• 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.

AC3 on PC confirmed to have DX11, 2-4 times higher texture res!

H

hlhbk

Member
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/11/16/assassins-creed-3-pc/

Assassin’s Creed 3 is arriving a bit late on PC, but according to comments from the Ubisoft team in a recent Reddit AMA, it’ll come with some extra visual polish. DirectX 11 features like tessellation will smooth out those polygons and we can look forward to textures that, in some cases, will be four times the resolution of the console versions.

Community developer “UbiGabe” also says that “when PC launches, it will include ALL of the console patches out at the time (so, that includes any patches we might be releasing in between now and PC launch). In addition, PC has a special patch designed to ensure that everything runs as smoothly as possible.”

Textures will be “double-res in most cases, but quadruple in some,” and there will be “some other shader improvements that will have an impact, but aren’t all that sexy to enumerate in a reddit post.” UbiGabe should drop us a line, NOTHING IS TOO UNSEXY FOR US.

But seriously, other important issues were raised during the Q&A, like the vital question “Do you think Connor would rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, or one horse-sized duck?” to which the predictable response was “I think Connor’s speed and size would prove to be the difference maker in the battle against the mob of horse-ducks so I lean towards them.”

This brilliant Assassin’s Creed Kinect April Fool video also came up again, which is all the excuse I need to embed it on my forehead to amuse everyone I meet today. Also here:
Click to expand...

Superior versoin confirmed! So glad I stopped playint he ps3 version after getting a few hours in and not being able to stand the terrible frame rate! Sounds like a kick ass port!
 
D

Desty

Banned
Good. They can prototype their engine on PC with DX11 and be somewhat ready to merge those findings into next-gen (which they probably have already done).
 
D

Data West

coaches in the WNBA
I was so letdown by the performance by AC on 360, but this is making me REALLY want to try the PC version since I just got a new PC.

I should really wait for a sale though.
 
D

duckroll

Member
Any confirmation of what extra bugs, performance problems, and anti-consumer DRM the PC version might also ship with at launch? I don't trust Ubisoft, and whatever patch they release on day-1 for PC will probably cause more problems than fixing them! >_<
 
D

Demon Ice

Banned
Yessss. Finally. The PC versions of the AC games have always looked fantastic but I don't think any of them had any major improvements over the console versions besides the higher res and clearer AA. Looking forward to seeing some comparisons with the DX11 goodies.
 
S

Sethos

Banned
IcyBlueStrawberry said:
Wasn't he downsampling the shit out of the game, though?

From what I've seen/heard it runs about the same as revelations.
Click to expand...

No, my native resolution is 2560x1600 which is a pretty shit viewing resolution for other people, so I downsample in PS.

Kabuki Waq said:
according to sethos who got the game early in the screenshot thread. Performance is Crap.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't call it crap, it dips some in cutscenes and fluctuates between 50-60 in gameplay but I've been told TXAA is the cause, which I was using.

However, dips all the way down to 32fps in a cutscene with 2 x 680s seem a bit excessive.
 
I

IcyBlueStrawberry

Member
Sethos said:
No, my native resolution is 2560x1600 which is a pretty shit viewing resolution for other people, so I downsample in PS.



Wouldn't call it crap, it dips some in cutscenes and fluctuates between 50-60 in gameplay but I've been told TXAA is the cause, which I was using.

However, dips all the way down to 32fps in a cutscene with 2 x 680s seem a bit excessive.
Click to expand...
Ahh my mistake then.

I can't use TXAA anyway, so I'm not worried.
 
S

Sutton Dagger

Member
Sethos said:
No, my native resolution is 2560x1600 which is a pretty shit viewing resolution for other people, so I downsample in PS.



Wouldn't call it crap, it dips some in cutscenes and fluctuates between 50-60 in gameplay but I've been told TXAA is the cause, which I was using.

However, dips all the way down to 32fps in a cutscene with 2 x 680s seem a bit excessive.
Click to expand...

Was it using both 680s?
 
E

Eideka

Banned
TXAA is not less demanding than traditionnal MSAA it seems, no wonder the performance hit is massive when we are talking about a deferred engine.

With regard to AC3 I find it very curious that we can't tweak the DX11 settings. :/

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=358754&page=15
According to this thread on the Guru3D forums the game is severely CPU limited (which is not unexpected) and quite demanding.
 
D

Dicear

Banned
IcyBlueStrawberry said:
Wasn't he downsampling the shit out of the game, though?

From what I've seen/heard it runs about the same as revelations.
Click to expand...
Nope. The game's framerate take's a nose dive when you enter the city Boston for the first time. It is ridiculous. No matter what settings I take, even at a resolution of 800x600, performance is really bad. And it is not like I have a very bad PC: Phenom II 940, 4 GB ram, HD6950, and the game is installed on a SSD. Argh.
 
B

Blimblim

The Inside Track
Our compressed master at work is 15.2 GB, so there is no doubt it's got quite a few more things than the 11 Gb of the PS3 version.
I'll have a look sometimes later today on our test system.
 
N

Nibel

Member
After reading the AC3 impressions thread I must say that this won't solve anything. I'll probably get it later on Steam when it's dirtcheap since I'm still exhausted from the franchise.
 
D

Durante

Member
Cue people complaining about performance when a game finally makes some use of the system.

The PC versions of the first next-gen multiplatform titles will be a bloodbath when people who started PC gaming in the past few years suddenly see settings they can't maximize without impacting framerates. (Like it was for pretty much everything pre-2007)
 
G

Glass Rebel

Member
Durante said:
Cue people complaining about performance when a game finally makes some use of the system.

The PC versions of the first next-gen multiplatform titles will be a bloodbath when people who started PC gaming in the past few years suddenly see settings they can't maximize without impacting framerates. (Like it was for pretty much everything pre-2007)
Click to expand...

Well, apparently I'll have issues maxing out Hitman Absolution on a 670 so what you're describing is already happening.
 
G

Gbraga

Member
Can I use the SMAA injector along with the in-game AA settings? Since I can't turn that off, I want to see if I can get better performance without TXAA, but the regular AA looks kinda bad...

It runs most of the time at 50~60, but some dips to high 40s, which wouldn't be too bad if they were stable 40s through the whole game, but the constant variation is awful.
 
MightyKAC

MightyKAC

Member
Can anyone comment on how well good the multiplayer usually is on AC on the PC. I really enjoy that part of the game.
 
K

Kenka

Member
Sounds...


973244_o.gif
 
S

Sethos

Banned
Durante said:
Cue people complaining about performance when a game finally makes some use of the system.

The PC versions of the first next-gen multiplatform titles will be a bloodbath when people who started PC gaming in the past few years suddenly see settings they can't maximize without impacting framerates. (Like it was for pretty much everything pre-2007)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's such rubbish, I hate when people use that argument.

When a game can make an insane high-end rig FPS dip, then it's not because the game "finally makes some use of the system" - Then it's poo optimization. My 2 x 680s will eat through any god damn game out there but when a game that looks like AC3 ( Which isn't that good ) can have some pretty significant dips, then it's just a poor developer behind it. The fact the can't even add 16:10 support backs up that claim.

There are so many games developed on and for consoles then get some half-arsed port, reverse engineered hack job that can make computers 10x more powerful than current consoles start to cough. Taking a game and just mindlessly adding heaps of SSAO and a different AA technology with little testing which results in too much strain isn't "making good use of a PC".

And right next to it, we have games looking infinitely better running ... infinitely better.

People said the new NFS was reaching that point stressing computers, yet games like Project CARS look about 10x better and run a lot better. It's all about proper optimization and actually developing FOR the platform.

AC3 doesn't even look that good. It loads constantly and has a lot of textures and effects that aren't very appealing. ( The ship scene at the start of the game was laughably bad. )
 
M

mr_nothin

Banned
Sethos said:
No, my native resolution is 2560x1600 which is a pretty shit viewing resolution for other people, so I downsample in PS.



Wouldn't call it crap, it dips some in cutscenes and fluctuates between 50-60 in gameplay but I've been told TXAA is the cause, which I was using.

However, dips all the way down to 32fps in a cutscene with 2 x 680s seem a bit excessive.
Click to expand...

I havent experienced much of a performance issue and I'm downsampling from 2560x1440 down to 1920x1080 with everything maxed out and TXAA enabled.
Also, TXAA is pretty amazing when coupled with downsampling. It's good by itself but it's amazing once you downsample. Bring on more games with TXAA support!

Maybe it's not SLI enabled. Do you know if you're using the correct SLI profile or if it's even scaling for you correctly?
Also, I agree that the game doesnt look that good, especially with them claiming 2x and 4x texture resolutions. Makes me wonder what the resolution of the textures were on the consoles (lol).
The bloom effect looks really cheap too. Game just isnt that appealing aesthetically as I would have hoped....even with downsampling and TXAA.
 
D

DodgyGeezerFella

Member
Durante said:
Cue people complaining about performance when a game finally makes some use of the system.

The PC versions of the first next-gen multiplatform titles will be a bloodbath when people who started PC gaming in the past few years suddenly see settings they can't maximize without impacting framerates. (Like it was for pretty much everything pre-2007)
Click to expand...

The cycle continues.
 
