I’m wondering if this would help get a solid 60 outside of interiors/around loads of NPCs. Only my GPU doesn’t meet requirements, and it’s still playable. But is mostly 30-40’s unless I’m in a small interior or an interior with not many NPCs. The NPCs are more bound to CPU so I’m not sure if having lower res/filesize textures would help. I don’t think the VRAM is the problem.
It’s a little better. I’m pretty sure it’s gotta be the NPCs now. Video card is handling it all quite nicely, despite not having RTX or even DLSS support, but everywhere there are crowds it slows down by 20 fps. Currently just standing in the main road of Neon and it’s around 40-45, dropoing to 35 when I run, but get a solid 60 when no NPCs are visible by looking up at an animated billboard or something.
The fact you need a 4090 to touch 120fps on 1080p in 2023 is disgusting. That should be the minimum target fps for mid range hardware at the least.
Meh, game is bland anyway.
Ok sure, 1080p low settings, I can get away with a 4080 if I have an i9 13900K. 1080p high? Yeah, not even a 4090 with a 13900K will get you near 120fps.
It's shitty code bound. Sometimes no matter how powerful your hardware is, software will perform poorly because it just doesn't scale. Writing complex software like game so that it can fully utilize current hardware AND actually run faster with better CPU/GPU can become very difficult once a certain complexity threshold is reached. It's easy enough to do for a small linear game even if it has exceptional graphics, but an open world sandbox game like ones that Bethesda makes is a completely different story.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible of course - Bethesda absolutely should have made a better job, but it's by no means an easy task.
I was able to get a consistent 70+ fps with most things set to medium, 1440p with a 3900x and a rtx 2080 with dlss2 and a mod that helps performance without any noticable dregredarion I can tell.
Potatoes? You mean PCs with < $1000 GPUs?
I'm not touching Starfield until I can play it at 1440p 60 fps with decent graphics (yes, actual 1440p, not "720p upscaled to 1440p" bullshit. Neither that nor 30 fps are acceptable to me).
If Bethesda can't be bothered to fix performance and I will need to wait years until I decide to upgrade so be it - I have plenty of great games in my "to play" list. By that time the will also be lots of mods to choose from to make Starfield worth it.
It's crazy to me that they make the same game for almost 20 years but still can't make it work. The ai seems to get worse every game, computers get better and better but it still runs the same.
Just from a a couple of nights playing Starfield. The combat ai does seem more interesting then with enemies jumping off ledges to get to you etc but not but a whole heck of a lot. L
That's the plan. I haven't actually properly played F4 yet either lol (tried years ago but dropped due to performance issues). Probably will do it soon after spending a month modding it.
Don't know how much free time you have, but I couldn't be bothered anymore for FO4 on nexus. I just downloaded one of the bigger/better collections and ignored/deactivated the creepier/boobier mods.
Already more than enough of a hassle to get that working, with vortex sometimes not installing stuff properly, pre-cleaning files, etc.
I just enjoy that stuff lol. I only stopped my last Skyrim playthrough because I kept updating my mods and adding new ones and at the one point it just broke all of my saves. I took it as a sign to move on to other games.
Same, but realistically once you start heading towards the 500 mods range, it's almost impossible to get it working reliably.
At one point I had 200+ mods on skyrim, and the mod cycles and before/after conflicts on vortex looked like mandelas. I did enjoy 'completing' the vortex mod manager game. That's when it's 3AM, you're fed up, you give up trying to figure what's wrong, and just click randomly and uninstall/reinstall mods until vortex shuts up, and it somehow just works. Bit like winning the lottery.
Sad that the article focused on this particular mod. It’s aimed at textures for low-end systems, yes, but there are 2-3 others that are aimed at systems across the board and use stock textures with simple config file changes. They’re all tweaks with options that are in the game but unavailable on the menu, and they do vastly improve performance without a drop in quality.
A better headline could have been “Modders fix in days what Bethesda didn’t do with years”.
A Ryzen 5 is a pretty large span of processors, ranging from “old and mostly obsolete” to “modern and highly capable for gaming”. Which one exactly would be helpful for others to help judge their own.
I’ll take another look at it today after I fiddle with the settings a bit. What I saw yesterday was not impressive - occasional stuttering while barely utilizing my 2060 on low/med settings while looking worse than Skyrim did in 2011.
It’s sad that this is necessary. And given that it took less than a week for modders to get actual performance gains means that bethesda could’ve easily done it themselves.
I mean theres certainly a game there, but its very much a game pass filler or a sale game. Its definitely not worth the asking price.
Its like Fallout 4 but with less going on all around you. The dialogue is improved I can give them that, but all around the game is pretty uninspired and bland, its very much a console game. Theres a lot better out there.
The Series S is still current Gen tech running at a lower power profile. A lower end PC may be using a previous gen CPU or GPU making it harder to optimise.
Don’t think Bethesda is focused on making their gaming look specifically bad just to make it run on older hardware. Similar to all other companies there is a minimum spec. I do think that having such great mod support allows for this to happen which is great.
They are sabotaging their own sales by not doing it. Starfield is such a hyped game that many people who don’t usually game much will want to play it and those people tend to not have the most up-to-date hardware. The PC I built in 2018 for about 1100€ is pretty much exactly the minimum spec for starfield. And given that minimum specs usually target 30fps for some reason, I’d need this mod if I wanted to play it at a reasonable framerate.
It’s a first party title used to drive Gamepass subs now, they have different metrics for success. Not to mention you can play it streaming on multiple services too and on console. They’ll be fine not appealing to people stuck a decade back tech wise.
From a money perspective, probably. But there’s also the PR perspective to consider, and they threw away an easy win there. Starfield can run decently on the steam deck and if they cared to optimize it for that, it would have been a big win.
People were going to shit on it no matter what, literally the only game in recent memory that the Internet didn’t shit on was Baldurs Gate 3, and that’s probably mostly because it’s a much smaller company.
This seems like pure speculation. The relative number of people below this spec is probably not worth it for them to focus on this. Besides their explicit support for modding allows them to improved sales value. Consider for example Skyrim. It was re-released so many times and people kept buying it and mods allowed it to look great even years after its release. I think by narrowing their scope they can focus on development of a good core and by leveraging their mod community it can run on older or higher hardware. Win win in my opinion.
Dodaj komentarz