Snkfanatic
Banned
Gave the new AMD drivers a shot and they fixed most of my issues. Game runs very smooth now but I still get some texture lag. Not nearly as bad as it was before the drivers.
george_us said:Holy shit the wingstick is so awesome.
Fuck no. I'd gladly take this level of pop-in if all games ran this buttery smooth.kx11 said:i'm going to be the only person here to say it
60fps + fps = disaster
ShdwDrake said:Read ^the thread... It's sorted.
datamage said:Played for about a good hour and a half. Running great on my setup (i7 2600k/GTX 580 BF3 beta drivers)- 1080p/4xAA 60fps without a single drop or stutter. Texture pop-in is there, but nowhere as bad as those videos posted earlier. They pop in very quick, almost like a quick flicker. Obviously, I'd prefer for it not to happen at all, but it's not horrible.
epmode said:Eh, it's different with PC stuff. Even when a game is working properly, the thread will be cluttered with people going on about different AA settings, forcing triple-buffering, getting rid of that intermittent stutter, complaining about mouse acceleration, et cetera.
We wouldn't lose anything by relegating that stuff to a separate thread.
kamspy said:Well good on Ati's part for getting their shit together day 1.
Hopefully everyone can now start enjoy what is the most refreshing FPS I've played in years. I've never been so happy to do sidequests just because the combat is that frickin awesome.
Don't let the Debbie Downers get you down people. Buy this game and love it. It's awesome.
jett said:It's sorted if you're on Nvidia or on a high-end ATI card. If you have an ATI card that meets id's recommended requirements it's not sorted at all.
Well, doesn't that means that you should receive your key anytime now?Cyrillus said:Just got an email from IntKeys that had the subject "RAGE !!", I open it thinking it is my key come early, and it reads "Rage and Fifa 2012 are available now! Order your copies today!"
RAGE !! indeed.
Geoff9920 said:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9501567/rage%202011-10-04%2021-53-03-89.jpg
Am I the only one getting this issue?
angular graphics said:Go to your "base" folder.
Create a file named "rageconfig.cfg"
type inside:
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 16384
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 16384
vt_pageimagesizeunique 16384
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 16384
vt_restart
save it and start rage
Carmack & Willits said they would do it before release; the console version uses 4k x 4k (loaded) textures, but the PC version should/would use 8k x 8k, and after release they would tweak it to use 16k x 16k - but no, the PC version shipped using 4k x 4k textures like on consoles thus it has the exact same (bad) pop in as on consoles.
But why wait for Carmack? Tweak it yourself now!
Note: you will likely need a lot of RAM (maybe VRAM as well), for example more than 4GBs.
If you have just 4GBs of RAM, or if you notice that some parts aren't loading instead of 16384 use the value 8192. In fact if you have second thoughts, you might want to first test it with the value 8192, because it will definitely make a noticeable difference, and it should work on all modern gaming computers. And then see if you can handle 16384 as well.
Good luck, and anyone that tries it please report back your experience
Only vsync via CCC.angular graphics said:Are you forcing AF? Just a thought..
angular graphics said:Go to your "base" folder.
Create a file named "rageconfig.cfg"
type inside:
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 16384
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 16384
vt_pageimagesizeunique 16384
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 16384
vt_restart
save it and start rage
Carmack & Willits said they would do it before release; the console version uses 4k x 4k (loaded) textures, but the PC version should/would use 8k x 8k, and after release they would tweak it to use 16k x 16k - but no, the PC version shipped using 4k x 4k textures like on consoles thus it has the exact same (bad) pop in as on consoles.
But why wait for Carmack? Tweak it yourself now!
Note: you will likely need a lot of RAM (maybe VRAM as well), for example more than 4GBs.
If you have just 4GBs of RAM, or if you notice that some parts aren't loading instead of 16384 use the value 8192. In fact if you have second thoughts, you might want to first test it with the value 8192, because it will definitely make a noticeable difference, and it should work on all modern gaming computers. And then see if you can handle 16384 as well.
Good luck, and anyone that tries it please report back your experience
Wallach said:Well, this didn't seem to do much to the texture quality but it sure as hell seemed to defeat most of my texture pop-in, as well as fix some stuttering I was getting when turning around in a few spots (like by where you start) that seemed to go away when I stopped turning. Using 8192 on 4GB of system RAM.
Geoff9920 said:Only vsync via CCC.
it's weird. i had stuttering like you described. i tweaked nothing. it went away by itself. i wonder if that's part of the auto benchmarking whatsit.Wallach said:Well, this didn't seem to do much to the texture quality but it sure as hell seemed to defeat most of my texture pop-in, as well as fix some stuttering I was getting when turning around in a few spots (like by where you start) that seemed to go away when I stopped turning. Using 8192 on 4GB of system RAM; I'm going to double it and try again.
Thanks though. My money is on some odd crossfire issue with my 5970. Hopefully it'll be fixed when official drivers and crossfire profiles are released for Rage.angular graphics said:Dunno then
angular graphics said:Go to your "base" folder.
Create a file named "rageconfig.cfg"
type inside:
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 16384
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 16384
vt_pageimagesizeunique 16384
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 16384
vt_restart
save it and start rage
Carmack & Willits said they would do it before release; the console version uses 4k x 4k (loaded) textures, but the PC version should/would use 8k x 8k, and after release they would tweak it to use 16k x 16k - but no, the PC version shipped using 4k x 4k textures like on consoles thus it has the exact same (bad) pop in as on consoles.
But why wait for Carmack? Tweak it yourself now!
Note: you will likely need a lot of RAM (maybe VRAM as well), for example more than 4GBs.
If you have just 4GBs of RAM, or if you notice that some parts aren't loading instead of 16384 use the value 8192. In fact if you have second thoughts, you might want to first test it with the value 8192, because it will definitely make a noticeable difference, and it should work on all modern gaming computers. And then see if you can handle 16384 as well.
Good luck, and anyone that tries it please report back your experience
x3sphere said:Thanks dude, this works perfectly. I'm experiencing NO texture loading at all now.
angular graphics said:So it works, as it does according to my tests. Awesome
And yes I should clarify this value is the size of the megatexture being loaded to memory, so it shouldn't affect the quality at all.
You just put a bigger chunk of megatexture loaded into the memory => far less likely to experience pop in.
Wallach said:Well, this didn't seem to do much to the texture quality but it sure as hell seemed to defeat most of my texture pop-in, as well as fix some stuttering I was getting when turning around in a few spots (like by where you start) that seemed to go away when I stopped turning. Using 8192 on 4GB of system RAM; I'm going to double it and try again.
Edit - Yeah, seemed choppy on 16384, sticking with 8192.
Derrick01 said:Rage unless you're an ATI owner. Nvidia or consoles you're good though.
Hawk269 said:If you have 3gig Vram GPU's and 8gigs of regular ram, should I increase those value higher? And if so, what would that figure be?
pa22word said:Just tried on a machine with 8 GB DDR3 and 1 GB dedicated VRAM (HD 5870); it crashed after about a min of gameplay.
i only have four gigs of ram so i tried the 16k and the 8k setting. the 16k setting unsurprisingly didn't work so well at all, but the 8k setting gives me much less pop up with no performance hit. so thanksangular graphics said:And thank you for reporting back
If more people find it works, it should be put in the OP then!
It's what id said they would do with the PC version, but they didn't bother to actually do it *sigh*
angular graphics said:Go to your "base" folder.
Create a file named "rageconfig.cfg"
type inside:
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 16384
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 16384
vt_pageimagesizeunique 16384
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 16384
vt_restart
save it and start rage
Carmack & Willits said they would do it before release; the console version uses 4k x 4k (loaded) textures, but the PC version should/would use 8k x 8k, and after release they would tweak it to use 16k x 16k - but no, the PC version shipped using 4k x 4k textures like on consoles thus it has the exact same (bad) pop in as on consoles.
But why wait for Carmack? Tweak it yourself now!
Note: you will likely need a lot of RAM (maybe VRAM as well), for example more than 4GBs.
If you have just 4GBs of RAM, or if you notice that some parts aren't loading instead of 16384 use the value 8192. In fact if you have second thoughts, you might want to first test it with the value 8192, because it will definitely make a noticeable difference, and it should work on all modern gaming computers. And then see if you can handle 16384 as well.
Good luck, and anyone that tries it please report back your experience
Wallach said:Fuck, it crashed on me too after loading a couple different saves to check different areas.
angular graphics said:Go to your "base" folder.
Create a file named "rageconfig.cfg"
type inside:
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 16384
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 16384
vt_pageimagesizeunique 16384
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 16384
vt_restart
save it and start rage
Carmack & Willits said they would do it before release; the console version uses 4k x 4k (loaded) textures, but the PC version should/would use 8k x 8k, and after release they would tweak it to use 16k x 16k - but no, the PC version shipped using 4k x 4k textures like on consoles thus it has the exact same (bad) pop in as on consoles.
But why wait for Carmack? Tweak it yourself now!
Note: you will likely need a lot of RAM (maybe VRAM as well), for example more than 4GBs.
If you have just 4GBs of RAM, or if you notice that some parts aren't loading instead of 16384 use the value 8192. In fact if you have second thoughts, you might want to first test it with the value 8192, because it will definitely make a noticeable difference, and it should work on all modern gaming computers. And then see if you can handle 16384 as well.
Good luck, and anyone that tries it please report back your experience
eastmen said:Runs fine on my system
make sure you either have forced vsync AND triple buffering on.DopeyFish said:i installed ATIs new driver at great risk (6990M)
omg install worked
omg
omg
"Rage has stopped working"
fuck off
i don't even know what the menu looks like yet and i've owned the game for 22 hours
jett said:Has anyone with a 4xxx card managed to run this bitch?
wowsers. that's not what happened when i did it. i just had a lot of textures stuck at low detail for a few minutes, big stutters and eventually everything came in high detail. i was in wellspring though, not out on the wasteland. at 8192 it just ran great with less pop up. 4 gigs here.This is what happens when I use 16384. I have 12 GB of DDR3 in my system. I'll try 8192 now.