GymWolf
Gold Member
The PC version is incredibly clear
ps4 pro looks like utter shit...
also why 4k on xone x is far less crisp than 4k on pc? overclocked 4k or what?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ps4 pro looks like utter shit...
also why 4k on xone x is far less crisp than 4k on pc? overclocked 4k or what?
GymWolf
Gold Member
this is one crystal clear motherfuckerArthur Morgan amazing details
Evilms
Banned
ps4 pro looks like utter shit...
also why 4k on xone x is far less crisp than 4k on pc? overclocked 4k or what?
Because the PC version is more sharper ^^
GymWolf
Gold Member
without using any sharp filter? just out of the box more sharper?
the pixel count isn't the same for 4k on console and pc??
Evilms
Banned
With or without filter the PC version remains much more accurate in the details displayed on the screen, the 4k doesn't do everything.
Last edited:
LaughingStock
Member
This game is so much better on PC. Holy shit.
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
Looks like the X doesn't have the highest quality pixels after all.
GymWolf
Gold Member
lol, thanks god i killed that small idea i was having some times ago of buying a xone x to enjoy my new oled 4k with multy games before the change of the gpu on pc...
if that blurry thing is real 4k, i have a 50 cm dick...(worst grammar ever i know)
Last edited:
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
Don't forget cranking the contrast whilst also compressing the range so that your blacks and whites are obviously shades of grey.
LaughingStock
Member
Same thing here. I get 15 to 20 more fps using vulkan.
Even controller feels better on pc. I'm enjoying shootouts now. I can see shit and movement feels less slugish.
Last edited:
because the tester turned off taa in PC version and aplied fxaa or msaa instead
GymWolf
Gold Member
is it an option on the graphic setting or he used external stuff to apply a different AA?
ultrazilla
Member
Hopefully some much needed optimizations! Trying to find patch notes.
Stuart360
Member
Man those screens. Probably the best looking game ever, and people are wondering why they cant 4k/240fps it.
Just because it hits 4k on the OneX, it doesn.t mean the game isnt demanding. Plus i'm pretty sure they went the Kingdom Come route where the Ultra settings are more future proofing for future hardware.
Also, and i dont know if its true, but people on Reddit and elsewhere are saying the DRM is causing a lot of the performance problems.
Just because it hits 4k on the OneX, it doesn.t mean the game isnt demanding. Plus i'm pretty sure they went the Kingdom Come route where the Ultra settings are more future proofing for future hardware.
Also, and i dont know if its true, but people on Reddit and elsewhere are saying the DRM is causing a lot of the performance problems.
sick87
Neo Member
Can you post your settings and fps?Xbox One X
PC
Merize
Neo Member
Fixes several crashes.
Source: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/red-dead-2-pc-update-addresses-crashing-issues-gam/1100-6471192/
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
edit
got answered above
got answered above
Last edited:
Evilms
Banned
Can you post your settings and fps?
A simple RTX 2060, 1440p High settings not ultra and running @ 40~55 fps.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Evilms
Banned
I would advise you to wait for the steam version, until then possible that all the game's problems will be fixed.
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
Of note, once it does come out on Steam, there's not much point buying it anywhere other than Rockstar's launcher. While it might suck it's better than stacking DRM, since, just like GTA5, you're forced to install their launcher anyway.
Krappadizzle
Member
I can't speak for anyone else, but after playing on the X, it's night and day better on PC. It looks incredible, runs awesome(for me at ultrawide w/1080ti), and it just plays soooooo much better with the mouse and keyboard.
Awesome awesome game.
dotnotbot
Member
Xbox One X
I'm sorry Sir, but these screenshots are clearly wrong. This games looks very intensive color-wise on consoles, especially at night. Xbox version even crushes blacks a little. It looks like either in-game brightness was altered or color range is wrong, at least in the second one.
Last edited:
DynamiteCop!
Banned
Where do I begin...Xbox One X
PC
Why is the contrast on PC basically pushed into the stratosphere? You may think you're making the image look better but you're crushing the blacks to hell and back. Why are those PC shots being run through an aggressive sharpening filter? I can see the artifacting all over the place and it looks horrible.
Also why are you using some of the worst possible Xbox shots?
It's like you people think we don't have eyes and can't perceive what you're doing, I see you homie, I see you.
PanzerAzel
Member
Damn that’s fast. Was thinking it would’ve been a few weeks before mods were seen. Not touching this until it hits Steam, the bugs are ironed out, I can afford a new GPU to replace my 1070 to be able to play on ultra/60/1080, and a mod arrives that overhauls law enforcement and makes train robberies actually fun. Six months-a year, but reading this thread isn’t helping. It’s great to hear KB &M and no latency have significantly improved the gameplay.
