700 réponses à ce sujet

[NRieh]

I've played with the new beta drivers yesterday, and I should say that I've had a HUGE performance improvement. it's something like +10 FPS (which is great for me, because I was struggling around +30-35 at best since the patch, with a sensible drop in populated areas. I was even amazed to get ~60 in some small caves and houses, lol!   

 

Sly shimmering and white fog is still there, unfortunately (latter even more frequent, probably).

Also had some strange lighting issue once (everything max bright, as a flashlight) , but the driver is still in beta. I'm eager to see it polished and WHQL.

 

My current settings are

High\high - textures\meshes 

Medium - shadow, terrain, effects, post-process quality&AA, water, vegetation (I had tuned the latter two down after the patch, might get them back to high again)

Low - tessellation.

Off- multisample AA (in-game, motion blur - user.cfg)

 

Config is Lenovo Y500  i53210M 2.5h, SLI 650M 2x2gb, 6gb RAM.

Recent average  FPS 43-55, with occasional drops into 30s and rare moments of 60.  

 

edit: a question about the number of cores. I've got a 2-core CPU with a HT. which makes 4 threads, which setting is supposed to be set in the cfg?

[DemGeth]

Surprised driver notes didn't say anything about da

[Verrenus]

I've played with the new beta drivers yesterday, and I should say that I've had a HUGE performance improvement. it's something like +10 FPS (which is great for me, because I was struggling around +30-35 at best since the patch, with a sensible drop in populated areas. I was even amazed to get ~60 in some small caves and houses, lol!   

 

Sly shimmering and white fog is still there, unfortunately (latter even more frequent, probably).

Also had some strange lighting issue once (everything max bright, as a flashlight) , but the driver is still in beta. I'm eager to see it polished and WHQL.

 

My current settings are

High\high - textures\meshes 

Medium - shadow, terrain, effects, post-process quality&AA, water, vegetation (I had tuned the latter two down after the patch, might get them back to high again)

Low - tessellation.

Off- multisample AA (in-game, motion blur - user.cfg)

 

Config is Lenovo Y500  i53210M 2.5h, SLI 650M 2x2gb, 6gb RAM.

Recent average  FPS 43-55, with occasional drops into 30s and rare moments of 60.  

 

edit: a question about the number of cores. I've got a 2-core CPU with a HT. which makes 4 threads, which setting is supposed to be set in the cfg?

 

I'm very glad to hear that the new drivers have improved your experience so much, since they didn't seem to do anything for me! 

 

Regarding then number of cores, yes - you should set the first two values to "4", which is your maximum number of threads. Again, these didn't seem to help me at all, but maybe they will help you! 

 

Surprised driver notes didn't say anything about da

 

They did say this under "Windows Vista/Windows 7 64-bit Issues": Dragon Age Inquisition runs poorly (stutters) on NVIDIA hardware. [1588023] 

[Schwayk]

i've been lurking a lot on this thread since my last post, but after days of trying to tweak DA:I, I can finally say that I'm done with this game unless they release patch 3.

Either Frostbite doesn't like being modified or the game is optimized poorly for PC. I've just deleted my user.cfg and set the game on adaptive v-sync. My elfquisitor will have to wait in Haven until patch 3 

[Pelonious]

can all these sub commands be entered thru the origin tool as well ?

[Verrenus]

i've been lurking a lot on this thread since my last post, but after days of trying to tweak DA:I, I can finally say that I'm done with this game unless they release patch 3.

Either Frostbite doesn't like being modified or the game is optimized poorly for PC. I've just deleted my user.cfg and set the game on adaptive v-sync. My elfquisitor will have to wait in Haven until patch 3 

 

Don't feel bad or sorry at all, Schwayk, the fault does not lie with us. We've tried everything we could. I've personally been playing DA:I for 78 hours, but the latest save file only shows 68 hours, so I've been tweaking this game for 10 whole hours and it's still not performing as it should. 

 

I've never seen a game this resistant to end-user tweaks. Whenever I find a good combination of graphical settings, as well as "user.cfg" and "Game Properties" commands, the performance is good at the beginning and then it gradually grows into a microstutter fest. Simply connecting an attack to an enemy causes a CPU spike that drops frames regardless of any graphical setting. A certain area in the Storm Coast (i.e. Apostate's Landing) tanks my framerate for no reason whatsoever. I've never installed a new OS because of trying to play a game at its best before and, while I don't regret switching to Windows 8.1, not even the latest version of DirectX 11 on a fresh system install can maintain a locked 60 FPS at decent graphical settings.

 

This is the reason Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes blew me away completely. Not because of the gameplay and production values, which are through the roof, but mostly because of the quality of the PC port. I thought I would never see a locked 60 FPS on maximum settings with a brand new game, but there it was and if felt godly! As good a game as DA:I is, I'm getting tired of losing my free time tweaking it rather than playing it. At this point, I'm not sure if I should blame BioWare for their choice of engine or lack of proper PC coding expertise. The whole thing just makes me equal parts angry and sad.

 

can all these sub commands be entered thru the origin tool as well ?

 

Theoretically, yes, but only GameTime.MaxSimFps and GameTime.ForceSimRate need to be put into the Game Properties windows, since they don't seem to work via the in-game console.

[Pelonious]

update

 

updated to 9.18.13.4709 and seeing much better framerate returns and smoother gameplay without crashing

[Kateish]

Is there a reason the uncapping cutscene framerate fix won't run my game at all?

 

After adding the command line argument in Game Properties when I hit play I get a small black window, then nothing. I have to ctrl, alt, del to close the exe down. Even tried adding it to a desktop shortcut but I still get the same issue.

[Verrenus]

update

 

updated to 9.18.13.4709 and seeing much better framerate returns and smoother gameplay without crashing

 

That's great news, I'm really glad the new drivers made a positive change for you! 

 

Is there a reason the uncapping cutscene framerate fix won't run my game at all?

 

After adding the command line argument in Game Properties when I hit play I get a small black window, then nothing. I have to ctrl, alt, del to close the exe down. Even tried adding it to a desktop shortcut but I still get the same issue.

 

Not that I know of, no. The worst that can happen when editing the "Game Properties" window wrong is that the commands won't be recognised and used by the game until corrected. Have you tried running the game as an administrator, since that might help? Furthermore, are you running SweetFX with the game? 

[Vordish]

Does anyone have a good in-game reference point to test Tessellation? I was in the Crossroads in the Hinterlands and tried having it at high and then to low and then off and I cannot seem to find anything different.

 

I know its supposed to make things "stick out more" and be more realistic. Like different levels of stones on the ground instead of a flat surface.

[Sola Gon_]

Good to see is the tessellation effect at the Storm Coast. Especially the ground with it's many small stones.

I made two small GIF animations each with 5 images, from tessellation none to ultra. The second GIF is zoomed in to the lower left side. The optical difference between none and low is subtle. Between low and mid I can't a difference. Heavy difference is on high and ultra. All small stones pop up. Performance wise I had 60 FPS in none, 54 FPS in mid and 45 FPS in ultra. 

Edit: eeek! I had a typo in the video 

 

[NRieh]

Great job, thanks for those shots!

 

@ Verrenus you might want to link this post to OP, I think it's useful. 

 

The optical difference between none and low is subtle

And what about FPS difference? Was there any?

[Verrenus]

Good to see is the tessellation effect at the Storm Coast. Especially the ground with it's many small stones.

I made two small GIF animations each with 5 images, from tessellation none to ultra. The second GIF is zoomed in to the lower left side. The optical difference between none and low is subtle. Between low and mid I can't a difference. Heavy difference is on high and ultra. All small stones pop up. Performance wise I had 60 FPS in none, 54 FPS in mid and 45 FPS in ultra. 

Edit: eeek! I had a typo in the video 

 

Oh wow, this is incredible stuff, Sola! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, it's going straight into the OP! 

 

Great job, thanks for those shots!

 

@ Verrenus you might want to link this post to OP, I think it's useful. 

 

And what about FPS difference? Was there any?

 

It's extremely useful, especially given how resource hungry tessellation is in this game! Given the virtually non-existent visual improvement between "Off", "Low" and "Medium", there shouldn't be any significant performance difference. However, my guess is that "Low" and "Medium" tessellate objects other than the ground and only on "High" and "Ultra" does it finally touch the ground textures. 

[Vordish]

Thank you for taking the time to make those GIFs.

 

I have to say that watching them leaves me with the distinct impression that if your going to use Tessellation that you might as well put it on "High".

 

Going from "Off" to "Low" barely raises the ground on the bottom right of the second picture at Vivienne's feet and I do mean barely. Seems almost not worth the FPS loss to have it enabled.

