PDA

View Full Version : So the next patch isnt addressing performance? Do you care?



topeira1980
11-17-2014, 10:10 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassin-s-creed-unity-patch-3-is-much-larger-addr/1100-6423630/

there are bug fixes but i thought the next patch is going to make me be able to actually play the game.
yeah, i can not play co-op due to connectivity issues and that's very bad, but even if these issues were resolved than i STILL wouldnt be able to play co-op
since my frame rate is below 30!

i rather them fixing the frame rate, especially on AMD cards and mid range nvidia ones than fix the bugs, because even if said bugs are fixed the game is STILL inst enjoyable.
i wish UBI would put their resources more into the optimization rather than HUD issues npc or AI glitches... those are immersion breaking and an inconvenience but egnore-able IMO.

shuvool
11-17-2014, 10:21 AM
Nope. Game runs fine for me. FPS is high enough that I don't notice anything (50+) and I have everything on High. Whatever tehse AMD problems are, they're not affecting me

bertalan93
11-17-2014, 10:33 AM
You are very lucky, but notice that you are one of the 5 amd card users of 100, who can play the game smoothly.

MauriceWijma
11-17-2014, 10:38 AM
"We are also investigating various performance issues including framerate drops, and are looking into how we can address them,"

This is a part of the same article. It does say they will work on performance issues.

bertalan93
11-17-2014, 10:43 AM
That "will" is what makes me sad.

topeira1980
11-17-2014, 11:10 AM
That "will" is what makes me sad.

yup. it seems like they are saying "we are looking into these various issues for the next patch and performance issues is something we will address later, in a different patch", while i think that the performace issues should be close to no.1 because only players with beasty PCs (nvidia 770 and above) can truely play the game on good performance, and if these players are, say 20% of gamers who are interested in ACU in general than that means that the performance issues are the problem of 80% of the relevant player base. solving co-op connectivity for these 80% doesnt matter that much. it just means that they can now play co-op in cinematic 24 fps, which is NOT FUN.
so what does that mean fixing HUD issues or NPC glitches if the rest of the game isnt worth playing because of performance?!

i think no.1 issue is performance. i truly believe that if the game performed well just like most games than ppl can overlook an occasional glitch in the HUD or an NPC sliding, or an enemy staring at a player and not attacking or other MINOR things. not being able to connect online IS a big deal but being connected online to play a 22fps game doesnt solve the issue. let us, at least, play offline with 30fps. we will wait for fixing bloody pop-up messages and a crumbling npc here and there.

bertalan93
11-17-2014, 11:12 AM
yup. it seems like they are saying "we are looking into these various issues for the next patch and performance issues is something we will address later, in a different patch", while i think that the performace issues should be close to no.1 because only players with beasty PCs (nvidia 770 and above) can truely play the game on good performance, and if these players are, say 20% of gamers who are interested in ACU in general than that means that the performance issues are the problem of 80% of the relevant player base. solving co-op connectivity for these 80% doesnt matter that much. it just means that they can now play co-op in cinematic 24 fps, which is NOT FUN.
so what does that mean fixing HUD issues or NPC glitches if the rest of the game isnt worth playing because of performance?!

i think no.1 issue is performance. i truly believe that if the game performed well just like most games than ppl can overlook an occasional glitch in the HUD or an NPC sliding, or an enemy staring at a player and not attacking or other MINOR things. not being able to connect online IS a big deal but being connected online to play a 22fps game doesnt solve the issue. let us, at least, play offline with 30fps. we will wait for fixing bloody pop-up messages and a crumbling npc here and there.

Totally agree, but I have to add that even people with Titans have problems with the performance.

Sejdovic11
11-17-2014, 12:57 PM
Totally agree with that thread... FPS and overall performance should be fixed in patch 1, without any doubt. But this is huge problem, we should be happy if they will be even able to fix it. This problem should not exist at all in the first place. Whatever, I won't play it until overall performance patch is released...

