Casual Reminder that low render settings still have massive advantages over ultra

Comments

  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Things like smoke specifically are not loaded in the same detail (or even ambient smoke isn't rendered at all) on low. Someone could see you from 100 m but you can't see them at all because they can see through the smoke and you can't.
    .
    Just thought the developers needed an update.
    .
    Edit: In addition, edges are much sharper, suppression isn't nearly as cloudy, and most gunsmoke doesn't render to block your vision.

    Whilst there may be some advantages to running all low, anybody who is playing competitively SHOULD be rocking all low settings to increase competetiveness and to maintain a higher framerate.

    There's no strict policy in place which forces users to play at all ultra settings, Or that if you run X GPU then you must run at X preset.

    It's hardly what I would call "cheating" though.

    Everybody here who plays on PC has the choice to play at a lower preset if they choose to do so, Another reason there is low->medium->high->Ultra presets is due to the wide range of GPU's and system configurations.

    Obviously the lower presets are aimed at users whom are running bare minimum system requirements, I don't see the issue personally.

    If people want to rock all ultra and obviously put themselves at a disadvantage then go for it.

    I understand why they are a thing and how they're useful. I just don't think that people that run at lower settings should have a clear visual advantage over those that choose not to. At this point, the game has become so competitive, that either you run low-medium settings or you're just outmatched by people you can't even see.
    .
    Dice seems to be on the same page as me considering they increased the density of the fields in Arras so that people on low couldn't see right through them. Now people on low are seeing through ambient smoke.
    .
    Performance has nothing to do with the fact things just aren't being rendered or are being rendered but poorly to where it makes no real difference if they were rendered at all.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Noromiz wrote: »
    Things like smoke specifically are not loaded in the same detail (or even ambient smoke isn't rendered at all) on low. Someone could see you from 100 m but you can't see them at all because they can see through the smoke and you can't.
    .
    Just thought the developers needed an update.
    .
    Edit: In addition, edges are much sharper, suppression isn't nearly as cloudy, and most gunsmoke doesn't render to block your vision.

    Even playing on 2k Ultra I have never been affected by suppression, or at least not anything worth noticing :/
    Suppression is only there for me to have something to blame for my terrible accuracy with LMGs and MMGs, and for the free points you get for not hitting enemies and spotting them :smiley:

    Suppression in BFV is when the ground gets shot and debris comes up. I thought we all were aware that "suppression" doesn't exist but actually being suppressed like IRL does.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.

    If this isn't the most smart butt answer/comment I've ever seen....
  • TyroneLoyd
    1350 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.

    If this isn't the most smart butt answer/comment I've ever seen....

    Hes not wrong.
    You want the lowest latency possible if you want to play at a high level.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 16
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.

    If this isn't the most smart butt answer/comment I've ever seen....

    Hes not wrong.
    You want the lowest latency possible if you want to play at a high level.

    The tone was what got me. I understand why you would want to play at low settings. But to sit there and pull the "buy me (and others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we can all play on high / ultra and have peace of mind." and then they pull the "if you won't purchase us thousands of dollars in hardware, please don't complain about [the game not rendering things giving them a distinct advantage]" like come on dude. That's so BS.
    .
    I was literally pointing out that there's still a gap in rendering between low and ultra and they pull the victim card even though nobody was attacking them.
    .
    Go back and read the original post I put up. I made an edit a few minutes ago.
  • full951
    2462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I know Jack titled the video "banned for thisc but has anyone really been banned for this?
  • ballFetcher
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.
    • Its not about performance. Its about visibility of graphical objects and effects. Dice has already fixed some visibility exploits such all missing terrain and did so without any problems for those who are forced to use low settings. In the case of vegetation you simply have an equal amount of vegetation on low setting that is less beautiful as on high settings. In the case of smoke you would have less beautiful smoke on low settings and an equal cover/visibility as on ultra settings.
    • The pro argument is silly, i would argue that a player doing well on higher settings with less visibility is better than an player exploiting every visual advantage that other players don't have. Its not like the "pro space" is playing only against other pros. In any case there is no need for this pro sub-group on PC when visibility could be normalized for all setting modes without affecting performance (or FPS).

