Deleted7103646User Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 In response to post #33667195. Reveal hidden contents Quote collinmacleod wrote: Well they fixed the load times, but dammit Bethesda, if you put life detection on your power armor helmet, it is still running when you get out of the suit. Everybody has a red aura. That was supposed to be fixed... load times aren't fixed for me with a fast PC on SSD, all my other games load extremely fast and play smooth as butter, but not Fallout...as usual.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalell Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) In response to post #33862040. #33872225, #33914585, #33936890 are all replies on the same post. Reveal hidden contents Quote Ethreon wrote: Bethesda needs to polish their damn engine, get more people (100 people for AAA game dev company.. really), and hire some writers and better/more coders (incline towards better). Engine's fine, but has too many unsolved bugs and unpolished areas, thus people be like "too old, bad, outdated". Most common game engines are not much younger than Creation engine (2011). So yea.. ask for better coding, not new engine. Few can handle what this one does. Quote dartmaul15 wrote: i kinda agree with you there. They need more skilled people, all over the board.Textures are 2k, but look worse than skyrim in some areas (hell, some almost reminded me of fallout 3). And we see what modders here have pulled off in therms of texture improvements. They need to get their s#*! together! ESPECIALLY in the frigin world! Even in 1080p the textures look blurry, washed out, and the stupid fog they use all over the damn place makes everything look like someone is trying to hide poor work.Their codes tend to be terribly optmized and buggy. To the point where i think a large enough group of monkeys with typewriters can do the same. ANd just look at what tim did with skyrim. With my old ATI radeon hd 5870 i had like 40ish FPS at release, now i run the official texture pack at 60. ONLY thanks to game optimizations from bethesda's side.Get some damn beta testers. Yes, it is one of the most stable releases ever. But come on, even your fans are mking fun of you for your bug riddled games. Bethesda, get your s#*! together. I don't care if they pick 100 random modders to do it, or if they pay people. Hell, as long as i got all other expenses covered, i'd happily test their game for a whole frigin month if i could just dick around in it and report any bugs i found. I wouldn't even demand payment per hour for it! Quote blizzbones wrote: 2011? Creation engine is just a modified Gamebryo Engine, which Bethesda's been using since before 2002. They can add as many "upgrades" as they want, but the problems will remain. They're never going to get more than decent animations, seamless transition from external/internal areas, or smooth non-wonky looking LODs, among other things on the creation engine. I've been playing Bethesda games as long as I can remember, but unfortunately they're too afraid to change and take a chance with a new engine, especially with all the demand for mod support and open world sandbox that we've all come to expect from them. Quote printerkop wrote: @dartmaul, one of the most stable releases ?It CTD's every 2 minutes with me, loading times are in the 3 minutes with SSD and i5 and 32GB RAM and R9 290x 8GB.I was able to play it for longer earlier, but lately i can't even play it anymore cause it just quits to desktop.Been searching for days to find if i can fix it.I have extensive experience with gamebryo engine cause i modded since Fallout 3 and handled just about every aspect of the game in the GECK, and i have a thourough understanding of game engines in general.I know for a fact that the hardcoded code has a shitload of bugs in it, and so does the scripts that aren't hardcoded, to fix the engine they would need help of some better programmers, that is the simple truth, the coders they have now just aren't good enough, they're no whizz kids that's for sure.@blizzbones Yeah, that's my biggest worry about them using a new engine. Truthfully they do need one, but it will need to be as versatile as Gamebryo has been and most engines (if any?) don't offer that kind of freedom. I mean the GECK hasn't even been released yet and people are already adding new armors, weapons, interfaces, and tons of other things to the game. I hope Beth keeps this in mind when they finally decide to make the jump to a new engine.Honestly, I'm one of those people that's willing to deal with Gamebryos issues so I can have a game that's easy to mod. Edited January 29, 2016 by Kalell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanity Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Thank iD and John Carmack (who has now left Beth) for the long load times. Carmack invented a NIGHTMARE called 'Megatexture' - which was wrong-headed in every way for the future of computer hardware. FO4 does NOT use Megatexture, but it does use Megatexture's texture streaming concepts- where lower quality versions of textures are constantly 'fighting' with higher quality ones- wasting bandwidth, CPU cycles and VRAM. For instance, on my 1GB 6870, only by using an .ini hack to only load the BEST version of any texture did my