Principate
Saint Titanfall
That's some of the most negligible differences in textures I've seen in a long time (for the cost and in general). How badly optimised was this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundary: Eyes On with Shadow of Mordor
- Thread starter ambar_hitman
- Start date
I really have no idea if this is feasable at a driver level. In an ideal world we wouldn't even be asking ourselves this question, I feel DX12 is late, very late.
Is this confirmed?
Not at all. That's what the devs themselves said. The ultra textures are the high quality textures the artists worked on dumped in, because why not?
I think it's a cool bonus and if you happen to have 6 gigs of RAM, awesome. But high and below are the opomized extures, and they run well on 3 gig cards, and even 2 gig cards at 30 FPS (which incidently its what the PS4 runs at).
Principate
Saint Titanfall
I was seriously like what the hell is even the point. Even medium isn't that big of a jump from ultra.
Leafhopper
Banned
I have measly 2 GB R9 270 (I still love it so). With the computer I built last December. I was on a budget and decided I could deal with a mid tier PC that could play games on high or max sometimes. I have no interest in Shadows of Mordor but if I did I guess I would be rocking medium or high with some tweaks.
Its odd though a lot of my favorite games aren't too demanding...yet.
Even then though I rarely play on Ultra as I can't tell the difference half the time with the preset below it.
Its odd though a lot of my favorite games aren't too demanding...yet.
Even then though I rarely play on Ultra as I can't tell the difference half the time with the preset below it.
*throws <1 yr old 3GB card in trash*
Miles Quaritch
Member
Pixel counters have confirmed it. I'm more interested to see what DF say about the frame-rate. Really hope they post the comparison before Friday.
Majmun
Member
Sarcasm? I don't see much difference.
Delta Assault
Member
It's looking like Titanfall all over again...
Based on the VRAM consumption numbers in the OP on ultra settings? I'll read it again.
There is practically no difference at all, he is being sarcastic.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That's the joke.
PetriP-TNT
Member
*humming intensifies*
The ground texture bothers me. Maybe it's just the angle
GhostTrick
Banned
Then again, people made a ton of it... there was no reason to panic.
3GB of VRAM is more than enough if you want texture parity with consoles.
3GB of VRAM is more than enough if you want texture parity with consoles.
So basically, it's the same thing as DooM 3's ultra textures: just uncompressed versions of the regular high textures.
How freakin' pointless.
NumberThree
Member
JPEG isn't the best format for demonstrating graphical differences at this level. But yeah, I don't think I'd see any difference considering how far I sit from my TV.
Or even if I played it on my monitor.
ratcliffja
Member
My 560 Ti has 1GB of VRAM. I guess I'll need to upgrade eventually.
ambar_hitman
Member
I read somewhere that game doesn't select ultra textures if you are running that game with less than 6 GB GPU even if yous set texture quality to Ultra in settings. It just reverts to High. Just like it allows you to select Ultra settings even though you have not downloaded the Ultra texture DLC. Not 100% sure though.
That is already well known. Ultra only differs from high if the texture pack is installed.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I was playing this with medium textures, but bumped it up to high with the hd texture pack last night. Huge difference.
I have a 2gb GTX 770, 16gb ram, I5 processor. The game still looks awesome. Remember to limit your fps to 60 if your monitor doesn't support higher. I did this, and it made a huge difference, turns out many of the stutters were from my card being overpowered, though it still drops from 60fps in congested fights, but I dont mind.
Ill play some more to really see, but Im loving this game, I haven't been gripped by a game this hard in a while, the Nemesis system is genius.
I have a 2gb GTX 770, 16gb ram, I5 processor. The game still looks awesome. Remember to limit your fps to 60 if your monitor doesn't support higher. I did this, and it made a huge difference, turns out many of the stutters were from my card being overpowered, though it still drops from 60fps in congested fights, but I dont mind.
Ill play some more to really see, but Im loving this game, I haven't been gripped by a game this hard in a while, the Nemesis system is genius.
So happy with this news. Roll on Saturday. Lost my Friday delivery thanks to idiots on the Internet make me doubt the Xbox One version.
Prime crotch
Banned
I can't tell much difference between high and ultra, even mid textures look okay, less so than high but still not world's apart
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
High actually looks sharper than Ultra in those screens. The floor right by the character looks more defined. Weird.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
So there is no way for 760 owners to get a 60fps framerate?
I don't mind PS4 level quality, but there is no point of buying this game for PC if I cannot run it at 60fps.
I don't mind PS4 level quality, but there is no point of buying this game for PC if I cannot run it at 60fps.
godofcookery
Member
so what GPUs have 6GB? is titan it?
ALLseeingEYE
Member
Are you playing or just looking at pictures? The difference between non-hd texture pack medium and hd texture pack high is huge. Ill try medium with hd textures to see how much that changes.
ambar_hitman
Member
What? The HD Texture pack textures are only used if you set texture setting to Ultra. Or does that pack changes quality on other texture settings as well?
I mean does High Texture setting without HD texture pack installed look different than High textures with HD texture pack installed?
Powdered Toastman
Member
Yeah, I barely see any difference in quality between high and ultra, and that's with me switching between browser tabs.
And if I'm honest, even at ultra it doesn't even look that great when it comes to the textures... I mean, look at that floor texture at ultra, and compare it to this:
That's from Unreal 1, a game from '98, which ran on a videocard with a whopping 4MB of VRAM...
And if I'm honest, even at ultra it doesn't even look that great when it comes to the textures... I mean, look at that floor texture at ultra, and compare it to this:
That's from Unreal 1, a game from '98, which ran on a videocard with a whopping 4MB of VRAM...
Honey Bunny
Member
What does the last part mean? They say the game was pretty much locked 30 fps with very minor stutter at these settings, but that the ultra textures didn't play nicely with the card. Is that referencing the 'very minor stutter'? Wish they were more clear on this.
Canis lupus
Member
really
Also looked on the ground textures, the other pics... There's literally no difference between those 4 versions.
I have a GTX 760, i5 4670k not oc and 8GB RAM
screenshot in battle
settings
it's certainly not a looker whatsoever, but it does look better in motion.
Windom Earle
Member
Console memory master race.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yep, me too.
I haven't bought SoM yet but I desperately want to. However, I'm holding off buying the game until I can replace my good old 1GB GTX560Ti card for something like a 4GB 970. I don't want to play this great game with gimped graphics, I'll just work on my backlog of games for now and pick up SoM with my new card together in a few months.
I'll just have to be patient until then.
So their excuse to put out an almost indistinguishable ultra texture pack that freaks PC guys out about not being able to max out the game is just " because we can"? Lol. If your going to do that, you should atleast make it worth it for everyone.
Its weird how consoles like PS4 have high setting textures at 1080p....doesn't that mean that all the game logic was stuffed into only a gig or a gig and a half of ram? Since the PS4 only has 4.5 gigs...
Its weird how consoles like PS4 have high setting textures at 1080p....doesn't that mean that all the game logic was stuffed into only a gig or a gig and a half of ram? Since the PS4 only has 4.5 gigs...
He did say or want to so...maybe he just prefers console at this point?
Why would they need an "excuse" to release an optional download with uncompressed textures? If you care and can run them you can download them. If not, not. Not sure how that would be a bad thing...
ArchangelWest
Member
Well it's not like Digital Foundry and their experience is indicative of everyone elses, or even necessarily what the common experiences will be. I don't know why people take what they say as gospel truth. All they can do is report on their experiences, and the reasons for their experiences being the way they are could have all manner of unreported variables.
I'm saying if they are gonna take the time to do such a thing, these textures should be a tangible difference instead of hardly any improvement with a not even worth it cost. That's what you call DX11 Crysis 2 initial tessellation
In that image the textures do not seem to be the highest res mipmap.. so if there is difference is impossible to see.really
Also looked on the ground textures, the other pics... There's literally no difference between those 4 versions.
Ground texture seems to be the same on both settings.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I'm thinking to future proof yourself for the rest of the gen, a 6 to 8gb card in second half of 2015 (20nm? 16nm if nvidia skips 20?) is the best bet. That should last till like 2019 or whenever the next consoles release.
If anything, I think this shows they should be complimented on their compression down to High settings being done with such a minor loss in detail.
vpance
Member
That isn't unusual. Framebuffer and graphical assets take up most of the RAM for most games. See the KZSF or ISS memory breakdowns.
)*brofist*