  • ballFetcher
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I could probably fire up BFV and change between low and ultra on the fly and I reckon it won't be all THAT much different, Just lower resolution smoke and less demanding terrain and vegetation

    Not necessarily, at further distances objects will disappear (until you ADS, where they reappear) and you can see anyone behind them as for some reason soldiers will render at every distance.

    It's a case of either bumping up the minimum specs for everyone and forcing the game to render everything at range, which means less sales due to less compatibility on lower end hardware, or keep it as it is and give players the choice.

    No this is incorrect. The case is to actually lower the standards of graphical effects and objects on lower settings instead of removing them and messing with LOD distances. The game could look much worse on lower setting than it does and have an equal amount of objects and visibility. I.e., the way the game is designed it is primarily intended to look amazing on all settings, meaning the difference in graphical quality is very small between low and ultra. They are basically trying to emulate consoles which fit their development strategy (one codebase used for all hardware, looks and feel the same on all hardware). The ultra graphical effects seem to be thrown in to sell the game engine rather than the game.
  • ballFetcher
    119 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well that is nothing new. Gameplay suffers when visual mumbojumbo is added in absurd amounts to reach a certain showcase value. Plus of course bf5 is really hard on your CPU so every FPS you gain is important. And still the effect is marginal, yeah some smoke effects might be less dense, but dying through this is very rare. The only issue is with the rendering distance of the **** fields on Arras, but then again what is the reason to leave that setting at ultra?

    Yes, its nonsense what the we get forced on with taa and other visual stuff. I am running low, i cant see thru smoke, hell i would be agruing i see less then someone playing on ultra since the renderdistance is lower on my end so some enemys appear out of thin air.

    They appear out of thin air on ultra as well.
  • Titan_Awaken
    674 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.

    If this isn't the most smart butt answer/comment I've ever seen....

    Hes not wrong.
    You want the lowest latency possible if you want to play at a high level.

    The tone was what got me. I understand why you would want to play at low settings. But to sit there and pull the "buy me (and others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we can all play on high / ultra and have peace of mind." and then they pull the "if you won't purchase us thousands of dollars in hardware, please don't complain about [the game not rendering things giving them a distinct advantage]" like come on dude. That's so BS.
    .
    I was literally pointing out that there's still a gap in rendering between low and ultra and they pull the victim card even though nobody was attacking them.
    .
    Go back and read the original post I put up. I made an edit a few minutes ago.

    Well what would you have him/her do? Deliberately play on high/ultra settings? Remove his/her capabilities to play a low/medium settings?

    It isn't about being a ****. He/she makes a completely valid point: that not all people have super-powered PCs to run the latest triple A title at Ultra settings.

    DICE (or any other developer for that matter) should not have the power to mandate what settings one should run, period. If you're looking that kind of "controlled" environment, I recommend a shift to consoles as everyone runs the same settings theoretically.
  • GrizzGolf
    965 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I thought my video settings had changed the other day. Anyone help me with what I should have it set on a GTX 970?
  • spychodelics
    214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 16
    I own a R7 2700x with 16 GB of RAM and a Vega 64, i try to run [email protected] the only way to accomplish that is to play on low.
    Going High or Ultra drops the fps between 20-30 percent.

    This game is either so demanding / so poor optimized that the avg person can not play it on ultra.

    But yes, for the sake of the argument.

