Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Coanda, Jul 12, 2013.
Which means the track isn't correctly optimized yet...
And which is also different from original expectations that one-click down on textures would be sufficient.
No, it's just different advice for him, with a shader issue on his card. The overall advice with any software you're ever going to use on your PC is that if you want FPS, down down settings until you have them.
every now and then upgrading your hardware has the strange effect of working as well...
but computers are run by witches so its a black art at best
@ TW - Thank you for your reply.
Can you please elaborate on this statement?
As I have mentioned several times I am not conducting these test at Silverstone therefore I don't understand why we are back on this topic as it is not a GPU load & resource issue. I have mentioned in my specs that my GPU is the weak link however these tests are conducted at Sebring and my GPU is under no significant load whatsoever. Although out dated I might add that my GPU is still above ISI rF2 recommender hardware spec. Just
To reiterate this problem it only comes about when running the new vehicle visions of the C6 & F2. I can run all detail settings on Full, AF x16, AA x2 + HDR at Sebring whilst capped at 40FPS with no problems (test day), providing now that I have Shadows turned Off as previously I used to have this option set to low. Now If I set shadows on low I cannot even conduct the same Sebring test due to mass frame drop-outs even if I have all detail settings backed down to Low, switch off AA and back AF to x8 and even if my GPU is under 50% load and uses under half its VRAM.
Surely you can see this is a bug of some sort whilst driving these new vehicle models and not a hardware load/resource issue?
can make sense of this latest conundrum?
Following on from my last post I decided to run a further test and leave all detail settings on Full, AF x16, AA x2 + HDR at Sebring whilst capped at 40FPS however this time instead of having shadows set to off (to get around problem) or low (problematic) i set the shadows to medium and the performance is better with only micro stutters. No mass frame drop outs and ran relatively smooth at 40FPS.
To me this weird behaviour just further highlights that there is an optimisation bug with these latest f2 & c6 versions on low shadows.
Yes i had have experienced something similar with the Shadows, AA etc. while low settings performing more bad than high. As example the performance with level 2 AA is better than level 1 AA with ATI's CF and same goes for shadows where mid or high is better performing than low which results in lots of stutter as well as reflection settings on low performing more bad than high on my system. Another not well performing option is shadow blur, wile any setting results in micro stutter and flashing shadows in cockpit etc.
Usefull was also a mid QA setting for reflections or a better low look and performance.
Out of interest have you actually deleted all the shaders since the new build and let it rebuild them for your track.. You might be surprised if you havent.
No not really, should i ? Is it standard to delete them with every new build. Didn't the update replace them automatically ?
@ Speed1 - There you go I thought I was not unique I do not subscribe to the mentality of "buy a new GPU" or "turn off options" when clearly it is not a GPU resource problem. To echo that of many optimisation is greatly needed.
@ Drathuu - Cheers for the thought. As mentioned I have completed a full re-installation of build 240. The new C6 & F2 versions are the only vehicles having weird behaviour & I am guessing its due to the new shaders.
I have really no idea neither i know the real reason and i'm happy to find a setup for my system to get the performance balanced but to be honest it doesn't looks like as the resources it need to run smooth. Me doesn't get rid of the feeling that the engine is to heavy weight for the look it represents. I'm not saying it looks bad but even Titan User have some issues to get it well performing and looking good. Need to say i'm using triple with CF 6950 which are loaded up to 90 % where the load with a single screen wasn't higher than 50%.
im titan user, i installed it, i pumped the graphics to max and have totally no issues
Im gonna kinda quote Tim as this makes a lot of sence:
Consider the PC requirements of the newest tracks to be quite futuristic, as they need to stay in competitive quality also in two years.
rF is not well performance balanced in your viewpoint compared to other games because rFs main HW usage is for calculations of simulation, as there is a lot more of them than in any other race simulator, where the others sacrifaced simulation with pre-defined values so they can make the game look better. I love it the way it is
Love is to much in my case, yes i like it and as said i get it performing with everything of max except from 8xAF, schadow blur off and low level AA. This settings are just to get it running smooth with 10 AI cars while alone on track or multiplayer i have no issues to run some higher settings.
But that doesn't change the fact, not every setting or option is well performing and looking good. It is just compensate bads of the software with raw power. And yes i can't see where the power is gone because it doesn't looks like AAA.
Again i'm not saying it looks bad just not good enough for the power it needs as i don't understand why rf2 uses just two cores of CPU.
You don't subscribe to updating a GPU but you run a i73930k @ 4.5ghz with an ati 4890 that was released in 2008 , lol... that is hilarious...
Seriously MM...When you get your 7990 you will be laughing... That will be a very nice PC... Driver support for the 5000 series ended around catalyst 11.2... you can use the new ones Im sure but you do realize the last time ATI actually tested your card with any game was in the Catalyst 11 series...
And then you are expecting Tim and ISI to somehow optimize their 2013 game in Beta for your card from 2008... This isnt going to end well... Im just sayin...
Unfortunately, it appears as some are still dismissive of older cards, which is fine if ISI is unwilling and/or unable to support these cards. However, if that is the case, then ISI needs to change the minimum requirements. Also, extremes such as "u bought your card in 2008 and expect it to max everything out" is not true as I don't hear anyone saying this. What I am seeing is significant and unexplained inconsistency where HIGHER settings perform better than lower settings, etc. This has nothing to do with strength of the card. Case in point is that my card is older and actually performing well even with only one GPU so if my card works well, then why do people keep saying u need a newer card?
If you drank the Koop-Aid and overspent on an unnecessarily strong card that is your decision, but you should not be interfering with others' support.
Good god man... are you still on this... remember how you didnt even know that you had a dual gpu card and in a day you had some semblance of performance again... lol
some of you guys need to get real and take some responsibilty for your hardware configuration and quit laying it at the feet of ISI... EACH AND EVERY DAY!!!!
it gets real old ... This is not to say there isnt some gains to be made ... but if you are on the fence now... do you really, really think that in a year when more tech is introduced that you will be able to maintain performance... cmon now... what is this magical optimization that every one like to bandy around ... describe the steps in the game engine to perform that, which buttons should they press... god I get tired of that word...
Some people just don't grow up.
Separate names with a comma.