Anykeyer
11-17-2014, 01:28 PM
What do you mean by "addressing performance"? You do realise ACU has GTX 680 listed in minimum requirements? I take it as Ubisoft's official position. They wont make it run on lower hardware.
Dont get me wrong. I would welcome performance improvements w/o sacrificing visual quality. Also more players in game means faster coop search. But I think its safe to say that if you cant run ACU now your only option is to upgrade (or forget about it). Otherwise you are waiting for a miracle.

On topic: my main issue with ACU right now is its awfull online service stability. 2nd option

topeira1980
11-17-2014, 02:51 PM
What do you mean by "addressing performance"? You do realise ACU has GTX 680 listed in minimum requirements? I take it as Ubisoft's official position. They wont make it run on lower hardware.
Dont get me wrong. I would welcome performance improvements w/o sacrificing visual quality. Also more players in game means faster coop search. But I think its safe to say that if you cant run ACU now your only option is to upgrade (or forget about it). Otherwise you are waiting for a miracle.

On topic: my main issue with ACU right now is its awfull online service stability. 2nd option

i think that even 7970 cards cant run the game, not to mention 280X and 290, mainly because these are nvidia cards.
and NOW we know why the system requirements are so high - because UBI didnt optimize the game to run well enough and instead of optimizing it better they just said you need a stronger computer that can brute force their buggy mess into playable frame rate. if the game was optimized than a 680 would play it on over 50-60fps on high and 980 would play it on 100fps.

CIubberLang
11-17-2014, 03:10 PM
i think that even 7970 cards cant run the game, not to mention 280X and 290, mainly because these are nvidia cards.
and NOW we know why the system requirements are so high - because UBI didnt optimize the game to run well enough and instead of optimizing it better they just said you need a stronger computer that can brute force their buggy mess into playable frame rate. if the game was optimized than a 680 would play it on over 50-60fps on high and 980 would play it on 100fps.

I have a 7970 and it runs around 30FPS (with drops) with everything on ultra and FXAA and high shadows. It runs the same if everything is on low, the game is just terribly optimized.

Anykeyer
11-17-2014, 03:17 PM
I dont think I get what you mean by "optimisation". Making a game run faster at the expense of visual quality is not optimisation. Did you really expect a game like this to run at 100fps on 980? Its a huge highly detailed city. And its totally open and interactive. There are no fancy animated backgrounds here, its all real (as far as games go).

King_of_Ricers
11-17-2014, 03:40 PM
''No performance update, do you care?'' No **** sherlock that I care!

Tanyn
11-17-2014, 03:54 PM
...because only players with beasty PCs (nvidia 770 and above) can truely play the game on good performance...


Sorry, but that's just not true. I'm averaging 50+ FPS at all times, and I'm running an NVidia GeForce GT 640. Granted, I've had to lower some settings, but still.

playlisting
11-17-2014, 04:35 PM
As long as they fix it within a few weeks I'm not too bothered. It's probably the hardest of all to fix (I assume) so they probably just want to get all the bugs/glitches as well as stability (crashes) sorted first. They want to make sure that people can play the game at all, before they begin making the experience better for those with low FPS.

Lignjoslav
11-17-2014, 04:59 PM
Sorry, but that's just not true. I'm averaging 50+ FPS at all times, and I'm running an NVidia GeForce GT 640. Granted, I've had to lower some settings, but still.

Dude, what are your settings?! I've got a similar GPU, GT 730M (same amount of shaders, similar clock) and I can't hit 20fps on low at 720p.

I'd like to see performance improvements and I'd like to see the bug where I get stuck midair while reerunning.

wootwoots
11-17-2014, 05:52 PM
NEED a fr**king optimisation patch :mad:
And it better be a VERY well made one >: O

And by "optimisation" i mean optimise the Engine to make it run better with the same parameter. And not just downgrade visual parameter to get somes random more fps.

ecoduxi
11-17-2014, 06:04 PM
Sorry, but that's just not true. I'm averaging 50+ FPS at all times, and I'm running an NVidia GeForce GT 640. Granted, I've had to lower some settings, but still.

wtf dude I've got Radeon HD 7790 and still struggling to maintain 15 fps

topeira1980
11-17-2014, 07:46 PM
i am aware that there is the odd gamer that has a mid to low end card that can run the game fine, but as the poll is starting to who - most ppl (70% for now) are struggling enough to care more about more fps than the other "improvements" they are looking into.

ShenghanKI
11-17-2014, 08:21 PM
Sorry, but that's just not true. I'm averaging 50+ FPS at all times, and I'm running an NVidia GeForce GT 640. Granted, I've had to lower some settings, but still.


Lets just say that I believe you are actually getting 50+ on GT640. You see thats the problem. There are ppl like you who run the game on 640 and is having fun with low settings, and there are ppl with 650 660s and not getting more than 10fps with everything on low at low resolution, which not only reveals the problem but also makes ppl feel worse. Not to mention my GT 640M cannot even launch the game while I finished the prologue with Intel HD 4000 by sacrificing all the graphics obviously. I have stopped blaming them for it, but there is indeed something weird going on.

EvilKaru
11-17-2014, 08:21 PM
Sorry, but that's just not true. I'm averaging 50+ FPS at all times, and I'm running an NVidia GeForce GT 640. Granted, I've had to lower some settings, but still.

He's a troll, i got a gtx 750 ti, thats 10000 times better than a gt 640 and i got 20-30 fps outside, and 17 fps inside buildings, a big wtf....

MnemonicSyntax
11-17-2014, 08:24 PM
i think that even 7970 cards cant run the game, not to mention 280X and 290, mainly because these are nvidia cards.
and NOW we know why the system requirements are so high - because UBI didnt optimize the game to run well enough and instead of optimizing it better they just said you need a stronger computer that can brute force their buggy mess into playable frame rate. if the game was optimized than a 680 would play it on over 50-60fps on high and 980 would play it on 100fps.

That's... not true at all. You're making wild guesses

And as Any said, that's also not what "optimization" means.


i am aware that there is the odd gamer that has a mid to low end card that can run the game fine, but as the poll is starting to who - most ppl (70% for now) are struggling enough to care more about more fps than the other "improvements" they are looking into.

Polls are pointless. There is no way to gauge how many people have issues based on their vote because for every ten that vote, there are hundreds that do not.

topeira1980
11-17-2014, 10:49 PM
That's... not true at all. You're making wild guesses

And as Any said, that's also not what "optimization" means.



Polls are pointless. There is no way to gauge how many people have issues based on their vote because for every ten that vote, there are hundreds that do not.

A) there are more ppl here that believe they should be getting higher frame rate than what they actually get than ppl like you who who think that the severity of the performance issues isnt that much of an issue.
also there are articles, dozens of them, in many official and none-official blogs that show many ppl with issues and ACU is notoriously unoptimized and buggy.
i made up numbers, of course, and i assumed that around 80 % are having so many performance issues with ACU that they'd prefer better optimization.... and look at the poll - 73% voted for better optimization. my made up numbers appear to be not so far from the truth according to the 60 ppl who actually voted.
when we say "optimization" we all mean "better frame rate by making the engine perform more efficiently with the varied hardware" and i dont think this is wrong.
correct me if i am, please.

B) yup. currently there are "only" 60 ppl who voted and , say, 1000 ppl who didnt, but the poll gives a rough estimate that most of these 1000 would vote like the 60 did. and if the poll would reach 100 voters i assume that the result would not change that much from what it looks like with the 60 voters, but i made this poll out of curiosity and i am still curious to see what will happen if 40 more ppl vote.