[Verrenus]

Thank you for taking the time to make those GIFs.

 

I have to say that watching them leaves me with the distinct impression that if your going to use Tessellation that you might as well put it on "High".

 

Going from "Off" to "Low" barely raises the ground on the bottom right of the second picture at Vivienne's feet and I do mean barely. Seems almost not worth the FPS loss to have it enabled.

 

This is precisely why these GIFs are so important - they show two graphical settings that can sap away your frames for no discernible visual improvement! 

[Crabby654]

Wow those gif's are FANTASTIC....now I need to play with tessellation on high! Thanks for killing my FPS! But seriously though the different from medium to high is so drastic its unreal.

[Verrenus]

Wow those gif's are FANTASTIC....now I need to play with tessellation on high! Thanks for killing my FPS! But seriously though the different from medium to high is so drastic its unreal.

 

Heh, this is why I keep saying that BioWare don't know how to work with Frostbite. There shouldn't be such a dramatic gap between "Medium" and "High" if you want your game to properly scale to lower end systems. 

[Sola Gon_]

I did another GIF from another place. It's the same in regards to the visual impact. Low and Mid looks the same and are meaningless, only very subtle difference to None. Just High and Ultra do enhance the graphics. In this place I had no big FPS lost, about 5 FPS less in Ultra then on None setting. FPS depends heavy on the surroundings.

 

[Verrenus]

I did another GIF from another place. It's the same in regards to the visual impact. Low and Mid looks the same and are meaningless, only very subtle difference to None. Just High and Ultra do enhance the graphics. In this place I had no big FPS lost, about 5 FPS less in Ultra then on None setting. FPS depends heavy on the surroundings.

 

 

Thanks a lot once again for taking the time to do this, Sola! I've updated the OP with your latest image! 

[Vordish]

Im on Windows 8.1 64-bit with an i7 4770 and using a Geforce 770 GTX.

 

For the most part I used all settings on "High" and generally had 50-60 frames in all areas of the game. The only time it dipped was in the Crossroads in the Hinterlands and certain sections of Redcliffe itself as well as the Storm Coast.

 

Those areas were the worst and it never went below 45+ fps at any given time.

 

However, I would like to point out that perhaps people should start fiddling with the "Resolution Scale" option in the graphics menu. I decided to mess with it a bit and I was able to turn several settings like shadow quality, which is very resource intensive traditionally, to Ultra and still maintain 60 fps.

 

I have FXAA enabled in my Nvidia Control Panel because I like the smoothing effect as well as PP AA enabled in the options menu itself. I set the Resolution scale to 80 instead of 100 and it netted me 10 FPS in those areas where it dipped down to 50.

 

Im also using 1920x1080 resolution as well while having it this way. The overall result is higher frames with more graphical fidelity options enabled with an ever so slightly grainer effect. I find it pleasing and worth-while. Others might find it better too.

 

Something to tinker with anyways.

[SSV Enterprise]

Oh wow, this is incredible stuff, Sola! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, it's going straight into the OP! 

 

 

It's extremely useful, especially given how resource hungry tessellation is in this game! Given the virtually non-existent visual improvement between "Off", "Low" and "Medium", there shouldn't be any significant performance difference. However, my guess is that "Low" and "Medium" tessellate objects other than the ground and only on "High" and "Ultra" does it finally touch the ground textures. 

 

Yeah, it's very clear when it comes to ground detail tessellation, there isn't any noticeable detail added until the "High" setting.  "Ultra" does seem to add some noticeable detail and reduce aliasing up close.  I'd be curious myself to know if there is anything else being tessellated besides the ground on "Low" and "Medium".  It has to be doing something to cause that performance drop...

 

Im on Windows 8.1 64-bit with an i7 4770 and using a Geforce 770 GTX.

 

For the most part I used all settings on "High" and generally had 50-60 frames in all areas of the game. The only time it dipped was in the Crossroads in the Hinterlands and certain sections of Redcliffe itself as well as the Storm Coast.

 

Those areas were the worst and it never went below 45+ fps at any given time.

 

However, I would like to point out that perhaps people should start fiddling with the "Resolution Scale" option in the graphics menu. I decided to mess with it a bit and I was able to turn several settings like shadow quality, which is very resource intensive traditionally, to Ultra and still maintain 60 fps.

 

I have FXAA enabled in my Nvidia Control Panel because I like the smoothing effect as well as PP AA enabled in the options menu itself. I set the Resolution scale to 80 instead of 100 and it netted me 10 FPS in those areas where it dipped down to 50.