game become acceptably smooth in most of the map. The default Carmack designed streaming meant I had the worst blurry textures AND lousy performance. When Beth bought iD, iD's management was allowed to build TWO massive teams of developers- who so far have yet to release even one game (Rage doesn't count). However, I believe Fallout 4 was the FIRST inhouse iD game to be finished and released at Beth, which explains why it has so many issues. The second, of course, will be the terrible looking Doom 4. I believe Beth's usual Scrolls/Fallout team has been working on Skyrim 2 since Skyrim launched. The total lack of innovation in Fallout 4 (save for the cloning of popular Fallout/NV/Skyrim mods) is a bit of a clue. When a .ini trick is used to FORCE the best textures to load immediately, load times explode- the engine simply wasn't built with this expectation, and the streaming method used by the engine is industry worst. So you folks have a choice- blurry textures for ages before the proper ones load, and fast load times. Or slow load times, and the best graphics when the game begins again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54yeggan Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 In response to post #33938200. Reveal hidden contents Quote zanity wrote: Thank iD and John Carmack (who has now left Beth) for the long load times. Carmack invented a NIGHTMARE called 'Megatexture' - which was wrong-headed in every way for the future of computer hardware. FO4 does NOT use Megatexture, but it does use Megatexture's texture streaming concepts- where lower quality versions of textures are constantly 'fighting' with higher quality ones- wasting bandwidth, CPU cycles and VRAM.For instance, on my 1GB 6870, only by using an .ini hack to only load the BEST version of any texture did my game become acceptably smooth in most of the map. The default Carmack designed streaming meant I had the worst blurry textures AND lousy performance. When Beth bought iD, iD's management was allowed to build TWO massive teams of developers- who so far have yet to release even one game (Rage doesn't count). However, I believe Fallout 4 was the FIRST inhouse iD game to be finished and released at Beth, which explains why it has so many issues. The second, of course, will be the terrible looking Doom 4. I believe Beth's usual Scrolls/Fallout team has been working on Skyrim 2 since Skyrim launched. The total lack of innovation in Fallout 4 (save for the cloning of popular Fallout/NV/Skyrim mods) is a bit of a clue. When a .ini trick is used to FORCE the best textures to load immediately, load times explode- the engine simply wasn't built with this expectation, and the streaming method used by the engine is industry worst. So you folks have a choice- blurry textures for ages before the proper ones load, and fast load times. Or slow load times, and the best graphics when the game begins again. Care to share your secrets? :) I suffer from crappy textures, too! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney666 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) In response to post #33938200. #33952555 is also a reply to the same post. Reveal hidden contents Quote zanity wrote: Thank iD and John Carmack (who has now left Beth) for the long load times. Carmack invented a NIGHTMARE called 'Megatexture' - which was wrong-headed in every way for the future of computer hardware. FO4 does NOT use Megatexture, but it does use Megatexture's texture streaming concepts- where lower quality versions of textures are constantly 'fighting' with higher quality ones- wasting bandwidth, CPU cycles and VRAM.For instance, on my 1GB 6870, only by using an .ini hack to only load the BEST version of any texture did my game become acceptably smooth in most of the map. The default Carmack designed streaming meant I had the worst blurry textures AND lousy performance. When Beth bought iD, iD's management was allowed to build TWO massive teams of developers- who so far have yet to release even one game (Rage doesn't count). However, I believe Fallout 4 was the FIRST inhouse iD game to be finished and released at Beth, which explains why it has so many issues. The second, of course, will be the terrible looking Doom 4. I believe Beth's usual Scrolls/Fallout team has been working on Skyrim 2 since Skyrim launched. The total lack of innovation in Fallout 4 (save for the cloning of popular Fallout/NV/Skyrim mods) is a bit of a clue. When a .ini trick is used to FORCE the best textures to load immediately, load times explode- the engine simply wasn't built with this expectation, and the streaming method used by the engine is industry worst. So you folks have a choice- blurry textures for ages before the proper ones load, and fast load times. Or slow load times, and the best graphics when the game begins again. Quote 54yeggan wrote: Care to share your secrets? :) I suffer from crappy textures, too! =)I think it is this tweak;bForceUpdateDiffuseOnly=0iTextureUpgradeDistance1=7500iTextureUpgradeDistance0=5000iTextureDegradeDistance1=7500iTextureDegradeDistance0=5000The best textures will load immediately, and you won't have texture pop-in.However expect load times to be 2-3 times longer,even on an SSD. Edited January 30, 2016 by sydney666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney666 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 In response to post #33935515. Reveal hidden contents Quote hex77x wrote: i tried the beta patch for a bit, but i kept getting stuttering, like the old skyrim large-save bug - but mroe often, about every 20 seconds. so i uninstalled it, hope it doesnt carry over to live.did anyone else experience this?Have you tried Windows mode - full screen? That helps with stuttering A LOT for me, actually it totally removed stuttering. Playing back on FULLSCREEN literally does my head in with the way it seems to skip frames here and there. Horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugeBoomer Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Am I the only one in these comments who has a great decrease in loading times without any other issues piling up behind it? Great beta patch for me! After some hours playing, I have noticed some ctd's which I have NEVER ever gotten since first playing FO4, but wether that is mod related or beta patch related or even a combined issue I do not know, still great loading times though Edited January 30, 2016 by HugeBoomer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethreon Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 On 1/30/2016 at 11:46 AM, HugeBoomer said: Am I the only one in these comments who has a great decrease in loading times without any other issues piling up behind it? Great beta patch for me! After some hours playing, I have noticed some ctd's which I have NEVER ever gotten since first playing FO4, but wether that is mod related or beta patch related or even a combined issue I do not know, still great loading times thoughYou probably aren't. Personally I'm not experiencing them anymore, but that doesn't make them less valid, specially since Beth released a patch for exactly that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MythDinoex Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) In response to post #33545770. #33545865, #33564765, #33570280, #33583990, #33584755, #33615800, #33625900 are all replies on the same post. Reveal hidden contents Quote hector530 wrote: you know what helps load times? SSDs i dont know how people can game without them anymore. Quote printerkop wrote: 3 minutes load time on SSD here, so no, SSD doesn't help a bit. Quote DarthCruciare wrote: I second this, was a HDD user for years. Got new comp with SSD and I get maximum, 20 second load time, average is about 10-15 seconds. I don't know how I managed without it in the past. Quote ff7legend wrote: All my Bethesda games are spread out across 2 SSDs & loading times are 15 secs or less in most cases with my extremely high-end desktop PC. I have plans to replace my 2 TB HDD with a 2 TB SSD late next month, which will set me back $700.00. Well worth the investment for the massive performance boost when gaming alone. SSDs are a MUST in this modern gaming PC age. Games are only going to get bigger/become more memory/resource-hungry in the future & SSDs will help lessen the time it takes for games to load. Even on console, SSDs are a near must-have. I have an SSD in my PS3 with plans to add one to my PS4 as well. HDDs will become obsolete as SSDs get cheaper in the very near future. Might as well invest in an SSD sooner rather than later. Quote Einster wrote: ssd will win vs hdd if they fix the fast death time. they die to fast for the cost. a hhd runs vell after 10years in use a ssd dont will look like a ssd after 10years. Quote Bottletopman wrote: Yeah SSDs are good for gaming but not so much for long term storage. ~10-15 year life expectancy, and less for higher capacity drives. Something to do with the transistors in larger drives requiring more precision in terms of voltage measurement and being unable to hold voltage over time causing more errors. Meanwhile a decent quality HDD can be expected to run for 50 years to even a century if not abused. Quote SoloCreep wrote: I have 5 SSD's in my PC. 2 of them I have had for over 5 years. They are still running just as fast as when I first bought them. No signs of dying anytime soon. I've had plenty of Seagate and Western Digital HDDs die on me in 2 years or less. Quote Neanka wrote: have a 9sec load time with ssd. at 1.2 and both 1.3 patches(3 years old ssd btw)Buy me one then you f*#@er. Edited January 30, 2016 by MythDinoex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hex77x Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 In response to post #33935515. #33966450 is also a reply to the same post. Reveal hidden contents Quote hex77x wrote: i tried the beta patch for a bit, but i kept getting stuttering, like the old skyrim large-save bug - but mroe often, about every 20 seconds. so i uninstalled it, hope it doesnt carry over to live.did anyone else experience this? Quote sydney666 wrote: Have you tried Windows mode - full screen? That helps with stuttering A LOT for me, actually it totally removed stuttering. Playing back on FULLSCREEN literally does my head in with the way it seems to skip frames here and there. Horrible.borderless fullscreen is the only way i play anything. cant stand game windows not allowing screen roaming, or minimizing when i decide to tab to another window Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts