Stalker 2

arc@css said:
iCStsHr.jpg

:D :D
Click to expand...
NO really. I still play them every now and then ClearSky my favourite.
 
arknor said:
but it could be as good as starfield was, I bet no one regrets a preorder of that...
I got the expansion included with mine for that and still never tried it yet...

TNA & MRK have me convinced this is going to be good so I'ma upgrade my monitor to a new oled monitor for maximum enjoyment and true blacks.
this games probably a 5/10 on a TFT
Click to expand...
If two is like the originals but needless to updated graphics and storylines etc. then yes it`s worth ordering but i am in wait and see mode. ;)
 
shamus21 said:
If two is like the originals but needless to updated graphics and storylines etc. then yes it`s worth ordering but i am in wait and see mode. ;)
Click to expand...
I didn't even like the originals that much, the exploration was just cool at the time.

Be weird if chernobylite is better than stalker 2

store.steampowered.com

Chernobylite Complete Edition on Steam

Chernobylite is a science-fiction survival horror RPG. Set in the hyper-realistic, 3D-scanned wasteland of Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone, explore a non-linear storyline in your search to uncover the truth of your tortured past.
store.steampowered.com store.steampowered.com
for anyone who has no idea it exists
 
Last edited:
Diskspace has crept up from 150gb to 160gb. Might actually push me to buying it on Steam rather than playing it on Gamepass as my gamepass sometimes grabs twice the diskspace for a title and 320gb is a touch much to be eaten up
 
El Jimben said:
Hardware specs have just been released. You'll need a 4080, 7700x & 32GB RAM if you wanna play it at 'Epic' detail i.e. 60+ FPS @ 4K.

zFJcS7v.jpg
Click to expand...

You won't be reaching 60fps at 4k no matter what GPU you have, unless you enable frame generation and enjoy the blur it creates

Benchmarks are out and this game is extremely CPU heavy, everything from the 4070ti up to the 4090 has pretty much the same performance due to cpu bottlenecks and these bottlenecks happen even at 4k
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
You won't be reaching 60fps at 4k no matter what GPU you have, unless you enable frame generation and enjoy the blur it creates
Click to expand...
That is not true at all. Every single UE5 game for me so far has ran 60fps without FG and only DLSS 3.7 Performance. Hell even path traced games run at 60fps with just upscaling.

VA2DvfL.png


Even NV's own numbers put pre-FG performance above 60fps there.

New NV drivers out just now too for the game.

Remember UE5 is made to be used with upscaling too for the best results, that's coming direct from Epic.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
That is not true at all. Every single UE5 game for me so far has ran 60fps without FG and only DLSS 3.7 Performance. Hell even path traced games run at 60fps with just upscaling.

VA2DvfL.png


Even NV's own numbers put pre-FG performance above 60fps there.

New NV drivers out just now too for the game.

Remember UE5 is made to be used with upscaling too for the best results, that's coming direct from Epic.
Click to expand...

I said 4k, as in native. The chart you posted clearly shows no GPU above 52fps at 4k.

Also those numbers don't make sense unless frame Gen is also enabled because it says it's using dlss performance mode with 4k output, that means 1080p rendering and if you look at the native 1080p results it shows the 4090 around 80fps... so somehow it's 80fps at 1080p and then 120fps also at 1080? 50% performance difference at 1080p with the same GPU when comparing two charts? Sounds like dlss frame gen is on to me and Nvidia is being sketchy by hiding that dlss frame gen is on



Edit: yes I was right, bottom left corner of your chart - clearly says frame generation is on ;)
 
Last edited:
You just said 4K, not native 4K. Again, UE5 is not made to be run at native, Epic quite literally stated they designed it to be used with upscaling as it is the clear future for quality and performance combined.

You are getting confused, just because the internal render is 1080 does not mean that the performance should be the same as native 1080p, there is a lot more going on that enhances the quality and there is a lot the GPU cores are doing during image reconstruction stage for the final output resolution.


Watch any of mine or others gameplay videos for example, performance and visual fidelity are very high even without frame gen and only using DLSS Performance on a 4K output in UE5.
 
Last edited:
will13 said:
It does mention FG in the corner of the image
Click to expand...
The grey section is DLSS off (no upscaling, no FG), the Green is DLSS3 on, which for Nvidia terminology means both FG and upscaling on. I'm on about just DLSS upscaling on, which sits square in the middle which is what we see in other UE5 games right now as well.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
The grey section is DLSS off (no upscaling, no FG), the Green is DLSS3 on, which for Nvidia terminology means both FG and upscaling on. I'm on about just DLSS upscaling on, which sits square in the middle which is what we see in other UE5 games right now as well.
Click to expand...


Ok, im more on about the game looking like it's cpu heavy. Once you remove the FG, 4k output with dlss performance (1080p rendering) you get: 85fps on 4090, 84 on 4080 super, 82 on a 4070ti super and 76 on 4070 super. These numbers are all grouped tightly together while the game is rendering up from 1080p using a 14900k CPU
 
Hmm I remain sceptical still, I will wait to see it in person at launch on a 12th gen CPU not 13th/14th gen for obvious reasons lol.

GSC stated they optimised specifically for PC and Xbox CPU usage as well as RAM optimisations. The 3 hours current reviewers like IGN have already played said it was very smooth and performant, and their b-roll videos also show the kind of performance I would expect from an optimised UE5 release with software Lumen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom