TR Forums

Huh, so that's what cheating looks like. I know it's there (when someone gets like 50-2 kill ratios, they could be really good but it's rather suspicious) but had always wondered how it would work.

Aphasia wrote:

I'm not surprised that the cheat surfaced now, because much of the game is probably reliant on the same base as BF3, with tons of refinements to things. But not reusing the part of the codebase that worked would've been wasteful.

If by "refinements" you mean running at half the framerate and looking worse, then yes. I thought Planetside 2 had poor optimization but BF4 has set a new bar.

This will probably be the first BF game I don't buy (other than BC1 which was console-only). I already wasn't very excited about a $60 ($110 with premium) map pack, but after playing the beta I actually WISH that's what it was.

I played it a little on my 360 (which I'm getting rid of soon) because I can't afford the system I really want right now... but I was sitting next to my friend who can run it on ultra on his PC. It made me want to pull an Office Space on my 360.

travbrad - please repeate after me... B E T A - BETA!

Guess you haven't looked at any of the clips on youtube from some of the other maps, just jumped straight ahead to conclusions based on a Beta which really is there in order to test the infrastructure and server side systems. If it run's like that on release, then we would have a problem. But considering not all the graphics options even hooked up yet in in the beta, and it's not a current build of the game, there are still changes to come. Beta is actually beta, not a demo.

BF4 Beta (even with some options disabled and possibly some debugging tools running in background on both clients and game servers) is already much, much better optimized for modern hardware than even the current version of Planetside2 (how many months ago it was released?). All you have to do is to look at your CPU utilization for all cores and compare it to PS2.

JohnC wrote:

:lol: BF4 Beta (even with some options disabled and possibly some debugging tools running in background on both clients and game servers) is already much, much better optimized for modern hardware than even the current version of Planetside2 (how many months ago it was released?). All you have to do is to look at your CPU utilization for all cores and compare it to PS2.

I'd have loved to have tried Planetside 2 if it wasn't DX9 heh. Sucks that so many games still are, though at least past this year there shouldn't be too many dx9 releases. We'll see.

Personally the BF4 beta is a mite boring to me. I mean, one map, go figure. Plus in BF3 I usually played Gun Master/Scavenger.

Plays smooth as silk on my 660. GeForce Experience is pushing WAY too low settings for this game and Splinter Cell: Blacklist where it was pretty reliable before. Bit disappointing, that...might as well not use it at all.

As to Punkbuster: whenever I have games using it crash on launch I run their stupid manual updater, it finds an update, and voila everything works again. Why they can't make the autoupdater work is beyond me.

Just FYI, EA has pushed out a small BF4 update (about 67MB) today. Most likely just some minor bug fixes.

So anyone have tips to reduce CPU usage or am I stuck since I'm on a Q9450?

I'm at about 70% on all 8 threads on i7 3820 overclocked to 4.4 GHz. Pretty impressed with the CPU usage overall.

Maybe turn down mesh detail so that there is less draw distance and lower quality LODs?

BF4 devs are aware of performance issues and are still working on them. Next patch should have some improvements already:
https://twitter.com/repi/status/387582507710828546

And the new patch is up:
https://twitter.com/repi/status/388225853768732672
Notable improvements are performance fixes for 4- and 6-core CPU's.
Also random fixes for random crashes (though many people report that they still have crashes even after this patch).

I was having issues running the Beta until I changed my processor affinity to high. Funny thing is the MSI Afterburner won't show framerates or frame times... Never seen that before.

You have in-game tools for showing FPS and other performance data... I don't remember the commands, just open the console and type "List", you will see all of them.

Yeah, they work alright... but you have to reload them every time you start the game. Afterburner has a trending graph that is really nice for working on issues and smoothing out framerates. I'm not that overly worried being that it is a beta and I'm running 50 - 60 fps with Adaptive Vsynch on. The game plays well with some video issues. Again, not that worried about it on a Beta.
Overall, I like the improvements to the game and can't wait to pay the full game.

PerfOverlay.DrawFPS 1 is the command if I remember correctly.

Looks like the BF4 beta performs substantially better under Windows 8:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/Specials/Battlefield-4-CPU-Test-Windows-8-1091767/

http://ecache.ilbe.com/files/attach/new/20131009/12247466/_11612356217/2146777190/34ffeb06e90f84f1416ebf22fdfe0044.png

Oh, and memory usage is rather high. My system is using over 7GB of memory when playing the BF4 beta. Looks like you need 12-16GB of total system memory to give the game enough room to really stretch its legs.

End User wrote:

Looks like the BF4 beta performs substantially better under Windows 8:

Use Twitter links instead:
https://twitter.com/repi/status/387582507710828546
https://twitter.com/repi/status/388073036630339584

JohnC wrote:

Use Twitter links instead4

Why?

Because that way people can see what you're talking about. All I see in your post is a blank icon with "No Deeplinking Please".
Plus the official source of information is always better than unreliable third-party benchmark data.

JohnC wrote:

Because that way people can see what you're talking about. All I see in your post is a blank icon with "No Deeplinking Please".
Plus the official source of information is always better than unreliable third-party benchmark data.

I guess I'll have to check my posts in incognito mode when I link to images. Fixed now.

You should just try to use Imgur for next time, the images hosted there always work...

Anyways, it is not surprising the Win8 version performs better - they are specifically using DX11.1 features (though he didn't say which ones) to improve performance, there is an interesting Conversation on Twitter (not only the first post but also his following replies) about it:
https://twitter.com/repi/status/387582507710828546

JohnC wrote:

Anyways, it is not surprising the Win8 version performs better - they are specifically using DX11.1 features (though he didn't say which ones) to improve performance

This should be a sign to Window 7 gamers to start thinking about their move to Windows 8.1. I'd also suggest a current gen quad core Intel CPU or six core AMD CPU and 16GB of memory.

Would love to see results of a much higher resolution than 1280x720 though, because that doesnt correspond to most gamers actual setup in any way or form...

Aphasia wrote:

Would love to see results of a much higher resolution than 1280x720 though, because that doesnt correspond to most gamers actual setup in any way or form...

I love how they pit a $1000 Intel CPU vs a $140 AMD CPU too.

hah (not even gonna bother checking the Phenom)

The Phenom was about $150 as well.

Just tried the beta again after a break. It seems that changing resolution has little to no effect on the CPU side of things, but will drastically change the GPU side, so testing at a low resolution for CPU stuff doesn't really matter that much, and it may be the better way to show a CPU bottleneck.

It's been long standard that lower res are easier to get CPU bound, while higher resolutions become GPU bound, so if they want to show a problem that makes the game CPU bound, testing at low res is the right way, the problem is this, with only that test, and not tested at higher res, it doesn't really say if the same holds true in a GPU bound scenario. It might be the same difference, or you might have a very minor difference thanks to the GPU maxin out.

Although BF has always been a very CPU heavy game thanks to everything going on and the scale with it, even more so when it became BF3 and now BF4.

Now that teh beta is over I thought it would be better to start new thread.

Everyone probably already know that the retail release is on October 29th, but if you didn't - here is official info about release date and all the available versions:
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield- ... lease-date
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/buy

If you want to know more about its technical side (specifically the Frostbite engine), you should follow (and ask questions!) this Twitter:
https://twitter.com/repi

Also, in case if you are interested in renting the servers - the official prices are out and preorders are already available from official providers. Here is the list of official server providers:
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/ne ... lefield-4/
The prices are around $75 (more or less) for 64-slot ranked servers. Be aware that there is a maximum of 4 spectator and 2 commander slots per server, this is why there is also a 70-slot option.

Isn't there still one more day of beta?

Yea, the end date is 15th, but it's basically over.

Seriously.....cant we just have 1 BF4 thread and just change the title????