whats your graphic card and wich settings/fps you get at dirt rally?

[RyuMakkuro 6]

Didzis said:

Dytut said:

I got a lowly ATI 7870 with an i5 750. Old crap, but can run the game at 50-60 fps at low settings, and it really doesn't look that bad.

Shouldn't you get more than that? I also have a HD7870, and an i5-3350P, I run the game on High and in rally it's almost always at 60 (V-Sync on), with some dips in rallycross

Dips in RX? In RX I have the smallest GPU usage in the entire game xD Monte Carlo at night with snow is the FPS nightmare of this game.

[BrySkye 14]

G37L057 said:

Didzis said:

Dytut said:

I got a lowly ATI 7870 with an i5 750. Old crap, but can run the game at 50-60 fps at low settings, and it really doesn't look that bad.

Shouldn't you get more than that? I also have a HD7870, and an i5-3350P, I run the game on High and in rally it's almost always at 60 (V-Sync on), with some dips in rallycross

Dips in RX? In RX I have the smallest GPU usage in the entire game xD Monte Carlo at night with snow is the FPS nightmare of this game.

RX and Pikes Peak are, for most people, the most intensive areas for fps.

[RyuMakkuro 6]

BrySkye said:

G37L057 said:

Didzis said:

Dytut said:

I got a lowly ATI 7870 with an i5 750. Old crap, but can run the game at 50-60 fps at low settings, and it really doesn't look that bad.

Shouldn't you get more than that? I also have a HD7870, and an i5-3350P, I run the game on High and in rally it's almost always at 60 (V-Sync on), with some dips in rallycross

Dips in RX? In RX I have the smallest GPU usage in the entire game xD Monte Carlo at night with snow is the FPS nightmare of this game.

RX and Pikes Peak are, for most people, the most intensive areas for fps.

I can easily agree on the Pikes Peak, but whereas I get about 80FPS in most stages, I get over 90FPS in RX... Not sure if it's nVidia or just my peculiar setup. Never dropped below 72FPS in a RX event, while dropping below 70FPS in Monte Carlo is a normal occurrence.

Maybe high AA could be at fault? I run 2xMSAA only.

[BrySkye 14]

G37L057 said:

BrySkye said:

G37L057 said:

Didzis said:

Dytut said:

I got a lowly ATI 7870 with an i5 750. Old crap, but can run the game at 50-60 fps at low settings, and it really doesn't look that bad.

Shouldn't you get more than that? I also have a HD7870, and an i5-3350P, I run the game on High and in rally it's almost always at 60 (V-Sync on), with some dips in rallycross

Dips in RX? In RX I have the smallest GPU usage in the entire game xD Monte Carlo at night with snow is the FPS nightmare of this game.

RX and Pikes Peak are, for most people, the most intensive areas for fps.

I can easily agree on the Pikes Peak, but whereas I get about 80FPS in most stages, I get over 90FPS in RX... Not sure if it's nVidia or just my peculiar setup. Never dropped below 72FPS in a RX event, while dropping below 70FPS in Monte Carlo is a normal occurrence.

Maybe high AA could be at fault? I run 2xMSAA only.

It's mostly just to do with the RX stages having a higher level of detail, all the AI cars and a hell of a lot more particle effects going on with them all kicking up dust.
It got a lot of optimisation in 0.75, but it's still intensive for most people.
Things like AI have more to do with CPU than GPU.

[RyuMakkuro 6]

BrySkye said:

G37L057 said:

BrySkye said:

RX and Pikes Peak are, for most people, the most intensive areas for fps.

I can easily agree on the Pikes Peak, but whereas I get about 80FPS in most stages, I get over 90FPS in RX... Not sure if it's nVidia or just my peculiar setup. Never dropped below 72FPS in a RX event, while dropping below 70FPS in Monte Carlo is a normal occurrence.

Maybe high AA could be at fault? I run 2xMSAA only.

It's mostly just to do with the RX stages having a higher level of detail, all the AI cars and a hell of a lot more particle effects going on with them all kicking up dust.
It got a lot of optimisation in 0.75, but it's still intensive for most people.
Things like AI have more to do with CPU than GPU.

So that would mean my particles set to High instead of Ultra and i5 3570k overclocked to 4,5GHz makes RX from not the best optimised to the FPS heaven :D

[cosmicamnesia 0]

I'm running two 8gb GTX980m's and an i7 4980MX in my Digital Storm Behemoth (until a few weeks from now when they're upgrading me to two of those new new 980's and Sky Bridge) with a slight core overclock of 135mHz and a memory OC of 250mHz and a whole lot of really crazy custom cooling going on.  All the heatsinks are milled titanium with a gold heat wrap (got the idea from wrapping the turbos on my car) so it's usually below 75 degrees or even less.  I keep all of the settings maxed (except Advanced Blending, because there is a setting in Nvidia Control Panel that does the exact same thing but without taxing the graphics) and I'm running through an Asus 1440p 144hZ IPS panel via mini display port with Adaptive V Sync turned on and I average about 120fps, with it dipping to 100 in the snow or rain and staying locked at 144 fps when its a clear with no weather.  Really wish the G Sync panels worked with my laptop (if you can call it that) but the integrated graphics interfere, and I'm totally happy with this 144hZ IPS, especially cause it can max the monitor out with adaptive v sync on.  Who needs G Sync ;P

[IHazABone 0]

GTX 760, and I get almost the same FPS (~50) on high or medium. Which is odd, because my CPU shouldn't by any means be bottlenecking it - FX-8350 @ 4.6GHz. Always get a half-second stutter exactly every three seconds, though. It's always a half second, and always exactly every three seconds. Doesn't matter what stage, rain or no (rain drops me to 40fps even on low settings, idk what's up with that). I've had a lot of technical problems with the game, and a lot of problems in general. I love it, but it gets under my skin. 

[rødelyn 0]

running a r9 380 msi gaming....maxed out.and msaa at 4x... vertical sych.. 60fps all-the-time...

[RyuMakkuro 6]

IHazABone said:

GTX 760, and I get almost the same FPS (~50) on high or medium. Which is odd, because my CPU shouldn't by any means be bottlenecking it - FX-8350 @ 4.6GHz. Always get a half-second stutter exactly every three seconds, though. It's always a half second, and always exactly every three seconds. Doesn't matter what stage, rain or no (rain drops me to 40fps even on low settings, idk what's up with that). I've had a lot of technical problems with the game, and a lot of problems in general. I love it, but it gets under my skin. 

Switch weather to high, low setting has a lot bigger impact on FPS. Yes, I know, retarded, but what can you do?

As for the stutter: http://forums.codemasters.com/discussion/27851/v0-80-stuttering-bug?new=1

[KevM 44]

I agree with that! Low weather kills my game, high, looks better & runs fast!!

[versedi 39]

I've just installed NVIDIA Inspector and see that's pretty much the same as in Nvidia Control Panel but with overclocking and framerate limiting possibility.
There's one option I'm not sure of @G37L057 - Inspector has a built in option in Frame Rate Limit - 58 FPS (might improve inputlag on vsync 60HZ).
Why you don't use this one but choose to go with 62FPS? Isn't the framerate faster then your refresh rate then?

P.S. What's a VSync Smooth AFR Behavior?

[RyuMakkuro 6]

versedi said:

I've just installed NVIDIA Inspector and see that's pretty much the same as in Nvidia Control Panel but with overclocking and framerate limiting possibility.
There's one option I'm not sure of @G37L057 - Inspector has a built in option in Frame Rate Limit - 58 FPS (might improve inputlag on vsync 60HZ).
Why you don't use this one but choose to go with 62FPS? Isn't the framerate faster then your refresh rate then?

P.S. What's a VSync Smooth AFR Behavior?

Because the 58FPS setting (which will result in 60FPS in-game) requires V-Sync to be used. V-Sync means input lag, which I don't like. At all. So a chance of improving the inputlag means there will still be input lag. At 60FPS limit in Inspector which results in 62FPS in-game, I have no stutter, no screen tearing (at least I can't notice any) and no input lag, all without ever switching V-Sync on.
Those 2 FPS are a actually quite useful, as you'll never avoid small lags which will drop the FPS by 1 or 2, even when you can have 1000 FPS at the moment. Limiting it to that means I'll never drop below my magical value and at the same time the extra frames seem to synchronise the frame drawing with the monitors refresh rate, which results in all I mentioned above.
In other words, 62FPS limit > V-Sync at 60Hz.

As to V-Sync Smooth, it's mainly used for SLI systems. It improves stuttering when V-Sync is used. You don't have SLI, you don't bother with it. Then again, with my solution you don't bother with V-Sync at all ;)

[versedi 39]

It seems legit. I'm gonna try this today and see if there's any difference. 

[Jimdog2650 0]

amd fx-8300 16gb ram amd r9 390 5040x1050 resolution 38 fps min 60 average 120 max

[EddDragn 0]

Most heavy setting is "Advanced Blending". It can reduce FPS twice.

[JZStudios 503]

I run a GTX960 Strix at 1080 with everything maxed. I think I have Vsync on so it's limited to 50fps.

[AphDburn 0]

670 FTW 4GB 
i5-3570K
16gb HyperX Fury Ram 

Everything High/Ultra except Advanced Blending. I get anywhere from 60-110 depending on stage/weather.

