Dear Bethesda, I Only Want 1 Thing Patched

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 5:51 pm

hahahaha OMG. humans can hear up to 20kHz, not 12.5. human range is 20hz - 20khz. and an audio device that advertises 48kHZ (or 44.1, 96, never 40) is referring to sample rate, which goes hand in hand with bit depth to define the resoutlion of the digital sample of an anolog wave. not the same thing as audible frequency range. you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. sorry i know this is off topic but i had to jump in. esp at '<---audio engineer' omg i almost fell off my chair.

^ THIS :)

xTx (actually IS an audio engineer ;-) )
User avatar
*Chloe*
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 6:37 pm

fail.

a site explaining why the human eye can detect differences between, say, 30 and 60 fps: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

DO A TEST FOR YOURSELF AND SEE--it's that simple. i guarantee you that you can tell. you. can. tell. you can tell. stop talking and go look. stop being thought-noobs.

Just because they can allegedly tell a difference doesn't mean higher framerate is a significant improvement. And I can't really take this article seriously when it includes the phrase "more realistic game play." :rofl:
User avatar
Emily Shackleton
 
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:36 am

Post » Thu May 31, 2012 1:31 am

I only want one thing, and one thing only, for you to focus on. Optimize this engine. Optimize it to run on 400/500 series cards. Optimize it to run on quad core cpus. Optimize it to use 4gb+ of ram. Optimize meshes, geometry, and ai. It's all you need to do. Do this and the modding community can fix everything else wrong with this game. Optimize the engine and we can load hi-res texture. Optimize the engine and we can add mods which will tax the cpu. Optimize this engine and half of everyone's issues will go away and the other half modders can fix. This is the only thing, THE Only Thing the modding community cannot fix. We can fix the bugs, the glitches, hell, someone could probably even fix the issues the game has with large saves, but the engine is what you need to do so that the modding community will actually be able to make quality mods.

This is really what needs to be done. It's just BS that my OC'd GTX 570 is dipping below 40 fps with only some 2048 landscape textures, at 5 grids, with 250+MBs of free vram. Pft, even fully vanilla, on utlra, fps can dip to 30 in certain areas. It goes without saying that the shadows in this game are downright terrible, no doubt something that only tweaking the engine could fix.


OPTIMIZE THIS ENGINE!

Yes abandon 2/3rds of your customers and hope pc users don't mind paying double for future titles so you can continue to profit!
User avatar
Shaylee Shaw
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:55 pm

Post » Thu May 31, 2012 12:06 am

^ THIS :smile:

xTx (actually IS an audio engineer ;-) )

same :) which is why i couldn't let that one slide
User avatar
Imy Davies
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:42 pm

Post » Thu May 31, 2012 4:20 am

I wish I had your FPS, mine goes below 20 in some towns (no matter what graphic settings I use)

You serious bro? Might wanna go get your eyes checked. My game drops to 29 sometimes and its damn noticeable. Either your eyes are starting to give up on you or you are a troll.
User avatar
sarah simon-rogaume
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:41 am

Post » Thu May 31, 2012 5:20 am

Can someone please tell me what I am doing wrong? For my game to run at an average of 33-45 fps outdoors, 33-45 in markarth, solitude, morthal and 45-60 inside dungeons I had to use these settings which seem pretty low compared to the settings you guys are posting:

Resolution: 1280x800, AA off, AF x16, Texture Quality High, Shadows Medium, FXAA off

If I go any higher in resolution, enable AA, FXAA or turn up shadows the framerate takes a huge hit.

PC Specs:
Spoiler

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 1/28/2012, 15:56:52
Machine name: NAEEM-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.110622-1506)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
System Model: M68MT-S2P
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Phenom™ II X4 840 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 4094MB RAM
Page File: 1764MB used, 6422MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7601.17514 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: ATI Radeon HD 5670
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x68D8)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_68D8&SUBSYS_22941787&REV_00
Display Memory: 2805 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1014 MB
Shared Memory: 1791 MB
Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: LG TV
Monitor Id: GSM0001
Native Mode: 1920 x 1080(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: HDMI
Driver Name: aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx32,aticfx32,aticfx32,atiumd64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atiumdag,atidxx32,atidxx32,atiumdva,atiumd6a.cap,atitmm64.dll
Driver File Version: 8.17.0010.1107 (English)
Driver Version: 8.920.0.0
DDI Version: 11
Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 11/10/2011 03:15:20, 927232 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp:
Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-2B98-11CF-6470-9E02BEC2C535}
Vendor ID: 0x1002
Device ID: 0x68D8
SubSys ID: 0x22941787
Revision ID: 0x0000
Driver Strong Name: oem28.inf:ATI.Mfg.NTamd64.6.1:ati2mtag_Evergreen:8.920.0.0:pci\ven_1002&dev_68d8
Rank Of Driver: 00E62001
User avatar
nath
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:34 am