    There should not be any advantage of choosing low over ultra.
  • disposalist
    8505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Noromiz wrote: »
    Things like smoke specifically are not loaded in the same detail (or even ambient smoke isn't rendered at all) on low. Someone could see you from 100 m but you can't see them at all because they can see through the smoke and you can't.
    .
    Just thought the developers needed an update.
    .
    Edit: In addition, edges are much sharper, suppression isn't nearly as cloudy, and most gunsmoke doesn't render to block your vision.
    Even playing on 2k Ultra I have never been affected by suppression, or at least not anything worth noticing :/
    Suppression is only there for me to have something to blame for my terrible accuracy with LMGs and MMGs, and for the free points you get for not hitting enemies and spotting them :smiley:
    Suppression in BFV is when the ground gets shot and debris comes up. I thought we all were aware that "suppression" doesn't exist but actually being suppressed like IRL does.
    In real life you are suppressed because being shot at might end your single life and sustained heavy gunfire has a massive effect on you psychologically and physically, pretty much no matter your experience of warfare. You literally cannot reproduce this in a game, of course, but some games try to add the tactical aspect as best they can since it is such a big part of real gunfights.

    BF5 suppression is pointless. Certainly no analogue whatsoever for 'real' suppressive fire.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    For the last time. It's not about them playing on Ultra or low settings. It's about how if you play on low settings things just don't render for you vs when you play on Ultra giving you a significant visual advantage.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I don't even get the point of this thread. What do you expect DICE to do exactly?
    Are you aware that lowering the settings always will make you see a little bit more/better or whatever? I personally play on low as well, for 2 reasons.
    1. My CPU is quite old, highly oc'ed, but I need to play on all low to achieve 120 FPS for GSync constantly. I would play at higher resolutions, if my hardware would be stronger.
    2. I play competitive, so I want the lowest input-lag possible. And guess what, you only get it with tweaked settings (low graphics alongside with FFR optimizations).

    So. What should I do for example? I'm student and can't afford to buy me a new PC / better hardware. I have to play it like that. If DICE would raise the graphics, even on "low" to a higher level, I couldn't play it normally (like many others too). And tbh, the game looks "almost" as good on low as on ultra. There's only the massive FPS drop and input-lag increase if I set it on ultra (~50-60 FPS, much higher lag).

    TL;DR
    Buy me (and probably others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we all can play on high / ultra and have peace in mind. If you won't do that, please don't complain about it. Some of us are forced to play on low - no matter if we want or not.

    If this isn't the most smart butt answer/comment I've ever seen....

    Hes not wrong.
    You want the lowest latency possible if you want to play at a high level.

    The tone was what got me. I understand why you would want to play at low settings. But to sit there and pull the "buy me (and others) new hardware - thanks in advance - and we can all play on high / ultra and have peace of mind." and then they pull the "if you won't purchase us thousands of dollars in hardware, please don't complain about [the game not rendering things giving them a distinct advantage]" like come on dude. That's so BS.
    .
    I was literally pointing out that there's still a gap in rendering between low and ultra and they pull the victim card even though nobody was attacking them.
    .
    Go back and read the original post I put up. I made an edit a few minutes ago.

    Well what would you have him/her do? Deliberately play on high/ultra settings? Remove his/her capabilities to play a low/medium settings?

    It isn't about being a ****. He/she makes a completely valid point: that not all people have super-powered PCs to run the latest triple A title at Ultra settings.

    DICE (or any other developer for that matter) should not have the power to mandate what settings one should run, period. If you're looking that kind of "controlled" environment, I recommend a shift to consoles as everyone runs the same settings theoretically.

    My post was literally about how if you play on certain settings, things don't render at all or render in such qualities that you have a distinct visual advantage over people at another setting.
    .
    This user made it about themselves and about how THEY can't afford a PC that can run even high settings for whatever reason (even though they have a $500+ monitor, which is more than the sale price of a $1080).
    .
    For the last time:
    It's not about what setting people CHOOSE to play at.
    It's not about what setting people CAN play at.
    It's not about how good your system is.
    It's literally me just pointing out that SOME ASSETS DON'T LOAD ON SOME SETTINGS GIVING SOME A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE.
    .
    It's really not hard to understand.
  • NLBartmaN
    3219 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TyroneLoyd wrote: »

    Hes not wrong.
    You want the lowest latency possible if you want to play at a high level.

    On PC you want highest frames and lowest connection latency with the 60Hz servers and powerful enough PC's to handle everything.

