Greetings, All
An issue that has been on my mind of late. This issue is that of frame rates in recent mouth games have come out for the pc that have been having bad frame rate issue even on the beast pcs . I'm hoping that is the reason why ME:A was pushed. Cause they found a frame rate issues and decided instead of selling it Bioware went back to fix it.
Uh okay?
We know next to nothing about ME:A and certaintly nothing about any technical details of a game that will be released in a year.
I mean sure, if thinking that ME:A won't have any frame rate issues makes you feel better, go ahead. I just don't see why that deserves a thread.
Greetings, All
An issue that has been on my mind of late. This issue is that of frame rates in recent mouth games have come out for the pc that have been having bad frame rate issue even on the beast pcs . I'm hoping that is the reason why ME:A was pushed. Cause they found a frame rate issues and decided instead of selling it Bioware went back to fix it.
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Doubt it. The easy fix is to cap the FPS at 30. Another way is to reduce the Ultra settings to lower ones and still call them Ultra.
PC graphics will always have the potential to outstrip their console cousins frozen graphic hardware. Here, I'd say they will select graphics parity as their baseline and work up from there. By the time 2017 comes around, AMD will have their 14/16 nm FinFet hardware out that will kick serious azz at a lower Power envelope. Drivers will be stable and so I have expectation of a min 60FPS for the PC, with the proper graphics hwd.
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
Doubt it. The easy fix is to cap the FPS at 30. Another way is to reduce the Ultra settings to lower ones and still call them Ultra.
PC graphics will always have the potential to outstrip their console cousins frozen graphic hardware. Here, I'd say they will select graphics parity as their baseline and work up from there. By the time 2017 comes around, AMD will have their 14/16 nm FinFet hardware out that will kick serious azz at a lower Power envelope. Drivers will be stable and so I have expectation of a min 60FPS for the PC, with the proper graphics hwd.
30 FPS cap on a PC? That's heresy.
The problem the OP is noting is that a number of modern games when set to ultra settings can drop in framerate even on top of the line PCs because the games simply just haven't been very well optimized for PC.
ME:A will likely have the same issue if they also don't optimize it properly for PC.
but I highly doubt BioWare would delay the game just because they wanted to optimize framerate for PC. I would question their sanity if they did.
Most of the "frame rate" issues with PCs fall into two main categories, imo.
1. A lot of mid-range PCs currently in use. These were 'beast' PCs compared to the 360/PS3 so people never upgraded them much. Newer games are now made for the Xbox 1/PS4 standard. These mid-range PCs are no longer adequate and need upgraded.
2. The current 'beast' PCs that have problems are almost ALWAYS SLI users. They think because they have 2 GPUs that they should handle anything. Well, the truth is that without a proper SLI profile for a specific game, 2 almost always work worse than one.
These tend to be the two main groups complaining about frame rate issues with some of the recent games.
I have a 970gtx and have had no frame rate issues on any games recently, including Xcom 2 and FC:Primal. Both of which have their forums flooded with complaints.
I've been lucky to have had no performance issues with the original trilogy whatsoever. I hope Andromeda continues that trend.
God when I remember that piece of crap Dying Light..............what a f...............orget it.
Frame rate has never really been a huge issue for me. Sure, when the FPS drops below 8 or 10 you notice it, but when I am consistently getting 30 or 45 I can't really tell the difference between that and 60+. It's kinda like the whole 1080p thing that some people ramble on about, I can't really tell the difference; if that speaks lowly of me so be it.
Now an interesting discussion to be had is that of graphics vs. gameplay. I am firmly in the gameplay camp, the game in question could just be pixilated squares but if the gameplay is engaging than I would gladly go for that over a picture perfect title with horrid gameplay. I still haven't forgiven the graphics obsessed generation for killing off things like split screen all for the sake of prettier visuals (looking at you Halo 5) 
Doubt it. The easy fix is to cap the FPS at 30. Another way is to reduce the Ultra settings to lower ones and still call them Ultra.
....
Hell no! I'll keep my 60 fps and Ultra settings on pc, thanks. If I wanted a 30 fps cap and lower graphics I'd much rather stick to my good ole ps3.
Not to mention that I'd resent the mislabeling of lower graphic settings as ultra. Screw that, if they can't do it, I'd rather they told it to my face instead of sneakily trying to pass of lower settings as ultra.
That little footnote was kind of a giveaway though..
Hell no! I'll keep my 60 fps and Ultra settings on pc, thanks. If I wanted a 30 fps cap and lower graphics I'd much rather stick to my good ole ps3.
Not to mention that I'd resent the mislabeling of lower graphic settings as ultra. Screw that, if they can't do it, I'd rather they told it to my face instead of sneakily trying to pass of lower settings as ultra.
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
I said that Bio can cap it at 30FPS.
As to the "mislabeling".
There is nothing to prevent a company from setting default graphics settings for "optimum performance" and they can call the settings anything they want. In any case, there is no way to tell, now, is there? .... assuming they were "forced" to do so due to "problems".
My discreet GPU handles DA:I very well and I'm optimistic that it will handle ME:A 's graphics too.... not at ULTRA but then, I saw no difference between HIGH and ULTRA with DA:I.
Both Nvidia and AMD will have their new toys out in 2016 and these will be able to handle the ULTRA settings by the time 2017 comes around.
Retour en haut
