He explains it right there in that post:
Some of us are just fine with the fact that we are actually able to play the game and have fun with it.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand.
Dead Rising 3 PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
Some of us are just fine with the fact that we are actually able to play the game and have fun with it.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand.
jediyoshi
Member
You realize the venn diagram between people who own an Xbox One and people who own a PC isn't a single circle, right?
Honestly, it seems to me a lot of the piss from this thread seems to be coming more from PC gamers that just started gaming on a PC last gen when the hardware discrepancies between PC and console hardware reached historic highs, and just got used to playing 1080p60 like it was the expected norm for everything, and have never experienced anything else, so now that we're at the turn of the gen and everything is getting changed around people are becoming unhappy with the fact that the unreasonable expectations they've held all along are simply that: unreasonable and not based in reality. In reality it's all based on performance of your card vs the demand of the game, and honestly, I don't know what any of you expected.
Fact of the matter is the results we're getting now are perfectly in line with what should have been expected going in. Like the guy above with a 660 being pissed off his card isn't doing 1080p60 with the game. Well, no shit, the game ran 720p 30fps on a 7790, and a 660 is not 4-5x more powerful than a 7790.
Clearly you don't understand high end pc gaming. 30fps and 720p on pc? Fuck that noise. I pay for good hardware to go above and beyond what consoles can do.
Your post doen't make sense at all either.
Zomba13
Member
According to Fraps this is what I get:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
55964, 1866381, 26, 32, 29.985
In that time there was one cutscene. It's mostly at 30 fps with very slight drops in places.
Everything at max except AA (FXAA) with the render at "full" at 1080p. Kept the 30fps cap on because I just haven't bothered trying to unlock the frame rate yet.
I've got a GTX780, 16GB RAM and i5-4670K@3.4GHz on Windows 7 (64 bit).
I've only had slight crashes or problems when quitting the game (it hangs for a long time). For me at least this is a fine port. Not messed with FoV or unlocking the frame rate yet but it seems to me a better version of the Xbone version and thanks to the Russian pricing during the steam sale I got this super cheap thanks to a super helpful guy on steam so I really can't complain about this port.
Also the game is super fun. I was worried during the initial reveal that the game would be too serious and not goofy but was so glad when stuff showed up closer to release showing it is still goofy and silly with the stupid weapons and costumes.
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
55964, 1866381, 26, 32, 29.985
In that time there was one cutscene. It's mostly at 30 fps with very slight drops in places.
Everything at max except AA (FXAA) with the render at "full" at 1080p. Kept the 30fps cap on because I just haven't bothered trying to unlock the frame rate yet.
I've got a GTX780, 16GB RAM and i5-4670K@3.4GHz on Windows 7 (64 bit).
I've only had slight crashes or problems when quitting the game (it hangs for a long time). For me at least this is a fine port. Not messed with FoV or unlocking the frame rate yet but it seems to me a better version of the Xbone version and thanks to the Russian pricing during the steam sale I got this super cheap thanks to a super helpful guy on steam so I really can't complain about this port.
Also the game is super fun. I was worried during the initial reveal that the game would be too serious and not goofy but was so glad when stuff showed up closer to release showing it is still goofy and silly with the stupid weapons and costumes.
KaiserBecks
Member
I played the shit out of those games and never had a single issue (except for some GFWL related stuff)*. Playing DR2 in 1440p with 60fps was glorious (especially after having played the shitty console version first) and required no effort whatsoever. It doesn't surprise me that the Xbox One version of DR3 runs like ass, Blue Castle have never been on par with the japanese team that created the original DR, but I expected the PC version to do better than this. Technical issues aside, I hope that someone will mod the color palette. I won't buy the game the way it looks right now. That's not Dead Rising.
*edit: I played the PC versions a couple of months after release though, I don't know if they had to patch it.
If you turn skies to low it gets rid of a lot of the shitty grimdark atmostphere in the game by doing away with the hilarously misguided "smokey dust" look the game has with the dynamic black clouds everywhere and instead leaves you with the standard sunshine.
