• Just Cause 3 devs ask for patience while they find and explode bugs
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49252571]You're mad the game doesn't run on way under spec gear? I don't get it. You're just wrong. Games don't tend to run on things below minimum but here you are insisting a game is trash because of that. I don't get it.[/QUOTE] posted minimum system requirements are suggestions not rules had a computer that did not meet the posted minimum requirements of a lot of games. two games I can think of are CS:GO and ArmA 3. it ended up running CS:GO at 140 FPS and ArmA 3 at 50-60 FPS minimum system requirements tend to be more like "you should have this hardware to play comfortably" rather than "YOU LITERALLY NEED THIS HARDWARE IN ORDER TO BOOT TO THE MAIN MENU." either way if the game ran fine for even two minutes, it's not strictly a gpu problem unless the thing exploded or some shit. the card isn't going to be chugging along fine then 2 minutes in just go "woops lol just realized im under spec'd for this game. time to make this specific program crash lol get a real card u peasant" or some shit also pretty sure the games not gonna keep checking your hardware against some sort of chart or some shit to make sure you're up to spec, crashing otherwise
Not even remotely the train of thought I had on it but thanks
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49256086]Based on the fact they probably didn't build in optimization for any 500 series card? [/QUOTE] So you have no idea how hardware configuration works? You should have said so instead of making yourself look delusional and try to prove me wrong.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49256614]So you have no idea how hardware configuration works? You should have said so instead of making yourself look delusional and try to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE] Okay, you're the expert I didn't claim to be [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] Would you care to explain to me then why a 500 series card a 600 series card don't differ enough to change anything here
[QUOTE=paul simon;49255716]Again, the game on the GTX 560 configuration runs well [I]for a while[/I], but then it stops running well. It has to do with time, which is why I don't believe it's related to the GPU.[/QUOTE] Couldn't this be caused by a lack of memory on the GPU? The game is made with at least 2 GB of VRAM in mind, so I could see why performance would massively tank once you fill your single GB and the game starts having to swap data constantly. (Assuming your friend doesn't have a 2GB 560.)
[QUOTE=Kljunas;49257404]Couldn't this be caused by a lack of memory on the GPU? The game is made with at least 2 GB of VRAM in mind, so I could see why performance would massively tank once you fill your single GB and the game starts having to swap data constantly. (Assuming your friend doesn't have a 2GB 560.)[/QUOTE] Holy shit, this. Start up GPU-Z or MSI Afterburner and check the VRAM usage before you start dumb flamewars. There's probably a reason why they say 2GB VRAM is the minimum.
[QUOTE=awcmon;49256108]posted minimum system requirements are suggestions not rules[/quote] lol its not like they're suggested for a reason, like to make the game work no way [QUOTE=awcmon;49256108] had a computer that did not meet the posted minimum requirements of a lot of games. two games I can think of are CS:GO and ArmA 3. it ended up running CS:GO at 140 FPS and ArmA 3 at 50-60 FPS [/quote] so it should work in completely unrelated games, from unrelated devs? [QUOTE=awcmon;49256108] minimum system requirements tend to be more like "you should have this hardware to play comfortably" rather than "YOU LITERALLY NEED THIS HARDWARE IN ORDER TO BOOT TO THE MAIN MENU."[/quote] No, minimum system requirements are supposed to be what they fucking say they are. [QUOTE=awcmon;49256108]either way if the game ran fine for even two minutes, it's not strictly a gpu problem unless the thing exploded or some shit. the card isn't going to be chugging along fine then 2 minutes in just go "woops lol just realized im under spec'd for this game. time to make this specific program crash lol get a real card u peasant" or some shit also pretty sure the games not gonna keep checking your hardware against some sort of chart or some shit to make sure you're up to spec, crashing otherwise[/QUOTE] hello what are drivers, what is game compatibility
Playing on a i5 4670k and a R9 280x not getting any issues. Aside from a dip to 40-45 fps when exploding shit :v:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49255873]I'm just basing the whole system requirements thing on the whole, you know, posted system requirements. System Requirements MINIMUM: OS: Vista SP2 / Windows 7.1 SP1 / Windows 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required) Processor: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz Memory: 6 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB) Storage: 54 GB available space RECOMMENDED: OS: Vista SP2 / Windows 7.1 SP1 / Windows 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required) Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz Memory: 8 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (3GB) / AMD R9 290 (4GB) Storage: 54 GB available space I have no idea why it doesn't run, but to say it doesn't run is obvious to me, it's not supposed to. [/quote] It's not running well, but not for the reasons we would expect. This is why I'm confused, and wondering if there's a potential way of fixing it. We know it's below the minimum specs, but it's sort of irrelevant in this case because the issue seemed to be unrelated to GPU performance. You however seem to have a some sort of problem with this. You don't want there to be a solution, you just want to point out again and again "hurr durr below minimum spec", instead of being helpful and trying to figure out why there's a stuttering problem which people with even high end gear are getting. You are not helpful. You are not even trying to be helpful. Your implied solution is "stop trying", that's a shitty solution. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49255873]Sure, I'm assuming you're mad. [B]You did however say it was a mess. [/B] Also, I was talking about your friend, sorry I didn't go into great detail about to whom the 560 belonged. I was talking to Dark Raven, but sure, you can take the whole thing personally.[/QUOTE] I literally didn't. Stop making shit up. [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kljunas;49257404]Couldn't this be caused by a lack of memory on the GPU? The game is made with at least 2 GB of VRAM in mind, so I could see why performance would massively tank once you fill your single GB and the game starts having to swap data constantly. (Assuming your friend doesn't have a 2GB 560.)[/QUOTE] This might be it, I'll run some tests. He was planning a GPU upgrade anyways.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49257629]lol its not like they're suggested for a reason, like to make the game work no way so it should work in completely unrelated games, from unrelated devs? No, minimum system requirements are supposed to be what they fucking say they are. hello what are drivers, what is game compatibility[/QUOTE] hello hardware abstraction [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] [quote]so it should work in completely unrelated games, from unrelated devs? [/quote] so ur saying its an issue w/ that game's shitty programming specifically and not his gpu physically?
[QUOTE=awcmon;49260743]hello hardware abstraction [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] so ur saying its an issue w/ that game's shitty programming specifically and not his gpu physically?[/QUOTE] No, the game has problems, but from what I can gather, works pretty consistently across set-ups over the requirements. It has stuttering, but it works. You shouldn't be fucking butthurt if your computer, below [B]minimum system [I][highlight]requirements[/highlight][/I][/B], does not work.
On noticed some graphic bugs near Falco maxime base. Spinning black planes. Anyone noticed this?
I can barely run the game on minimum settings with a GTX 770 and an E3-1230v3, it's pretty darn problematic.
[QUOTE=awcmon;49256108]posted minimum system requirements are suggestions not rules had a computer that did not meet the posted minimum requirements of a lot of games. two games I can think of are CS:GO and ArmA 3. it ended up running CS:GO at 140 FPS and ArmA 3 at 50-60 FPS minimum system requirements tend to be more like "you should have this hardware to play comfortably" rather than "YOU LITERALLY NEED THIS HARDWARE IN ORDER TO BOOT TO THE MAIN MENU." either way if the game ran fine for even two minutes, it's not strictly a gpu problem unless the thing exploded or some shit. the card isn't going to be chugging along fine then 2 minutes in just go "woops lol just realized im under spec'd for this game. time to make this specific program crash lol get a real card u peasant" or some shit also pretty sure the games not gonna keep checking your hardware against some sort of chart or some shit to make sure you're up to spec, crashing otherwise[/QUOTE] I'm going to try and explain why this happens as thoroughly as I can a 560 is way less powerful than a 680, which is the minimum "requirement", because the game is very demanding it requires a card that is powerful enough to run the program. [url]http://www.hwcompare.com/12353/geforce-gtx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-680/[/url] as for CS:GO, there is a reason Valves games can run literally on anything, and when I say anything, I mean it, look at the specs [quote]MINIMUM: OS: Windows® 7/Vista/XP Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 processor or better Memory: 2 GB RAM Graphics: Video card must be 256 MB or more and should be a DirectX 9-compatible with support for Pixel Shader 3.0 DirectX: Version 9.0c Storage: 8 GB available space[/quote] CS:Go, a modern game, even supports 2gb ram and xp, the recommended specs for valve games are set insanely low on purpose, hell, their games are some of the lower spec games out there for AAA titles. No wonder the game runs so well. I bet you could play this on a eee pc if you really wanted to [t]https://www.asus.com/media/global/products/5K7QRFbPkwEIa5Uj/P_500.jpg[/t] This is an EEE pc, it's meant to be as tiny as it can be, it's purely for notes and internet, that's about it. in fact, you can, believe it or not. Rather well, actually. Despite this not being a gaming PC it runs fine. [video=youtube;vkIFEmkPIIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkIFEmkPIIU[/video] You know why CS:GO can do this? because source is an old as balls engine that's been around since 2004. CS:GO is just using an updated version of that. Today we're using direct X 12, CS:GO is using direct x 9 which was, released