Want a high-res texture pack

[Medusa]

Who else would like that?
It seems logical since it's not too vram intensive yet.
For people with more than 4 or more than 6 GB vram it should not affect performance at all.

[Audacio]

In game current state, no.
Game is clearly unplayable for most people, high-res pack does not afftect only VRAM, it affects the overall performance.

[Kabob]

I'd be curious what it would look like. After a week of nothing but AC:O, I purchased Battlefront2 when available and after playing I can say AC:O looks better right now at max settings.

[Medusa]

Originally posted by Audacio:

In game current state, no.
Game is clearly unplayable for most people, high-res pack does not afftect only VRAM, it affects the overall performance.

it only affects performance for those with too little memory, otherwise; higher resolution textures have negligble effect on performance.

[David Kolář]

Actually texture quality uses mainly VRAM, performance hit is not so significant (if of course VRAM is not that bottleneck). In most cases it also worth decreasing other effects in favor of better texture quality, since textures makes a huge difference in detail and sharpness of final image. However question is, if dev team has better textures to export than this or not. I personally think texture resolution is somewhat sufficient, mostly, problem is, there are some assets which has texture resolution somewhat worse then "average" asset in game. Those things should be fixed at least.

[traykey]

Originally posted by orophertaralom:

Who else would like that?
It seems logical since it's not too vram intensive yet.
For people with more than 4 or more than 6 GB vram it should not affect performance at all.

+1

[Thoddy]

Originally posted by Audacio:

Game is clearly unplayable for most people

LOL !

[David Kolář]

But to make it right - game looks awesome. I just don't like when it is nerfed on purpose when better quality is there available to release without any significant effort of dev team.

[Medusa]

Originally posted by David Kolář:

Actually texture quality uses mainly VRAM, performance hit is not so significant (if of course VRAM is not that bottleneck). In most cases it also worth decreasing other effects in favor of better texture quality, since textures makes a huge difference in detail and sharpness of final image. However question is, if dev team has better textures to export than this or not. I personally think texture resolution is somewhat sufficient, mostly, problem is, there are some assets which has texture resolution somewhat worse then "average" asset in game. Those things should be fixed at least.

You know how it works!
But indeed, maybe they do not even have higher quality textures.
I vaguely remember however, that mostly when a game is created the first time the textures are made they are made at ridiculously high quality, then later downscaled for actual ingame use...
Correct me if i'm wrong!

[David Kolář]

Originally posted by orophertaralom:

You know how it works!
But indeed, maybe they do not even have higher quality textures.
I vaguely remember however, that mostly when a game is created the first time the textures are made they are made at ridiculously high quality, then later downscaled for actual ingame use...
Correct me if i'm wrong!

Yes, you are right. But that is the point. Source texture are usually higher, but somewhat random number - depends on what quality certain texture is made. Without downscaling textures some textures would be unneceserally big and some does not. So downscaling is always needed for purpose get sizes of textures in proper ratio to how big it look on model. Of course advertisings like 4K textures etc is bulls**ting, because you can't have all textures in 4K or any other resolution. You need much smaller texture for tin can or mug than for 4m tall wall. Basically textures should be around that size which is needed for any item on the map to be drawn on average screen resolution from closest possible distance from textured object to display 1 texel on 1 screen pixel. So of course small objects or objects viewed from far distance need small textures while big objects or even small objects viewed from very close distance need big textures.

[David Kolář]

And main problem of course is that in some cases they did not choose the proper size of texture for any asset, so in final game, some assets might appear blurry when you approach them to close distance. Some games fixes these overscaled textures with patches.

[David Kolář]

Anyway, hi-res texture pack is just naming, nothing else. From what I feel, textures in this game are somewhat same quality, like for example hi-res texture pack in Watch Dogs 2. So game is not "missing" hi-res texture pack, it has high enough texture built-in. Or better say, WD2 fixed with hi-res pack what they should but did not put into base game. But again, that was not bad idea. They made choice for people which don't want to use them to not download them at all. And on the other hand, any from this does not mean AC can't have even better textures. It probably can. However I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't release it even when they can, because PC player base is bunch of crying kids and when they release it, lot of people will be flaming on Steam forum they can't play it on ultra now. You know how it works. Steam forum is very unfriendly place for developers and thousands of flaming players basically ruining gaming industry, especially those with Titans GPUs which thinks they should run every game on Ultra on 60 fps. Because of those people, we can't have "super-duper-mega-Ultra" options in games ready for future. Devs are pushed to release game with only as high graphic to be able to run on average hardware even though they would be able to push graphic options limits much higher. Players are the problem, not devs, sadly :(

[Audacio]

Originally posted by Thoddy398:

Originally posted by Audacio:

Game is clearly unplayable for most people

LOL !

What's the funny? "Most" doesn't mean everyone, if you don't know the difference. in fact, playable or not it's a matter of personal taste, for me, drops below 40 fps in cities is unplayable.

[David Kolář]

Originally posted by Audacio:

Originally posted by Thoddy398:

LOL !

What's the funny? "Most" doesn't mean everyone, if you don't know the difference. in fact, playable or not it's a matter of personal taste, for me, drops below 40 fps in cities is unplayable.

Most means at least more than 50%. Even though maybe 90% of comments on steam forum is about unplayable game it is like 1% of total players, because only unsatisfied players are crying on the forum. Millions, literally, millions of people is enjoying this game fine.

[Audacio]

Originally posted by David Kolář:

Originally posted by Audacio:

What's the funny? "Most" doesn't mean everyone, if you don't know the difference. in fact, playable or not it's a matter of personal taste, for me, drops below 40 fps in cities is unplayable.

Most means at least more than 50%. Even though maybe 90% of comments on steam forum is about unplayable game it is like 1% of total players, because only unsatisfied players are crying on the forum. Millions, literally, millions of people is enjoying this game fine.

That doesn't mean they're experiencing zero issues, a lot of people think's that playing a game that stutters despite the hardware specs, is good and vote for a positive review, and yet they're enjoying the game, but some people are more demanding than others. We all know that this game, like almost every game Ubisoft releases to PC is problematic in some way, and it's a fact. Only the fact that the game runs good in some computers and bad in others, even with the same specs, means that this game needs to be fixed.

[David Kolář]

Originally posted by Audacio:

That doesn't mean they're experiencing zero issues, a lot of people think's that playing a game that stutters despite the hardware specs, is good and vote for a positive review, and yet they're enjoying the game, but some people are more demanding than others. We all know that this game, like almost every game Ubisoft releases to PC is problematic in some way, and it's a fact. Only the fact that the game runs good in some computers and bad in others, even with the same specs, means that this game needs to be fixed.

In game of this size occasional stuttering is absolutly normal. If you think it is not, you can start to make your own game and prove otherwise. Making 100% smooth unstutterring game is nearly (if not completely) impossible, of course if you don't nerf graphic so much it will run on everything with big big reserve of CPU, GPU and IO performance. And you don't have guarantee even then. On big AAA title played on millions computers it run much above game industry's average on release date. More players, more problems overall. But it is great game and they did great job with optimization, especially in comparison with previous AC games.