Aren't you supposed to launch the HD pack installer while you're in-game?
edit: oh I see... person doesn't install the game, but installs the HD pack, but then proceeds to install the game?
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Aren't you supposed to launch the HD pack installer while you're in-game?
edit: oh I see... person doesn't install the game, but installs the HD pack, but then proceeds to install the game?
...like RDR?:smile:
Yes. The first time you put the disc in, you're prompted to install the HD pack. Then, what I've done, is I've gone back and installed the entire disc to the drive. The HD pack is only 1.5 gigs of the total game content. I'm wondering if there's a bandwidth problem. Maybe trying to load all of the HD content and the standard game content from the hard drive is too much to handle, like it would be if you tried to read them both from the DVD. The hard drive is on a strangely bandwidth starved SATA bus, which is why those USB flash devices are in some cases much faster than the hard drive accessory. Or this could all be bullshit, and there's nothing wrong at all with having both installed to the hard drive.
Is this a thing? This sounds like BF3. I hadn't heard Skyrim has a separate "HD" install.
Are you guys getting the 2 games mixed up?
No, we're talking about Battlefield 3.
I installed the BF3 HD texture pack the way Scott described. Other than a bit of pop-in, I haven't noticed any glaring issues. What exactly should I be looking for (besides campers)?
I don't know. If you install the HD assets and then install the disc, there is a rumour some textures will not load properly, but details are scarce. I think it might be BS, but I haven't looked at it yet. No one has posted detailed comparisons showing the supposed error. There's just some people saying, "it looks better."
TheWretched
Regular
One thing I wondered... is the installation state of a game disc transparent to the game? I mean, can the game query, if it runs off disc, or off HDD? Because if so, they could easily disable hdd caching if the game is installed anyways.
I've wondered this as well... can anyone here answer? And even if not, wouldn't it be possible to setup some contrived latency test (since file layout on the DVD is normally tightly controlled) which measures the time it takes to read two files you know would force a full stroke on the DVD, and if it's under the best case scenario time, assume the game is installed?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-assassins-creed-revelations
Really good AA solution in this one.
Really good AA solution in this one.
wow ... the lowest and worst Framerate which i have seen on PS3... just walking straight and getting down to 18 FPS is a disaster ... there are no tons of alphas just few characters on the screen .. there must be someone responsiblte for this - tech chief ? ... he must see the numbers- lowest 16, avg 25, max 30, tearing 45% ... who can release a game in so bad state should be fired ...
Visually they are, but performance wise no. It definitely tears more and drops more frames on PS3 version, more so than ACB. Which is interesting, they dropped MSAA/QAA on both consoles and PS3 version should have more performance boost since MSAA is more expensive on RSX, but seems like its not the case.What the...what the hell did you talking about? Are you sarcastic maybe... from my point of views the differences are almost ridicolous...
Absolutely not, ACB isn't even comparable... ps3 tend to drop more in the struggle scene, but someone here need to replay ACB because the fps on console it's almost the same of ACR in the struggle scene... by the way, it's more a loading issue for the slowest ram (imho) than a true worse performance because when the new area is completely loading on the ps3 the fps & vsync become more steady. Of course a comparison tend to find more the difference, but for the most of time both version are almost equal.
Best to do is to look again at DF comparison of ACB and you will see that PS3 is closer in performance than in ACR. Again, its probably since they really upped visuals in this one. Character models are better, character faces, new AA, better water, lighting etc. More dense too and more pronounced effects such as snow, fog and smoke. It comes with cost...
ACR on ps3 perform better than ABC even on 360 but compared to 360 ACR, ACR on the ps3 in the struggle scene has more problems, but honestly we have to consider there are tools here which check those kind of things. I almost guaranted without that the only thing more notable on the ps3 could be the tearing & no more.
Last edited by a moderator:
I got to say I never heard of ACF, but ACB still performs better on PS3 in comparison with ACR no matter how you slice it. It never drops to 16fps, ever.
For the rest I don't really understand you.
& just watching 5 minutes of a video walkthrough... this kind of thing it's why I really hate the comparison article, I can assure you ACR on the ps3 perfoms better of ACB, it has more rough performance only here & there, but I don't calling it worsen even on 360 just for some scene imho.
Last edited by a moderator:
ACR, my apologies.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked