Anyone getting Kingdom come?

Yeah, looks like the game has some serious performance/optimization issues. And crashes.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Yeah, looks like the game has some serious performance/optimization issues. And crashes.

Show me.

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Yeah, looks like the game has some serious performance/optimization issues. And crashes.

Show me.

In the forums link you posted.

Also, Guru 3D's benchmark doesn't mean crap if they didn't post the minimum frame rates. Most gaming benchmarks have minimum/maximum frame rates side by side. That's an important metric to gauge how optimized a game is. I've seen plenty of games that could run 200-300fps average, and they still run like shit because of the dips, and stuttering.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Yeah, looks like the game has some serious performance/optimization issues. And crashes.

Show me.

In the forums link you posted.

Also, Guru 3D's benchmark doesn't mean crap if they didn't post the minimum frame rates. Most gaming benchmarks have minimum/maximum frame rates side by side. That's an important metric to gauge how optimized a game is. I've seen plenty of games that could run 200-300fps average, and they still run like shit because of the dips, and stuttering.

Actually in those links people say game works just fine. Even on guru is shown how fps works in the beginning of game.

Graphics is made to be at most accurate as possible to middle age. Game is showing maximum details possible: castles, woods, plains, roads, detail of trees, density of grass .. all of that seems is maxed and people enjoy that atmosphere at least after reaction on twitch. In that regards during fights there will be for sure impact on fps as more objects are on scene and CPU will have more work to do. This game is not Doom, Destiny, Overwatch etc. where are two objects in scenery to have stable 60 fps on middle tier computers.

After learning more about game and observation, thx to guru chart too, its quite obvious that this game is not made for 1050 gpus, but for strong machines with 10xx cards or middle tier machine with 970 980 cards.

Regards Pascal: this kind of gpus are rather more optimized for rendering technology, that is reason why owners of 10xx cards after changing resolution has almost no impact on fps or when they change details its not very visible. Graphic cards before Pascal are "designed" in different way and change of details or resolution gives more visible fps boost.

CPU, chipset, memory frequency are much more important for 10xx gpu so if somebody has i7 fifth generation with 1070 can have fps similar to 970 card. Thats how this architecture works. Thats reason why people have better results with 970 980 cards in this game and others too.

For example Witcher 3 on low settings has gpu load 30%. Difference between 1024 and 1920 are two fps. When put maximum settings, GPU can have load 90% and loss of fps can vary from none to 80 drop to 60 fps - with all setting maxed from low to ultra with maxed hairworks etc. On 9xx cards only hairworks itself can give 20 fps boost.

Regards CPU bottleneck its not about cpu work on 100% (of course there are cases) but it means how Pascal and CPU architecture works: check this. That pretty nicely shows, that its not about load on CPU, but about architecture of those chips and chipset and speed/technology of other hardware works together. In this example is pretty clear seen that even overclocked by 500mhz in some games or places can be from none to 20% - for example crash of car is 50fps vs 70fps for lower tact cpu and again cpu is not used on 100%.

Resolution has little to no impact on frame rates only in situations where the game is CPU limited, with the GPU having plenty of head room to push the higher resolution. A 1080ti will probably run 1080p about the same as it does 1440p when used with a lot of different CPUs for this reason. That's an optimization issue with the game, and results like this are not typical.

No "optimized" game should ever be using that much CPU resources. This is the kinda thing that happens with early access games which aren't optimized. Yet in this case, we got a full priced $60 game at release that performs like a fucking alpha or beta game.

Each individual's definition of "runs fine" with no real context given is pure speculation. Runs fine for a lot of people is FPS between 30-60. Or the standards could be as low as the game simply playing. I can't apply my personal definition of "runs fine" to someone's comments who's got an entirely different perspective.

My definition of "runs fine" is 60fps+ 99.X% of the time. And with no micro stuttering, crashes, etc. In the situations where context was given by people giving feedback on the performance, this is what I'm basing my opinion on. It seems like the game doesn't "run fine" according to my expectations for a $60 game on release.

Rather than lower my standards/expectations, I'll just stop paying $60 for games, and/or wait until they optimize their shit games. I'm not paying $60 to be a fucking beta tester. I don't mind occasionally paying $10-$15 for an early access game, if it looks promising, but I know what to expect with these types of games.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Resolution has little to no impact on frame rates only in situations where the game is CPU limited, with the GPU having plenty of head room to push the higher resolution. A 1080ti will probably run 1080p about the same as it does 1440p when used with a lot of different CPUs for this reason. That's an optimization issue with the game, and results like this are not typical.

I dont understand what you said. With 9xx (and older) cards change of resolution gives fps boost. In PoE change of resolution on 970 can go from 120 fps to 180 fps. If you have 1080 card change in fps is 0 fps and fps is only 150fps. I know, I tested it. Its not CPU bottleneck, its in Pascal architecture how cooperate with other hardware.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

No "optimized" game should ever be using that much CPU resources. This is the kinda thing that happens with early access games which aren't optimized. Yet in this case, we got a full priced $60 game at release that performs like a fucking alpha or beta game.

I dont agree, whatever program should use maximum of CPU if needed. Thats the reason why not only gamers needs better and better hardware. Not to have reserve, but get more power/speed in whatever they do.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Each individual's definition of "runs fine" with no real context given is pure speculation. Runs fine for a lot of people is FPS between 30-60. Or the standards could be as low as the game simply playing.

My definition of "runs fine" is 60fps+ 99.X% of the time. And with no micro stuttering, crashes, etc. In the situations where context was given by people giving feedback on the performance, this is what I'm basing my opinion on. It seems like the game doesn't "run fine" according to my expectations for a $60 game on release.

Rather than lower my standards/expectations, I'll just stop paying $60 for games, and/or wait until they optimize their shit games. I'm not paying $60 to be a fucking beta tester. I don't mind occasionally paying $10-$15 for an early access game, if it looks promising, but I know what to expect with these types of games.

In scenario from Steam forum, in link provided earlier, guy said: "Performance Report, Kinda Bad", "CPU usage is too much which does not allow full utilization of gpu on any settings". And you see in his videos, that CPU all cores go around 40%. FPS he gets is accurate on machine and settings he has.

Regards those two with i7 8700 cpu seems is problem probably on their side (but who knows what is different in 8xxx vs 7xxx cpus - maybe patch is needed) as in other discussion people with similar hardware have 80fps+: "Just logged in and ran around the open world a bit (3440x1440 on a 1080Ti/6700K/16GB of DDR4 @ 3200mhz, mixture of high/medium settings on Windows 10 Enterprise 64-bit) and I'm getting a pretty consistent 70+ FPS with dips to the high sixties".

If somebody has lower hardware, than he asks for optimization for his hardware, but problem is his "shit" rig ("shit" is your word), not the program. If producers of whatever program find where they can do compromise which can not be visible, great. But engine on which Kingdom runs is already pretty maxed and tested and I doubt, there will be some boost in fps.

Detail of graphics. Imo hardware needs are pretty accurate.

I was so excited about this and even backed it up on kickstarter. After the initial downgrade controversy of The Witcher 3, plus some pf the info at the time that indicated that it would be dumbed down, this was my greatest hope as the ultimate Euro-style RPG to end all RPGs. Luckily The Witcher 3, especially modded ended up being a masterpiece, even though quite a bit more casual than the previous titles (mods like The Enhanced Edition fixed that) and forgot about Kingdom Come.

I have it, but have not played it yet, maybe i will have some time in the Weekend. My expectations for it have lowered dramatically over the years. What seemed like unbelievable graphics back in 2014, now seem just OK, especially considering the VERY subpar character models and animations. Currently, modded Witcher 3 looks far better IMO, even though less realistic(as it sould, since the game is fantasy).

The optimisation does not look very promising. I wonder how my 6gb GTX 1060 will handle it. The combat, even though interesting, seems clunky and a worse version of Mount n Blade. The save system seems like a major pain in the ass, especially for guys like me that would not be able to play more than 1, MAYBE 2 hours in a row. Also EVERY SINGLE reviewer pointed it out that the game is VERY buggy, with some bugs even being game breaking.

However i will have to play it myself and see. I really want it to be good and succeed, since I generally prefer Eurojank games over Ameritrash.

Witcher 3 had at least 5 times the budget though so it's not really a fair comparison. I believe patches and mods will fix most of the issues with the game.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Witcher 3 had at least 5 times the budget though so it's not really a fair comparison. I believe patches and mods will fix most of the issues with the game.

Sure, even though most of it went to marketing rather than the actual development. Most of the worries about the game back in 2014 were indeed due to the increased budget. It seemed like CDPR tried to appeal to a greater audience making compromises, like HEAVY downgrades to reach parity with consoles, dumbed down choices and consequences system, far easier gameplay. Even thoug every single one of these points ended up being true, the game still managed to be a masterpiece since it reached balance between accessibility and the features that made The Witcher franchise unique.

Witcher 2 had possibly less budget than Kingdom Come, and yet, at the time of release it had the greatest graphics ever seen on an RPG(in some cases it even looks better than the Witcher 3), and it had the most impactful choice and consequence system ever seen in a game, where upon your choice almost 50% of the game was different and even took place in an entirely different location.

My point is that CDPR had managed even in the earlier games, being on the edge of bankrupty to progress the genre further, and i had hoped that Kingdom Come would do the same and more. Right now to me it does not look like it, but i will be VERY happy if i am proved wrong. Maybe alot has to do with the fact that it was delayed way too much, and let the hype train get way too big. Especially with the graphics. Smaller developers usually can deliver great graphics due to the fact that they have not reached the point where they care about console parity etc. And the graphics did look insane(besides character models which assumed would be fixed and they did not) in 2014, but now not so much. However I want the game to amazing. I have already payed for it.

I rly rly rly do not like the combat in this game.

It's such dogshit




<.<