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 2:55 pm

Can someone please tell me what I am doing wrong? For my game to run at an average of 33-45 fps outdoors, 33-45 in markarth, solitude, morthal and 45-60 inside dungeons I had to use these settings which seem pretty low compared to the settings you guys are posting:

Resolution: 1280x800, AA off, AF x16, Texture Quality High, Shadows Medium, FXAA off

If I go any higher in resolution, enable AA, FXAA or turn up shadows the framerate takes a huge hit.

PC Specs:
Spoiler

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 1/28/2012, 15:56:52
Machine name: NAEEM-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.110622-1506)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
System Model: M68MT-S2P
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Phenom™ II X4 840 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 4094MB RAM
Page File: 1764MB used, 6422MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7601.17514 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: ATI Radeon HD 5670
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x68D8)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_68D8&SUBSYS_22941787&REV_00
Display Memory: 2805 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1014 MB
Shared Memory: 1791 MB
Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: LG TV
Monitor Id: GSM0001
Native Mode: 1920 x 1080(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: HDMI
Driver Name: aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx64.dll,aticfx32,aticfx32,aticfx32,atiumd64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atidxx64.dll,atiumdag,atidxx32,atidxx32,atiumdva,atiumd6a.cap,atitmm64.dll
Driver File Version: 8.17.0010.1107 (English)
Driver Version: 8.920.0.0
DDI Version: 11
Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 11/10/2011 03:15:20, 927232 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp:
Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-2B98-11CF-6470-9E02BEC2C535}
Vendor ID: 0x1002
Device ID: 0x68D8
SubSys ID: 0x22941787
Revision ID: 0x0000
Driver Strong Name: oem28.inf:ATI.Mfg.NTamd64.6.1:ati2mtag_Evergreen:8.920.0.0:pci\ven_1002&dev_68d8
Rank Of Driver: 00E62001

Delete post, I suggested an idiotic thing.
User avatar
Melanie Steinberg
 
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:25 pm

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 7:00 pm

...the only bug I can think of is the z-fighting in the mountains west of Whiterun...

there are ways to remedy that.
User avatar
Laura Shipley
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:47 am

Post » Thu May 31, 2012 12:40 am

DX9 is faster than DX10, which is faster than DX11... (Running the same commands.) DX10 just adds more commands to DX9, and nothing special. (It is also only available on Vista and Win7, not xbox or XP.) DX11 adds a lot of coolness, at the cost of near-death of the games... "Crysis 2" Average FPS is about 20FPS across the board, unless you turn off the effects, in which case, it is reduced to DX9, and still runs slower on DX11, than it does on an XP rig, with the same DX9-only settings. DX11 is a Win7-only option. (You now exclude X-Box, XP, and Vista.) However... If they actually used "tessellation", and used it correctly... (Thus removing all the LOD junk from models.) The game would be a LOT faster, and easier to manage... If "Tessellation" actually worked like it should, which it does not, still... Other than that, DX11 offers nothing special. Great looking water, skies, and vines... But simple programming can/does surpass those "auto-features". Shaders... Now there is something that they could use. Since they keep trying to code shaders, and do it horribly... Using DX11 would just be even slower, unless they actually use the DX11 shaders, correctly. Since they can't manage DX9 shaders, I fail to believe that they could manage the more complex DX11 shaders code. Obviously, someone needs to take a shaders-class.
DirectX 9 is not faster than DirectX 10, which is not faster than DirectX 11. The newer version allow more to be done on the GPU versus the CPU. In the past few years GPU power has gone up at a faster rate than CPU power. If the physics calculations, shadow calculation, and geometry acceleration can be offloaded to the GPU, it will allow faster rendering of the same effects, or higher quality rendering of the effects at the same speed. Direct X 10 for example allows Instancing 2.0 which means "allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one" per wikipedia. Imagine the number times the same tree and strand of grass are drawn in Skyrim multiple times on the screen. Currently under DirectX 9, each instance of this has to be sent to the GPU over the rendering pipeline. With DirectX 10 support, the game could send the unique mesh for each type of tree and grass once, and then tell the GPU where to show it many times in the scene. This would speed things up with the new version, not slow them down.
User avatar
Amanda Furtado
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:22 pm

