Game practically requires an SSD.
That is all I will say.
Yeah, I didn't install it to my SSD because I figured loading times would be super quick for an Unreal 3 non-open world game. My mistake. Guess I will migrate it tomorrow.
Apparently you can use something called steam mover?
you can just cut/copy the folder in steamapps/common from the existing hdd/sdd to the steamapps/common in the one you want it on. then you just right click and remove local files on the game in steam, and re-"download" it. it should just recheck/validate the files, voila.Apparently you can use something called steam mover?
Apparently you can use something called steam mover?
I can't think of any client that allows you to switch installation folders or drives from within the client. It would be nice to have the feature though.
I can't think of any client that allows you to switch installation folders or drives from within the client. It would be nice to have the feature though.Mind boggling that Steam doesn't allow moving across drives as an integrated feature.
Nah, just max everything but lower AA to FXAA and you'll be golden. I honestly don't notice a huge downgrade in image quality when dropping it down anyways.
Performance drops when editing a soldier and when inside the Avenger (post-processing effects?) but the in-mission framerate feels OK. Load times are OK on a solid state drive as well.
What you running it on?
Getting around 50 FPS on the first mission in Iron Man mode. 980ti. tried lowering a bunch of settings but to no great effect.
you can just cut/copy the folder in steamapps/common from the existing hdd/sdd to the steamapps/common in the one you want it on. then you just right click and remove local files on the game in steam, and re-"download" it. it should just recheck/validate the files, voila.
yep, I do it all the timeThis sorcery works?
What the hell? I can barely run the game at 60 FPS at 1080p.
Doing what I described, I'm getting like 75fps average in mission at 1080p on a 980.
What did you describe?
So another ROTR...
Also, GeForce Experience is telling me to turn a bunch of stuff up from where I'm getting barely stable 30fps in the tactical missions. Huh?
I think the fuck ton of particle effects they used and the destructability are probably behind it. I know that during EU's development, having six Heavies setting the map on fire with rockets would bring the game to a halt.At least Tomb Raider looked good, there's nothing to justify the terrible performance in this game.
60FPS is out of reach I bet.Ok, might need some help with getting the game running smoothly.
Probably should first update my drivers (359.06), but how much effect should this have? Always reluctant to updating for some reason..
Anyway, i7-6700k & GTX 780, playing at 1440p I'm getting 28-30fps most of the time.
Borderless Windowed, Vsync enabled, FXAA, I've tried messing around with other settings but nothing seems to give the big boost that's needed.
Is this normal or should I be able to run it 60fps?
That's what I'm thinking. The game's pretty detailed and busy. While I expect performance to improve somewhat, I'm certainly not going to assume it's "unoptimized".I think the fuck ton of particle effects they used and the destructability are probably behind it. I know that during EU's development, having six Heavies setting the map on fire with rockets would bring the game to a halt.
60FPS is out of reach I bet.
Try fullscreen with no Vsync.
Also, GeForce Experience is telling me to turn a bunch of stuff up from where I'm getting barely stable 30fps in the tactical missions. Huh?
Just tried, fullscreen and vsync has no real difference in FPS.
If I set everything to lowest I get 56FPS in the main menu, this can't be right. Is GTX 780 really that shitty card for 1440p?
Look at what he quoted.
Nah this game is demanding and/or poorly optimized.
I can run 4k on EU/EW even with a 750ti.
I get the same framerates on X2 at 1080p.
Here we go. Why would it be surprising that you could run a game that came out in 2013 on PS3 and X360 very well on a Maxwell GPU @ 4k? Why would you expect the same from a PC exclusive in 2016?
Not to say improvements can't be made, I'm sure they'll address some things in the future..
Here we go. Why would it be surprising that you could run a game that came out in 2013 on PS3 and X360 very well on a Maxwell GPU @ 4k? Why would you expect the same from a PC exclusive in 2016?
Not to say improvements can't be made, I'm sure they'll address some things in the future..
Because this game barely looks better than the original.
The expanded destruction is a big difference. It's not a trivial updrade.
The expanded destruction is a big difference. It's not a trivial updrade.
This sorcery works?
Because this game barely looks better than the original.
I heavily disagree.