Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Graphics Config?Follow

#1 Sep 23 2010 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
Ok, gotta say I haven't had any problems getting, loading, patching, or logging into the game, which is great.

But dang, I haven't seen a game that begs more for an Auto-Detect for the graphics settings. And what's with the graphics settings being in an entirely separate program? I keep on having to bounce back and forth trying to tweak my settings. Anyways, that's just a minor gripe. *mutter-mutter*

I'm curious as to what people have been setting their graphics config to that has been giving them good smooth gameplay? My system benchmarked in the average range, so I'm most curious as to what people that don't have the monster high-end gaming systems are setting the game to.

I think I'll try and play the game in 1280X1024 as I don't think my system will run it very well at the 1920X1200 that my desktop is set to. But other than that, I keep on tweeking things left and right, but it still doesn't seem to be running all that smoothly.


Tyrnael
Didn't get into Beta, but I did grab the CE!
#2 Sep 23 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
*
66 posts
yeah im having the same problems if you can call them that , im using

Full Screen 1920x1080 x 2 AA
half Bufffer Size
lowest Shadow
Depth on field ON
Texture Quailty - HIGH
Texture Filtering - HIGHEST




____________________________
FFXIV -Server Bodhum - Name - Mia Kato

MY New Rig For FFXIV

Antec 902 Nine Hundred Two
Intel Core i7 950 (4 x 3.06GHz) 8 MB
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro - Silent
Corsair 6GB Dominator GT CAS7 (3x2GB) 1600MHz
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD 5850 VaporX - 2 GB - 2xDVI/HDMI/DP (Sapphire)
Asus P6X58D Premium
Corsair 850W
1 TB (1000 GB) SATA-III Western Digital- 64 MB - Caviar Black
Windows 7 64 bit
#3 Sep 24 2010 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
4 posts
OK so after reading many different players' configurations I've tried them all out and some of my own to see my systems results. It's all about the Buffer Size that determines how often us players experience the in-game lag/stutter effect.

I have my game running at Full Screen, 1920 x 1200 window size, 8xQ MSAA multisampling, Two-Thirds Windows Size buffer size, Highest shadow detail, Ambient Occlusion ON, Depth of Field ON, High texture quality, Highest texture filtering.

Half buffer size is very smooth but graphic quality diminishes greatly leaving you with blurry textures and character models even if you have every other graphic settings maxed. Resolution buffer size looks the best but you will see frequent stuttering/lag effects. Double buffer size is horrendous...let me illustrate how horrible Double Buffer Size is: You will have more fun setting your face on fire and putting it out with an ice pick than trying to play FFXIV with Double Buffer Size.

Now, two-thirds and three-quarter buffer sizes give you a balance of smoother(not completely smooth but not completely laggy) gameplay but will sacrifice some graphics quality with a lot of jaggy edges which is why I switched from 4xMSAA to 8xQ MSAA to help reduce them significantly. Half and Quarter buffer size looks like crap so I don't recommend those to anyone unless you're running a low-end pc.

For mid-range pc, you can set most, if not all, of your graphic settings to max with either 4x or 8x MSAA but keep two-thirds or three-quarter Buffer Size.

Try this recommendation out and see how you like it. If you prefer something different than my suggestion please post it and I'll definitely give it a whirl and see how it performs. Good luck guys with your tweaking and hope you enjoy FFXIV.

BTW, you can use a PS3 dual shock 3 controller to play this game on PC.

http://www.ffxivorigin.com/content/using-ps3-gamepad-final-fantasy-xiv-141/

Definitely helps with the game experience, much more comfortable than full keyboard or mouse + keyboard.

My system spec:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 oc to 3.42ghz 1600 fsb
Asus P5QL Pro mobo
Kingston HyperX 4gb DDR2 1066
Sapphire HD 5850 1gb reference design (Sept 2009 model) Catalyst 10.6

Edited, Sep 24th 2010 1:59pm by Reaveralpha
#4 Sep 24 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
18 posts
Good job REAVERALPHA on the write-up and thanks for sharing. I will try these GFX settings!
I do too use the PS3 controller on my PC to play FFXIV because of the fact, it's much better than the keyboard.
____________________________
Hana Kimi (Wutai) Miqo'Te of Gridania Pug/Weav/Gold/Leath
#5 Sep 24 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
931 posts
wow. I have my buffer size set to resolution... I have no idea how you could play at a lower setting.

I set mine to 3/4 and my FPS did go up a bit but god it looked awful.
____________________________
MUTED
#6 Sep 24 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
777 posts
Reaveralpha wrote:
Ambient Occlusion ON


I've read a lot of people who say leaving it off leads to better framerates. I tried it myself on and off, and leaving it off seemed to do better. I also didn't notice anything looking differently with it off.
#7 Sep 24 2010 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
4 posts
oh I agree, RESOLUTION buffer size looks beautiful hence why I stated the game looks its best with this setting but I will see frequent image stutter every 5-10 secs while exploring regardless where I am in the game, during combat or not. One of my friends is running HD 5830 1gb and another friend has a GTX 465 card and they both have constant stutter so to alleviate that issue, two-thirds or three-quarter buffer size seem to help us a lot. All three of us run the game at 1920 x 1200 with max graphic settings aside from buffer size.
#8 Sep 24 2010 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
4 posts
thanks Blue, I'll try leaving Occlusion OFF while using different buffer sizes to test :)
#9 Sep 24 2010 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,673 posts
It's going to take some tweaking to make it look right for you. I'm still doing some tweaking of my own. This is actually causing me to learn a lot more about my graphics card, so big plus there.
#10 Sep 24 2010 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Reaveralpha wrote:
OK so after reading many different players' configurations I've tried them all out and some of my own to see my systems results. It's all about the Buffer Size that determines how often us players experience the in-game lag/stutter effect.