i am 90% sure that this poll will not matter to UBI. i am sure that they ARE trying to optimize at the same time as they are trying to resolve bugs and the reason that next patch doesnt solve performance issues and only these bugs is because these bugs are easier to fix and optimization might be a problem coming from the core of the engine. wiser members than I stated that it is an issue with how the CPU is sending data to the GPU and this is an issue too deep in the way the engine works and will be very hard to resolve no matter the poll and with little matter to what UBI wants. BUT since i assume these boards are the place where the community has the shortest line of communication with the devs i think every voice matters, and i truly hope UBI is looking here and understanding the their priorities should be improving performance and helping AMD release better drivers (if that is in fact related to the performance issues, which we are not sure) and such things are a top priority for most of the gamers who have technical problems (and these are the ppl who visit these forums and voted here, lets face it).

this and not having the save get deleted. though this has a simple work around to prevent it from reoccurring for ppl who got burnt already.

I--Skeptik--I
11-17-2014, 11:08 PM
What's the point of how a game looks if you can only get 10 FPS? Yea, performance should take the highest obligation.

MnemonicSyntax
11-17-2014, 11:10 PM
A) there are more ppl here that believe there are a lot of ppl who should be able to play better than what they actually get to play than ppl like you.
also there are articles, dozens of them, in many official and none-official blogs that show many ppl with issues and ACU is notoriously unoptimized and buggy.

Wishing still doesn't mean Optimization. There are also people out there that want Unity on 360 and PS3 and well, that ain't happening.

Unity is the first game that has thousands of NPCs on the screen at once. That's taxing to any system, no matter how beefy it is.


i made up numbers, of course, and i assumed that around 80 % are having so many performance issues with ACU that they'd prefer better optimization.... and look at the poll - 73% voted for better optimization. my made up numbers appear to be not so far from the truth according to the 60 ppl who actually voted.

And the others who aren't here because they're off playing the game and enjoying it? I have several Uplay friends who are having little to no issues and I'm not having any at all except falling through the world once and getting stuck in a building once in Co-Op. This is nearing 50 hours of gameplay as well.

Point is, not everyone is going to come vote on your poll because of issues they're having or not having. I'm in your thread and I didn't vote, there are people who frequent this forum and didn't vote.


B) yup. currently there are 60 ppl who voted and , say, 1000 ppl who didnt, but the poll gives a rough estimate that most of these 1000 would vote like the 60 did. and if the poll would reach 100 voters i assume that the result would not change that much from what it looks like with the 60 voters, but i made this poll out of curiosity and i am still curious to see what will happen if 40 more ppl vote.

Law of averages don't apply here though, even with your limited poll responses, simply because there are people who cannot or will not vote and that unknown variable prevents any sort of concrete evidence anyway.


i am 90% sure that this poll will not matter to UBI. i am sure that they ARE trying to optimize at the same time as they are trying to resolve bugs and the reason that next patch doesnt solve performance issues and only these bugs is because these bugs are easier to fix and optimization might be a problem coming from the core of the engine. wiser members than I stated that it is an issue with how the CPU is sending data to the GPU and this is an issue too deep in the way the engine works and will be very hard to resolve no matter the poll and with little matter to what UBI wants. BUT since i assume these boards are the place where the community has the shortest line of communication with the devs i think every voice matters, and i truly hope UBI is looking here and understanding the their priorities should be improving performance working with AMD and such things are a top priority for most of the gamers who have technical problems (and these are the ppl who visit these forums, lets face it.

It's more like 100%

And the forums are not any sort of line to the devs. The Devs really don't read the forums, unless it's specific threads about feedback, not being told what they need to fix first.

As a software engineer I can tell you that wanting something to be fixed first may cause problems for other issues down the line. It's very much like triage in the regard that there needs to be a method to resolving the issues, and not just what the people want first, but they do their best.

The thing is, Unity does have it's problems, and chances are it's not ideally optimized for most systems. However, the problem is that many people expect to be able to play Unity on their systems based on other games, when in fact that's not always the case and it shouldn't be any sort of reference. Just because you can play Shadow of Mordor (for example, not specifically you) on your PC doesn't mean you can play Unity.

