Thank you AtenRa!Inside the game, open a console with ~ and type "perfoverlay.drawfps 1"
without the ""
Techhog, the word Beta appears in the software and when you open the game so I'll take the publisher's word for it.I love how people keep saying that it's a beta as if it were actually true. It's a limited early demo of a nearly finished product. Not much will change.
Too bad the gameplay is shallower then any COD game.
Same I'm having fun and the game runs great and looks great. Blew my friends away. I can't wait to play new 4k at some point.ShintaiDK, just got done playing some multiplayer. I love COD so for me it's fun. The graphics are great for a Beta product and it runs well on both of my rigs, as I expect it should.
I'll try FRAPs later to see if it will measure fps and then report.
Performance is very smooth. Feels like hardcore mode BF due to how fast you die. Takes awhile to get use to but it's basically BF with Star Wars theme, which is fine with me, wasn't expecting some revolutionary thing.
As much of a BF fan as I am, I doubt I'll pick this up... Not a Star Wars fan, and futuristic-type games don't appeal to me. Graphics look good, I'd say its on par with BF4. I didn't expect much to change though, basically BF4 with a Star Wars skin. Sounds like gameplay isn't fun though, at least what I've read about the game modes included in the BETA. Hopefully this improves with the full game. Might be a game I pick up when it goes on sale after release.
I miss the old days of BF1942 and it's many mods, including Desert Combat. Maybe I'm just getting old... :|
That's a crazy strong result for the DX11 path. I didn't expect that at all TBH. Especially in multiplayer since AMD suffered poor performance on DX11 in BF4 MP. Looks like DICE has went full GCN optimized mode for Frostbite 3.
Kepler cards are not gimped in this game but their performance are not justifiable for their prices.We see a 280x on pair with a gtx780 and slaughtering a gtx770 :whiste:I am really extremely happy with how well this game runs. Amazing how well a game can run that doesn't have any proprietary libraries in it. Kepler cards are not gimped, AMD cards are not gimped, it just runs good.
Even my old 7950 sits at a solid 85fps (85Hz with vsync) on High settings and motion blur disabled. Which look pretty good, and the motion is just so fluid. Disabling motion blur actually gave a big boost in performance.
As for the game, wish there was 64 player games. 40 is decent, but giant BF4 maps with 64 players was a blast.
Kepler cards are not gimped in this game but their performance are not justifiable for their prices.We see a 280x on pair with a gtx780 and slaughtering a gtx770 :whiste:
???
I see 280X little bit faster than 770 and 780 faster than 280X.
In terms of avg fps,280x is 16.7% faster than 770 and 780 is 4.7% faster than 280x.???
I see 280X little bit faster than 770 and 780 faster than 280X.
54fps to 63fps = little bit but 63fps to 66fps = faster? I'd say 5% is a little bit faster and 17% is faster.
There is absolutely no reason to be on 7.
Windows 10 is superior.
Played the beta last night for about 30 minutes. Game runs smooth on 1440p maxed out on a 970. Good looking game and all, but I'm not sure how long the gameplay will hold up. The pod mode was boring as hell, and the weapon selection/ variation will be key to keeping players interested in progression. I'll give it a shot but won't pay full price.
Also no server selection sucks...
Something is wrong I'm playing at 1080p 150% on my r9 290 and I love it! I was going to see if I can go higher but then Ill just buy a second 290.How? With my overclock, I was only able to get around 45FPS at 1080p with 50% resolution scale (though with almost no tearing, surprisingly).