Ghost Recon BreakPoint

[richintheveins]

Anyone playing this? I'm interested in picking it up and wanted to jump on a team.

[cluelessgenius]

also thinking about it right now. wildlands was fun but have you seen the performance benchmarks on breakpoint? god damn. just when i thought was ahead with my hardware they do it again. stats say i can expect 40 fps on ultrawide 1440p and setting on ultra (not even the highest setting). and i just oced my poor 1080 ti. idk i think ill definitly get it but maybe ill wait a bit until prices come down

[Paul Rudd]

On 10/2/2019 at 3:39 PM, richintheveins said:

Anyone playing this?

Just hit 135 hours in Wildlands today. Not even thinking about buying Breakpoint until it hits the $10.00 price I paid for Wildlands a month and a half ago.

2 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

stats say i can expect 40 fps on ultrawide 1440p and setting on ultra

Ultra is for suckers. You can double that 40 fps just by mastering the graphic settings.

[richintheveins]

3 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

also thinking about it right now. wildlands was fun but have you seen the performance benchmarks on breakpoint? god damn. just when i thought was ahead with my hardware they do it again. stats say i can expect 40 fps on ultrawide 1440p and setting on ultra (not even the highest setting). and i just oced my poor 1080 ti. idk i think ill definitly get it but maybe ill wait a bit until prices come down

Yeah after the reviews I backed off of it I may get it later when it goes on sale. I would take a look at your graphic and display settings. I play on a CRG9 super ultra wide for DIvision 2 and everything is maxed out except a couple of things that I lowered and I still get a steady 70+ frames on a 49 in 32:9. You just need to adjust some of your settings and a 1080 ti will do great!  I'm still playing division and I'm getting into Diablo III.

 

I really wanted another triple A game to play on PC though 

[cluelessgenius]

16 hours ago, Intransigent said:

Ultra is for suckers. You can double that 40 fps just by mastering the graphic settings.

well thats what they ran their benchmark at. so its the only comparison data i have.

 

15 hours ago, richintheveins said:

Yeah after the reviews I backed off of it I may get it later when it goes on sale. I would take a look at your graphic and display settings. I play on a CRG9 super ultra wide for DIvision 2 and everything is maxed out except a couple of things that I lowered and I still get a steady 70+ frames on a 49 in 32:9.

well first of all thats still less pixel than im driving and you got a 2080ti so how are you comparing that to me?

https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Tom-Clancys-Ghost-Recon-Breakpoint-Spiel-67646/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Release-Review-Tipps-1333798/

(german site though, sorry)

 

but as you can see at my resolution the 1080ti pulls 40fps and thats with a 9900k which i dont have so mine might even be lower except i have my gpu clocked slightly higher than that so maybe it evens out but that still not even 60fps. i realize a bit of tinkering with the settings will probably improve results without loosing to much quality but i just cant stand when i know theres a higher setting availble and i cant use it. like it couldve looked better but i cant pull it. im not going back to playing shit on medium settings.

[24hrsflowerdeliver]

I am very impressed with this game

[WereCatf]

21 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

but have you seen the performance benchmarks on breakpoint? god damn. just when i thought was ahead with my hardware they do it again. stats say i can expect 40 fps on ultrawide 1440p and setting on ultra (not even the highest setting)

You could always just tweak the settings a little and get a pretty big performance-boost with little difference in image-quality:

 

Disclaimer: I do not play this game, so I can't help any further than this.

[Paul Rudd]

7 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

well thats what they ran their benchmark at. so its the only comparison data i have.

The game hasn't even been out a week yet, give people time to provide more data.

7 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

i realize a bit of tinkering with the settings will probably improve results without loosing to much quality

There are ways to tinker with the settings without losing any quality.

7 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

i just cant stand when i know theres a higher setting availble and i cant use it. like it couldve looked better but i cant pull it.

You have to weigh your options. Jot down how much vram or CPU/GPU usage or fps each individual setting uses. This usually requires playing the game yourself.

7 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

im not going back to playing shit on medium settings.

Never use presets. Research and develop what each individual graphic setting does to performance and what it does to the game visually. Then make your selection. For example, do you really need shadows in certain games that hit around 20 of your fps? Not saying all of them do this and of course some games shadows look good and most people want them. In Ghost Recon Wildlands though, surprisingly I don't need shadows and the game looks and plays much better by not using them. 65 fps with shadows or 85 fps without shadows, which one you gonna choose?

[richintheveins]

8 hours ago, cluelessgenius said:

well thats what they ran their benchmark at. so its the only comparison data i have.

 

well first of all thats still less pixel than im driving and you got a 2080ti so how are you comparing that to me?

 

https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Tom-Clancys-Ghost-Recon-Breakpoint-Spiel-67646/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Release-Review-Tipps-1333798/

(german site though, sorry)

 

but as you can see at my resolution the 1080ti pulls 40fps and thats with a 9900k which i dont have so mine might even be lower except i have my gpu clocked slightly higher than that so maybe it evens out but that still not even 60fps. i realize a bit of tinkering with the settings will probably improve results without loosing to much quality but i just cant stand when i know theres a higher setting availble and i cant use it. like it couldve looked better but i cant pull it. im not going back to playing shit on medium settings.

Are you playing in 4K? I'm driving a Samsung C49RG90 (5120 x 1440p). This isn't the 1080p version (CHG90). My monitor is pushing over 7 million pixels in a super ultra wide so its pretty difficult to run. With that said, yes I agree my GPU is rated better than yours; however, a 1080ti is no slouch. With the proper adjustments you will be getting good performance in pretty much any game without sacrificing overall visuals. I do agree with the distaste to have to lower your settings, but it may be something simple that doesn't really affect your experience. 

[cluelessgenius]

17 hours ago, Intransigent said:

The game hasn't even been out a week yet, give people time to provide more data.

There are ways to tinker with the settings without losing any quality.

You have to weigh your options. Jot down how much vram or CPU/GPU usage or fps each individual setting uses. This usually requires playing the game yourself.

Never use presets. Research and develop what each individual graphic setting does to performance and what it does to the game visually. Then make your selection. For example, do you really need shadows in certain games that hit around 20 of your fps? Not saying all of them do this and of course some games shadows look good and most people want them. In Ghost Recon Wildlands though, surprisingly I don't need shadows and the game looks and plays much better by not using them. 65 fps with shadows or 85 fps without shadows, which one you gonna choose?

i dont mean presets but most of the quality deciding options are labeled with low medium high or so. so its easier than explaining every single setting i usually use. 

and yes i need shoadows. are you kidding me? oh do you really need textures i mean green blobs are rendered way faster. yes i need shadows especially in game like this. killing shadows makes it look like gta 5...on console. games like this are eye candy really any AAA game is eye candy to me. and the games where i dont care about graphics are usually the easiest to run so it doesnt matter anyway. like counterstrike or something. 

i can usually live with little to zero AA but in wildlands for example all the vegetation makes it look like 50s TV static with no AA on so i  use temporal. i could go through them all but i think you get my point almost all them are important factors....except motion blur.......fuck motion blur.

 

oh and i have run games at lower than native res before so i can keep the other stuff up there. for example on my 4k tv i dont play often on it but when i do its usually 1080p because i literally cant tell the difference from where im sitting but i can tel the difference of wether or not there shadows

[cluelessgenius]

15 hours ago, richintheveins said:

Are you playing in 4K? I'm driving a Samsung C49RG90 (5120 x 1440p). This isn't the 1080p version (CHG90). My monitor is pushing over 7 million pixels in a super ultra wide so its pretty difficult to run. With that said, yes I agree my GPU is rated better than yours; however, a 1080ti is no slouch. With the proper adjustments you will be getting good performance in pretty much any game without sacrificing overall visuals. I do agree with the distaste to have to lower your settings, but it may be something simple that doesn't really affect your experience. 

ups sorry i thought it was 1080p because most of the 49"ers are. my bad. 

[Paul Rudd]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

and yes i need shoadows. are you kidding me?

I kid you not. As I mentioned, of course you may need shadows in most games. Surprisingly, Ghost Recon Wildlands is one of the few games where shadows are not needed. It still surprises me too. I like the benefit of the insane fps boost it gives me as well.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

oh do you really need textures i mean green blobs are rendered way faster.

Textures are a different story and almost never affect fps in a major way. They do use a ton of vram though. Almost every game I play I've discovered that I can leave them at full-on Ultra.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

yes i need shadows especially in game like this. killing shadows makes it look like gta 5...on console.

I'm guessing you've actually never taken the shadows off in Ghost Recon Wildlands. I play the game daily and not once do I think nor feel nor see the game as anything remotely related to GTA 5 on console.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

games like this are eye candy really any AAA game is eye candy to me.

Oh I agree. And I am completely aware of each and every individual "eye candy" setting in Ghost Recon Wildlands. Take Terrain Quality for example. You can only use Low, High, Very High or Ultra on Terrain Quality. Low completely messes up Terrain Quality. So no reason to use it. High is a setting where Terrain Quality can be set to and it look great. Not the greatest, but definitely great. Then there's the Very High setting(where I have it set to). It gives Terrain Quality that "eye candy" that you speak of. And it looks excellent. Then there's the Ultra setting. All that does it give it "extra eye candy". Which is just not worth the fps you lose imo. And this "extra eye candy" is literally just dark shadowing similar to that of ambient occlusion. I personally prefer Very High all day long and if I ever need some extra fps I even prefer using the High setting.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

and the games where i dont care about graphics are usually the easiest to run so it doesnt matter anyway. like counterstrike or something.

True. But you can still research and develop the perfect custom settings in these types of games as well. Take Fortnite for example. It can run on a potato. Set everything to Low/Off except Textures, View Distance and surprisingly Anti-aliasing. All three of these can be set to Epic and barely affect fps at all. And once again, shadows are completely unnecessary in Fortnite. Another one of the very few games to do so. And your fps will soar without shadows in Fortnite.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

i can usually live with little to zero AA but in wildlands for example all the vegetation makes it look like 50s TV static with no AA on so i  use temporal.

Yay! You have selected the right AA in Wildlands. I LOVE the way Temporal AA looks in Wildlands. And I know exactly what you mean about the 50's TV static with no AA. Some people prefer MSAA in Wildlands, and that's okay too because somehow MSAA is not that much of an fps hit over TAA. I personally like the look of MSAA in most other games but in Wildlands, TAA is just beautiful. Same in Battlefield 1, TAA is the way to go in that game too. In GTA 5, MSAA x2 + FXAA is the way to go simply because all other AA options in that game(especially TAA) hit fps in a major way.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

i could go through them all but i think you get my point almost all them are important factors....except motion blur.......fuck motion blur.

I go through them all on a daily basis in dozens of games. It's what I do. So I definitely get your point. I hope that you can get my point though. And I completely agree with motion blur. For the most part, motion blur barely affects fps in most games. So turning it on or off is usually just a personal preference. My reason for leaving it off, aside from the minimal fps boost is simply the fact that motion blur is already introduced into games in multiple other ways. Having it on is only going to put a hinder on competing.

On 10/11/2019 at 5:03 AM, cluelessgenius said:

i can tel the difference of wether or not there shadows

Of course. But surprisingly, in very few games, every once in a while, shadows are just unnecessary. In very few games now. Wildlands just so happens to be one of those games. You should try it if you haven't already. And try it for hours, not just a few minutes. I've now hit 140 hours in Wildlands with shadows off. If I were to use shadows, I wouldn't get the roller coaster feeling higher fps gives me. And a good bright side is, half the game is played at night. There's natural darkness all over the place at night.

 

If you really want a boost in Wildlands, try out my settings...

 

Level of Detail can be set to High but the fps boost there is very minimal and you can also notice more pop-ins on High. Not a ton but noticeable ones. It should never be set lower than High because then pop-ins are insanely noticeable. It should also never be set to Ultra as Ultra hits your fps quite considerably. Draw Distance you can play around with as well as I sometimes drop it to Low just for the extra fps boost. It's not a major boost but a boost none the less.

 

Vegetation can be set to High as well but imo, there's so much vegetation in Wildlands, it's still beautiful on Low. The difference visually is just not worth the CPU usage. I'm using a 6th gen i5 so I personally prefer to keep it at Low to help with the bottleneck. And again, Low is still absolutely beautiful.

 

As for the other 15 settings, they are complete locks imo. Sure some people may prefer shadows and god rays but personally, I reap the benefit of the major fps boosts from each setting. And I personally love god rays in video games. It's the one setting in Wildlands that I choose to just sacrifice. There's almost always going to be one setting you simply have to sacrifice for the greater good. To get over it, I just load up Skyrim. I would label shadows being off as a sacrifice, but the reason I don't is because like I said, they're just not necessary in Wildlands. I really don't know exactly why but they're just not. I suppose it could be because everything else about Wildlands is just gorgeous to me. Why stop and worry about shadows?

 

Oh and as I stated above, Terrain Quality can be set to High for a decent fps boost but it takes away the "eye candy" of what Very High looks like. At the same time though, it doesn't take away the "great" look of Terrain Quality. Only Low does that.

[Praesi]

DONT BUY YET!

 

I have 35h´s now in Coop. And this Game need at least 6 Month´s further Development.

 

Its an unfinished, dumbed down Version of Wildlands, with braindead Enemy AI and Bugs Bugs Bugs. Bugs everywhere.

[Paul Rudd]

4 hours ago, Praesi said:

Its an unfinished, dumbed down Version of Wildlands, with braindead Enemy AI and Bugs Bugs Bugs. Bugs everywhere.

I've always wondered if that's how Wildlands was in the beginning because people used to complain about bugs in Wildlands. Now, there's very minimal bugs, if any. Only bug I've noticed in Wildlands is when playing coop certain missions won't let you finish them. The fix is to just do them solo.

 

What type of bugs are you experiencing?

[Praesi]

Just now, Intransigent said:

I've always wondered if that's how Wildlands was in the beginning because people used to complain about bugs in Wildlands. Now, there's very minimal bugs, if any. Only bug I've noticed in Wildlands is when playing coop certain missions won't let you finish them. The fix is to just do them solo.

Its way worse than Wildlands on release. Its ridiculous bad.