The Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~

MissChief · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:18

bbbearrr said:
had my first couple of hours yesterday on the game with my new GTX970. Really enjoyed it and the graphics are great.

However the loading times between maps seem to take an age, is this just cause im a peasant with no SSD ?

Yes. HTH.

Disco_P · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:22

JGStonedRaider said:
just because something is broken doesn't mean it can't be fun. Competitive 8v8 is a hell of a lot better than the ****fest that 64 man public servers are. As soon as DICE LA released CTE the vanilla game became unplayable for me at least.

Whilst it is possible for a broken game to still be fun, it mostly ruins the game for the players who supported the franchise.

The vanilla game game never been "playable" and the CTE showed the world how good it could have been. Me and SC played the CTE loads this summer and neither of us played the vanilla game since 2nd assault.

This September patch has the potential for great things. It also has the potential to be the normal dice experience and break more things than it fixes.

bbbearrr said:
had my first couple of hours yesterday on the game with my new GTX970. Really enjoyed it and the graphics are great.

However the loading times between maps seem to take an age, is this just cause im a peasant with no SSD ?

Pretty much, HDD loading times are a joke. Would definitely recommend a 120GB ssd for Windows and a few games.

HazardO · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:23

Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor - Black/Red 1 £558.29
MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming Edition 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card 2 £469.98

Order placed

wndsr · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:24

JOSH86 said:
How I pay has nowt to do with you. Where is my screen?

Waiting for the cheque to clear from HMP - hence the CC payment not BT.

What on earth are you on about?

HazardO · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:30

bbbearrr said:
However the loading times between maps seem to take an age, is this just cause im a peasant with no SSD ?

The game loads fairly slowly on SSD, but theres a lot of client server sync stuff going on. If you are joining a server at the start and find people have already made it to the middle base on conquest then you are an SSD peasant.

1kiwi · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:30

I've been thinking about upgrading allot and I just don't see the point: Game hits 135 without AA at 2560x1440 > 80% and GSYNC takes care of the rest. I'm not convinced that i would notice any difference upgrading to the 9 series.

I guess I will wait for full fat or a new game which forces my hand.

@Hazzard: That's one hell of an upgrade

HazardO · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:36

1kiwi said:
@Hazzard: That's one hell of an upgrade

But will it allow me to get a hit marker on Nexus that's the question?

Disco_P · 23 Sep 2014 at 12:56

1kiwi said:
Game hits 135 without AA at 2560x1440 > 80% and GSYNC takes care of the rest.

What do you mean 2560x1440 > 80%?

Does that mean you are running at 80% resolution scale?

HazardO · 23 Sep 2014 at 13:00

I think he means he gets 135 FPS 80% of the time, but the drops are mitigated by Gsync so it feels smother when drops do occur.

~>Dg<~ · 23 Sep 2014 at 13:19

HazardO said:
The game loads fairly slowly on SSD, but theres a lot of client server sync stuff going on. If you are joining a server at the start and find people have already made it to the middle base on conquest then you are an SSD peasant.

lol im in watching counter from 5 on my mx 512mb, on my old m4 it was slightly slower. on mech samsung drive upto a minute its worlds of difference.

1kiwi · 23 Sep 2014 at 13:48

HazardO said:
I think he means he gets 135 FPS 80% of the time, but the drops are mitigated by Gsync so it feels smother when drops do occur.

Yep! It's that good I would factor this into the decision to invest. I.e., you don't necessarily have to always be hitting 100% of your refresh rate for the game to feel really nice and smooth.

HazardO · 23 Sep 2014 at 13:52

~>Dg<~ said:
lol im in watching counter from 5 on my mx 512mb, on my old m4 it was slightly slower. on mech samsung drive upto a minute its worlds of difference.

sammi 840 PRO works well for a fast start

1kiwi · 23 Sep 2014 at 14:50

I'm using an old Vertex 3 - You don't need the latest and greatest for games IMO. I run my OS on the 840 Pro and my games on the Vertex.

Disco_P · 23 Sep 2014 at 14:56

1kiwi said:
Yep! It's that good I would factor this into the decision to invest. I.e., you don't necessarily have to always be hitting 100% of your refresh rate for the game to feel really nice and smooth.

On a single 780 @ Ultra (except AA)??? I don't even get close to that...

Nexus18 · 23 Sep 2014 at 15:30

Disco_P said:
On a single 780 @ Ultra (except AA)??? I don't even get close to that...

Us pros play with everything on low/off except mesh

1kiwi said:
I'm using an old Vertex 3 - You don't need the latest and greatest for games IMO. I run my OS on the 840 Pro and my games on the Vertex.

+1!

In "real world usage", **** all difference between these SSD's, just go for a decent brand that is reliable and has good customer service and/or a good value one.

No difference between my crucial m4 and samsung 840 evo even with this performance problem:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18615995

Shows in benchmarks but in real world usage, not noticed an issue at all.

HazardO said:
But will it allow me to get a hit marker on Nexus that's the question?

Nope! You need anti-nexus bot cheat V25 for that

HazardO said:
Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor - Black/Red 1 £558.29
MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming Edition 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card 2 £469.98

Order placed

Nice!

Josh · 23 Sep 2014 at 15:32

So I'm guessing no patch today then - excellent, another week to wait!

wndsr · 23 Sep 2014 at 15:38

The longer the patch is delayed for, the better. It means you guys won't have such a head start when I come back to gaming.

setter · 23 Sep 2014 at 19:12

Disco_P said:
On a single 780 @ Ultra (except AA)??? I don't even get close to that...

Few benchmarks ive ran recently. All max settings at 1920x1200.

Single 780.
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
31543, 343608, 52, 183, 91.799

Sli 780's.
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
87290, 600000, 91, 201, 145.483

On a laggy server the fps can still tank into the 50's with sli. But i gotta say the scaling with sli in bf4 is very impressive. Those benchmarks were ran on 64 player cq large paracel storm. This along with seige of shanghai are pretty demanding. Im now at the point were im resolution bottlenecked.

Ayahuasca · 23 Sep 2014 at 19:16

Have you measured frametimes between single and dual setter? People say single is always better but tbh in SLI you get more frames and more frames usually gives lower frametimes so it may balance out.

Pretty sure microstutter is a thing of the past on most multi GPU setups now, the only thing that bothers me is games that don't work in SLI or don't scale much.

setter · 23 Sep 2014 at 19:29

Ayahuasca said:
Have you measured frametimes between single and dual setter? People say single is always better but tbh in SLI you get more frames and more frames usually gives lower frametimes so it may balance out.

Pretty sure microstutter is a thing of the past on most multi GPU setups now, the only thing that bothers me is games that don't work in SLI or don't scale much.

I havent no, problem with bf4 is the lag on a lot of servers. Quite often it will cause massive fps drops. The CTE is worlds apart so hopefully the changes in the next patch will help.