It's a a seemingly vast improvement, imo. Still doesn't do anything to help with nick's stupid in game VA lines where you're slaughtering thousands of zombies in one long combo and nick is screaming "OH GOD PLEASE NO" and "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT THIS IS AWFUL" like he's horrified, when you're wearing a knight's full suit of armor and swinging a flaming death scythe that throws minibombs on heavy attacks.
Pretty sure Nokterian is just somewhat of an elitist sort of guy when it comes to this stuff(going by his comments in the Ryse thread) who cant comprehend how somebody else feels differently than he does about something.
I don't think its so unrealistic that somebody with a decent GPU and CPU expects to be able to play next-gen games at 1080p/60fps these days, either. 900p/1080p should be the norm for most games, after all, so most of the time we're not talking about going from 720p->1080p. I can see where the expectation is born from.
But yes, I do think people are forgetting that this runs like absolute shit even on console, too. 720p/sub-30fps average is incredibly lousy by today's standards. So perhaps the poor performance on the PC is at least understandable, in the literal sense. It doesn't make it any less crappy, though.
I'm with anybody who feels this makes purchasing this a no-go. But I'm also not super interested in the Dead Rising series in the first place. For somebody who is just happy to get to play it at all, I'm perfectly capable of understanding how they could be fine with it, even if I don't feel the same way as them. Just a case of 'better than nothing' for some and if you're a Dead Rising fan or really wanted to play this, its not so bad to be appreciative of the opportunity.
MarcoZombieCannon
Member
If anything I thought it made it even more goofy. And I kinda like it. Or like he'll kinda act relieved after I run away from the remains of a hundred some odd zombie horde that I completely decimated with some crazy combo weapon.
Zomba13
Member
Yeah the VA is really weird. Like several times he's saying shit like that or panicking when I'm mauling Zombies and I kept thinking it's coming from someone else in the area.
grandwizard
Member
Are you talking about me? If so I am actually fine with what I am getting out of my 660. These are current-gen games so expecting them to be able to be easily maxed like last-gen ports were but on the same pc hardware isn't realistic. The fact I can get 1080p/30 at medium on my 660 means that when I finally build a new pc in the next year it should be able to run it really well.
It's the crashes and low-fps in cutscenes (which seems unrelated to general performance and more like a bug) that is bothering me.
John Rabbit
Banned
really fun game, running pretty fine at 900p for me. almost everything on or on high.
has anyone else run into an issue where the map screen tooltip won't go away? it says to press 'A' to continue but that doesn't do anything. switching to kb/m doesn't work either.
has anyone else run into an issue where the map screen tooltip won't go away? it says to press 'A' to continue but that doesn't do anything. switching to kb/m doesn't work either.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
And I will never understand how people will put graphics (aside from a stable framerate) at first place when playing a game.
My reason for playing this game and enjoying it is because I don't have an Xbox One and won't have one for at least another few years.
EDIT:
On second thought, I don't think I can take you serious at all.
Playing a game that runs like crap and crashes every 30 minutes isn't fun.
Supporting lazy developers isn't fun.
There's no excuse at all. There are plenty of good ports. Only reason for a port like this is laziness. That or incompetence or a lack of caring.
Your kind of attitude is why developers continue to pull shit like this and think they can get away with it. People are willing to pay for broken or subpar products so why bother making something decent?
Anyone who uses this term doesn't deserve to ever be taken seriously.
If you have problems with the port then take them up with capcom, not the guys slaving away at anywhere from 60-100 hrs a week with no ot in order to get the game even as presentable as it is now.
I know Capcom is likely to blame.
Capcom are a joke. Replace developers with publisher then. Although you can't always say the developers aren't at fault.
dmix90
Member
No crashes after i rolled back to 335.23 WHQL driver. Game works really good with framerate lock. Noticed fps drops only in cutscenes. Loadings are fast too. Maxed settings on GTX680 2GB + 12GB RAM + FX8120(4.6ghz). Really great port(don't kill me....i love stable 30 fps). Game is a blast to play too, thanks Capcom 
EDIT: After i rolled back gpu drivers i can properly quit from game menu too without task manager.
EDIT: After i rolled back gpu drivers i can properly quit from game menu too without task manager.
adamantypants
Member
Guys check your overclocks and make sure they're legit stable. This game exposed a weakness in my overclock and is why I kept crashing. This is likely the first CPU bound game I'm playing, which makes sense considering hundreds of zombies, explosions, and open world's seem difficult.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Well, excuse me for having fun with a game.
I don't have crashes every 30 minutes and the game performs quite fine considering my laptop isn't even meeting the minimum requirements.
Also I pre-ordered this game, how was I supposed to know how good the port would turn out?
I paid them up front not because I was hoping for some magical port that goes up and beyond everything else but because I simply want to play Dead Rising 3.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Believe me, I don't like lazy ass PC ports of console games. Hate them in fact.
But this game got just released. Cut them some fucking slack, man. It's not like every PC game performs wonderfully at 4k resolution and 60 fps day fucking one.
Also, I don't think that PC is so easy a platform to port console games to.
With console games you have a closed hardware. You can't add nothing to your hardware, aside maybe from external harddrives or whatever. So games on consoles perform the same for everyone.
With PC however every rig is built differently. Not everyone has an Octa-core Intel processor and a nVidia Titan whatever with sixty bajillion Jiggabytes of RAM clocking at over three million GHz.
Porting (and developing) for PC means you have to satisfy a WIDE RANGE of different built PCs, different combinations of CPU and GPU, different amounts of RAM, different monitors with different capabilities, different clock rates and so on.
Yes it sucks that DR3 performs bad on high-end PCs. But hey, guess what: With this specific title, I don't care, because the game runs on my laptop and performs in a way I can play the game, and enjoy it too.
I get the feeling some folks both here and on other places think an Advanced Settings tab is just so you can smack every setting up to the highest they will go and call it a day. I've only been playing about with this for a couple of hours but going from the lowest possible settings to the highest that have available whilst maintaining my native screen resolution there was about 100% of scalability there. As in going from the lowest settings I'd get a minimum of 80fps and it topped out at 120fps (I don't think the engine goes any higher though) where as everything dialled up and I was getting lowest of 40fps and vsynced at 60fps with performance to spare. After fiddling around with each setting individually to guage their impact this would be in and around the settings I'd need to maintain 60fps minimum at 1920x1080.
Took about 30 mins to find a happy medium. Obviously low settings are really horrible in places but there's some wiggle room in between. A horrible port wouldn't even let you adjust any settings outside resolution or have any scalability between them which is far from what I am seeing here. Granted not accounting for some stability issues (and I was missing 1.5gb of files so I couldn't even run the game) there does apear to be issues affecting both Nvidia and AMD users relating to their graphics drivers so fingers crossed this is being worked on. SLI Support from Nvidia would be nice as would CrossFire but you're better off pestering both Nvidia and AMD about that (on their forums they have threads open for requests so that's the first port of call).
Outside of resolution (which any sane person wouldn't drop bellow their native monitor resolution unless a last resort) the settings with the biggest impact are Shadow Quality, Mirror Quality, Ambient Occlusion, Depth of Field (when present) and Zombie Quality, in that order. Level of Detail had a negligible impact and works in a linear scales (maximum is to infinity with intractable object being pulled back to the edge of the screen whilst the lowest setting is about 20 foot in front of you and then increments in between with every other value) and using SMAA and setting 16x AF are a next to nothing hit for the extra quality they bring. One thing of note is Texture Quality. If you have 2gb or less of VRAM you're going to struggle at the High value as it uses between 2.4 and all of my 3gb of VRAM. Dropping down to Medium it's in and around 1.6 to 2gb and Low is just over 1gb rising a little higher.
Cutscenes are using vastly higher quality models and both the lighting and shadow quality and resolution is massively higher than in game to at least a factor of 4 or more. I don't think there's any way to scale them back short of changing your rendering resolution but their performance cost is huge (and rightly so at the quality they are).
Took about 30 mins to find a happy medium. Obviously low settings are really horrible in places but there's some wiggle room in between. A horrible port wouldn't even let you adjust any settings outside resolution or have any scalability between them which is far from what I am seeing here. Granted not accounting for some stability issues (and I was missing 1.5gb of files so I couldn't even run the game) there does apear to be issues affecting both Nvidia and AMD users relating to their graphics drivers so fingers crossed this is being worked on. SLI Support from Nvidia would be nice as would CrossFire but you're better off pestering both Nvidia and AMD about that (on their forums they have threads open for requests so that's the first port of call).
