PDA

View Full Version : (PC) Graphics Options - Why is the floor so close to the ceiling?



Vantier
09-17-2014, 12:19 AM
Seriously, why?
It's no wonder people have difficulty running this game on low settings, I can barely even tell the difference between max and low settings.
So why is there a limit on how low we can set the graphics?

Especially when so many people have issues running the game at a playable framerate.
What is the logic behind saying "Alright, so you don't have a great PC, we'll let you turn the graphics down this much. BUT NO MORE THAN THAT!"

One reason why the PC population is so pathetically low and inactive is because the games requirements are way to high, when they don't need to be.
If you just gave people the object/shadow/view distance options from the editor, and allowed them to apply that to all tracks. ANYONE could run this game at 60FPS.

Seriously, what do you have to lose by giving people the option to make the game look less than ideal? People playing on low end machines have already realized that they aren't going to be playing games on max settings. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to play on the lowest settings though. If someone can't play the game on the lowest settings. Then they don't go low enough IMO.

BTW I have no issue playing on max settings and streaming in HD, so I am not affected by this directly. However, I am indirectly affected, when the lack of low end options prevents people from playing the game, which means less competition, less track central, and longer multiplayer searches (Whenever that comes out).

theboshos
09-17-2014, 01:06 AM
I am indirectly directly affected as well, +1 vantartar!

En0-
09-17-2014, 06:39 AM
One reason why the PC population is so pathetically low and inactive is because the games requirements are way to high, when they don't need to be.
If you just gave people the object/shadow/view distance options from the editor, and allowed them to apply that to all tracks. ANYONE could run this game at 60FPS.


Hello,

A post "hey could we have an option for that and that, it would help for PC!" would have been enough ;-)

Here are the options currently in-game: http://snag.gy/hkBhZ.jpg
(+ resolution +vsync)

So the shadow option needs to stay as it is because some tracks and ugc tracks relying on lighting and shadows wouldn't work otherwise.
Also, as already said, we'll keep adding options to allow to disable more things, the view distance will be added not in the next patch, but in the one after probably.

At launch, on most of the PCs, the game was limited by the GPU.
Most of these options are helping the GPU because players refuse to lower the resolution and prefer to lower the effects.

At the same time, we implemented the frame skipper that people can run the game at 30 fps.
It solves the slow motion issue for the majority of the people but players who were limited by their CPU had now some stuttering issues.

So we'll do 3 things to solve that:
- Improving the frameskipper
- Giving the possibility to disable the frame skipper
- Giving an option to lower the view distance

Every patch has been adding some options to help to get the best of your PC and we'll keep doing that for the next patches until there is nothing valuable to add.

Regards,

GR4V1G0R3
09-17-2014, 08:12 AM
Hey En0-

firstly, thank you for being one of the few RL guys to actually post on the forums, it is a rare thing indeed these days, for some actual information to be posted, rather than just a post saying soon or whatever else, I know ubisoft like to be in charge of the information stream, and only let us know of things 2 days before they happen, if at all

I have an issue with the frame skipper part of the game, before it was added, my game ran fine [I have a mediocre system, but runs everything else at 1080p, with medium settings, even fusion ran in 1080p pretty much fine, with a few track exceptions] ever since the frameskipper turned up, I have no consistency in my game any more, a few sections of track I will get a little stutter, then at a random time after that, the game will make up for it, by apparently running in fast forward

this can render the game almost unplayable...now this is not purely in 1080p, I switched to 720p, it is more prevalent in that on the very same tracks, and though the speed increase is more predictable, its even faster and more uncontrollable

there are very few tracks this is an issue with, but I stopped me playing the game, before the last patch, I had only just won the fight to get Vsync actually working, after the patch, the only way to fix vertical tearing was to drop all effects and resolution down to ridiculous setting so it looks worse than it does on the 360...but again, only on certain tracks.....I can't find anything in particular that causes it either, because its not always the tracks I would expect, way of the machine for example works perfectly in 1080p for me now, but others from the base game are shockingly optimised [as is one from the 1st DLC, I forget which track though] - I am actually fairly used to poor PC optimisation, TE:GE was terribly optimised if at all, and again it made no difference what you did with the settings

