Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Most of the extra FPS it gives seem to be old frames that it could queue up during the momentary gaps in the high cpu load.
Sure, it helps it to appear to perform ok when looking at an FPS counter, but in reality, its no better than before. Simulation is slower. TAA is better because of the lower CPU usage on a cpu demanding game.
Edit: But hey, its something else off their to-do list which makes room for proper fixes, I guess. I read that next months patch will supposedly fix the tax bugs and land value issues.
People cried for mods, code mods were released, these peoply cry "now mods should repair the game"
When you have a good CPU and you want better graphics or higher resolution you choose DLSS, when you have a slower CPU and slower memory then you choose TAA. I don't think that DLSS will slow the game when you use TAA or less antiaaliasing.
What if.. nobody is crying.
What if, some people "cried" for it and others didn't!
What if, I always had the same opinion of DLSS and it being added just reinforced my opinion.
Show me a post where I cried for DLSS :D You won't find one.
I've always said it should only be added once the game is actually optimised, because as above, it doesn't help, it makes simulation performance worse (with a good cpu - i9 14900k)
You know there's an awful lot of people with interest in CS2, each with their own opinions.
The fact I'm seeing fanboys, sorry reviewers, on YT going on about DLSS making it playable is hilarious. They're often running RTX 4080 or better, but need DLSS to play at 1080 "almost smoothly". Give me a break. People shouldn't be spending 4080 money as an example on a GPU just to hit playable frames at up-scaled 1080 or 1440, because then it means in all instances they're actually rendering the game at the 720 resolution ballpark.
Defend the game all you want, but my point still stands: Fix the engine first to optimise performance. Too many games these days are using DLSS to make up for their own shortcomings.
Also, you spelt Anti-aliasing wrong.
if you have a high end cpu i9 14900k or ig 13900k, you must some setting change in your bios for stable performance, there are some problems with this cpu in unreal engine, maybe you find solution on the internet.
There's two performance metrics.
FPS whereby for a game like this, 30 is fine, its not an FPS, of course, more is better, however, not at the cost of simulation performance, which is cpu bound.
The low FPS is mostly a consequence of poor cpu optimisation.
Slow simulation, such as running the game on quarter speed just to get 60fps is not worth it. DLSS takes 10%-20% from cpu performance. Its better getting 30 and faster simulation speed.
None of this is about properly setting up the bios - which sure, some people don't do and have problems, I get that, but those that do know how to setup their machines properly, still have poor simulation performance because the game is unoptimised and DLSS on top of that takes even more of the cpu cycles.
Open nvidia performance overlay Alt R and check cpu utilisation with/without DLSS on a city of say 1m population and you will see. Difference is huge.
But what do you get with this save :P
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yt_yoCvl90tjoOZ3zyIOsaiy8kSfJ6bO/view?usp=sharing