I have my game running at Full Screen, 1920 x 1200 window size, 8xQ MSAA multisampling, Two-Thirds Windows Size buffer size, Highest shadow detail, Ambient Occlusion ON, Depth of Field ON, High texture quality, Highest texture filtering.
Why would you crank every other setting to the max and enable AO and DoF, but use a low buffer size? Why not just use a standard buffer size and turn off some of the incredibly demanding features like AO and DoF?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#11 Sep 24 2010 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
777 posts
bsphil wrote:
Reaveralpha wrote:
OK so after reading many different players' configurations I've tried them all out and some of my own to see my systems results. It's all about the Buffer Size that determines how often us players experience the in-game lag/stutter effect.

I have my game running at Full Screen, 1920 x 1200 window size, 8xQ MSAA multisampling, Two-Thirds Windows Size buffer size, Highest shadow detail, Ambient Occlusion ON, Depth of Field ON, High texture quality, Highest texture filtering.
Why would you crank every other setting to the max and enable AO and DoF, but use a low buffer size? Why not just use a standard buffer size and turn off some of the incredibly demanding features like AO and DoF?


Does having Depth of Field on make any sort of difference? I've been trying to tweak my graphics and wasn't sure if DoF should be on or off. I've got most everything else on high, AO off, and resolution window size. I'm trying to bump it up from 4X to 8X, but 8X is just slightly too laggy for me. Would turning off DoF make a difference without sacrificing quality? Its awesome looking as it is, just trying to see if I can get better.
#12 Sep 24 2010 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
4 posts
As blue mentioned, Occlusion OFF is quite effective. I even switched buffer size to Resolution for best graphics quality and toned it down to 4x MSAA. Gameplay is smooth now with very little stuttering (once every...30-60 secs?) 8xQ MSAA is still smooth but I do notice a slight fps drop. Depth of Field is nice to have but I turned it off this time around and the game still looks great. Personal Preferences at this point. I like it ON just because it's...different. :D Thanks for posting everyone. Hope it helps future players looking to find a nice balance to their game and eye candy experience.
#13 Sep 24 2010 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
bsphil wrote:
Reaveralpha wrote:
OK so after reading many different players' configurations I've tried them all out and some of my own to see my systems results. It's all about the Buffer Size that determines how often us players experience the in-game lag/stutter effect.

I have my game running at Full Screen, 1920 x 1200 window size, 8xQ MSAA multisampling, Two-Thirds Windows Size buffer size, Highest shadow detail, Ambient Occlusion ON, Depth of Field ON, High texture quality, Highest texture filtering.
Why would you crank every other setting to the max and enable AO and DoF, but use a low buffer size? Why not just use a standard buffer size and turn off some of the incredibly demanding features like AO and DoF?


The buffer size impacts lag far more significantly. AO and DoF don't seem to have as much, if any, effect on lag as you would think they would.

I would agree that the buffer at 3/4 or 2/3 is the best bet at reducing graphical lag. I'll have to try increasing the AA as you suggested to offset the blocky edges. Thanks for the post, Reaveralpha!
#14 Sep 24 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
BlueDolphin wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Reaveralpha wrote:
OK so after reading many different players' configurations I've tried them all out and some of my own to see my systems results. It's all about the Buffer Size that determines how often us players experience the in-game lag/stutter effect.

I have my game running at Full Screen, 1920 x 1200 window size, 8xQ MSAA multisampling, Two-Thirds Windows Size buffer size, Highest shadow detail, Ambient Occlusion ON, Depth of Field ON, High texture quality, Highest texture filtering.
Why would you crank every other setting to the max and enable AO and DoF, but use a low buffer size? Why not just use a standard buffer size and turn off some of the incredibly demanding features like AO and DoF?


Does having Depth of Field on make any sort of difference? I've been trying to tweak my graphics and wasn't sure if DoF should be on or off. I've got most everything else on high, AO off, and resolution window size. I'm trying to bump it up from 4X to 8X, but 8X is just slightly too laggy for me. Would turning off DoF make a difference without sacrificing quality? Its awesome looking as it is, just trying to see if I can get better.
From what I've heard it's not as big of a deal as AO is, but can still eat up performance.

RufuSwho wrote:
The buffer size impacts lag far more significantly. AO and DoF don't seem to have as much, if any, effect on lag as you would think they would.

I would agree that the buffer at 3/4 or 2/3 is the best bet at reducing graphical lag. I'll have to try increasing the AA as you suggested to offset the blocky edges. Thanks for the post, Reaveralpha!
I wouldn't go that far. Part of the problem is that it is a large hit to quality for, in my opinion, too small of a gain in performance. There are better ways to improve performance without hurting the graphical quality as much (like stepping down AA to 2x and turning off AO).



Edited, Sep 24th 2010 2:08pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#15 Sep 24 2010 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
bsphil wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. Part of the problem is that it is a large hit to quality for, in my opinion, too small of a gain in performance. There are better ways to improve performance without hurting the graphical quality (like stepping down AA to 2x and turning off AO).


While I've tried those, I only saw significant improvement with the buffer size. To really test it you have to change only one thing at a time, which is pretty time consuming. I'll give what you are saying another shot with the Resolution size buffer and see if I can get the same or better improvement.
#16 Sep 24 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
931 posts
lulz. I mean if the only think that can fix your lag, do what you gotta do. I wouldn't be able to look at this game though with that poor graphic quality, I mean let's face it the graphics and atmosphere is the major appeal behind the game atm, we're just trudging forward for future content.
____________________________
MUTED
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 23 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (23)