Lastly, another issue is the online aspect. It's been stated by devs in the past on blogs and such, and even with Unity recently that the online aspect is the toughest to determine and resolve, which is why we're "the beta testers." (Though I find this funny, as patches for games aren't exactly new for *any* game, even Ubisoft and everyone keeps talking GTAV but does anyone recall GTAIV on PC? That was a fiasco) That being said, I feel that removing a large portion of the online aspect would help Ubisoft, but that's not something they're really interested in doing it seems and instead would rather pile it on even more.


this and not having the save get deleted. though this has a simple work around to prevent it from reoccurring for ppl who got burnt already.

Yes, and unfortunately there isn't a real way to get deleted saved games back either, at least not a 100% chance of it happening. Most work-arounds I've seen have been user created, like the Watch Dogs save file creator.

But, more to the point. Ubi is working on the patches, and from a software perspective not everything will be resolved in one patch or even in the order that people want them to be. Others will expect their PCs to run the game and optimization or not, it won't happen, as there really are too many variables to get the game to work for everyone, even if you "feel" it should. That's the facts really.

Still though, I'm highly impressed with Ubi putting out two patches for Unity and a Live Update Blog to keep in communication with their customers. That's something we've wanted for a long time.

I--Skeptik--I
11-17-2014, 11:11 PM
What's the point of how a game looks if you can only get 10 FPS? Yea, performance should take the highest obligation.

MnemonicSyntax (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/653385-MnemonicSyntax) then by that logic, all we have to do is extrapolate those numbers.

MnemonicSyntax
11-17-2014, 11:26 PM
What's the point of how a game looks if you can only get 10 FPS? Yea, performance should take the highest obligation.

MnemonicSyntax (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/653385-MnemonicSyntax) then by that logic, all we have to do is extrapolate those numbers.

That's what the law of averages does. It doesn't work because of the unknown factor.

I mean, especially considering we're all on a forum discussing issues with the game... it's going to look extremely one-sided and terribly loaded.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't any issues, but expecting a game to do something and it's actual limitations based on hardware are two very different beasts.

jcasell
11-18-2014, 01:11 AM
wheres the option to restore lost saves??

AssassinVenice
11-18-2014, 04:49 AM
Performance should be their highest priority.

I went back to see how the game looked like back at E3, and I've got to admit that both performance and graphics were more stable back then.

I mean, there was this one bottle in a room that was reflecting the entire room Arno was in. I never saw such a bottle in the final build.

Performance is horse-dung across all platforms. The game uses more than 4GB of VRAM for Ultra textures on the PC for crying out loud! That is insane!

Whatever magic Ubisoft's programmers performed upon the game, they seriously had no idea what they were doing.

Makes me wonder whether I made the right game purchase this Holiday Season... (looks at Dragon Age: Inquisition).

Anykeyer
11-18-2014, 07:04 AM
What's the point of how a game looks if you can only get 10 FPS? Yea, performance should take the highest obligation.

I dont get what is your suggestion? Degrade ultra so anyone with GTX 660 can run it at 60 fps? It wont be ultra anymore
Magically "optimise" the game so it can run on 680 at 60fps with no visual quality lost? I cant see how its even possible.
Degrade lowest settings so even low end can run at 60 fps? Ok, I would like this, for the sake of coop at least (more players). But there is a very high possibility that Ubi wont do this. Why would they? They refused to make the same for consoles, a much larger market for AC type of games, ACU requires the latest generation. Now you ask them to go back and start degrading just for PC? We all know this wont happen.
As I said, and no matter how that sounds, if you cant run Unity now your only sure way to play it is to upgrade your PC (or buy a console).Ubisoft isnt famous for their awesome PC support.

