Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A few hopesFollow

#1 Apr 22 2013 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
From the recent live video it looks like they are doing a great job with the overall graphics and the draw distance seems to quite impressive. I hope a few things happen....


a.) That the graphics shown in the recent video are not above the standard (beefed up) and running on a super machine (that none of us will ever own) for the sole purpose of getting us excited and showing the "best side" of FFXIV.

b.) Square enix gives us, the player, the ability to set the draw distance as we'd like. If want to set it so far out that my computer catches fire, shouldn't I have that option? In all seriousness that will probably never happen but if FFXI and FFXIV 1.0 were any indicator they will likely set the "maximum draw distance" relatively short when many of us might have rigs that allow it to be much greater.

c.) That there is great geographic diversity. Again, judging from the videos it seems they have already outdone ALL of FFXIV's diversity in what we've been shown so far. I just hope that it isn't like a comedy movie trailer for in which all of the funniest moments have already been shown...

d.) I hope if Square charges a monthly fee (which i'm positive they will out of necessity) the fans give the game a fair chance and realize that $14 a month really isn't much if the game is actually decent. $14 a month is a few cups of a coffee I could go without, a Netflix account that I might could cancel for awhile, or possibly affordable by saving all of my coin change.

e.) Lastly, I hope the graphics shown will translate nicely to my 55" LCD tv which I run all my PC games on...



Edited, Apr 22nd 2013 4:52pm by electromagnet83
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#2 Apr 22 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Just from the benchmark alone I've seen that "medium" graphics look pretty **** spiffy. The MAXIMUM FORCE graphics settings take a toll on my system, but the high settings with a few tweaks runs like silk.

Benchmarks are always nicer looking than every day in-game since they're done movie style, of course, but ARR is one of very few games where the gap between the cinematic quality of the intro movie and the regular graphics quality is actually quite small. Nothing is more disappointing to me than a trailer that looks nothing like the actual game...
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#3 Apr 22 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
The benchmark running at MAX POWAA looks really nice.

As far as draw distance goes, yeah I'd bet on there being a limit, but only because the slider for it can only go so far, y'know? There has to be a limit because programs can't have infinitely-many possible values for a setting.

As for the big screen.. the game's clearly in HD. I'd be betting on 720p though rather than 1080p, but who knows.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#4 Apr 22 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
The benchmark running at MAX POWAA looks really nice.

As far as draw distance goes, yeah I'd bet on there being a limit, but only because the slider for it can only go so far, y'know? There has to be a limit because programs can't have infinitely-many possible values for a setting.

As for the big screen.. the game's clearly in HD. I'd be betting on 720p though rather than 1080p, but who knows.


My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#5 Apr 22 2013 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
The benchmark running at MAX POWAA looks really nice.

As far as draw distance goes, yeah I'd bet on there being a limit, but only because the slider for it can only go so far, y'know? There has to be a limit because programs can't have infinitely-many possible values for a setting.

As for the big screen.. the game's clearly in HD. I'd be betting on 720p though rather than 1080p, but who knows.


My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.


Hmm, I don't think you really need to upgrade. I'm pretty sure 4k running on max is more than enough to play without much frame skipping. I mean, if you were planning to update the graphics card regardless then go for it, but I wouldn't do it because you're only getting a 4k on max. It should run pretty near to perfect.

My big hope is that the game doesn't suffer from the awful screen tearing it did in 1.0. I can still remember whenever I'd be running, I'd get a screen tear right over my character. Completely fine if I'm not moving or even moving slow, but at full speed it always teared.... and I was running a 2.0 gb ATI card at the time (which was like cutting edge 3 years ago lol). So hopefully that's fixed for me.
#6 Apr 22 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.


Well.... what kind of hardware are you running that on? I was getting 7k at max settings in 1080p. The only time the benchmark even slowed down a little was during the large open world sequences with a jillion particle effects flying everywhere, and even then it never appeared to be dropping a ton of frames. Honestly though, even if you have to run the game on "high" instead of "my computer is on fire" it's still going to look fantastic.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#7 Apr 22 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
The bottleneck for my system is the processor, not the video card. I suspect it's that way for a lot of people.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#8 Apr 22 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
I would be willing to wager that the settings are registry controlled, and someone will figure out how to up those beyond the config tool's limits.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#9 Apr 22 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.


Well.... what kind of hardware are you running that on? I was getting 7k at max settings in 1080p. The only time the benchmark even slowed down a little was during the large open world sequences with a jillion particle effects flying everywhere, and even then it never appeared to be dropping a ton of frames. Honestly though, even if you have to run the game on "high" instead of "my computer is on fire" it's still going to look fantastic.


I am running a phenom quad core 3.2 ghz processor, 16gb of ram and a geforce gtx 470 and a SSD. I am pretty confident this game is not going to run well on max settings unless the user can benchmark a score of like 6000+. My graphics card is likely the cause of the low score and am curious if upgrading it to say, a 660 TI with 3gb of ram will give s significant boost. Most of us, including myself, will likely need to run the game on lower settings it seems (if the benchmark is accurate)....something I just can't let happen after seeing the most recent video from Square-Enix.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#10 Apr 22 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
I'd go for a GTX 670 if you can find one that doesn't require a visit to El Dorado first.

But yeah, I agree that your video card is probably the cause of your problems there. I've had not one but TWO 470s crap out on me after providing only decent performance. I've been really happy with my 670 though.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#11 Apr 22 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
I'd go for a GTX 670 if you can find one that doesn't require a visit to El Dorado first.

But yeah, I agree that your video card is probably the cause of your problems there. I've had not one but TWO 470s crap out on me after providing only decent performance. I've been really happy with my 670 though.



It could also be that my card is in an HTPC I built that surprisingly has JUST Enough room to fit a graphics card. I've ran programs to make sure my temps weren't out of control and everything seems to be fine. Maybe my 3 year old 470 has just finally met it's match....
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#12 Apr 22 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
412 posts
Catwho wrote:
The bottleneck for my system is the processor, not the video card. I suspect it's that way for a lot of people.


Mine is my GPU. Seeing as I got 12k at 720p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/88220990225463276086468.jpg/

My 720p score in 1.0 was no where close to that. I have no idea what that means exactl I'm still using i5 2500k. It seems like they optimized it more for CPUs?

My Gtx 480 I got for 1.0 still get's me a 7k at 1080p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/88337090225470761013332.jpg/

The same score I got in 1.0. So I'm guessing my bottle neck is GPU.

Is your 720p score higher in 2.0 than it was in 1.0? How about your 1080p?
#13 Apr 22 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
It could also be that my card is in an HTPC I built that surprisingly has JUST Enough room to fit a graphics card. I've ran programs to make sure my temps weren't out of control and everything seems to be fine. Maybe my 3 year old 470 has just finally met it's match....


470s run pretty hot. My 670 runs at least 20 degrees (Celsius) cooler under heavy load than the 470 did at idle.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#14 Apr 22 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
GDLYL wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The bottleneck for my system is the processor, not the video card. I suspect it's that way for a lot of people.


Mine is my GPU. Seeing as I got 12k at 720p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/88220990225463276086468.jpg/

My 720p score in 1.0 was no where close to that. I have no idea what that means exactl I'm still using i5 2500k. It seems like they optimized it more for CPUs?

My Gtx 480 I got for 1.0 still get's me a 7k at 1080p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/88337090225470761013332.jpg/

The same score I got in 1.0. So I'm guessing my bottle neck is GPU.

Is your 720p score higher in 2.0 than it was in 1.0? How about your 1080p?


I haven't tried any other resolutions because I play on a 55" lcd so 1080p is minimum otherwise it'll look stretched. For the purposes of this thread I will however try it when I get home.

Honestly I don't remember my benchmark score in FFXIV 1.0. I just know that for the most part I ran it with everything turned all the way up and it mostly ran fine. I only turned ambient occlusion off because for the life of me I couldn't see a difference other than a significant drop in frame rate. I am essentially looking at my score of 4000+ against others and assuming an upgrade will be necessary to run this in all it's glory. Notice the benchmark is careful to be PC and say "you SHOULD be able to..." I doubt that means it will really happen however.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#15 Apr 22 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
BartelX wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
The benchmark running at MAX POWAA looks really nice.

As far as draw distance goes, yeah I'd bet on there being a limit, but only because the slider for it can only go so far, y'know? There has to be a limit because programs can't have infinitely-many possible values for a setting.

As for the big screen.. the game's clearly in HD. I'd be betting on 720p though rather than 1080p, but who knows.


My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.


Hmm, I don't think you really need to upgrade. I'm pretty sure 4k running on max is more than enough to play without much frame skipping. I mean, if you were planning to update the graphics card regardless then go for it, but I wouldn't do it because you're only getting a 4k on max. It should run pretty near to perfect.

My big hope is that the game doesn't suffer from the awful screen tearing it did in 1.0. I can still remember whenever I'd be running, I'd get a screen tear right over my character. Completely fine if I'm not moving or even moving slow, but at full speed it always teared.... and I was running a 2.0 gb ATI card at the time (which was like cutting edge 3 years ago lol). So hopefully that's fixed for me.



That's one of the things I love about Nvida...the settings available on the GPU itself. For XIV there was a ton of tearing an oddly no Vsync option. Geforce cards allow you to set options like vsync, anti-aliasing, and anisotropic filtering all from the Nvidia settings menu. Or you can leave them set to "allow program to decide." In cases like you're describing these are great options to have
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#16 Apr 22 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Like I said in the benchmark thread, I have dual 650 Ti BOOSTs and scored over 5000 at max settings with only one card chewing on it. It's definitely a lot of bang for your buck if the 670 is out of range, or if you're just looking for sub $200 performance. Mine are the EVGA Superclocked edition with 2GB of RAM.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#17 Apr 22 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
340 posts
Here's a link at the bottom to top performing video cards. I remember in 1.0 I ran the benchmark on my laptop. I think it came in at 2500 at 1080P and the game ran fine (if a little warm). I'm pretty sure you're going to be more than fine, as 4k isn't really that low of a score. My deskop has an ATI 6950 (which is technically lower than yours on the chart), but scores a 5500 at 1080p maximum settings. (I have a different processor and memory setup though so it is what it is). I'm sure you'll see some performance "testimonials" once P3/P4 starts up. I've seen conflicting information on whether or not the NDA drops in P3 or in P4. But there are plenty of "legacy" and "technically legacy" players here I'm sure that will be able to weigh in then.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html



Edited, Apr 22nd 2013 5:02pm by desmar
____________________________
WoW Blackhand-US-Date of Retirement: 9/21/2010... /Sigh
Devari - 90 Rogue 85 DK Druid/Mage/Warrior 70+

FFXI - Shiva "Retired.... Or not? One more try, honest."
Desmar - 65 Sam 36 Mnk 18 Thf 12 War

FFXIV - Devari Garamond - Sargatanas 50 Paladin / Culinarian / Weaver / Armorer
Beta - Devaria Ariadne - Ultros - Pugilist
#18 Apr 22 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
BartelX wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
The benchmark running at MAX POWAA looks really nice.

As far as draw distance goes, yeah I'd bet on there being a limit, but only because the slider for it can only go so far, y'know? There has to be a limit because programs can't have infinitely-many possible values for a setting.

As for the big screen.. the game's clearly in HD. I'd be betting on 720p though rather than 1080p, but who knows.


My benchmark score was only around 4k running on max using 1080P resolution. I'm hoping they will optimize more by launch but I plan on upgrading my graphics card anyways. The beach area in that recent live video made me realize that the game has a lot of potential to be awesome looking and I want to ensure I can run it with everything maxed.


Hmm, I don't think you really need to upgrade. I'm pretty sure 4k running on max is more than enough to play without much frame skipping. I mean, if you were planning to update the graphics card regardless then go for it, but I wouldn't do it because you're only getting a 4k on max. It should run pretty near to perfect.

My big hope is that the game doesn't suffer from the awful screen tearing it did in 1.0. I can still remember whenever I'd be running, I'd get a screen tear right over my character. Completely fine if I'm not moving or even moving slow, but at full speed it always teared.... and I was running a 2.0 gb ATI card at the time (which was like cutting edge 3 years ago lol). So hopefully that's fixed for me.



That's one of the things I love about Nvida...the settings available on the GPU itself. For XIV there was a ton of tearing an oddly no Vsync option. Geforce cards allow you to set options like vsync, anti-aliasing, and anisotropic filtering all from the Nvidia settings menu. Or you can leave them set to "allow program to decide." In cases like you're describing these are great options to have


I actually had the option of a Nvidia or the ATI, but I picked the ATI because it runs so much cooler. The Nvidia was almost 20 degrees warmer, and I don't have the best cooling system in my case currently, so that was a factor in the decision. My laptop has a Nvidia card also and it runs CRAZY hot. Also,the Catalyst Control Center has the options for vsync, AA, and AF as well. Unfortunately it didn't seem to make a difference for 1.0.
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#19 Apr 22 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
412 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
GDLYL wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The bottleneck for my system is the processor, not the video card. I suspect it's that way for a lot of people.


Mine is my GPU. Seeing as I got 12k at 720p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/88220990225463276086468.jpg/

My 720p score in 1.0 was no where close to that. I have no idea what that means exactl I'm still using i5 2500k. It seems like they optimized it more for CPUs?

My Gtx 480 I got for 1.0 still get's me a 7k at 1080p Max
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/88337090225470761013332.jpg/

The same score I got in 1.0. So I'm guessing my bottle neck is GPU.

Is your 720p score higher in 2.0 than it was in 1.0? How about your 1080p?


I haven't tried any other resolutions because I play on a 55" lcd so 1080p is minimum otherwise it'll look stretched. For the purposes of this thread I will however try it when I get home.

Honestly I don't remember my benchmark score in FFXIV 1.0. I just know that for the most part I ran it with everything turned all the way up and it mostly ran fine. I only turned ambient occlusion off because for the life of me I couldn't see a difference other than a significant drop in frame rate. I am essentially looking at my score of 4000+ against others and assuming an upgrade will be necessary to run this in all it's glory. Notice the benchmark is careful to be PC and say "you SHOULD be able to..." I doubt that means it will really happen however.


Same, even though I have a 25 inch 3D monitor for my FFXIV PC. I got too used to Playing on my 60". If the 3D is fun, I might just play switch. Is it just me, or does anyone else love playing with 720p maxed. I feel like the chat windows and icons were too small in 1.x. That was untill I could alter font size. Our ability bar still looks too small on 1080p. If we can enlarge it, I'd be thrilled.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
BrokenFox, Anonymous Guests (72)