Outside of resolution (which any sane person wouldn't drop bellow their native monitor resolution unless a last resort) the settings with the biggest impact are Shadow Quality, Mirror Quality, Ambient Occlusion, Depth of Field (when present) and Zombie Quality, in that order. Level of Detail had a negligible impact and works in a linear scales (maximum is to infinity with intractable object being pulled back to the edge of the screen whilst the lowest setting is about 20 foot in front of you and then increments in between with every other value) and using SMAA and setting 16x AF are a next to nothing hit for the extra quality they bring. One thing of note is Texture Quality. If you have 2gb or less of VRAM you're going to struggle at the High value as it uses between 2.4 and all of my 3gb of VRAM. Dropping down to Medium it's in and around 1.6 to 2gb and Low is just over 1gb rising a little higher.
Cutscenes are using vastly higher quality models and both the lighting and shadow quality and resolution is massively higher than in game to at least a factor of 4 or more. I don't think there's any way to scale them back short of changing your rendering resolution but their performance cost is huge (and rightly so at the quality they are).
TheVampire
Banned
Anyone able to get sweetfx working?
It keeps crashing the game on startup for me.
It keeps crashing the game on startup for me.
Yeah, I finally got the game to go from 3-20fps to actually fucking playable 25-30fps (no dips, no stuttering, not crashes) with decent graphics and minimal tearing. Game is pretty fun now.
Here's what I did in case it might help some people (580 GTX):
1) Made the user INI "gmpcr_unlock_frame_rate=True" to unlock framerate and placed it in main directory
2) Used Nvidia control panel to put adaptive half-refresh under v-sync for the game
3) Used the latest Riva Tuner Statistic Server to limit max FPS to 30fps
4) Turned everything from "high" to "medium"
5) Turned everything OFF
With this, I got locked 30fps at 720p and pretty close to 30fps at 1080p and totally playable (1080p feels like DR1 felt on X360, perfectly playable). Then you can slowly add stuff back at the cost of a few frames if you want (I put on some AA and motion blur to smooth the visuals out of a bit). This stopped all the crashes and made it actually a fun game you can play. Port is frustrating and hopefully they'll patch it with some optimization, but if you roll back stuff to medium and turn effects like subscattering/ambient occlusion off it helps a ton. That stuff hits FPS harder than 1080p it seems so it's not that impossible to get a smooth game at a sharp 1080p thankfully.
Here's what I did in case it might help some people (580 GTX):
1) Made the user INI "gmpcr_unlock_frame_rate=True" to unlock framerate and placed it in main directory
2) Used Nvidia control panel to put adaptive half-refresh under v-sync for the game
3) Used the latest Riva Tuner Statistic Server to limit max FPS to 30fps
4) Turned everything from "high" to "medium"
5) Turned everything OFF
With this, I got locked 30fps at 720p and pretty close to 30fps at 1080p and totally playable (1080p feels like DR1 felt on X360, perfectly playable). Then you can slowly add stuff back at the cost of a few frames if you want (I put on some AA and motion blur to smooth the visuals out of a bit). This stopped all the crashes and made it actually a fun game you can play. Port is frustrating and hopefully they'll patch it with some optimization, but if you roll back stuff to medium and turn effects like subscattering/ambient occlusion off it helps a ton. That stuff hits FPS harder than 1080p it seems so it's not that impossible to get a smooth game at a sharp 1080p thankfully.
derExperte
Member
Funny, because Ubi and a few driver updates fixed W_D, it now runs as it should on average hardware. Too bad a lot of people have missed that. Granted it took them two months which shouldn't happen but they didn't abandon the game.
Dictator93
Member
Does the framerate still stutter when moving quickly in the game?
I am not putting graphics first it is about optimization on all ranges of different pc's and this game clearly doesn't do that at all. I have a GTX 780 a meaty gpu for a range of games. And why should i enjoy a game with such a low framerate and resolution? I didn't pay 400 euro's for a meaty gpu to work for a game like that. And i can't take you serious at all because it's 'ok' to play with a horrible pc port like that.