I am slightly curious as to why so much emphasis on decoration of the levels, over just having more levels all of which would run better, and why so little optimisation for PC, though being with ubisoft explains a little, they appear to have little to no time for PC at all, nor do they appear to care what image they get amongst PC gamers


anyways, I had my fun with fusion, not enough content [this is not just because of PC performance issues, I own it on 360 too and it grew old too quick.... I'm back on Evo & HD [360] for now, where there is still a challenge for leaderboards [not that there isn't on fusion, but everybody is spread over 4 platforms, and most are not on pc or 360 most people at my level went to other platforms, and left a massive jump for me to make in order to actually compete....not that I have the will to bother trying on most tracks]

I may change my mind about the tracks, Evo took me a long time to get used to before I accepted it [I actually quit playing for many months] fusion may do the same, but .... I don't know it just feels lacking in almost every department over Evo

right now im off for attempt #3 at getting some sleep....irritating 4 day long bout of something like insomnia so excuse the terrible layout, and probable nonsensical post I have made...points are valid, but my brain isn't functioning well enough to even read properly now having had 10 - 15 hours sleep since Friday, with my longest sleep being about 97 minutes

TeriXeri
09-17-2014, 09:20 AM
For me the game settings that have by far the most noticable impact on performance (I run the game in 720 windowed pretty much all the time) are the ones near the bottom:

Ambient Occlusion - (always have this off as I don't go higher then High settings)
Soft Particles / Half Size Particles - especially on custom tracks it can mean the difference between 40 and 60 fps if it has some background fog/waterfalls/lots of fire or smoke at 100 alpha
(which is totally not needed when building with those effects imo, lower alpha take much less of a performance hit for very similar looks, especially when stacking multiple effects)

Especially custom tracks optimization can be largely controlled by the creator, view distance/object distance/lights/physics objects/effects/turning off triggers/OPE off-screen when not needed, and so on.

Also mutliple ways to locally optimize a certain area in a track (area condition), or an event that can be triggered to change the values on View/Shadow/Object Distance. Which can be handy for a mix of indoor/outdoor areas in a track.

Ever since they added more options, it's a bit easier to set the game to low, with some anti aliasing still however (often do that for recording if I notice a track with particle frame drops).


Each track has different draw distances/background effects, way of the machine doesn't have a background pretty much aside from the track itself (blue sky background, with not many smoke/fog/water effects) and it does run better for me as well compared to let's say Winter Getaway or Eden (which still run at 60 fps for me at High/720 windowed however) they just have way more effects/background going on.

My pc is 4+ years old:
1st generation Core i7 920 (2.66, not overclocked)
AMD HD5870
6 GB ram DDR3 1600
running game off an intel SSD
Windows 8.1 pro with updates

I plan to upgrade to a whole new system in 2015, with DDR4 hardware slowly coming out now.

Vantier
09-17-2014, 07:25 PM
Hello,

Also, as already said, we'll keep adding options to allow to disable more things, the view distance will be added not in the next patch, but in the one after probably.

So we'll do 3 things to solve that:
- Improving the frameskipper
- Giving the possibility to disable the frame skipper
- Giving an option to lower the view distance


Sounds good, although the reason my post came off more angry as opposed to suggestive, is because at this point while patches will help the situation, the game has been out for quite a while now. No amount of patching now is going to really increase the player base by a significant amount. So im really just crying about what could have been.

I must ask though, why would the option the lower view distance not have been one of the first options to add? In my experience that option alone would easily do more to improve performance than all the other options combined. But maybe i'm wrong.

But again, the update notes sounds good. Now let's see the update.