    On console you want latency which matches best with 30Hz servers, BF Netcode and limited frames possible ...
  • xXMysterio
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I still don't get the point of this thread. Is it unfair that low-settings-players might see a little bit better than ultra-settings-players? Yes!
    Can we, the players, do something against it? No!
    These settings and the way they work, what you see and what you don't see, is meant for people like me, who can't play higher without sacrificing our gameplay. Yes, others use it too, to get a potential advantage. But I'm pretty sure that DICE knows exactly what they have to do to give low-settings-players the best possible gaming experience. There are reasons why it is, how it is.
    On the side of us users, we can't do anything about it. Period.
    If you want something to be changed, write to DICE directly - no one else can change anything. Except you, of course! Decide if you want to change your settings to low, to take advantage of this potential minor more vision, or keep your settings and enjoy the full beauty of war. It's up to you!
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 21
    m1k3ol wrote: »
    I jut wanted to note, that smoke nades don't disappear even in lego settings...

    only way to be shot is if you're already marked by a sniper's flare or something

    Not true, people tend to take up the exact same position on maps and if you can pinpoint that place from the visible surroundings you can do some gun kata and blast him through the thickest smoke. Man I love those shots, you just know he's losing his syllables all over the place.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    786 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 22
    xXMysterio wrote: »
    I still don't get the point of this thread. Is it unfair that low-settings-players might see a little bit better than ultra-settings-players? Yes!
    Can we, the players, do something against it? No!
    These settings and the way they work, what you see and what you don't see, is meant for people like me, who can't play higher without sacrificing our gameplay. Yes, others use it too, to get a potential advantage. But I'm pretty sure that DICE knows exactly what they have to do to give low-settings-players the best possible gaming experience. There are reasons why it is, how it is.
    On the side of us users, we can't do anything about it. Period.
    If you want something to be changed, write to DICE directly - no one else can change anything. Except you, of course! Decide if you want to change your settings to low, to take advantage of this potential minor more vision, or keep your settings and enjoy the full beauty of war. It's up to you!

    I've said it MULTIPLE times.
    .
    It's not about what setting people CHOOSE to play at.
    It's not about what setting people CAN play at.
    It's not about how good your system is.
    It's literally me just pointing out that SOME ASSETS DON'T LOAD ON SOME SETTINGS GIVING SOME A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE.
    .
    Would you like trees to load on all settings or just some? Would you like to have your head hidden on some settings or all settings? Would you like to be visible behind an object on some settings or all settings? It's really not hard to understand why literally anyone would want what I'm asking for here.
    .
    It's not the quality of the detail/objects. It's the fact they aren't loading. People on Ultra think they're hidden when they're not. People on some settings have objects not be rendered and even sometimes have animations not play (such as the running animation) at a distance, making someone somewhat more visible. It's a distinct visual disadvantage to play on some settings while others have a significant advantage on other settings.
    .
    Edit: I've spelled it out for you not once, not twice, but 3 times prior in this post. The fact you didn't even care to read them proves that you're not here to have a discussion but rather to start fights. If all you're going to do is ignore what I say and fill in what you THINK I'm saying (even though I've clearly said the opposite many times), then you can leave. Not trying to be rude here, but when I've said the opposite of your claim numerous times in this thread yet you still bring it up and still try to derail the thread long after it's been inactive, it's a really petty move on yourself.
    .
    I've said it multiple times about how it's not the quality of the textures. It's not the "beauty" of war. It's literally that some things don't load on lower settings. Like, at all. Trees don't show up. Smoke doesn't blur vision. Sometimes you can see someone when they're behind cover on higher settings. It's literally not hard to understand that unless you can't read.
    .
    And now you come back 5 days after the last comment that specified the purpose of the thread and CONTINUE to attempt at derailing it and ignoring the point. I'm talking about it on the forum. Where developers read comments. The players of course can't do anything unless they talk about it, which I'm doing here. If you're going to be that cynical about me reporting something that's still wrong and gives some players an advantage, then be my guest. But if you think that you're being smart or that I'm not going to call you out about it, you're completely wrong.
  • Skitelz7
    925 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Another reason why consoles >
Sign In or Register to comment.