Assassin's Creed IV thread

[Sho'Nuff]

I'll try the vysnc fix tonight. I am having the same issue. In game v-sync caps the fps at 30, if I turn v-sync off the screen tearing is ridiculous. I tried lowering some settings to medium on my GTX 780, but looks like it's just a buggy in game vsync setting.

Thanks Sho'Nuff for the tip.

No problem. For the record I forced adaptive vsync and triple buffering in the driver, and disabled vsync in the game. Framerate was MUCH improved, with only the occassional tearing. Very smooth frame rate with all options maxed (including TXAA 4x). Nice improvement. Might try forcing generic vsync to see if I can get rid of the last bit of tearing, but its really not that big a deal so I might just leave it alone.

 

[flexy]

Regardless of what I tweak, I'm seeing ~40FPS-50FPS, which means that most of the time the in game vsync limits to 30FPS - resulting in a bit of a choppy mess.

Could you specify what exactly the issue here is?
(Mind you I have a very OLD system and a 660 TI, overclocked.

With Vsync in-game ON, what I see is that the game locks EITHER at 30FPS...or at 60FPS. Depending. (Most of the time it locks at 30FPS when a lot is going on on the screen. My system is too old to sustain 60FPS everywhere).

With Vsync in-game off, it is always around 45FPS.

I don't see the problem since the locking at 30FPS (1/2 of my monitor frequency) is actually as intended (IMO)....and the locking at 30FPS and Vsync looks much better than 45FPS but tearing.

What exactly would disabling Vsync "in-game" and enabling it in the CP do?

++

Edit: I did what you did (disable in-game Vsync and force "adaptive" via CP). Since adaptive Vsync ONLY kicks in at/above the monitors frame rate (in my case 60hz)...and the game on my system simply does not get/exceed 60FPS it pointless. As said above 45FPS with tearing does not look good.

The in-game Vsync with either locking at 30FPS or 60FPS does look "decent" to me and I actually don't have any problems with it.

 

[Attic]

To be honest, I've hated every single "future" moment in every Assassin's Creed game ever. I don't play the game for the intrigue of poorly written conspiracy plots that transcend time and space, I play it to climb interesting architecture, leap off and simultaneously stab two people in the face on the way down. If the Abstergo parts were completely removed, the games would be better. So anything that limits the nonsensical future conspiracy bits is a welcome change.

My thoughts exactly. I was so hyped for the open world and game interaction in AC 1. When the future world aspect was unleashed on me it was like trying to get cozy in a cold, wet, blanket. Sucked, sucks.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

All you guys experiencing poor performance; what driver version are you running? I know nVidia just released a new driver that's supposed to improve performance in AC4; are you guys running that and still experiencing terrible performance? If not, you should upgrade and see if it fixes it.

Real life has reared its ugly head, so I won't have a chance to try this game until December at the earliest; hopefully performance has been somewhat addressed by then. What I've been reading is all over the map, but a lot of people seem to be suggesting that most graphics options don't change a thing performance-wise except for Environment Quality (all the tessellation at the highest level) and HBAO (which makes the game look gorgeous, so of course you want it on). Anyone confirm?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Could you specify what exactly the issue here is?
(Mind you I have a very OLD system and a 660 TI, overclocked.

With Vsync in-game ON, what I see is that the game locks EITHER at 30FPS...or at 60FPS. Depending. (Most of the time it locks at 30FPS when a lot is going on on the screen. My system is too old to sustain 60FPS everywhere).

With Vsync in-game off, it is always around 45FPS.

I don't see the problem since the locking at 30FPS (1/2 of my monitor frequency) is actually as intended (IMO)....and the locking at 30FPS and Vsync looks much better than 45FPS but tearing.

What exactly would disabling Vsync "in-game" and enabling it in the CP do?

++

Edit: I did what you did (disable in-game Vsync and force "adaptive" via CP). Since adaptive Vsync ONLY kicks in at/above the monitors frame rate (in my case 60hz)...and the game on my system simply does not get/exceed 60FPS it pointless. As said above 45FPS with tearing does not look good.

The in-game Vsync with either locking at 30FPS or 60FPS does look "decent" to me and I actually don't have any problems with it.

You understand what I did correctly. I honestly think there is something wonky with the in game vsync. Because when I turn it of and force adaptive through the driver, the game is smooth as silk 99% of the time. When I turn in game vsync on, its a mess. That tells me that adaptive is limiting at 60FPS (which I'm apparently above most of the time), whereas the in game vsync is artificially limiting to 30FPS.

 

[kami]

Forcing adaptive vsync in the driver fixed the 30fps thing, but unfortunately I still get screen tearing. It's very noticeable when you're climbing walls and stuff like that. I tried regular vsync and it doesn't work, it keeps it at 30fps.

I dunno, maybe I'll wait for a patch. 30fps just looks so jerky to me :\ Game sure looks nice with HBAO and TXAA and all that jazz.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

All you guys experiencing poor performance; what driver version are you running? I know nVidia just released a new driver that's supposed to improve performance in AC4; are you guys running that and still experiencing terrible performance? If not, you should upgrade and see if it fixes it.

