Quoting: mrdeathjrThe Witcher 3

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: i.imgur.com

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

With DXVK using Core i3 8350K Tri-Core @ 5.0ghz + CoolerMaster Hyper T4

I'm seriously tempted to break my “five year rule” and buy that now. My specs aren't quite up to yours, but I could live with 30fps.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MayeulC

Quoting: Duncthey did have shadows at one point, but removed them due (as far as I recall) to bugs. It's on their to-do list, but quite far down I think.

I'm pretty sure this was working quite well, but was lost during their switch to the OpenSceneGraph graphics engine (which improved the performance quite a bit).

Ah, yes, that was it. I knew there was a good reason, and that the plan was still to enhance the graphics eventually.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickit would look pretty good if they added selective tessellation and real time soft+shadows. Maybe one day.

I was actually thinking about this while watching the video. Obviously getting the engine working correctly is the priority, but as long as running the original with mods provides a better experience, interest is going to be limited to open-source obsessives like ourselves. To be fair, I think the devs recognise this: they did have shadows at one point, but removed them due (as far as I recall) to bugs. It's on their to-do list, but quite far down I think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasI would really love them to do something in the Half-Life / Portal universe. But the expectations are so high that it's almost impossible to live up to. So I do get why they may not want to touch that...

That's the problem they face now. Long-awaited sequels rarely turn out to have been worth the wait. Even if, objectively, there's nothing wrong with them, they can't meet expectations. I can't help thinking the best thing for Valve to do now would be to retire Freeman, Vance, Chell, GladOS, et al and start a whole new franchise. In the same universe, sure, maybe with some of the same mechanics (Portal's too good to leave behind, surely), but with a clean break from the past.

In fact, now I come to think about it, there are a lot of loose ends and unanswered questions from both franchises that might actually be better dealt with that way, taking a step back from the narratives we all know backwards now and looking at them from a different angle.

But hey... whatever it turns out to be, it's good to hear that things are actually happening at Valve again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: silentprocyonDon't know guys. I don't feel like we're "abusive, demanding, rude" community. If you don't do QA and people that pays money for something finds out that it doesn't work, I would really understand that some people piss off with me. I mean, imagine the scenario if you give the same QA to Windows community... Is really like a chicken-egg problem this.

Exactly. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a product you've bought to work, or at least for the developers to do their utmost to ensure that it does, even if it's a third party's fault that it doesn't. (Although honestly I'm suspicious about that. The NVidia workaround doesn't work for me - just tried it; no difference - and while Unity certainly has its problems, I've never had such serious issues with a Unity game before. Not even close.)

Look, I can't really talk. As far as I recall, I either got Rust for free, or it was in a bundle I bought for something else. I'm not really into online multiplayer anyway. It was only when I heard there was a GoL server and I realised I had a copy that I thought I'd give it a go. So it's no real skin off my nose. But if I'd paid full price, like jasonm for example, I'd be seriously pissed off. And I think I'd have every right to be.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraExactly this, back in the day we used to measure everything we coded for demos/games in the amount of raster time [External Link] they took. On the Amiga I remember that we used to switch on a bitplane before a function and switch if off again (or if it was a color in the bitplane, memory is a bit rusty) after to see the actual mount of pixels as a visual benchmark when doing performance measurements.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that! (Not that I ever did any serious Amiga coding, especially not at the low level, but I dabbled.) The screen border on 8-bit machines was often used in much the same way. And still is; you can run a simple set-one-colour-set-another-wait-for-vblank loop, even in BASIC, to check if an emulator has correct timing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EndeavourAccuracyMy experience with Rust on Linux was mid-June of this year.
First, it crashed, so I restarted.
Then I joined a queue to start a MP game.
After waiting for ~15 minutes to join the game, it crashed again.
Never played it again, 0.4 hrs on record.

Same here. I think I have an hour on record, because I've owned it for longer and tried a few times to run it. I've never actually been able to play the game. (It may well be that NVidia bug, but it doesn't look like one. It feels more like something in the network code.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ScooptaI would have expected that, at least with vsync and OpenGL, when the buffer swap returns that's when the frame has been displayed.

You'd think so. But, as far as I can make out, what Alen's saying is that this isn't necessarily the case. Or at least, relying on this method for timing is misleading.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

From the article:

Video games have been running at 60 fps since the days of first arcade machines, back in the ‘70s. Normally, it was expected that the game runs at exactly the same frame rate that the display uses. It wasn’t until the popularization of 3D games that we first started accepting lower frame rates.

That's actually a bit misleading. 80's home computers (and consoles) were slow, and they were connected to standard TVs, which obviously used interlaced displays. Games did (usually) run at the full frame rate (i.e, one screen update every two interlaced “fields”), but that was 30 fps in NTSC country, and 25 in PAL-land. 60 (or 50) fps games existed, but they were rare enough for it to be a selling point sometimes. I grew up on 25 fps. Maybe that's why I'm less obsessed with absolute framerate than most people seem to be these days. :) Stuttering drives me nuts, though.

Way back in the ‘90s, when “3D cards” (that was before we started calling them “GPUs”) started to replace software rendering, people used to play games in 20 fps and considered 35 fps speeds for serious competitive netplay. I’m not kidding.

This is usually the point where I mention that the original F1 Grand Prix ran at a fixed 8 fps on the Amiga. When people started upgrading their machines, they had to apply a third-party patch to unlock the framerate. I still never managed to get it much above 20, mind you. :S:

That said, in general the Amiga was as smooth as silk, at least in 2D. The PC architecture has always seemed to struggle with maintaining a consistent framerate without stuttering. And I'm sure Alen from Croteam is right about the reason. Those older machines' display hardware was much more closely integrated with the display. They were built for NTSC or PAL. Programmers, the programs they wrote, and the hardware that code ran on always knew exactly when the frame was being drawn. They wrote to the vblank, going to crazy lengths sometimes to ensure that the entire game loop ran between frames. Even those 30/25 fps games ran at a consistent 30/25 fps, without tearing or dropped frames.

I hope the fix is as simple as he seems to think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ysblokjeI made a package for it in AUR right away

Heh. An AUR package was in the back of my mind when I downloaded the source. But you have to be quick to beat the Arch community. :D (In truth, I'd probably never have got round to it anyway. Great work, ysblokje.)

Quoting: GuestIn general think it is legit that game devs do not provide their work as open source in the first years

Honestly, while I can accept assets, artwork, and - especially - trademarks being proprietary and “protected”, over the years I've come to believe that code should be open source. Even those restrictive licences where “trusted” outsiders can see the code but not copy or modify it are (slightly) better than nothing at all. But it must always be the developers' choice.

So now that you're here, GGLucas, thanks again. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments