Love my AA and AF.
I hate having games on lower than max and will only do it if the game becomes unplayable.
I'll always default to the highest settings at first, and then back things off a little if I'm not satisfied. But I can still comfortably max out most of the titles I play. I keep a little bit of money set aside for whenever I feel that I need to upgrade / completely overhaul my machine.
Start with highest, reduce if necessary.
Start at the lowest
If I'm lucky I might be able to turn something up.
My PC can average 15FPS on games from before 2006, so long as I run them in 800X600
im a Counter strike player
So I put everything the lowest to get the most fps.
I use a 120Hz Screen,So the faster it is the more fluid the movements are.
Put everything to high, if it's not laggy I'll keep it like that, if it is laggy, lower them until it's not laggy.
What bugs me is a blobby mess of textures and terribly sharp models.
What bugs me even more is choppy framerate.
minimal polygon count
maximal texture resolution
and AA isnt needed, its only good for taking screenshots
[QUOTE=geogzm;38111069]Step One: Turn to highest. If there is FXAA, I will use that instead of MSAA. If there is only MSAA, I will use 4x.
Step Two: Benchmark framerate. If framerate dips below 60 (even occasionally), tone down any expensive settings by a fraction.
Step Three: Maintain the best visuals without dipping below 60 by rinsing through Step Two.
[editline]20th October 2012[/editline]
In the case of DayZ, I just keep my settings high because the graphics don't appear to change performance at all. I get 70-100FPS everywhere except the cities, where it dips down to 45ish. It's such a poorly optimized mod. My resolution is 1360x768, yet in ARMA 2 when I go to 1080p maximum settings I still outperform the 60FPS cap. Shows how poor DayZ is :v:[/QUOTE]
ARMA is very CPU intensive, and DayZ is a big mission so it takes a lot of CPU. It's not because it's badly made.
I'm not really that mad about what my game looks like, so i'll just set it to something which will guarantee that i will have a stable high fps so i can play comfortably
I usually go for the highest possible settings while maintaining 50-60 FPS. I usually just make guesses when I do a first-time tweak of the settings, then spend the entire first game mission tweaking to achieve a balance between playability and looks. The first thing I lower or disable is AA. I don't mind jagged edges much at all (especially not in games where the renderer cannot apply AA to certain objects like foliage anyway), but I know some people can't live without AA.
Shit has to look at least decent or I can't play. When I play a game, I get sucked into the atmosphere of it. If everything's pixelated, compressed, and shitty, I can't enjoy myself.
I usually crank it up all the way, and then if things get choppy when there's a lot going on, I turn them down until it works.
This really depends on how well I can run it. If I can run it with high I'll run it on high, if my PC can't handle it I'll turn it down to a point where it's moderately playable.
Highest on everything, then knock the shadows settings down
Doesn't matter what game, my PC seems to hate shadows
Everything at max with AA off. I usually run upwards of 1366x768 so jagged edges aren't noticeable with all the post processing of newer games. If the game in question really needs it like GTAIV or anything on Source I might force a more workable shader-based FXAA. I've got a fairly good GPU (NVidia 550 Ti) so performance is rarely a huge issue.
I really don't care too much as long as it stays above 50fps
Highest settings in every way to get the most out of the hardware/moneys worth. If I see the slightest bit of jagged edge afterward i'll flip a shit
Highest possible and no AA/Vsync, with a limit of 60 frames if available.
Lowest possible with no chance of any higher.
I used to work with the idea of "if it drops framerate on Ultra or the maximum equivalent, I'm not gonna play it until it can.
Now with games running ridiculous top-end settings I'll generally start it on max, lower it to something more framerate friendly if needs be, then later put it on minimum just to see how horrible I can make it look.
Shame that PC gaming made me picky about graphics (When previously I didn't care about graphics!)
I play on highest while keeping 30 FPS, as the human eye detects 24 FPS as smooth. If the game has bad graphics, then I install graphics mods.
[B]Edited:[/B]
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;38116244]Highest possible and no AA/Vsync, with a limit of 60 frames if available.[/QUOTE]
Vsync doesn't damage your frames (Most of the time). It caps your FPS to the fastest your monitor can refresh and removes screen-tearing as well as increasing detail.
Max graphics and everything + anistropic and probably less aa or none depending on the fps.
Depends what game. Games like BF3 I like to play on Ultra. Others games like APB I don't care.
I usually max the settings, get 3fps, and lower them until I get around 30fps.
I turn my settings max, and turn the shadows down to low.
Vsync affects your mouse input in a way that many feel is negative. Also the "24 FPS is perceived as motion" thing doesn't mean a video game will be perceived as smooth. Neither does it mean you can't tell the difference between 24 and 48 FPS. In fact, comparing video film framerates to game framerates is entirely nonsensical because there are massive differences in processing.[B] The real keyword here is input responsiveness[/B], which can be described as how well what you perceive on your monitor is synced with what you think you're inputting with your controller device. Too low FPS will make the game feel unresponsive even when you can't visually discern the framerate choppiness. The higher the FPS, the more responsive the game will feel.
Highest possible, then turn off v-sync and disable aa because I don't notice aa either way.
Just turn everything up, because I know my computer can handle it while still easily keeping above 60 fps
highest with v-sync off
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