 

Im also using 1920x1080 resolution as well while having it this way. The overall result is higher frames with more graphical fidelity options enabled with an ever so slightly grainer effect. I find it pleasing and worth-while. Others might find it better too.

 

Something to tinker with anyways.

 

Enabling FXAA in the Nvidia Control Panel is pointless because the game's PP AA is FXAA.  The only thing Control Panel FXAA will do is cause all text and images in the menus and UI to look rounded, because the game applies its PP AA to the frame before the menu and UI elements are rendered, while Control Panel FXAA is applied after the whole frame is rendered.

[Vordish]

Are you sure? The tool-tip for PP AA in-game says it affects Motion Blur and Depth of Field. I just assumed it only affected those two things

 

*Edit*

 

Oh, I got the two mixed up. Sorry about that. I see your point. Thanks.

[Vordish]

Does anyone know if its possible to modify the parameters of the shadowing in this game? Like...resolution specifically?

[Verrenus]

Im on Windows 8.1 64-bit with an i7 4770 and using a Geforce 770 GTX.

 

For the most part I used all settings on "High" and generally had 50-60 frames in all areas of the game. The only time it dipped was in the Crossroads in the Hinterlands and certain sections of Redcliffe itself as well as the Storm Coast.

 

Those areas were the worst and it never went below 45+ fps at any given time.

 

However, I would like to point out that perhaps people should start fiddling with the "Resolution Scale" option in the graphics menu. I decided to mess with it a bit and I was able to turn several settings like shadow quality, which is very resource intensive traditionally, to Ultra and still maintain 60 fps.

 

I have FXAA enabled in my Nvidia Control Panel because I like the smoothing effect as well as PP AA enabled in the options menu itself. I set the Resolution scale to 80 instead of 100 and it netted me 10 FPS in those areas where it dipped down to 50.

 

Im also using 1920x1080 resolution as well while having it this way. The overall result is higher frames with more graphical fidelity options enabled with an ever so slightly grainer effect. I find it pleasing and worth-while. Others might find it better too.

 

Something to tinker with anyways.

 

Resolution scale does indeed boost frames, but that's because it causes the game to upscale from a lower resolution, which leads to blurry textures. Resolution is not something I would compromise on when it comes to image quality, but of course some people might find it useful. 

 

Does anyone know if its possible to modify the parameters of the shadowing in this game? Like...resolution specifically?

 

I do believe you can! I haven't tried it myself, but here a console command that might help you do just that:

 

WorldRender.SpotLightShadowmapResolution

 

You will unfortunately have to try some values yourself, but I've seen people use values such as "4" in order to boost their framerates. 

[Skeevley]

Resolution scale does indeed boost frames, but that's because it causes the game to upscale from a lower resolution, which leads to blurry textures. Resolution is not something I would compromise on when it comes to image quality, but of course some people might find it useful. 

 

In general I agree with this; on anything other than an old CRT (which has no pre-defined native resolution) you want to run at the native resolution (or, if you are lucky enough to have a display which supports downsampling in the hardware, you can run at a higher resolution and have the display downsample for you, producing an anti-aliasing effect.). The in-game resolution scaling does something very similar to simply running your screen at a lower resolution; instant blurring of everything. There just isn't any way around that (pixel-scaling is evil, unless you have one of Apple's retina displays, in which they have somehow worked absurd wizardry into the scaling. Never seen anything quite like it honestly). However, in some cases a game engine just isn't going to run well at your native resolution, period.

 

I discovered, however, that the game's texture-scaling feature looks WAY worse than my laptop's (not retina, unfortunately) native scaling capabilities, so I suggest trying that instead of the game's scaling and see what looks best for you.

 

Also, you can edit the profileoptions_profile file in your Save folder to manually enable lower resolutions than the game natively supports through the UI. For example, I have a 1440x900 screen (that's the native resolution), which is a 16x10 screen. The lowest resolution the game will allow me to choose is 1024x768, which isn't even 16x10. I enabled several lower resolution through my NVIDIA software, 1024x640, 800x500, and 720x450, all of which are 16x10 resolutions. I can then put any of those resolutions into my profileoptions_profile file (be careful editing it) and the game will run at any of those resolutions. There are considerable speed improvements. Text looks very poor at any resolution below 1024x640, but remains legible and playable.