Shifty1897
Member
Yeah I went to add this to my Steam wishlist and realized it's Rockstar only right now. Do we have an official ETA on a Steam release? I have no interest in buying outside of Steam.
PanzerAzel
Member
Only December so far, no specific date set yet but I’ve heard a month later than EGS, so early-mid I’d imagine.
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
amigastar
Member
What does that mean? Does it mean that Reflection Quality is more FPS heavy than Shadow Quality for example?
MeatSafeMurderer
Member
That's exactly what it means. In fact reflection quality is second, only behind MSAA (which, this being a deferred renderer, is not surprising).
General Lee
Member
From what testing I've done so far, the major settings to keep an eye out for besides the obvious stuff like no MSAA is having the water simulation at 50% or below.
Full resolution ambient occlusion seems mostly an expensive waste. Medium AO will already provide decent coverage with minimal performance loss.
Raymarched clouds seems totally not worth it.
Shadows I'd keep it at high with soft shadows, bringing both to ultra sucks up performance for little return, while going lower will cause some blocky shadows or other artifacting.
Particles quality likely has a huge impact on the early blizzard scenes but not much else so it might actually be something to switch depending on how much particle weather effects there are.
Another thing I've noticed is that reflection quality seems to affect performance where no visual difference is seen so turning it down will net some nice performance gains, but perhaps there's some visual quality loss in places where I haven't tested yet, like some Saint Denis locations where one might actually have reflective materials that aren't water/mirrors. It feels like nature scenes might have a lot of "reflective" materials being shaded, but at least in dry weather I could not spot a difference but the performance drop was still there. Maybe with wet ground there's a difference but I haven't tested that yet.
Volumetrics I'd keep high as I like godrays and high strikes a good balance, ultra brings little extra for a chunk of performance lost.
Water quality should be at least medium/high, there were some issues I noticed looking at rivers in steep angles with lower settings.
Interestingly lighting and GI settings don't seem to effect much in nature, it's mostly just indoors and Saint Denis with artificial light sources, or lanterns etc.
The rest of the settings are mostly very scene dependent and not likely to have huge impact on overall performance, just in specific circumstances, like tessellated snow etc. Overall there's not much reason to have any settings on ultra besides textures. There's a few settings like far shadows that won't have a significant drop on ultra since they change very little to begin with, but for the rest it's just not worth the performance loss in most cases.
It's scene dependent, but on average probably yes. You shouldn't take those graphs as gospel though, it'll depend highly on what scene is tested and they've probably only use a single scene to get those results and it certainly won't hold through everywhere.
Full resolution ambient occlusion seems mostly an expensive waste. Medium AO will already provide decent coverage with minimal performance loss.
Raymarched clouds seems totally not worth it.
Shadows I'd keep it at high with soft shadows, bringing both to ultra sucks up performance for little return, while going lower will cause some blocky shadows or other artifacting.
Particles quality likely has a huge impact on the early blizzard scenes but not much else so it might actually be something to switch depending on how much particle weather effects there are.
Another thing I've noticed is that reflection quality seems to affect performance where no visual difference is seen so turning it down will net some nice performance gains, but perhaps there's some visual quality loss in places where I haven't tested yet, like some Saint Denis locations where one might actually have reflective materials that aren't water/mirrors. It feels like nature scenes might have a lot of "reflective" materials being shaded, but at least in dry weather I could not spot a difference but the performance drop was still there. Maybe with wet ground there's a difference but I haven't tested that yet.
Volumetrics I'd keep high as I like godrays and high strikes a good balance, ultra brings little extra for a chunk of performance lost.
Water quality should be at least medium/high, there were some issues I noticed looking at rivers in steep angles with lower settings.
Interestingly lighting and GI settings don't seem to effect much in nature, it's mostly just indoors and Saint Denis with artificial light sources, or lanterns etc.
The rest of the settings are mostly very scene dependent and not likely to have huge impact on overall performance, just in specific circumstances, like tessellated snow etc. Overall there's not much reason to have any settings on ultra besides textures. There's a few settings like far shadows that won't have a significant drop on ultra since they change very little to begin with, but for the rest it's just not worth the performance loss in most cases.
It's scene dependent, but on average probably yes. You shouldn't take those graphs as gospel though, it'll depend highly on what scene is tested and they've probably only use a single scene to get those results and it certainly won't hold through everywhere.
Last edited:
LaughingStock
Member
Aaaand now it's crashing everytime i load into the game...