topeira1980
11-18-2014, 12:32 PM
I dont get what is your suggestion? Degrade ultra so anyone with GTX 660 can run it at 60 fps? It wont be ultra anymore
Magically "optimise" the game so it can run on 680 at 60fps with no visual quality lost? I cant see how its even possible.
Degrade lowest settings so even low end can run at 60 fps? Ok, I would like this, for the sake of coop at least (more players). But there is a very high possibility that Ubi wont do this. Why would they? They refused to make the same for consoles, a much larger market for AC type of games, ACU requires the latest generation. Now you ask them to go back and start degrading just for PC? We all know this wont happen.
As I said, and no matter how that sounds, if you cant run Unity now your only sure way to play it is to upgrade your PC (or buy a console).Ubisoft isnt famous for their awesome PC support.

no man, no! the point is that the game doesnt run well on LOW either. ultra can remain only for the beefy rigs, but the fact that i get 25 fps on ultra and 28 fps on low shows how bad the game is optimized.

what is the point in creating a game that works on such a low percentage of the computers out there and what is the point in giving minimum requirements that STILL dont work. i have minimum requirements and the game runs like crap. there is no game out there that runs worse than this. and dont give me the "its 5000 npcs" crap because the game run like crap even when there are no more than 50 npcs around. why on earth does the cafe theatre run on 18 fps for me? too much coffee mugs?! the details on the books is too much? no. it's crappy optimization.

the fact that the PS4 and XB1 run the game BETTER than PC with the minimum requirements (and better than some ppl here on medium requirements) shows you how bad the game has been ported. the consoles are weaker yet perform better. hence - the game should perform better on PC with proper porting.

UBI isnt the best in porting games but that doesn excuse them from keep on being so bad at it. if their PC ports are bad, but that's fine because not all products are good in the world, than charge PC player less for an inferior product. just like with any bad product. right now they are pretending their product is good, charging like it's good... well, it isnt.


I mean, especially considering we're all on a forum discussing issues with the game... it's going to look extremely one-sided and terribly loaded.
@MnemonicSyntax
the poll doesnt try and figure out how many gamers have problems. it's showing of all the players who DO have problems (be it 90% or 2%) what is the problem the bothers them the most.
of all the ppl who are experiencing issues it looks like most of them, 70 bloody percent, need performance boost more than they need any other fix. there is no reason for an interior scene with a handful of NPCs or no NPCs at all to perform at 17 fps, whlie when you are outside said interior performance jumps to 30 with 100 npcs around, while the PS4 and XB1 show no such fps issues.
you do not agree with me?

Lignjoslav
11-18-2014, 01:11 PM
Actually, the performance on consoles is fairly troublesome too. At times, the game is just barely playable and when that happens on consoles, where you target one hardware configuration, one resolution and one level of detail, it's an indication of something being seriously wrong with the release. The framerate on consoles is often in the 20s and occasionally below, at just 900p and an unknown level of detail (probably at least without HBAO+, PCSS and MSAA) and I know a few people who left promotional events shocked having learned that what they'd tried was the final version.

So the consoles aren't running the game well, just not as poorly as the weaker PCs.

Anykeyer
11-18-2014, 02:24 PM
no man, no! the point is that the game doesnt run well on LOW either. ultra can remain only for the beefy rigs, but the fact that i get 25 fps on ultra and 28 fps on low shows how bad the game is optimized.
Its about scaling down on lowest settings, I think I already covered this. They didnt release Unity for xbox 360 and ps3 so game just wasnt designed for this.

i have minimum requirements and the game runs like crap
AMD?

dont give me the "its 5000 npcs" crap because the game run like crap even when there are no more than 50 npcs around
Well, the crowd system is actually well implemented this game. They probably use geometry instancing to draw a lot of similar objects. For me the main fps killers in this game are huge detailed buildings.

Lignjoslav
11-18-2014, 03:19 PM
Its about scaling down on lowest settings, I think I already covered this. They didnt release Unity for xbox 360 and ps3 so game just wasnt designed for this.
...
It's not that the game doesn't run on PS3 that's the problem, it's how it runs on PS4. Like I said, the framerate there is often in 20s and it can dip into single digits. When that happens on a console at which the game is primarily aimed, then it's the game that's the problem.