The Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~

~>Dg<~ · 6 Jan 2015 at 01:17

wireless and fps gaming :eek:

Westie · 6 Jan 2015 at 01:58

A 310 pilot will lose to a 313 pilot nexus

Also u using bf3 cam for 3rd person view or bf4 crappy style?

BS Dave · 6 Jan 2015 at 08:04

~>Dg<~ said:
wireless and fps gaming

I know but cable just isn't an option

Nexus18 · 6 Jan 2015 at 10:14

I use wireless too and my connection is pretty damn poor but never really noticed any serious issues tbph, at least not in BF MP FPS games... don't try CS:GO with a crappy connection

Westie said:
A 310 pilot will lose to a 313 pilot nexus

Also u using bf3 cam for 3rd person view or bf4 crappy style?

WHAT?! I could have sworn you said 310 a while back when I said 313?! :mad:

I can never maintain an exact speed, always just between 300-315

Think I have the jet roll cam enabled but I very rarely use 3rd person view anyway, can't maintain the speed and will probably just end up crashing into something

1kiwi · 6 Jan 2015 at 10:33

Anyone tried the new CTE Jet changes?

Nevakonaza · 6 Jan 2015 at 12:02

I'm surprised my GTX 670 2GB can handle BF4 on Ultra 1920X1080 120Hz and still get decent frame rates..was auto set to "High" before.

Also,Meant to ask..does anyone else find Battlescreen completely pointless on a second monitor?.

Josh · 6 Jan 2015 at 12:10

Nevakonaza said:
I'm surprised my GTX 670 2GB can handle BF4 on Ultra 1920X1080 120Hz and still get decent frame rates..was auto set to "High" before.

Also,Meant to ask..does anyone else find Battlescreen completely pointless on a second monitor?.

Define what you mean by decent?

I have a 780 and at Ultra my frames are ****. If it could hold a steady 120Fps I would be happy.

~>Dg<~ · 6 Jan 2015 at 13:10

definition of decent is always different

i know for eg the 670 at 1080 will drop to low 40s on some games. that to me is like a slide show

to others though maybe happy playing at 30fps.

knock the msaa off though it should play it pretty nice.

setter · 6 Jan 2015 at 13:18

I averaged 90 with sli 670 on max settings at 1920x1200, up around 120 with sli 780, but that's with 2560x1600 under dsr. Cant recall what I hit at native res. With the 670's I did get drops into the 40's, server dependent too as a laggy one will cause fps to plummet in this game.

1kiwi · 6 Jan 2015 at 13:26

Decent for me is 95%+ @ 135. I can't achieve that without using low settings, no AA with spec in sig. GPU runs @ 1200mhz @ 45 degrees full load, max volts. I think if I wanted to up the eye candy then I would need a couple of 970's but CBA with SLI/Crossfire so like Josh waiting for 980Ti / full fat maxwell.

If free sync comes along I may sell my SWIFT and go AMD depending on how good the 390x performs. Thing is, as soon as it comes out you know nvidia will counter with the 980Ti.

HazardO · 6 Jan 2015 at 13:38

I get 135 fps most of the time at 1440p with all ultra except AA with my 970s. I had a quick experiment with everything on low bar mesh last night, and I have to say it made it easy to spot other players in the sort of places I'd never have seen them with all the eye candy on (especially on outdoor maps like zaphod), so I might leave it like that for a while.

Anyone on for some games this evening?

~>Dg<~ · 6 Jan 2015 at 13:57

just joined late on tdm on golumund 55-6

oh how i love mortars

Josh · 6 Jan 2015 at 15:15

1kiwi said:
so like Josh waiting for 980Ti / full fat maxwell.

If free sync comes along I may sell my SWIFT and go AMD depending on how good the 390x performs. Thing is, as soon as it comes out you know nvidia will counter with the 980Ti.

This, but than defo maybe that! The 390X looks damn decent.

Nexus18 · 6 Jan 2015 at 15:35

Waiting to see what screen choices there will be for both gsync and freesync in the next couple of months before making my mind up on a GPU, shame that this sync tech depends on what GPU you have

Saying that, I don't really want to move from my 290 just yet... especially if GTA 5 copes fine on high/ultra settings @ 50+FPS...

As much as I want VA for the deep blacks/high contrast ratio, the high input lag is putting me of so will probably stick to IPS.

JGStonedRaider · 6 Jan 2015 at 16:21

My first condition for a new monitor these days...does it do minimum 120Hz if not, it's a no go

Nexus18 · 6 Jan 2015 at 16:36

Yeah 120+HZ would be nice and we are finally getting it for IPS panels but.... for the majority of games, there is no way I could maintain 100+ FPS with high/ultra settings

Although from what I have read in the gsync threads, apparently it is very hard to tell the difference between 60 and 100+ FPS when gsync is active.

Apart from sync feature, the biggest aspect for me is now motion clarity/response time.

HazardO · 6 Jan 2015 at 16:41

Nexus18 said:
Yeah 120+HZ would be nice and we are finally getting it for IPS panels but.... for the majority of games, there is no way I could maintain 100+ FPS with high/ultra settings

Although from what I have read in the gsync threads, apparently it is very hard to tell the difference between 60 and 100+ FPS when gsync is active.

Apart from sync feature, the biggest aspect for me is now motion clarity/response time.

Aren't motion clarity and response times the down sides of IPS technology?

TonyTurbo78 · 6 Jan 2015 at 16:43

I thought the thing IPS does better than anything else was picture quality and epic colour levels...downside being response times and fluidity in fast paced games.

JGStonedRaider · 6 Jan 2015 at 16:45

Grey to grey is just bad on IPS not to mention motion blur

Nexus18 · 6 Jan 2015 at 17:03

Yup that is the main weakness of IPS, response times/motion blur, it really does suck compared to "gaming" TN panels

Motion clarity can be improved via other methods though i.e.

Motion Blur Reduction Backlights

PCM 2 thinks that the ACER IPS 144HZ gsync might have ULMB, although when it is active, the colours etc. get really bad then.

So frustrating how there is no "perfect" monitor! :mad: