Star Wars Battlefront

D

Deleted member 11852

Guest
Couldn't see a PC thread for this. System Requirements have been posted [Euroganer]:

Minimum PC System Requirements:
  • OS: 64-bit Windows 7 or later
  • Processor (Intel): Intel i3 6300T or equivalent
  • Memory: 8GB RAM
  • Hard Drive: At least 40GB of free space
  • Graphics card (NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB
  • Graphics card (ATI): ATI Radeon HD 7850 2GB
  • DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent
  • Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
Recommended PC System Requirements:
  • OS: 64-bit Windows 10 or later
  • Processor (Intel): Intel i5 6600 or equivalent
  • Memory: 16GB RAM
  • Hard Drive: At least 40GB of free space
  • Graphics card (NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce GTX 970 4GB
  • Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB
  • DirectX: 11.1 Compatible video card or equivalent
  • Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
 
Guru3D doesn't seem overly impressed with the graphics quality:
At the current stage the game itself looks okay to nice, the Frostbyte engine doesn't require tremendous amounts of GPU horsepower for what it renders though the anti-aliasing method applied is FXAA. And as such MSAA etc is not supported. And therein lies the answer of the great overall performance among others.
 
DICE is claiming a custom Temporal AA, not FXAA as Guru3D mentions.

Performance on AMD cards is really good. Maxwell doesn't seem to gain that much traction over Kepler and the GTX960 takes quite the beating here.
People were expecting this kind of comeback from AMD cards on DX12, but this is still DX11.
Maybe there's a ton of specific GCN optimizations coming from consoles?

Is Battlefront going to be updated to DX12?
 
Playing the beta and performance is extremely good. Haven't played the Hoth level yet but in the other 2 I'm getting between high 40's - low 50's with everything maxed out and 1080p on my GTX 670. And that's without the latest BF ready driver. I'm not sure what the complains about graphics are, it's absolutely gorgeous. Just a shame it can't really show the graphics off too much in a multiplayer environment. Oh yes and there are "TAA" and FXAA options in the settings. I assume TAA is temporal. Image quality certainly seems fine to me.
 
I set in Documents\STAR WARS Battlefront Beta\settings\ProfileOptions_profile GstRender.Antialiasing 4 (from 3) and it is in my opinion a world difference. Blurry but very little aliasing I prefer that. Especially at high resolutions it will be worth it.

Thanks to aufkrawall.
 
I must admit I'm really enjoying this game and I've never been into online multiplayers that much before. I'm pretty terrible at it but getting better I think. I'm gonna be hitting the beta hard over the next few days and if I continue to enjoy it as much as I am (I'll have to get better for that to be possible!) then I may pick up the full game.

Graphics wise it's gotta be the best looking game I've ever seen. Performance wise, I'm now running everything at high settings with I think mesh detail and ground detail at ultra. That's at 1080p and I'm getting a solid 60fps for most of the time with some dips into the 50's when things get really intense in the second half of Hoth - basically what Digital Foundry described as PS4 performance.
 
Very pretty & smooth for me on all High @2560*1600 on R9 280x. (autodetected, got a bit sticky on Ultra)
Very slick interface.

Except one thing.
WTF with the Cards & Deck stuff? This sticks out like a sore thumb.
Give it round icons & call them 'abilities' or something, just not Cards & Decks.
Completely unnecessarily gamey & immersion breaking.

Sad thing is its so fast paced the instant you stop to look at something pretty you get shot in the back by a Storm Trooper :???:
 
Last edited:
Tried it last night.

First things first:
OMG SO COOL CONTINUOUS NERDGASMS ALL THE TIME!!!!111oneone


Performance in my dual 290X setup is great. There's no Crossfire profile, but it works if we force it through drivers (AFR for sure). The performance scaling with the 2nd GPU is enabled is very good but it's not terribly stable. There's flickering in the menus, and I noticed some texture flickering once or twice (which went away if I restarted) etc.
With Crossfire enabled I was getting very stable 60FPS VSynced at 2560*1600 (virtual resolution) + 125% scaling (3200*2000?) with everything on Ultra and TAA. (Yeah a complete overkill for my old 24" 1920*1200 screen, but I was trying to see how far I could go and I'm planning on getting a 34" 3440 x 1440 screen.)

I ended up disabling Crossfire because with only one 290X I still get solid 60FPS VSynced at 1920*1200 + 120% scaling + TAA + Ultra.
I don't get the same "complete absence of jaggies" but there's no annoying flickering in the menus.


The game seems balanced - as long as you're level 4 or 5. People on lvl1 don't get grenades nor the sniper nor the jetpack and that's a huge handicap. Fortunately, a mediocre player (like me) can get up to lvl4 with ~3 hours of gameplay.
Like the Battlefield series, piloting the spaceships with keyboard+mouse is pretty terrible. Plus, maybe I'm doing something wrong but it seems that every time I'm piloting a Tie Fighter or A-Wing, the thing keeps does random barrel rolls, which is pretty irritating. Riding the AT-ST is awesome, though.


I have to say the thing I like the least is the "teleporting" to vehicles. It's just way too arcade-ish and I can't stop thinking DICE did it this way out of sheer lazyness (or lack of time, of course) instead of a well-thought gameplay advantage. Battlefield (and earlier Battlefront) titles have this great vehicle interface/gameplay they should've brought to Battlefront entirely.
In Battlefront 2, I could enter the Snowspeeder in a hangar that was being assaulted by imperial forces and use the turbo blasters to chew on the attacking troops before flying away for some dogfighting action. All that is gone now, and it's such a shame.
 
It's very good looking (maxed out @1440p), but it's "too simple". Not easy, but pretty dumb down. No class, some kind of qte events instead of really doing things, no real squads,etc. It's insta-fun, but after a few hours, I'm not interested anymore.

At 25-30euro/dollars, It would be cool, but at full price, no way.
 
Seems many folks were expecting a battlefield game and are disappointed in the 'simpler' gameplay. No recoil!!

Anyway, AMD seem to be running away with performance in this game for now, and Fury X seems to be doing rather well in computerbase and gamegpu reviews with a lead of 20% and 27% respectively at 4k over 980Ti. Even the nano is faster in gamegpu review.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/star-wars-battlefront-beta-test-gpu.html

computerbase test with fury x and 980ti and test cpu scaling. Fury X is faster in all resolutions with the 4.4Ghz OC on their cpu.

Surprisingly, AMD card does better in multiplayer than single, about 20% faster at 4k in mutliplayer.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/...eta/#diagramm-star-wars-battlefront-3840-2160
 
Yeah I tried the beta. Not impressed with the gameplay at all. I guess this is mostly aimed at kids and people who can play only 15 minutes a day.
 
My main problem with the gameplay was spawn locations in the "capture the pod" level. I often respawned 180m from the pod the other side had just triggered, by the time I got to it, it had already been captured and the next pod had spawned, 180m away...
 
My main problem with the gameplay was spawn locations in the "capture the pod" level. I often respawned 180m from the pod the other side had just triggered, by the time I got to it, it had already been captured and the next pod had spawned, 180m away...
Buddy spawn!?!

Worked quite good for me...
 
Back
Top