[hola 1]

asus maximus ranger VII
Gigabyte G1 970
I7 4790k running stock frequency
16GB ram
ssd samsung 500gb

Maxed out: max frames = 110-120. min frames: 67. average frames 76

[versedi 39]

G37L057 said:

versedi said:

....
Then again, with my solution you don't bother with V-Sync at all ;)

Well I've tried what you've said and I'm feeling weird horizontal screen lags without vsync.

Do you set limiter inside Inspector to 60FPS or you have a custom value 62FPS?

If I set it to 60 then in game limit is 62 FPS (I'm not sure why Nvidia is adding these 2 frames on itself).

[teknoid85 444]

versedi said:

G37L057 said:

versedi said:

....
Then again, with my solution you don't bother with V-Sync at all ;)

Well I've tried what you've said and I'm feeling weird horizontal screen lags without vsync.

Do you set limiter inside Inspector to 60FPS or you have a custom value 62FPS?

If I set it to 60 then in game limit is 62 FPS (I'm not sure why Nvidia is adding these 2 frames on itself).

same here 

[versedi 39]

After adding custom value with 62 fps (you have to edit xml and calculate hex value), game's limited to 64 fps, less horizontal stripes but I see that it will take time to get used to it.

I don't understand why in past games were better without vsync and today they feel more smooth with vsync...

[RyuMakkuro 6]

versedi said:

G37L057 said:

versedi said:

....
Then again, with my solution you don't bother with V-Sync at all ;)

Well I've tried what you've said and I'm feeling weird horizontal screen lags without vsync.

Do you set limiter inside Inspector to 60FPS or you have a custom value 62FPS?

If I set it to 60 then in game limit is 62 FPS (I'm not sure why Nvidia is adding these 2 frames on itself).

60FPS in Inspector, not 62. I have no horizontal screen lags, so not sure why that happens on your side. Though I'm running at 72FPS (70Hz refresh rate), so that may also be the case, not sure. But if 64FPS works for you, then cool ;) It may vary from a GPU to GPU, monitor can also be the case. I'm using an IPS panel with 5ms delay.

In past games, you had less hardware to take into account when making a PC game. Now you have all the different DirectX versions, thousands of different GPUs etc. Worst thing is, people are still using that prehistoric hardware, which in Starcraft community is known as "Wooden PC". In more dire situations they use "Stone PC" xD

Though older games weren't running at 60FPS all the time, mind you. You're also more aware of the issue nowadays, drivers have something to do with it as well. Try playing those older games without V-Sync, you may find that sentiment changed the actual state of things.

[JZStudios 503]

G37L057 said:

In past games, you had less hardware to take into account when making a PC game. Now you have all the different DirectX versions, thousands of different GPUs etc. Worst thing is, people are still using that prehistoric hardware, which in Starcraft community is known as "Wooden PC". In more dire situations they use "Stone PC" xD

Now, this is just me, but chronologically speaking, shouldn't a wooden pc be worse than a stone? Since stone is an evolution of wood?

[RyuMakkuro 6]

JZStudios said:

G37L057 said:

In past games, you had less hardware to take into account when making a PC game. Now you have all the different DirectX versions, thousands of different GPUs etc. Worst thing is, people are still using that prehistoric hardware, which in Starcraft community is known as "Wooden PC". In more dire situations they use "Stone PC" xD

Now, this is just me, but chronologically speaking, shouldn't a wooden pc be worse than a stone? Since stone is an evolution of wood?

First tools were made from stone (not including torch). Wooden tools required more skill to be made. That's why the oldest age in human history is called "Stone age", not "Wooden Age". The fact that stone castles were made common later, is simply due to the fact it's easier to make a castle out of wood on the middle of nowhere, than from a stone. So don't take the "upgrade path" in economy/strategy games as a given ;)

[dwkGravey 0]

G37L057 said:

JZStudios said:

G37L057 said:

In past games, you had less hardware to take into account when making a PC game. Now you have all the different DirectX versions, thousands of different GPUs etc. Worst thing is, people are still using that prehistoric hardware, which in Starcraft community is known as "Wooden PC". In more dire situations they use "Stone PC" xD

Now, this is just me, but chronologically speaking, shouldn't a wooden pc be worse than a stone? Since stone is an evolution of wood?

First tools were made from stone (not including torch). Wooden tools required more skill to be made. That's why the oldest age in human history is called "Stone age", not "Wooden Age". The fact that stone castles were made common later, is simply due to the fact it's easier to make a castle out of wood on the middle of nowhere, than from a stone. So don't take the "upgrade path" in economy/strategy games as a given ;)

Well... Gorillas and chimpanzees use sticks and stones as tools and weapons, and early Homo used both as well (and bone and antler etc). Stone just preserves whereas wood does not, so the record we have is stone tools, hence "Stone Age"; in fact, a "Wooden Age" probably predates the Stone Age, though we'll never know.