Load times in full version vs. demo?

[spazwazza]

Just played the demo, it runs better than I was expecting on my computer. No lag or anything. Only super noticeable issue was it taking like 20 minutes of "initializing textures" or whatever before a hunt loaded in every time. Is that just because the game isn't fully installed or whatever, and is only an issue in the demo? Because if it isn't present in the full game, I think I'm gonna buy it.

[Cathulhu]

Never had that, not even in the demo.
I wouldn't have the patience to wait THAT long.
Even on the Switch loading times are seconds, not minutes.

What are your system specs?

[Zenarkenstin]

Game startup takes a bit to initialize shaders, but otherwise it's fine for me. My PC isn't top of the line, but is pretty good despite being a few years old. I load most hunts before I can read the loading screen tip

[CH13F]

both loading times were same for me (very fast). tho 1 problem in both versions, the first time launch shader thingy might take a while. a minute or bit longer.

[spazwazza]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

Never had that, not even in the demo.
I wouldn't have the patience to wait THAT long.
Even on the Switch loading times are seconds, not minutes.

What are your system specs?

Windows 10
Processor: AMD FX(tm)-770K Quad Core Processor 3.50 GHz
Installed RAM: 8.00 GB
GPU: Radeon RX 570

[zfan121]

What I've noticed is that it only loads the textures the first time you run the game after you've started your pc. If you turn your PC off it has to take the textures and load em again.

The load times for the rendering shaders screen is pretty fast on my PC, but it's basically a PS4 so I don't know how it compares to yours. My PC's fans do NOT like that screen lol but beyond that it runs the game like buttah.

[Cathulhu]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-770K-2014-DKa-vs-AMD-FX-6100/m18603vs1984
Your PC does not meet the minimum requirements for the game. It's even slower than the really outdated and honestly terrible FX-6100.

The main issue is that it is effectively a dualcore CPU with hyperthreading. Not even remotely good enough these days.

[DaBa]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-770K-2014-DKa-vs-AMD-FX-6100/m18603vs1984
Your PC does not meet the minimum requirements for the game. It's even slower than the really outdated and honestly terrible FX-6100.

The main issue is that it is effectively a dualcore CPU with hyperthreading. Not even remotely good enough these days.

Whether you're right or wrong here, don't ever use userbenchmark to compare anything. That website is not a source of credible data, it was proven to falsify it. Why? Probably because people who run it are massive Intel fanatics who are extremely biased towards it and also against anything that isn't blue. Seriously, this is one of the worst benchmark websites on the internet, avoid at all cost.

[Cathulhu]

Yeah, comparing an AMD CPU with another AMD CPU clearly shows results in favor of Intel.

That .... does not compute.

[DaBa]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

Yeah, comparing an AMD CPU with another AMD CPU clearly shows results in favor of Intel.

That .... does not compute.

Provided their data is actually accurate. Which we don't know if it is, because they cannot be trusted. They have falsified facts in the past, both for AMD and Intel.

As I said, I don't care whether you're right or wrong, I am just warning you against using websites that aren't credible sources of information on topics like these. Userbenchmarks is still fairly popular due to most people not being aware of what is going on there, and why would they know? I'm pretty sure only a very few people know about it.

[cyäegha]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

Yeah, comparing an AMD CPU with another AMD CPU clearly shows results in favor of Intel.

it's fairly well known that userbenchmark's upper management are heavily biased in favour of intel products, and in the past have been caught pushing mandates designed to artificially skew results in favour of said chipsets
to say nothing of their careful manipulation of their wording to portray AMD's gains as being insignificant, and the minute gains that intel makes through their tick-tock architectural revisions as being much bigger than they are

[侍Kage]

System reqs are false, technically this game requires better computer than world but runs way better than world.

OP must be some technical issue like maybe your hdd or ssd. My game is installed on ssd and as soon as i accept any mission i can depart.

[Obsid1anWolf]

Originally posted by cyäegha:

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

Yeah, comparing an AMD CPU with another AMD CPU clearly shows results in favor of Intel.

it's fairly well known that userbenchmark's upper management are heavily biased in favour of intel products, and in the past have been caught pushing mandates designed to artificially skew results in favour of said chipsets
to say nothing of their careful manipulation of their wording to portray AMD's gains as being insignificant, and the minute gains that intel makes through their tick-tock architectural revisions as being much bigger than they are

I have seen userbenchmark change the weight of results such a making single core results having a stronger impact on overall scores. I haven't seen anything that actually skews the results of a test, or handicaps a test output.

I think for the most part you can fairly compare chips on the site. You just have to consider what results are important rather than simply looking at the basic scores.

[spazwazza]

Originally posted by 愛IcyTea Lemon:

System reqs are false, technically this game requires better computer than world but runs way better than world.

OP must be some technical issue like maybe your hdd or ssd. My game is installed on ssd and as soon as i accept any mission i can depart.

This could be it. My Frankenstein's monster PC has a frustratingly tiny SSD for the C drive, and a much larger HDD for the D drive, and I tend to install games onto the latter because my C drive would immediately run out of space if I didn't. Though it's never caused issues like this in any other game. World ran fine, I went in assuming that Rise would be LESS strenuous, not more.

I mean, it's a newer game, but it's a port from the friggin' Switch which is a super underpowered console.

[Cathulhu]

And you have an extremely underpowered CPU with only two cores. That doesn't help any bit either. The minimum is a quadcore for the game.

[Pisaro]

Originally posted by spazwazza:

Originally posted by 愛IcyTea Lemon:

System reqs are false, technically this game requires better computer than world but runs way better than world.

OP must be some technical issue like maybe your hdd or ssd. My game is installed on ssd and as soon as i accept any mission i can depart.

This could be it. My Frankenstein's monster PC has a frustratingly tiny SSD for the C drive, and a much larger HDD for the D drive, and I tend to install games onto the latter because my C drive would immediately run out of space if I didn't. Though it's never caused issues like this in any other game. World ran fine, I went in assuming that Rise would be LESS strenuous, not more.

I mean, it's a newer game, but it's a port from the friggin' Switch which is a super underpowered console.

Even the Switch CPU should be faster than your CPU.