- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,287
- Points
- 113
Given how unusual that is, I'd agree.So it's memory bandwidth sensitive, that's interesting
Given how unusual that is, I'd agree.So it's memory bandwidth sensitive, that's interesting
It doesn't support full screen period, only borderless so it will run in your desktop resolution whatever it is. Unless for some weird reason you want to run it windowed?!Wild.
This stupid game doesn't even support 3840x1600 by default.
It doesn't support full screen period, only borderless so it will run in your desktop resolution whatever it is. Unless for some weird reason you want to run it windowed?!
Yes and no. I saw some odd behavior when I was doing testing with my CRG9 display. The UI wouldn't ever go to 5120x1440. It didn't matter if I toggled windowed or borderless. I also noticed that it looked fuzzier and it was getting oddly high FPS. I went and checked the game's config file and sure enough it was setting itself to 3440x1440. It simply would not acknowledge any kind of a 32:9 AR and stopped at the highest 21:9 it could. I manually changed the values to 5120x1440 and set them to read-only. Voila! Things were crisper and my FPS was back to what the nearly same setup (the other 3090 Ti rig) was doing at 4K which is relevant since the pixel counts between 4K and 5120x1440 are fairly closer to each other than what the game was forcing on the CRG9 rig.It doesn't support full screen period, only borderless so it will run in your desktop resolution whatever it is. Unless for some weird reason you want to run it windowed?!
Also saw this: https://www.destructoid.com/open-so...s-out-problems-with-performance-in-starfield/
"...Starfield is not interacting properly with graphics card drivers. Arntzen did not mince words in his recent release, describing Starfield‘s graphics driver overhead as 'very inefficient.' The problem is so severe, in fact, that the aforementioned translation layer had to be updated specifically to handle Starfield as an exception to the usual handling of the issue.
...Arntzen’s work has revealed that Starfield does not allocate video memory correctly, and that it misuses an important DirectX 12 feature (ExecuteIndirect) to the point where the GPU needs to double-check certain bits of data, causing lower frame rate than otherwise might’ve been expected. The problem is then exacerbated due to Starfield generating multiple ExecuteIndirect calls one after another while they should’ve been batched together for performance purposes."
Also saw this: https://www.destructoid.com/open-so...s-out-problems-with-performance-in-starfield/
"...Starfield is not interacting properly with graphics card drivers. Arntzen did not mince words in his recent release, describing Starfield‘s graphics driver overhead as 'very inefficient.' The problem is so severe, in fact, that the aforementioned translation layer had to be updated specifically to handle Starfield as an exception to the usual handling of the issue.
...Arntzen’s work has revealed that Starfield does not allocate video memory correctly, and that it misuses an important DirectX 12 feature (ExecuteIndirect) to the point where the GPU needs to double-check certain bits of data, causing lower frame rate than otherwise might’ve been expected. The problem is then exacerbated due to Starfield generating multiple ExecuteIndirect calls one after another while they should’ve been batched together for performance purposes."
Yeah I saw that sh1t too, a friend showed me a THG link (posted above here: https://forums.thefpsreview.com/threads/the-starfield-discussion-thread.13426/post-76061) that had that video embedded. All I can say is, what the f*ck Bethesda.Apparently they have messed up how the game loads data from the drive as well.
Creation
Ain't that the gawd-d4mn truth. So many of us have been preaching that for ages, but Bethesda won't ever change. At this point it's almost a game in itself to see how long they can keep stretching that engine out. Biiiig surprise for you guys: Elder Scrolls 6 will be on the same engine. That's what I would go with if I were a betting man. Surely with Microsoft ownership they can do something about that engine situation.Creation Engine is a real **** show. It was bad before, and they seem to have messed it up even more with this "Creation Engine 2" iteration.
They need a rewrite from scratch, or they can just do what everyone else does, and use a third party engine.
Whadyamean? Incorporate the Creation Engine into Windows? I wouldn't put it past them. /shudderSurely with Microsoft ownership they can do something about that engine situation.
I will say that aside from a few crashes to desktop, the game has run playably well. Not near as well as it should, but with mostly high settings on a 3080 12GB backed up by a 12700K on my desktop rig, enough to get by.
It feels mostly like the game has been in 'rush' development for years on end. I'm betting that there are Jira tickets (or equivalent) for every issue that's been mentioned by players, and that the associated cans have just been kicked down the road by management.
I don't know if this is old knowledge, but I just came across it.
Apparently Bethesda screwed up (surprise surprise) the scaling in the game, which can be fixed by forcing a negative LOD bias in drivers. This is especially effective with Nvidia hardware when using DLSS mods.
If you have found scaling to be blurry and have been applying sharpening, turn that **** off, and instead use a negative LOD bias.
Good to know. I don't care enough about achievements to mess with that though.There's a mod on Nexus Mods that re-enables achievements... because apparently that's needed!