Far Cry 4. Maximum graphics settings. (Far Cry 4)
Perhaps someone will be interested, someone will not ... do not consider it a "show-off", just someone may become interested ..- Maximum graphics settings
- Fur simulation incl.
- Smoothing TXAA4.
- Shadows HBAO +
Spoiler
gloccc
How many times to explain? I am using the "maximum" preset. I turned off the beams only when I made screens, so that there was a visual comparison.
Let me explain again, apparently you do not understand which settings reduce the FPS.
When set to "maximum", the game works with anti-aliasing on a multiple sample, therefore the FPS is high.
And if you turn on the Nvidia settings, only 2 parameters change:
1) "soft shadows" which do not affect the FPS in any way.
2) Anti-aliasing. It is this parameter that gives a drawdown of up to 45-50 FPS. Because instead of SMAA (multiple sampling), TXAA4 (oversampling) is included. Visually, the difference between SMAA and TXAA is insignificant, so why sacrifice as much as half the FPS? That is, oversampling ... um, oversampling and multiple is enough.
Simply put, on my GTX980, at maximum settings, it produces ~ 100 FPS at SMAA. At TXAA4 ~ 50 FPS. 50 FPS is also a very comfortable indicator, consoles in such games cannot reach this level even with their cropped graphics.
The rest of the settings have almost no effect on the FPS.
Did I make it clear? If it is not clear, learn the mat. part, namely anti-aliasing technologies based on creating a gradient using multiple sampling. Also read about anti-aliasing based on elementary post-processing or "FXAA" and you will understand why I recommend using FXAA and disabling sampling.
Intel Core i7 - 2600K CPU 3.40 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 - 1280 Mb, 8 GB RAM
What will it pull?
Simon Friendly
Probably I disagree with this, it seems to me that the graphics are different ...
I also disagree with him, apparently he, as a man in the street, thinks that graphics are only models and textures.
In fact, there is a very big difference between parts 3 and 4 in the quality of post-processing and lighting development.
But with the textures, of course, they adjusted it, in 3 parts there were much fewer textures with a low resolution. For example, the textures of rocks and soil in 3 parts will be more qualitative than in the 4th.
Belomorkanal
And what did I just write? I wrote the same thing that I believe in such FPS and I know that both txaa and twilight rays plant PPC as FPS
gloccc
You wrote nonsense , see my post above, my "twilight rays" do not reduce FPS at all. And I repeat once again, I turned them off just for the sake of a couple of screenshots, then I returned the settings to maximum. Look at my post above, there are 2 screens with rays and without, make sure that the FPS is the same.
There is only one setting in the game that significantly affects the FPS, this is the choice of anti-aliasing technology. All other settings, whatever one may say, the FPS will be kept at the same level.
PS_ sadness, trouble today I dropped the monitor from the table, I had to put the old one. 7k to the dump, the matrix was scattered to pieces. Already ordered a new, gaming BenQ XL2411Z, envy)))
Belomorkanal
"dropped the monitor from the table today" - really played out)) .... BenQ XL2411Z is a good choice, if before that there was no 120 hertz one you will feel a pleasant difference))
Belomorkanal
Well, xs , I had twilight rays on my 970 fps , right now I sold it, added money, decided to take 980 too
mister611 I dragged the
table unsuccessfully, grabbed it along with all the contents, system unit, monitor, speakers and did not report. So the hunt was to slap his own hands. Six months only the monitor was. But it’s for the best, I’ll buy a monitor that matches the system unit. And then the now deceased monitor was not suitable for gambling.
You also need to find glasses somewhere that work with Nvidia firewood. Most likely I will buy wired from USB. And at 120 Hz I already played at a friend's house, the difference is really noticeable.
gloccc
Well, of course, on different video cards, the settings affect performance in different ways. I wrote only about my video card.
GTX780 OC, 16GB, i5-2500 3.3GHz. With synchronization disabled, smaa and medium shadows (though taking into account the "Nvidia settings") 45-55FPS gives approximately ...
Strel-Ok Apparently
, in some blog I read that even on 980 it gives no more than 50.
Strel-Ok
I read over there and they play at 18 fps and not what, and you say that 55 is not enough for you)
Well, I've lost the habit ... For example, GTA4 once passed ~ 20-25 frames and nothing, it seemed normal)
I specifically included Watch Dogs. i5 3470, 8GB, 7950 3GB.
I turned on the maximum settings, having previously made anti-aliasing to a minimum, the screen resolution is 1680. When driving a car, it gives an average of 30, drops periodically to 25-15 - it slows down, but you can play (after all, this is not a racing simulator). When shooting, it keeps about 30 fps, specially destroyed the gang, no discomfort, it goes clearly without slowing down, although if it dropped to 20-15 when shooting, it would probably start to get on the nerves.
If you make the optimal settings, the graphics goes from ultra to maximum, the fps becomes somewhere closer to 50 (fps is higher, the graphics are slightly worse). Apparently the game developers consider about 50 fps to be optimal, I suppose with a margin so that it does not fall below 30 fps.
That is, IMHO for the comfort of the FPS should not sink below 25-30, everything else is a spray of champagne: a play on words and inferences.
Simon Friendly
Apparently, in some blog I read that even on 980 it gives no more than 50.
So I wrote in this thread that my 980 stably (without the slightest drawdowns) produces only 50 FPS when setting the settings from Nvidia, thanks to anti-aliasing. When set to "maximum" it produces 80-120 FPS.
Stalker Zony
Isn't that enough ?! Few is below 30 fps.
In general, I agree with you. Consolemen of 50 FPS never dreamed of even in the sweetest dreams. It's their lot to play with "cinematic" 30 FPS and terrible control lag on the controller. I've played shooters on PS3, the controls are hellish because of the delay.
SergeySZV
for the comfort of the FPS should not sink below 25-30
This is your purely personal "IMHO".
And for me, the "comfort zone" starts at 40 FPS and above. That is, at 40 FPS, I play any dynamic games, jokes, races without any strain. At 35-30 it’s not the same ... but below 30-25, the desire to play generally disappears.
Stariy2281
I read over there and they play at 18 fps and not what, and you say that 55 is not enough for you)
Following this logic, you can generally go around the world with a naked f *** oops. Some people live on a salary of 15,000 rubles for a whole month, and 60,000 rubles is not enough for me.