CurtWhispers
Newcomer
The graphics and gameplay on Battlefield 1 look so lifelike. I actually can't believe they've progressed this much. I'm so ready for this
Battlefield 1
- Thread starter Jupiter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- not uncharted 4
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Whoa ! I think we will get some amazing montages and films now ! Lovely !
I hope we can play with th eBF 3 filter too, too many memories !
I hope we can play with th eBF 3 filter too, too many memories !
So it's inferior to GTAV and Halo 
So it's inferior to GTAV and Halo
I did not know that ist possible in these games. Like I said: I'm not sure if it's in Battlefield 1 or not.
Last edited:
VGTech has this game running at the same dynamic resolution, but better FPS on XBO?? (Conquest mode tested)
XBO resolution dynamic, measured 1100X620 to 1780X1000 (they said resolution lower than 720P was rare)
PS4 resolution dynamic, measured 1100x620 to 1807X1014
As they point out minimum and maximum resolution are just the highest and lowest they measured, could go lower or higher.
FPS, PS4 average=49.75, XBO average 51.53 (XBOX also slightly wins all FPS subtests that I noticed, aka 5% frame rate, 1%, median etc)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...sQlJQoeP4ZkWSb6fws5M7pq9kE/edit#gid=147407376
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...1-cWpFltvCbZoLPz1o2vpmJ36k/edit#gid=537481000
So, instead of the expected 720P/900P XBO/PS4, we have a situation at a glance where both are running similar dynamic resolutions (which is itself an interesting break from the expected with Dice), but XBO is actually running it slightly better.
Since it's 64 player conquest, perhaps XBO's slightly higher CPU clock is giving it an edge? If it's at all GPU limited, then they should have tuned their dynamic resolution algorithm on PS4.
So glad VGTech gives us actual detailed FPS spreadsheet numbers instead of leaving us to guess or some editor claiming subjectively machine X or Y is "slightly fewer dips" or whatever. Sure, stats aren't perfect here and the gameplay isn't identical, but they are much welcomed to give a general idea with objective data.
Now, after all that, I'm going to assume PS4 would be running the game at a generally higher dynamic resolution. It's too bad it's almost impossible to get hard data on that aspect.
I guess Ps4 Pro will run this at locked 1080P eh? That should shift some Pro's once stuff like that becomes known. 2.1 ghz on the Pro CPU may not get it to a locked 60 if indeed it's strictly CPU limited here, but closer anyway.
Also: http://bf1stats.com/
And so this is another "buy the expensive version, get 3 days early" title?
I may buy this just to show off my PC I put together a few months ago. However I dont know if basically a one off SP campaign (since I wont play multi) is worth $59. Maybe I'd be better just mucking about the 2 levels available in Origin access?
XBO resolution dynamic, measured 1100X620 to 1780X1000 (they said resolution lower than 720P was rare)
PS4 resolution dynamic, measured 1100x620 to 1807X1014
As they point out minimum and maximum resolution are just the highest and lowest they measured, could go lower or higher.
FPS, PS4 average=49.75, XBO average 51.53 (XBOX also slightly wins all FPS subtests that I noticed, aka 5% frame rate, 1%, median etc)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...sQlJQoeP4ZkWSb6fws5M7pq9kE/edit#gid=147407376
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...1-cWpFltvCbZoLPz1o2vpmJ36k/edit#gid=537481000
So, instead of the expected 720P/900P XBO/PS4, we have a situation at a glance where both are running similar dynamic resolutions (which is itself an interesting break from the expected with Dice), but XBO is actually running it slightly better.
Since it's 64 player conquest, perhaps XBO's slightly higher CPU clock is giving it an edge? If it's at all GPU limited, then they should have tuned their dynamic resolution algorithm on PS4.
So glad VGTech gives us actual detailed FPS spreadsheet numbers instead of leaving us to guess or some editor claiming subjectively machine X or Y is "slightly fewer dips" or whatever. Sure, stats aren't perfect here and the gameplay isn't identical, but they are much welcomed to give a general idea with objective data.
Now, after all that, I'm going to assume PS4 would be running the game at a generally higher dynamic resolution. It's too bad it's almost impossible to get hard data on that aspect.
I guess Ps4 Pro will run this at locked 1080P eh? That should shift some Pro's once stuff like that becomes known. 2.1 ghz on the Pro CPU may not get it to a locked 60 if indeed it's strictly CPU limited here, but closer anyway.
Also: http://bf1stats.com/
And so this is another "buy the expensive version, get 3 days early" title?
I may buy this just to show off my PC I put together a few months ago. However I dont know if basically a one off SP campaign (since I wont play multi) is worth $59. Maybe I'd be better just mucking about the 2 levels available in Origin access?
Last edited:
Even if the game is CPU limited, this should not impact GPU dependent settings.
An example with PlanetSide 2 : http://wccftech.com/planetside-2-ps4-cpu-bottleneck-1080p60fps/
I think that we should be in a similar situation than Doom where the PS4 is close to the maximum resolution most of the time while the XB1 is close to 720p most of the time.
Especially if we consider this preview from DF : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-battlefield-1-on-console
Anyway let's wait for the official release with all the patches.
An example with PlanetSide 2 : http://wccftech.com/planetside-2-ps4-cpu-bottleneck-1080p60fps/
I think that we should be in a similar situation than Doom where the PS4 is close to the maximum resolution most of the time while the XB1 is close to 720p most of the time.
Especially if we consider this preview from DF : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-battlefield-1-on-console
Anyway let's wait for the official release with all the patches.
Last edited:
Really? It has the usual trade-offs for less LOD, lower quality shadows, less dense foliage, lower rendering resolution etc. but it's still a very impressive looking game at 60fps.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
It might sound cliche, but Battlefield is basically a stellar MP series. No one ever bought it for sp. In fact this might be the first campaign that is being considered "good" by ppl.
If u get the game, do play the MP. Once you go BF, every MP game feels lackong in choices/options. (I havent played BF1 yet though.)
Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk
Maybe at times but the blurriness of dynamic res or 900p whatever just doesn't cut it any more in late 2016. Also those poor LOD, sparse foliage and jagged shadows are quite an eye sore in the midst of poor rendering res. Scorpio and Pro can't come soon enough. Personally this can run at 120 fps and I still wouldn't give a damn if the iq and quality is overly sacrificed.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
It does look impressive for sure on the ps4.
Espically the weapons with their mud clingin to them et all. As far as the environments go, they seem to vary. Still one of the good looking games. Have just played a few sp missions. Game is still downloading for me.
Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk
Espically the weapons with their mud clingin to them et all. As far as the environments go, they seem to vary. Still one of the good looking games. Have just played a few sp missions. Game is still downloading for me.
Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk
Similar threads
- Locked
