As I said, I was running 120 frames in morningstar before Patch 9. Now its barely 90. And you cannot properly turn off raytracing.
how mutch better it is then any other fresh releases in the last two years…
Not much. I was running more frames on siege (which does not have barren maps) 5 years ago with same processor and worse GPU.
I don’t drop under 100 frames in Apex (not so barren maps with double/triple size)
But since PvP games are barren.
I am running 250-310 FPS on DRG with higher settings.
I am running 290-330 FPS on Helldivers.
I am running 110-180 FPS on Insurgency: Sandstorm with higher settings not dropping below 110
I am running 95-130 FPS on Ready or Not with higher settings and I don’t drop below 90.
I am running stable 80FPS on Ground Branch with higher settings and maps double/triple size.
My settings for Darktide are: Off shadows, LOD low, medium textures, everything off, DLSS on Performance and I still drop from 90 frames to below 50. Occasionally I will drop to 30 frames.
I am getting FPS drops ever since they said they had released broken shaders in Patch 9. Ever since, they have not said anything about it.
Even the link says fixed, its not. The post was autoclosed.
I don’t think its that much to ask for stable 100 frames, which I had before patch 9.
So i dont want to insult you but what is your reading comprehension. the bit you quoted said “the last two years” and you said sige and APEX games that both, started with lower burdens as in thos kidns of games the more ppl that CAN play something means the more ppl that can pay them. also thay are old games.
but what im guna fixate on hear is your PVE examples. bragging about helldivers FPS, okay… (good game btw) okay a indy game that came out in 2015 runs at vary high frame rates. so you are comparing a simple as, indy game from 8 years ago, to a release 6 months ago… okay… see i dont think you are arguing in good faith and might just want to be upset.
anyways i was comparing DT to games with 3 times the budget like cyberpunk, god of war, and Jedi: survivor.
okay games that arguably had similar graphic density but for several reasons they hardly functioned on any computer at launch.
Let me say this plainly sens you seem to want to misconstrue BLUNTLY: Games that have a far higher budget run far worse, have less and get simped for harder.
I gave you an example of FPS i run on other games. As far as I know there aren’t many coop games that were released in past 2 years which I would as well play.
I don’t want to insult you as well, but I could ask you the same question.
To the original post you replied I said I used to get 120 frames BEFORE Patch 9 with the same settings I am still and currently using.
So any other questions about “my FPS in games released in past 2 years” is irrelevant. I am comparing my experience in FPS in Darktide before Patch 9 and after Patch 9. And the performance has significantly decreased.
I was definitely not getting lag or stutters before and I was definitely not getting my framerate dropping to 30 frames.
Comparing DT to single player games, 2 of which were not released in past 2 years and 2 of which were completely botched on release…
And I do not care about other budgeted titles, and I didn’t mention any until you brought it up. I will say it again and make it bold: “I WAS RUNNING 120 FPS BEFORE PATCH 9”
So if they could bring the performance to what it used to be I would be really happy.
sure thay were botched launches that is what i ment, ppl said this was “unplayable” on launch, clearly not seeing a unplayable game, you want a FPS PVP game that spits in the face of evryhting I said, you have BF2042. my point is that this small team did far better then tripple A company and get hate for it.
Now you loosing 120 FPs i mean, sounds like you have a top the line rig, correlation dosent mean causation, maby you got a crypto mining virus or some setting isn’t as optimized, I use to run lowest graphics but fond the frame rate improved when I moved to mid graphics ya know?
your response was alot better then the previous one.
I don’t care who did better. I care about the result. And their result was crap. we could say the result was x% less crap than the AAA company, but nonetheless its still crap.
“Hey, your steak was undercooked, but it was undercooked less than the other restaurant.” ← this is you.
If out of 10 app launches you crash 8 times mid-game, like my buddy then the game is “unplayable”. It was like that for many of my buddies.
Yes, a crypto mining virus causes the game to load on 90FPS instead of 120 before patch 9. The crypto mining virus waits until the horde starts to drop my frames to 30. The crypto mining virus caused shader compiling issues with Patch 9, not Fatshark. And this crypto mining virus is doing it ONLY when I play darktide. No other game. Thats why me and others, like @ggg or @Amerikanovich have the same stutter and lag experience. We all got crypto mining virus.
Stop strawmanning. Its the game. We all know it.
Your response is still non-sensical strawman blabber.
changing to experimental build fixed it, but i dont get how it seems it still runs the same .exe file…
maybe it did remove some .cfg file settings. it blows my mind how this game works. but it works now so i am not touching the .cfg ever again.
for reference: i did try follow the reddit posts that suggested disabling mixed reflections, but that did not work for me on its own, but with experimental option it works… it seems that there is some long chan of bugs working around bugs that i must have triggered to make it working
Are you sure it was not some “crypto mining virus”?
I do not see any experimental build in my “betas” in steam. Did you use some access code to get it?
Are you running some mods with that experimental build? Do you have any problems joining current release lobbies/games or playing with your buddies?
Hate to be THAT GUY, but whoseever idea it was to upload a 120 vs 60 FPS comparison to YouTube where a max quality of 60 FPS can be picked was a real genius… NOT.
Don’t get it wrong, I’m on your side. 120 FPS feels a big step up from 60. But nobody will be able to tell by the video because YouTube has it down to 60 limited anyway. lol
Well, someone has to be THAT guy to point out stupidity someone has posted. And I mean no offence.
Actually that is a good point I did not realize back at that time.
I gave it a try, not sure how else I could try and explain this to the fella. The thing is, people do not realize the difference until they can experience stable 120. I was one of them.
I used to be into competitive fps titles: CoD, BF, CS. I can feel the difference between high and low frames, especially if frames are not stable. Low and unstable frames interfere with your ability to predict enemy movement, their animation state, your aim and your ability to respond. If someone thinks they are fine with 60 fps with “occasional” drops, I’m happy for them, but they are missing out on lots of information.
i remember from q3 time, where there was possibility of enabling permanent 125Hz physics even if you could only render 20 fps. it made night and day at jumps and all movement in general as player input was always probed at 125Hz.
most games have physics loop tied to fps, hence… it feels better at higher fps coz you get faster user input as well… so its not just visual thing, even if your screen has just 60hz, game running faster makes things more fluid… i know, mindblowing conept right?
it seems it still runs the same .exe file…