funkyzoom's forum posts

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts
@mrbojangles25 said:

What sort of games do you enjoy? What genres?

Mostly action games (first and third person), and sometimes racing and role playing games.

@mrbojangles25 said:

There's more to it than games, btw; it's pretty cool to watch movies on, it's essentially like having an iMax theatre at your disposal.

Wow this is amazing, I didn't know you can just watch ANY movie on a VR headset.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

Ok, so I REALLY want to play Half-Life: Alyx, and unfortunately I can't do that without VR.

When I look at the library of currently available VR games for the PC, I don't see too many that interest me. In fact, I don't even recognise most of these games. And I don't see a lot of VR games I am interested in on the horizon either.

Thing is, VR isn't exactly cheap, and it may take a few years for there to be more VR games that appeal to me. So is it worth buying a VR headset now, for just one game, considering it will likely be obsolete by the time VR gaming really picks up?

Also, although I would have liked to go for the Valve Index, it isn't available here in Australia. The only viable choices for me are the Oculus Rift S, and the HTC Vive Pro. If I do decide to buy one, I'm almost certain to go with the Rift S because the Vive Pro costs significantly more. Would this be a wise choice? I don't have much idea about VR, and I never considered buying a VR headset until Valve tempted me with the first Half-Life game in over a decade.

I'm also open to suggestions from people here who have been using VR for a while now, and can recommend a few VR games that are REALLY good.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

I used to build custom gaming PCs regularly, but hadn't attempted in in over a year due to some shit going on in my life.

I built one today, and as expected, there is an issue. While seating the processor on the motherboard, there was low lighting in the room and it automatically slid a bit to the side before it got locked in place (which may have damaged the pins). It's AMD FX 8350.

After that, I put everything else in place, turn on the power, see all those cool LEDs, and see no display! On closer observation, I noticed the following: The fans in the PC case, the processor heatsink fan, and the power supply fan, are all spinning. The LED on my graphics card lights up (It's an XFX Radeon RX 480), but the fans on it don't spin. I initially thought this meant a faulty GPU, but then realised some current GPU fans do NOT spin unless they are under heavy load. I don't know if my card is designed that way (couldn't find related info anywhere).

I checked all the connectors (including the 8pin connector of my GPU), and they are fine. My motherboard doesn't have onboard graphics to test, and I don't have access to another PC to test my GPU.

So now, it means one of these things could have happened:-

1) I ruined the pins on my CPU (in which case I can't claim warranty, and have to shell out for a new CPU)

2) The graphics card is faulty (I can get a replacement)

3) I have missed some small connection somewhere (highly unlikely).

Which of these is most likely? Also, does a ruined CPU mean no display at all, not even the BIOS or the initial POST screens? My monitor is working fine though, I tested it with my laptop.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

@BassMan said:
@funkyzoom said:
@BassMan said:

@funkyzoom: I was just thinking... did you check your VRAM usage. With 3 GB, you will not be able to use the highest texture setting. That in itself could be the cause of your stuttering.

What you said is correct. I was playing the game at pretty low settings. I tried setting everything else to their highest values, except for Anti-aliasing (which was off) and Texture resolution at 'High'. The game runs like a charm now, with NO stuttering! I even have Purehair at it's highest, and tessellation is on as well.

Glad you get to enjoy the game and I am sure it still looks very good with your settings.

Yeah, all thanks to you! The game looks pretty stunning now. The fans of my graphics card continue running at very high speeds when I play the game, but I don't suppose that's an issue

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

@BassMan said:

@funkyzoom: I was just thinking... did you check your VRAM usage. With 3 GB, you will not be able to use the highest texture setting. That in itself could be the cause of your stuttering.

What you said is correct. I was playing the game at pretty low settings. I tried setting everything else to their highest values, except for Anti-aliasing (which was off) and Texture resolution at 'High'. The game runs like a charm now, with NO stuttering! I even have Purehair at it's highest, and tessellation is on as well.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

@BassMan:

Man, it looks like the game needs a Crossfire/SLI set-up to look similar to those screenshots!

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

@BassMan said:

Game runs great for me 1440p max settings with no AA. Very smooth so far. Unfortunately, there are some pre-rendered scenes that kick in and run at 30fps. :(

Yeah, I did a bit of online research. People with NVidia cards are able to get better performance compared to comparable AMD cards. And AMD hasn't even released an updated driver after the game release. After all, this is anyway an NVidia optimised game so I should have expected poor performance on my AMD hardware.

Also, I did notice that the game runs pretty smooth until I encounter one of those nasty pre-rendered scenes, which are way too choppy. But when I gain back the control of my character, the choppiness remains and I have to restart the game.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts

@BassMan said:

I have the game pre-loaded and I will try it out tonight. I am not worried about performance as I have a 980Ti, but it sucks that it is not running well on lower end specs. The game does seem to have very impressive graphics, so maybe the barrier to entry is just higher than normal.

But I read a couple of websites, which mentioned that game's graphics is almost identical to the XBox One version, except for a few extra effects and stuff. That console is a lot less powerful than my PC, even when you factor in the resources needed for running the OS in the background. This does seem like a badly optimised game for the PC. I ahven't faced this issue with any other game. Even Arkham Knight, when it came out, ran like a charm on my rig.

@ShadowDeathX said:

Game runs fine for me at 3440 x 1440 at 100hz. Have all the settings dial up except Shadows on High and using FXAA. Majority of the time it stays above 80fps but sometimes it drops into the 70s.

The only issue I have is that SLI scaling is okayish, but like usual it isn't to an ideal level.

Tomb Raider uses a lot of tessellation so GPUs that aren't as good in tessellation like the GCN cards and Keplar, might see a good improvement with it lowered. In Maxwell, it is fine but that is pretty much Maxwell's big thing, tessellation performance.

Maybe I should turn tessellation off, crank up the other settings, and see if I get acceptable performance.

@unrealgunner said:

Yes I said that in my thread here and I got hate for it at the end of the day it is an unoptimized game not the worst but unoptimized no doubt

Actually it has become somewhat of a 'norm' now to release badly optimised ports for the PC, then take their own sweet time to patch it. The worst part is, hardly any games have demos now. If I could actually know how this game performed, I would never have bought it until a few months after release. Even on low setting, my graphic's cards fans whine like a jet turbine while playing this game. A clear indication that it is using a lot more resources than needed.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts
@04dcarraher said:

Well for 1080p you need R9 290 or 780ti type of gpu to get 40+ fps.... Whats funny is that GTX970 performs virtually the same as Fury nano upto the FuryX ~50 fps.

I would just wait it out for drivers and patches

Yeah, I realised that lowering the graphics quality WAY down, made the game playable. This seems to be an unoptimised console port, just like so many other PC games. I don't have the luxury of waiting for patches, since I would be moving out of the country soon, and won't have access to a gaming PC for the next 6 to 9 months.

Avatar image for funkyzoom
funkyzoom

1534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

14

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 funkyzoom
Member since 2005 • 1534 Posts
@Lonelystrokez said:

I herd its because of the Denuvo DRM they added to the game.

Is that so? I have also played Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain and Mad Max on Steam, but they ran fine, in spite of being protected by Denuvo. Batman" Arkham Knight was also a mess, but that was more due to WB's negligence, and had nothing to do with Denuvo.