I had my fair experience with a bunch of pc ports all of them where rubbish and regret it but now i am wiser to not spend money on things like this. I saw this one coming by a long run and glad i am willing to pay for games that work on PC.
Brerlappin
Member
playing at 1900x1200, everything maxed. Get about 45-50 fps average. Cutscenes kill it for some reason tho, goes down to like 20 fps during the first cutscene in the diner
i7 4770k, GTX770 2gb, 16GB ram
i7 4770k, GTX770 2gb, 16GB ram
That's your opinion and that's fine. But stop trying to project your opinion onto others and say they should feel the same way. Its ridiculous.
Sparrowhawk
Member
Glad I didn't give into temptation and drop a wad of cash for this.
I'll definitely get it when it's on sale, and maybe Capcom will even try to fix some of these issues themselves.
I'll definitely get it when it's on sale, and maybe Capcom will even try to fix some of these issues themselves.
derExperte
Member
I played with a 660 2GB plus these drivers (which improve things a lot themselves) and high textures and while I can't guarantee that there weren't any dips when driving extremely fast it never impeded gameplay like on day 1. Only if I spin the camera around right after loading there are a few dips, then it's fine. In case you stopped playing because of performance try again now.
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
This is the exact same set up I have. Bummed that it won't hit 60 fps, but at least it doesn't seem to crash a lot for you. This makes me feel a little better about picking it up soon. Thanks for the report.
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
This is why publishers can get away with pushing out a port that isn't great. This game hardly works on a decent range of PC's. If your game doesn't work for even half of the consumers who bought it day one on reasonable systems, don't release the port. Saying "the game just got released" is giving them a pass to continue to release half baked ports.
There are many ports that worked decently on release. Capcom's even released a few of them.
Auto-Reply
Member
Isn't it DX11, or can you chose?
Nostremitus
Member
So... Are people with 8core AMD chips getting less stuttering than people with i5s? Is this a thread heavy game that doesn't benefit as much from high IPC? If so, could this become more common from console ports made for weak 8 core CPUs moving forward?
It doesn't really work that way. An i5 can handle more work by pure virtue of running them 4 times as fast.
There's a big difference with a 660 having some issues with this game and a 780ti having issues with this game.
Nostremitus
Member
...on last gen games that weren't tailor made for 8 core CPUs and on PC games that are made with Intel's high IPC in mind.
We may be in new territory. My instinct says no, that the higher IPC quad core should be able to brute force code made specifically for a weaker 8 core chip but the people posting in this thread with 8 core AMDs are saying they're running with fairly stable framerates...
I'll admit I haven't read every post in this thread, but browsing though it looks odd, so I posed the question.
An i5 can handle more work per core by virtue of handing more instruction per clock, it's not that it's clock is faster(although performance does scale well.) Even then, throwing more threads than it can handle can still slow it down, that's why the 8 core FX chips (and some 6 cores) are better at content creation than i5s. If a game is written in a way that maximizes thread usage, it's not unfathomable that the i5 would take a hit compared to one.
Last gen is a poor example as both consoles used IBM chips that were also working as DSPs and taking over various GPU functions. The code had to be recompiled for the ports. That doesn't have to happen now. The CPUs in the current consoles are (more or less) code compatible with PC chips. So that doesn't really mean anything. I was also talking about smooth framerate using the default settings not average frames per second using the custom ini which the developers warn is unstable to begin with. I don't mind being mistaken, but respond to the question with relevant data. People with i5s are getting frame stutter and drops with the locked 30, people with AMD chips are claiming the game is running smoothly, hell look at the first post on this page.
Well...
Game GPU.ru's Benches said:
For years we've heard "because of the consoles, games will be more multithreaded" for getting close to a decade and outside of a few examples higher IPC still wins the day. Things might change in the future but who knows. Put it this way the 360's Xenon CPU had 6 threads and the PS3 have 7 SPUs available (albeit scheduled in a rather different way) but that didn't bring a sea of change to the PC space and the way games are threaded. Maybe we might see massive change when more engines have jobs and processes that need to run in parallel but until then fast clocks and high IPC is still going strong.
a secret-boss
Banned
I'll wait for the steam sale then when everything is ironed out