site Gizmodo, have looked at Windows 8's usability for professional environments, or for everyday home computing. I've been exploring its potential specifically for gaming, trying out play-related features both old and new. It's taken me half a week to learn to use it, but after beginning the long process of adapting, I feel that I can safely say:

Gabe Newell might be right.

Newell, head of Valve, has infamously stated that Windows 8 is "a catastrophe" for games development. Plenty of others have echoed the concerns, if in less strong language, including Blizzard, Stardock, and Markus "Notch" Persson of Minecraft fame. Valve, as a result, is hedging their bets for the future by trying to expand into Linux, and bringing more gaming there. After my frustrating days with Windows 8, that looks like a good idea.

http://kotaku.com/5936535/windows-8-...ood-for-gamers

I know that Kutaku isn't the best for real information, but this is what kinda started it all. That and as I said.. other publishers have stated that they dislike the Windows 8 store because it directly competes with their stores.

Will Windows 8 get better optimization over time? Probably, but it seems like the vast majority of developers aren't worying about it for now.

Actually to further expand on this. Microsoft is known for making crap operating systems occasionally. If you go back in time you see Windows 95.. when a lot of games started coming out. Windows 98 was supported well with games after. Then Windows ME came out... do you remember anyone getting that system? Not many and games didn't function well for that system. Then XP came out and once again gamers rejoiced. Everyone praised XP for how great it was... then Vista came out... yea, Vista... terrible. I personally don't know anyone that got Vista and games ran poorly on it. Then Windows 7... tons of support and games made for it. Now Windows 8 is out... games haven't been doing well on it. There was a Windows 8 exclusive game that is now being pushed to other operating systems because it did so terrible that they didn't want to stay exclusive. People complain about Windows 8... publishers and developers dislike Windows 8... so it could very well go down like ME and Vista.