Likely in some backlog. I have a feeling they will just keep investing until the game “gets” there and hope that players return one day
Yes!!!
Amazed has these options on XSX.
- Frame Rate Target: You can now choose between 30, 40, 60 or an Uncapped frame rate on VRR displays. If you do not have a VRR display running 120hz, you will still be able to select from 30 or 60. Screen tearing may occur at times when selecting 60 on a non-VRR display.
- Prioritize: You can now prioritize between Visuals and Performance while trying to maintain the frame rate target. If you’re choosing a frame rate target of 60 or above, we recommend changing this to Performance. Prioritizing Visuals keeps the highest resolution while maintaining full detail for special effects, lighting, and crowds. Prioritizing Performance lowers internal resolution and detail for special effects, lighting, and crowds. Both modes may adjust internal resolution dynamically when scenes or action get heavier as well. When switching between modes, you will see the lighting change briefly as the system catches up to the new mode.
Riddlewire
Regular
As predicted
Bethesda has always left strange bugs in all of their games way longer than people expect. At this point I don't know if they are just trolling us or not.
I dunno its been another what 6/7 months since the launch. It could have had some big bumps in performance.
If I were to do like a 80-90% completion run of this game, how many minutes of loading screens would I be looking at? Never played the game because I heard it has hella loading screens constantly which is a dealbreacker for me. One long initial load is vastly preferable to a bunch of small ones.
What are you playing it on ? On my pc with an nvme i am looking at loads of less than 5 seconds.
i wish they had ported starfield back to fallout 4 because to have "normal" load times on fallout 4 pc you have to use a mod that unlocks fps during loads and transitions, because they for some reason locked loading to framerate 
that problem is not in starfield
that problem is not in starfieldJohnny Awesome
Veteran
The load issue has been completely overblown.
It's not the length of the loading screens but the frequency of them and how they're woven into the game loop. You fast travel to ship, teleport from outside to cockpit, load to orbit, load to different system/planet orbit, load to planet surface, teleport from cockpit to outside of ship, and then repeat in reverse. Even though any one loading screen may only be 5 seconds long, you're going to do that 3 or more times in a row to get where ever you're wanting to go, and then do it again when you leave. So in total it's probably more like 20-30 seconds of actual downtime, and none of it has that "I'm piloting a spaceship!" vibe because you're doing it all via your personal inventory/map screen and then staring at a splash screen graphic while it loads a new zone. This isn't so bad during some of the lengthy questline segments because all the dialogue tends to slow the pace down a lot, but if you're trying to explore the different systems/mechanics of the game and progress your character, then you're going to be doing nothing but planet hopping back and forth.
I don't see an issue, I play with a faster nvme than even shown here. To me this is preferable to having forced walking time while listening to a com like in gears of war or some animation I can't control in Spider man to hide load times
I would have preferred feeling like I'm piloting a spaceship in a spaceship game, not looking at back-to-back-to-back splash screens regardless of how short they are. One load is fine because you can ignore it while you take a sip of your drink, but you can't ignore it when they're chained together requiring you to cycle through layers of menus. Add onto that the 5k-10k vendor limit and a very significant percentage of your time is fast travel or waiting. The loop is: not-flying(3x loading), walking, shooting, walking, not-flying(3x loading), vendor, wait-for-24h(~30sec), vendor, sleep-for-24h(~30sec), vendor, sleep-for-24h(~30sec), etc.
I agree though it's preferable to gears or spiderman, but I bounced off those franchises after 5 minutes.
I agree though it's preferable to gears or spiderman, but I bounced off those franchises after 5 minutes.
I have 13600K and a 2TB MSI Spatium 480 Pro (PCIe4.0x4). Also have a slightly slower 1TB Corsair MP600 (PCIe4.0x4) but it is the one connected directly to the CPU since I added the Spatium later. Not sure how much that matters.
Looking at those SATA SSD load times, I didn't realize this game was so sensitive to storage speed. That's a good thing IMO since at some point I assume these load screens can be overcome by faster hardware.
Well its the flip side to something like Gears of war and spiderman.
I can take gears of war 1 and it doesn't matter if I dump the whole game into system ram and can load things at 40GB/s. I am going to always have to sit there and listen to the radio chatter. or the same with Spider-man . I will always have to watch the animation of him leaving a building or going down to the subway. With starfield if I could dump the whole game into ram those loading screens would be a split second and wouldn't mater at all.
I do agree with others that it be best if they could load in the back round to cut some of the time out or even have you not see loading screen sometimes but hopefully they are working on that. I am sure that was a limitation from whe nthe game was xbox one/ps4
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Yeah, it's a limitation of when Starfield was originally developed, but the issue is overblown.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Starfield Title Update 1.12.30 Released & Fully Detailed
Title Update 1.12.30 introduces Creations to Starfield. Moreover, it adds a new Trackers Alliance mission, the bounty scanner system, new melee weapon tiers, and the ability to modify melee weapons.
www.dsogaming.com
Similar threads
- Locked