S

Sethos

Banned
mr_nothin said:
I havent experienced much of a performance issue and I'm downsampling from 2560x1440 down to 1920x1080 with everything maxed out and TXAA enabled.
Also, TXAA is pretty amazing when coupled with downsampling. It's good by itself but it's amazing once you downsample. Bring on more games with TXAA support!

Maybe it's not SLI enabled. Do you know if you're using the correct SLI profile or if it's even scaling for you correctly?
Also, I agree that the game doesnt look that good, especially with them claiming 2x and 4x texture resolutions. Makes me wonder what the resolution of the textures were on the consoles (lol).
The bloom effect looks really cheap too. Game just isnt that appealing aesthetically as I would have hoped....even with downsampling and TXAA.
Click to expand...

I made a mental note, looking through Precision X and I want to say it was using both cards but I may in fact be wrong. I'm on the very latest drivers but I seem to be getting identical dips and whatnot as other users have reported. Even then, a game that looks like that shouldn't even struggle on a single 680. I can't even test it because the game made me so cross I uinstalled it straight away and gave it back to my mate.

Despite all of the tech issues which I could live with, the fact that in the first HOUR of the game I was just watching ( Mostly unskippable ) cutscenes, pressing forward and holding down the climb button, following big ass waypoints and just being babied through it ... Fuck that. I find that shit so annoying and condescending.

Dammit, all these ports where the slap on some DX11 effects and suddenly they deserve some sort of "the grand order of Services to PC gamers" medal, but it's all retrofitted and runs like ass.
 
M

mr_nothin

Banned
Sethos said:
I made a mental note, looking through Precision X and I want to say it was using both cards but I may in fact be wrong. I'm on the very latest drivers but I seem to be getting identical dips and whatnot as other users have reported. Even then, a game that looks like that shouldn't even struggle on a single 680. I can't even test it because the game made me so cross I uinstalled it straight away and gave it back to my mate.

Despite all of the tech issues which I could live with, the fact that in the first HOUR of the game I was just watching ( Mostly unskippable ) cutscenes, pressing forward and holding down the climb button, following big ass waypoints and just being babied through it ... Fuck that. I find that shit so annoying and condescending.
Click to expand...

Yea the 1st hour is VERY boring. Lots of uninteresting cutscenes and really just holding foward, as you say. Run over to this guy to talk to him...run back to this other guy and talk to him...oh wait, there's another guy you need to talk to.

I agree that the visuals/performance ratio is definitely off and the game doesnt look as good as it should with how demanding it is.
I have an i7 2600 @ 4.2Ghz, GTX670 OC'd heavily, & 12GB ram.

EDIT:
Unofficial word from an Nvidia employee. He was responding to someone asking if there was a fix incoming for AC3 because he was getting bad performance with 680SLI and TXAA enabled.:
AndyB of Nvidia said:
Game is heavily CPU bound. OC your CPU and/or try without SLI.

Does this version of the game you're playing include the Day 1 patch, by the way?
Click to expand...
 
G

Gbraga

Member
Maybe the dips are bugs, and not performance issues? With Normal AA I get the exact same dips at 1440p (downsampled) and 1080p, it runs exactly the same, dips the same amount in the same places, which doesn't really make sense.
 
D

Durante

Member
Sethos said:
When a game can make an insane high-end rig FPS dip, then it's not because the game "finally makes some use of the system" - Then it's poo optimization.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "good" use, that's a subjective decision.

The point is, it's easily possible to program useful effects which aren't possible to run on any number of 680s at UHD resolutions. This will happen a lot over the next few years. If you weren't PC gaming during the 90s or 00s get used to the idea that "ultra" really is ultra and not something you can just turn on willy-nilly at release.
 
S

Sethos

Banned
mr_nothin said:
EDIT:
Unofficial word from an Nvidia employee. He was responding to someone asking if there was a fix incoming for AC3 because he was getting bad performance with 680SLI and TXAA enabled.:
Click to expand...

Doubt I can push my 3930K much more beyond 4.7.

( They said the same shit about NFS: Most Wanted, which was another case of bad porting )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dragon's Dogma 2 only had 1/4 of the people credited for working on the game compared to the last few titles by Capcom
2
56
4K
KyoZz replied
[PC Gamer] How Cyberpunk 2077 clawed its way back from disaster to complete one of the greatest redemption arcs in gaming history
Opinion News 2
99
7K
EDMIX replied
[DF] Resident Evil 4 Remake on iPhone 15 Pro: Can Mobile Truly Handle AAA Gaming?
44
3K
StereoVsn replied
AC Valhalla - 1.6.2 The Last Chapter
News 2
53
3K
Fahdis replied
The State of Xbox Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks: A breakdown of all the Confirmed Projects, Leaks, and Rumors
Opinion News Rumor 2
84
10K
Ozriel replied
Top Bottom