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 1:56 pm



...you're an idiot. that he slightly misspoke doesn't render false the rest of the factual information he conveyed. a simple google search will show that what he speaks of is not nonsense or even pseudoscience. it's merely true. here's another site, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Visible_frame_rate

the point is quite simple: it isn't a question of how many frames per second the eye can see. stop simplifying it in that way. higher frames per second, upwards to 100 frames per second and beyond, affect the fluidity of what we're viewing. so his statement "more realistic gameplay" isn't even misspeaking, actually. the game being drawn with more fps results in a fluidity more comparable to that which we perceive in REAL life. yeah, i know...ROFL ROFL.

this is of course subject, as many things are, to diminishing returns. i never stated that there was a massive or even significant difference between even 60 and 80 fps. for me, for example, beyond 80 doesn't really have an affect on me. but there is a difference between what one can actually discern and what one minds. one is an objective reality, one is a matter of preference. if you were to do the tests, as i begged you to do before opening your mouth earlier, you would most certainly have to confess that you could tell a difference of fluidity between skyrim being drawn at 30 fps and 60 fps. you are a human with a human eye. you aren't special. TEST IT. i know for a fact that you'd be able to tell if you had two displays side by side.

notice how that claims nothing about whether or not you do or should care about that fact, or whether or not as low as 30 results in a bad gameplay experience for you, or even whether or not a decrease from 60 to 30 fps would result in a bad gameplay experience for you.

This.

Fact is, a higher fps makes things more fluid. Real life doesn't stutter :P

Everyone is different though, so we each have our own perceptions on what we see. Ones mans fluid gameplay, is another mans SPEND £3000 ON A NEW RIG, NEED 1000fps grrr! Lol.
User avatar
Marion Geneste
 
Posts: 3566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:21 pm

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 3:40 pm

Game runs at constant 60fps on ultra with medium shadows, 1080p, hd tex mods... maybe they tailored the game to my system, but it feels pretty optimised to me.

This, except I'm on ultra shadows and no mods and I also get 60 most of the time.

As for the eyes only being able to deal with x frames per second, it's akin to super sampling. Yes, the image will not move faster at 60 than at 30 but for every 1 frame you see at 30 you see 2 at 60 creating a smoother transition from frame 1 to frame 1.5 to frame 2 instead of just from frame 1 to frame 2. Do some computer animation classes and then come back and argue that 60 fps looks the same as 30fps. It doesn't.
User avatar
Causon-Chambers
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:47 pm

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 11:51 pm

This, except I'm on ultra shadows and no mods and I also get 60 most of the time.

As for the eyes only being able to deal with x frames per second, it's akin to super sampling. Yes, the image will not move faster at 60 than at 30 but for every 1 frame you see at 30 you see 2 at 60 creating a smoother transition from frame 1 to frame 1.5 to frame 2 instead of just from frame 1 to frame 2. Do some computer animation classes and then come back and argue that 60 fps looks the same as 30fps. It doesn't.

This is true. I have two PCs side by side and one monitor runs at a max of 60Hz the other at 120Hz. I show my friends the difference by loading the same games in the same places and have them look from one to the other. It's even visible on the desktop. Grab a window and drag it around on one then the other. The movement is far smoother. My friends can see the difference too! Maybe my eyes can't pick up each and every frame but I CAN totally see greater fluidity at frames over 30 or even 60. I started on old school CRTs and when I moved to my first 60Hz LCD it was an unpleasant transition. Now having 120Hz LCDs I have the best of both worlds. I hate these people that run around regurgitating this drivel about not being able to tell the difference above x frames all because they read some website telling them can't see the difference when I have proof sitting right in front of me.
User avatar
x a million...
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:59 pm

Post » Wed May 30, 2012 3:40 pm



This is true. I have two PCs side by side and one monitor runs at a max of 60Hz the other at 120Hz. I show my friends the difference by loading the same games in the same places and have them look from one to the other. It's even visible on the desktop. Grab a window and drag it around on one then the other. The movement is far smoother. My friends can see the difference too! Maybe my eyes can't pick up each and every frame but I CAN totally see greater fluidity at frames over 30 or even 60. I started on old school CRTs and when I moved to my first 60Hz LCD it was an unpleasant transition. Now having 120Hz LCDs I have the best of both worlds. I hate these people that run around regurgitating this drivel about not being able to tell the difference above x frames all because they read some website telling them can't see the difference when I have proof sitting right in front of me.

I have to say though for me it depends on the game. I cap GTA IV at 45 because of the horrible fluctuations, and it feels as smooth as Skyrim running at 60.

Now if skyrim is at 45 it feels horrible.
User avatar
Adam Baumgartner
 
Posts: 3344
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:12 pm

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim