Battlefield V performance

Kaapstad · 8 Dec 2018 at 16:13

LoadsaMoney said:

This is the first time I have watched a video of Battlefield V being played.

My comments below have nothing to do with Ray Tracing only the actual game.

The graphics are terrible for the subject matter and absolutely nothing looks realistic or authentic.

A good example is the way the Tiger 1 tank looks and moves it is really bad and the same goes for just about everything else.

In real life these things are not bright shinny and pretty.

If Game Devs are going to produce games like this and use tech like RTX for realism the least they can do is get the graphics and movement correct.

Battlefield V visually is total sugar coated garbage.

opethdisciple · 8 Dec 2018 at 16:22

Kaapstad said:
This is the first time I have watched a video of Battlefield V being played.

My comments below have nothing to do with Ray Tracing only the actual game.

The graphics are terrible for the subject matter and absolutely nothing looks realistic or authentic.

A good example is the way the Tiger 1 tank looks and moves it is really bad and the same goes for just about everything else.

In real life these things are not bright shinny and pretty.

If Game Devs are going to produce games like this and use tech like RTX for realism the least they can do is get the graphics and movement correct.

Battlefield V visually is total sugar coated garbage.

I agree the tanks look way too modern for the period.

fantasticCG · 8 Dec 2018 at 17:33

They did say it’s their take on WWII and not meant to be a 100% reproduction of that time period.

The game is fun, but I can’t shake the feeling that they just copy and paste between battlefront and the BF series.

They really need to switch to a more Modern setting.

AthlonXP1800 · 8 Dec 2018 at 17:36

Kaapstad said:
This is the first time I have watched a video of Battlefield V being played.

My comments below have nothing to do with Ray Tracing only the actual game.

The graphics are terrible for the subject matter and absolutely nothing looks realistic or authentic.

A good example is the way the Tiger 1 tank looks and moves it is really bad and the same goes for just about everything else.

In real life these things are not bright shinny and pretty.

If Game Devs are going to produce games like this and use tech like RTX for realism the least they can do is get the graphics and movement correct.

Battlefield V visually is total sugar coated garbage.

What? A black and white picture?

In real life Tiger 1 can be shinny and pretty today.

You can see real light reflections on Tiger 1 tank when moved.

In Battlefield V without DXR ray tracing, Tiger 1 tank never shinny, with DXR ray tracing Tiger 1 tank shinny like in real life.

TheRealDeal · 8 Dec 2018 at 17:56

AthlonXP1800 said:
What? A black and white picture?

In real life Tiger 1 can be shinny and pretty today.

You can see real light reflections on Tiger 1 tank when moved.

In Battlefield V without DXR ray tracing, Tiger 1 tank never shinny, with DXR ray tracing Tiger 1 tank shinny like in real life.

That tank ain't shiny and you can see the amount of dust it's kicking up. No tank in a real war zone will be shiny unless they keep cleaning it every 30 minutes. So no in real life i doubt you will be seeing to many shiny tanks.

fantasticCG · 8 Dec 2018 at 17:59

Remember now it’s a video game it’s not real

Wrinkly · 8 Dec 2018 at 18:00

Kaapstad said:
Battlefield V visually is total sugar coated garbage.

Yep, but that is what sells.

TheRealDeal · 8 Dec 2018 at 18:00

fantasticCG said:
Remember now it’s a video game it’s not real

Lol tell him that.

Gerard · 8 Dec 2018 at 18:37

TheRealDeal said:
That tank ain't shiny and you can see the amount of dust it's kicking up. No tank in a real war zone will be shiny unless they keep cleaning it every 30 minutes. So no in real life i doubt you will be seeing to many shiny tanks.

Are people even playing the game? The tanks get dust dirt and mud on them as you play in a lot of maps, they may start off looking clean but they generally don't stay that way for long.

Rroff · 8 Dec 2018 at 18:42

fantasticCG said:
They did say it’s their take on WWII and not meant to be a 100% reproduction of that time period.

The game is fun, but I can’t shake the feeling that they just copy and paste between battlefront and the BF series.

They really need to switch to a more Modern setting.

Thing is on the other hand they've also banged on about untold stories and authenticity when it suits them but then switch to a different take on it, etc. when that suits them as well.

As it is a main game in the franchise they'd be better served sticking with an aesthetic that fits WW2 and/or not pushing it as a WW2 game in the same way if they want to do something a bit more alternative.

Gerard · 8 Dec 2018 at 18:42

Kaapstad said:
A good example is the way the Tiger 1 tank looks and moves it is really bad and the same goes for just about everything else.

If Game Devs are going to produce games like this and use tech like RTX for realism the least they can do is get the graphics and movement correct.

Seriously? So you want the tanks to move how they did in real life? Have you played the game? Try the churchill or Churchill gun carrier, it's like driving an obese beached whale and it has the maneuverability to match, but it's still probably a bit better than what it was like IRL. If they made them any closer to real life it would be a waste of time getting in them as they would be panzerfaust\bomber cannon fodder. Battlefield is not and has not ever been based in "realistic" terms, it may well use real life events but they're not portrayed as a simulator type experience. So i'm not entirely sure why this is only an issue now when it's never been any different.

nashathedog · 8 Dec 2018 at 20:16

bru · 8 Dec 2018 at 21:10

LoadsaMoney said:
Vega 64 Vs 2080 Ti, with its RTX on.

No idea what the point of that video is, as it was done on two completely different systems, different core counts and clock speeds, completely pointless comparison.

TheRealDeal · 8 Dec 2018 at 21:42

bru said:
No idea what the point of that video is, as it was done on two completely different systems, different core counts and clock speeds, completely pointless comparison.

Yea the Vega is most likely being gimped with that 4 core cpu and his 2080ti is clocked within an inch of it's life.

Gerard · 8 Dec 2018 at 22:14

There's the churchill after being ingame for a few mins, note how it doesn't look like part of a leg and has mud and dirt splattered on it.

Aztec2Step · 8 Dec 2018 at 23:29

Not really a comment on BFV's performance but more an observation; I don't like how the terrain textures are somewhat blurry and undefined (only had experience with the trial).

EDIT: That's in the campaign btw, wouldn't care about it in the multiplayer!

Kaapstad · 9 Dec 2018 at 07:51

Gerard said:
Seriously? So you want the tanks to move how they did in real life? Have you played the game? Try the churchill or Churchill gun carrier, it's like driving an obese beached whale and it has the maneuverability to match, but it's still probably a bit better than what it was like IRL. If they made them any closer to real life it would be a waste of time getting in them as they would be panzerfaust\bomber cannon fodder. Battlefield is not and has not ever been based in "realistic" terms, it may well use real life events but they're not portrayed as a simulator type experience. So i'm not entirely sure why this is only an issue now when it's never been any different.

If they are not going for realism what is the point of using RTX and gimping the fps.

Kaapstad · 9 Dec 2018 at 07:55

AthlonXP1800 said:
What? A black and white picture?

In real life Tiger 1 can be shinny and pretty today.

You can see real light reflections on Tiger 1 tank when moved.

In Battlefield V without DXR ray tracing, Tiger 1 tank never shinny, with DXR ray tracing Tiger 1 tank shinny like in real life.

If I had to use a tank in combat the last thing I would want is for it to be bright and shinny.

Life expectancy is short enough already in a big armour battle without giving your position away.

Gerard · 9 Dec 2018 at 15:37

Kaapstad said:
If they are not going for realism what is the point of using RTX and gimping the fps.

In gaming terms the game is not realistic and historically battlefield games never have been. They use real world events but that's about as far as it goes, they generally put their own spin on them as far as gameplay and authenticity is concerned. As for rtx its pretty obvious why that was used. Nvidia needed a showpiece for their new gpu feature and as battlefield V was already an nvidia sponsored title they went with that to be the first rtx enabled game. It was also originally slated to be out a month after the new gpu launched so people wouldn't have to wait long to see what rtx was like in the flesh. That didn't go to plan but they eventually got there.

Rroff · 9 Dec 2018 at 15:55

Kaapstad said:
If I had to use a tank in combat the last thing I would want is for it to be bright and shinny.

Life expectancy is short enough already in a big armour battle without giving your position away.

True - in real tank combat of that era a lot of the time engagements were won/lost based on who shot first more so than many other factors.