in 2003 I believe? In any case, valve spends like, 75% of their budget on a game buffing it until it can run on like, anything while still looking pretty alright. I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone got half life 2 to run on a printer at this point, because it supposedly even can run on a xbox classic. It's FUCKING MAGIC. Some games however, are too hardware heavy for computers that are less powerful, which means the hardware simply can't run that game without either crashing immediately or running an unstable FPS with a huge number of graphics tweaks just to force it to work. It's far from stable, in fact, running a game that's above your specs can actually DESTROY parts. I had a really old 9800 card way back and played stalker on it, even in min the temps were really dangerously high because it wasn't a good card for it. If I had done that for too long the card would have pretty much died. Some cards simply do not have the memory or power to calculate many games. Hell, I remember buying a 570 after that and I had a HUGE fps boost, now I have a 970 and ran it max on 4k dsr without even sneezing. outside of that, back to specs this is arma three [quote]min MINIMUM: OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1 Processor: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz Memory: 2 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM DirectX®: 10 Hard Drive: 15 GB free space Sound: DirectX®-compatible recommended OS: Windows 7/8/10 (64bit) Processor: Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better Memory: 4 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better DirectX®: 11 Hard Drive: 25 GB free space (SSD/Hybrid HDD/SSHD storage) Sound: DirectX®-compatible[/quote] even the recommended specs for the time it was released is very generous. arma 3 isn't nearly as demanding as Just Cause 3, a game released 2 years later with far more on screen stuff (dynamic AI, physics, explosions, vehicles, huge structures, water, tessellation, huge fields of grass and crops) to render than trees and some tanks. Both games you mentioned both have under 4 gb of ram required, both have older recommended cards. Both games have significantly less to render, and both are older games that already have post-release drivers and optimization, so it's no wonder you can run low end cards on them. This isn't the case for just cause 3, witcher 3, or fallout 4, you'll have issues when underspecced in all of these. I would call witcher 3 very well optimized too. Because of how games have been getting more and more powerful, even a triple 980 ti set up (this is basically the best PC money can buy) will eventually be incapable of running certain games in the future, and there will be a point at which, unless you use insane ini tweaks and try and trick a game into using far below any settings that it actually allows. An entire computer has a limit to how much information it can process, and eventually there is a point that you can't go any further. We might even have no support for ddr4 ram, or direct x 11 in the future, we might have games that only support ddr6 and direct x 26 and higher. You can't simply pretend that driver/hardware incompatibilities don't exist, that's silly. I wont pretend computers can't run things way out of their league completely though, you CAN play fallout 4 and even gta 5 on an intel 4000, the issue with this is that you have to set it to extreme lows, usually requiring tweaks. You can run games massively below the recommended specs, but even some well optimized games are just too much. The reason is that the devs simply haven't opened the number of settings up enough to allow low enough settings for that to happen, and almost every set up requiring ini settings and hyper low resolutions will have massive issues. Big enough issues that you can even cause system instability. For running JC3 with a 560, it's a MUCH smaller case of this of course, but it's still under-powered. Of course, the gap between a 560 and a 600 series is MUCH smaller than my examples, but that's simply the reason why the card struggles to run it. Certain ini tweaks / mods / future drivers / optimizations may improve it but as it stands it's simply not strong enough. The card is under specced and the devs said that, but I guess their word isn't good enough for people because they seem to be scratching their heads as if its some kind of mystery. a 1gb vram card can't run a game that uses 2gb vram without huge issues, just like a much older card can't use direct x 10 / etc. Personally I'm running this game on a single 970 at 1440p on ultra with zero stuttering or issues so I'm not actually experiancing this 'bad optimization'. If you ask me, it isn't the job of the developers to make older cards work on their game, it's just their job to make MOST cards work. No matter though, the devs are working on improving the optimization of the game and so far its running effectively on cards that they optimized it for. [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=awcmon;49260743]hello hardware abstraction [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] so ur saying its an issue w/ that game's shitty programming specifically and not his gpu physically?[/QUOTE] I don't know how this is some sort of mystery to you. Have you ever been told "Hey, this thing can hold over 600 pounds" but you went over the limit anyways?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.