DF: Rise of the Tomb Raider PC

We cant have a normal dicussion without trolls ruining it. So sad......

@loco145: Why would anyone think a console version would be better than a PC version?

Don't forget that the $9,000 PC price is the initial price. It doesn't include the $2,000/month upgrade prices to stay relevant with consoles.

weren't you the one who started slinging insults at people and console gamers in general. Not very nice

maybe if it was a WB game

I am not the one is spreading disinformation about pc gamers unlike you

Seriously just close this thread already, trolls have taken over.

What misinformation?

Sorry, but you are not good enough for the professional troll academy. Return once you master your skills.

What?

dont worry if you keep training, maybe one day you will be accepted

@thepclovingguy: clean up your quote chains

tell that to your friend

Please. We want to keep this forum clean. Pay attention to the number of quote chains you use.

@thepclovingguy: Who's telling jokes?

what?

Please stop derailing this topic. We are discussing graphical differences between platforms.

Please stop changing the subject, you are going off-topic again

So I spent a couple of hours on it today and encountered a few problems which I'm not entirely sure whose fault it is. My PC or the game. If it persists, I may reinstall the game.

Running it on Very High with all the trimmings, and normal gameplay is absolutely fine, crisp, gorgeous. I wouldn't guess on the frame rate ( can check through nvidia but didn't bother before) but it was running great.

Except on some certain cut scenes where it stuttered. We're not talking a frame rate drop. It was like a DVD film when the disc was scratched. It caused me to be mauled by a bear. Having watched The Revenant earlier in the day at the cinema it's the second bear mauling I have been subjected to in a day and I'm feeling sensitive right now. What the hell is going on?

Because some devs don't give a crap about PC. Tecmo Koei for one.

It's the poor peasants who are jelly about this

Ok I'm getting poor frames because of the new Build for Windows 10 insider, memory leak, pretty cool, game was using 7.7gigs of my 8 gigs of ram, still was getting 26-45 frames maxed. Cant wait for that issue to be fixed so I can play 60fps on high preset.

i have no performance drops ingame at all and i have it installed on an 850 evo ssd and it still stutters at points the worst was the avalanche scene aswell as the bear attck, it just seems like its glitchy asset streaming,pretty sure its not performance related.

Reinstalliing will make no difference at all,the game needs a patch to fix it (probably) :P

Just turn the setting for textures to high instead of very high and it will solve the problem. The game uses 3.9GB of VRAM (not really sure with this but it is surely using a big chunk of VRAM) when the textures are set to very high causing stuttering especially in cut scenes.

It's a VRAM issue.

Cant have logical discussions these days without elevated irrational thoughts it seems. Sad.

If a game is on PC, it is better than the console version 99/100 times. Console versions being better are an extreme rarity. That's just fact - and I don't even play games on a PC.

not by a big step, cause devs dont want to offend sony and microsoft, thats why they downgraded the witcher 3

sniff, sniff, we will never see these graphics

because most times it is? OR at least equal..enjoy your friday

HA HA HA !!!! 99/100 the PC version is the best.

Enjoy PC gamers. Great game.

nah..

"The closest match requires a meaty system to get the job done - an i5 quad with something along the lines of a GTX 960 to hit 1080p30 on high settings."

How does that equate to a pc win? Yes, if you have the means then pc is the best way to experience the game. But seems like the xb1 version is an overall better product for gamers on a budget, even discounting the hardware cost, the xb1 game has been out for a while and can be brought cheaper than the recently released pc version.

Good catch lol

I am now officially scared by the gullibility of some people on this forum.

Well I guess to be fair, that is old shit people used to throw around on SW last gen. But yeah, many of them should know better

So glad I'm rich enough to afford both consoles and a gaming PC with the monthly £2000 subscription for new parts.

The Xbox version is not a complete 1 to 1 of PC high settings.

The Xbox one uses a lower quality version of Ambient Occlusion and lacks the tessellation of the PC version. Also the Xbox One version is lacking proper dynamic shadows and instead they use prebaked shadows which means in certain scenes there are not shadows for things like trees when they are present on the PC version.

The Xbox One version is using a lower anisotropic filtering method which causes blurry textures compared to PC and the game does not always operate at 1920x1080 with cutscenes instead being at 1440x1080.

Xbox One is like at its lowest settings in some areas lmao.

The very high textures use double the vram compared to the high texture setting.

It's funny because the difference between very high and high is pretty much unnoticeable in most cases except for close up cutscene shots of Lara and a few more details here or there on select few textures.

Certainly doesn't seem worth going from 3GB of vRAM to 6GB vRAM at 1080p.

You need at least 6GB of vRAM to run very high textures without major stuttering.

If you have the vRAM then enable very high textures because there is no performance difference but if you are not sporting a 290/290x/390x 8gb version or 980ti/Titan X then don't bother switching to very high textures because you will experience lots of stuttering once you get past chapter 2 and reach the Soviet Installation.

Nvidia themselves made this statement so it's not like I am the only one who doesn't see much difference.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-graphics-and-performance-guide#rise-of-the-tomb-raider-texture-quality

In the majority of scenes there's a minimal improvement on Very High, as exemplified by the following set of images and comparisons.

Those with 4GB GPUs are recommended to use High as VRAM stuttering can be observed on Very High, especially when swapping between gameplay, cutscenes and cinematics, and between gameplay zone transitions.

For a smooth experience with those max-quality, 4K x 4K textures, a 6GB GPU is instead recommended.

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/rise-of-the-tomb-raider/alt/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-001-very-high-vs-high-alt.html

High textures

Very High textures

@quadknight: Not true actually the XB1 is mostly equivalent to PC high settings.

Minus shadow and AF hopefully they don't gimp the PS4 version.

This reminds me a lot of Shadow of Mordor. Where the highest setting took up a lot of VRAM because they were simply uncompressed textures. This seems to be the case here too.

But the game blows my mind (and runs at 60fps) at high textures for me, so I don't see a point in upping it any further.

look at 0.45 and you will see that the textures are a lot sharper and more detailed on pc. Also, lets dont forget the hair is also a lot smoother on pc at 0.20

I wonder if my dual 980Ti Strixs will be hamstrung at 2560x1080.

Most people with 980Ti cards said that at 1440p there was no stuttering so you should be ok at very high textures.

So far this is the only vanilla game that has cause me to have stuttering that impacted my enjoyment when at max settings on my 2 970s.

Even Shadow of Mordor was not this bad with that game very rarely experiencing stuttering for me.

In Rise of the Tomb Raider, open areas like the Soviet Installation and Village will have lots of stuttering (like 5 second freezes) with textures at very high if you have less than 6GB of vRAM.

I don't mind playing at high textures because the difference is not really noticeable beyond close ups of Lara and some extra shading on certain textures but even then it is hard to notice.

I've seen only a few textures where I saw a big enough difference from high and very high.

It's weird such a small improvement requires double the vRAM (3GB to 6GB).

@thepclovingguy: But those are Ultra settings. He said it looked worse then medium which according to DF isnt true.