Real life has reared its ugly head, so I won't have a chance to try this game until December at the earliest; hopefully performance has been somewhat addressed by then. What I've been reading is all over the map, but a lot of people seem to be suggesting that most graphics options don't change a thing performance-wise except for Environment Quality (all the tessellation at the highest level) and HBAO (which makes the game look gorgeous, so of course you want it on). Anyone confirm?

I'm running whatever version the game ready driver is. The one that was released yesterday.

Edit - harpoon my first bull shark tonight. That was fun

 

[Spidre]

Why don't they have an option for 1080p 120hz? They have 120hz for lower resolutions but not the standard?

 

[gorcorps]

To be honest, I've hated every single "future" moment in every Assassin's Creed game ever. I don't play the game for the intrigue of poorly written conspiracy plots that transcend time and space, I play it to climb interesting architecture, leap off and simultaneously stab two people in the face on the way down. If the Abstergo parts were completely removed, the games would be better. So anything that limits the nonsensical future conspiracy bits is a welcome change.

Agreed

Yeah here's the problem with the franchise, its future arc is the important premise, it has so much potential but Ubisoft is failing horribly in realizing that potential, nobody likes it because its simply not enjoyable and poorly written compared to the historical story arc, that's what bothers me with this franchise, the premise is amazing 2 stories running simultaneously and intertwine tro time, so much potential yet completely unused.

No, the problem is that the future arc exists at all. I imagine that when they started the series somebody decided that they wanted to give a reason for all of the video game stuff we take for granted.
EX:

• You're don't die and respawn... you simply desycronize because you weren't playing out the "memory" properly.
• You're not abruptly changing timelines and characters, memories of your ancestors are stored in your DNA
• Areas of the map aren't "locked out", you just didn't get to that part of the memory yet

It's seems obvious to me that the whole animus device was a silly attempt to give a reason why certain game mechanics exist. Except these are all mechanics we've already gotten used to, so there's no explanation needed. And it'd be REALLY jarring to start the game with the animus thing, and then never mention it again, so they tried to make this future story to give a reason to bring up the animus multiple times. The more I type, the more I convinced myself. If the future story was actually thought through from the beginning then it wouldn't have been so terrible, so I think they just started flying from the seat of their pants.

 

[flexy]

I have never played the AC series even if it got so many rave reviews. So..a month or so ago I got me AC2 since it's supposed to be the best of the series. (Besides the new one, of course). The "future" parts with the animus thingy were a BIIG turn-off for me.

I found this part of the story far-fetched and cheesy and it doesn't go well with the rest of the setting. Basically, I expected a game where I play an assassin and it started out with all that crap before it even got to the part. Looking at AC2 I also had the impression they expected that people are familiar with the series and the background..I was just dumbfounded about the "future part" of the game and thought "WTF is that supposed to be?"

 

[Andy T]

flexy, I disagree with you. I also started out with AC2 being my first game in the series. I think it's perfect because it introduces Etzio and you see the events leading to him becoming an assassin. I do agree that the future time is silly, and I just grit my teeth and get them over with. I think that the future moments in Revelations are the worst of any AC game featuring Etzio.

 

[gorcorps]

flexy, I disagree with you. I also started out with AC2 being my first game in the series. I think it's perfect because it introduces Etzio and you see the events leading to him becoming an assassin. I do agree that the future time is silly, and I just grit my teeth and get them over with. I think that the future moments in Revelations are the worst of any AC game featuring Etzio.

Ezio

 

[finbarqs]

I kind of enjoyed AC1, AC2 was okay, AC brotherhood (my 3) was torturous just because I was committed in finding out what happened. AC Revelations was ridiculously like a job. I hated every moment of it, and I wanted it to end already.

Basically the game went on as this:

Go to map points, complete these ridiculous platforming missions, kill people, done.
Repeat 20x.

I hated how I had to "train" more assassins, and "build bombs". That was ridiculous. I couldn't get into it. Then I had to make sure I had to "defend my towers" that I conquered. It's too scattered. I didn't even enjoy the graphics or anything. So just as I was about to purchase AC3 (thinking the colonial times might make it more interesting) I saw a vide of it, and just remembered how much I hated the gameplay, how much of a 'job' it seemed like.

Now I'm getting the same feeling of AC4, I guess are there like a million mini games? I'm just on the fence again now...

 

[blackened23]

If you have performance issues, turn TXAA off and the game will run fine. Please keep in mind that TXAA is very GPU intensive - I figured most folks would be well aware of this, but I guess not. It is more intensive than MSAA and is near SSAA in terms of pushing your GPUs. So turn it off and your performance in AC4 will be fine.

Game runs like a champ for me, using the latest driver released 2 days ago by nvidia. I stress, however, that TXAA won't be usable 100% of the time especially if you're at a higher than 1080p resolution.

 

[futurefields]

How does the game run compared to Far Cry 3 ultra? Similar fps?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

How does the game run compared to Far Cry 3 ultra? Similar fps?

Hell no. Far Cry 3 runs at far higher FPS. But it has less "features" so that is to be somewhat expected.

That said, Uplay updated the game when I launched it this evening, and it seems to run VERY well now. Have no idea what the patch did, but whatever it is I like it.

 

[Carfax83]

Finally got some play time in today, and so far, I'm liking the game.
Everything maxed with SMAA looks and runs great at 1440p, V-sync enabled in the driver panel.. HBAO+ and PCCS to me are the best graphical features.

As far as CPU usage goes, it seems pretty dynamic to me. In the first area, the game seemed to use one thread for the most part, but once I got to Havana, I saw good loads on three threads depending on where I was.
So obviously, CPU usage has a strong correlation with scene complexity in this game.. Areas with high NPC density in particular will load extra threads on the CPU to deal with it.

I'm shocked that this game barely uses any system memory, just like Far Cry 3. Perhaps that's why the pop in can be so glaring at times, although to be fair, it's not as bad as Far Cry 3 was.

 

[futurefields]

Assassin's Creed 4 producer says optimizations not important on PC

http://games.on.net/2013/11/assassi...tant-gamers-will-just-upgrade-their-hardware/

“It’s always a question of compromise about the effect, how it looks, and the performance it takes from the system. On PC, usually you don’t really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it’s not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU."



Looks like, for next generation, unless you are running $700 of GPU, you are screwed. GTX680 SLI or go home! My lowly PC is fucked it looks like. Despite having 2-4x the raw power of PS4, and running the games at same resolution.

This kind of quote is just so upsetting to me. I guess they are planning on having a PC user base of about 10,000. I don't know many people, apart from those active on internet forums, who run multiple high end GPU's. Among the people I know, like the people I work with etc etc my PC is pretty powerful. Most of my friends are running GTX460, AMD 6850/7770, GTX 560 level GPU's, and they are PC gamers not console gamers. Most people aren't willing to spend close to a thousand dollars on GPU power.

Even my brother who has a 6 figure income only has a PC with a GTX650 in it. Because, looking at the specs, it should be enough. However, it wont be close to enough if PC games are purposefully left unoptimized in order to facilitate GPU sales.

I really hope they change their tune on this.

 

[blackened23]

Oh, this again. Some sperglords are spreading this crap around various forums without reading the entire thing to understand what it means.

Way to take what he said out of context. What he meant was PC's are a moving target, while consoles are a "fixed" target. Therefore they can add features to the PC version without necessarily worrying about the framerate on someone running an AMD APU cheese machine, because the PC version is scalable and therefore those guys with high end hardware can reap the benefits, and lower end PC's can turn settings down to adjust the performance. You cannot do something like this with a console because it is a fixed target therefore you spend your entire development knowing more or less you can't do something because of performance issues. This is not the case with PC's. If you want to add TXAA, you can do it even if it affects performance. If you don't like it, turn it the hell off. It's that simple. He didn't say that his game was unoptimized, the game runs fine.

He also tweeted a follow-up response basically stating this. You're taking what he said out of context.

 

[AdamK47]

The game runs great on my system.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The game runs great on my system.

Intel Core i7 4960X @ 4.5GHz | ASRock X79 Extreme11 | 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z 2400 DDR | Four Nvidia GTX Titans in 4-Way SLI

Jesus God, I would hope so. If it doesn't run on that, it won't run on anything.

 

[ghost recon88]

To be honest, I've hated every single "future" moment in every Assassin's Creed game ever. I don't play the game for the intrigue of poorly written conspiracy plots that transcend time and space, I play it to climb interesting architecture, leap off and simultaneously stab two people in the face on the way down. If the Abstergo parts were completely removed, the games would be better. So anything that limits the nonsensical future conspiracy bits is a welcome change.

Same, I don't even give a crap about those parts of the game. I just walk through them, and wait until it takes me back to whatever the historical setting is. I can't even follow the futuristic story most of the time anyways.

 

[RockinZ28]

Getting a lot of game crashes here. Probably one every 20-30 min. Pretty annoying.

Don't like this instant kill shit either. Press B, press X. Repeat for 10 guys.

Doesn't run that great for me, but my system is older. Screen tear galore on adaptive sync. Still plays pretty much every game better than this at 1080p just fine though. Probably about time for a new pc, but can't justify it quite yet.

 

[Carfax83]

How do you access the single player DLC? I want to upgrade my equipment, but I have to spend money to do so. I figured the DLC would give me better equipment for free, but I don't see a way to get it yet.

I'm in Havana btw.

 

[Carfax83]

Getting a lot of game crashes here. Probably one every 20-30 min. Pretty annoying.

Don't like this instant kill shit either. Press B, press X. Repeat for 10 guys.

Doesn't run that great for me, but my system is older. Screen tear galore on adaptive sync. Still plays pretty much every game better than this at 1080p just fine though. Probably about time for a new pc, but can't justify it quite yet.

Are they system crashes or game crashes? What does Event Viewer say?