Fallout 4 - Ultra Settings 1080p/60 Gameplay

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Where's your update, man?

Ok, I played for about four hours tonight. More impressions in the other thread, but basically the game runs like butter on my rig (3770/16GB/GTX660/1920x1200). It was a little choppy when I first got into it last night, but tonight before launching I turned off god rays and motion blur. Not sure if that last had anything to do with it really, was probably just the god rays, but now it runs as smooth as silk. Everything else is on medium settings and as far as I'm concerned it looks awesome.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Thanks, Warcrow. Liked and subscribed.

Gamers Nexus did a pretty good test on Fallout 4 and for 1080p suggest the GTX960 or R9 285/380 as the most cost effective (read: cheapest) cards for playing on Ultra settings. As you go above that, you can increase things like draw distance (something I like maxed) and shadow distance for a better experience. I was also surprised to see that the game actually runs faster with more threads, so that an i7 will beat an i5 at the same clocks. I did not really believe that Bethesda had changed the Creation Engine as much as they have. I am also wondering if I should return my uninstalled R9 390 for an over clocked GTX970.
 
Last edited:

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Gamers Nexus did a pretty good test on Fallout 4 and for 1080p suggest the GTX960 or R9 285/380 as the most cost effective (read: cheapest) cards for playing on Ultra settings.

I think this game might give me my reason for finally upgrading the 660. Really nothing else I've played in the last couple years has given it a workout. I guess I should probably update my drivers as well; haven't done that in quite awhile.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
22,062
881
126
Ok, I played for about four hours tonight. More impressions in the other thread, but basically the game runs like butter on my rig (3770/16GB/GTX660/1920x1200). It was a little choppy when I first got into it last night, but tonight before launching I turned off god rays and motion blur. Not sure if that last had anything to do with it really, was probably just the god rays, but now it runs as smooth as silk. Everything else is on medium settings and as far as I'm concerned it looks awesome.

My system is an s775 q9500 cpu in a Gigabyte mobo from 2008, 8 gigs of DDR2 ram. The only updates I have done to this system in 8 years is switching to all SSD drives and getting a 4gb r290x video card. F4 detected this system at ultra settings and I am playing it at 1080p on my 50" HDTV. Looks and plays great! I also play GTAV fully maxxed out and average around 40-45 fps. I think the SSD and r290x put a few more years on this old C2Q system from years ago.

Still, how can I tell what FPS I am getting in F4? The guys video looks amazing and I want mine to look as smooth as that. Is there an ini hack or something?
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
My system is an s775 q9500 cpu in a Gigabyte mobo from 2008, 8 gigs of DDR2 ram. The only updates I have done to this system in 8 years is switching to all SSD drives and getting a 4gb r290x video card. F4 detected this system at ultra settings and I am playing it at 1080p on my 50" HDTV. Looks and plays great! I also play GTAV fully maxxed out and average around 40-45 fps. I think the SSD and r290x put a few more years on this old C2Q system from years ago.

Still, how can I tell what FPS I am getting in F4? The guys video looks amazing and I want mine to look as smooth as that. Is there an ini hack or something?

download fraps
 

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
May 6, 2013
1,814
143
106
I'll increase the Ugrids when I get around to it. I think the default is 5 for Ugrids to Load. (to get more detail in the distance or overall)
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
So does this bode well for my i72600k, 280x?

The game actually looks nice which is good stay considering all the controversy.


Be no problems in general, my 280x OC with 2500k@4.4GHz was autoset at ultra by the game.

I was getting 60 in general, sometimes dipped to 45FPS but you can fine tune the settings, plenty to play with.

I use "Fraps" in game to check FPS performance with Fallout4.


I forgot to say 1080p res.
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,731
3,440
136
I read this game has dated graphics and bad textures. You guys say it looks good. This makes me wonder if I should try the game. I don't really know why you have to pick a part of the enemy to shoot at though. That seems kinda strange.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
I read this game has dated graphics and bad textures. You guys say it looks good. This makes me wonder if I should try the game. I don't really know why you have to pick a part of the enemy to shoot at though. That seems kinda strange.


I'm very early in the game, outside looks great, indoors not quite as good IMHO, however nothing to complain about in general.

As to shooting you don't have to use VATS(Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System) but makes it easier to select target points and gives you more time.

You can shoot normal in real mode if you want.

Visually any game will always be subjective depending on the user in question.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I read this game has dated graphics and bad textures. You guys say it looks good. This makes me wonder if I should try the game. I don't really know why you have to pick a part of the enemy to shoot at though. That seems kinda strange.

Well, I'll be honest if you expect it to look like Metal Gear, The Witcher, or even Battlefield just forget it. It looks decidedly average but it's expected from the engine used. I guess it could be worse.

As for the combat, the VATS system allows you to select a body part that is exposed outside of cover. There are times when a raider is not visible but you can target their arm with VATS and sometimes rip it off, some enemies can have limbs damaged so that they cannot pursue you or attack.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,828
31,302
146
I read this game has dated graphics and bad textures. You guys say it looks good. This makes me wonder if I should try the game. I don't really know why you have to pick a part of the enemy to shoot at though. That seems kinda strange.

If you have any experience with Bethesda and Fallout 3, TES games...even toss in FO NV re: your question about the VATS system, it is just like that.

Also, bad graphics and dated textures doesn't necessarily mean something doesn't look good.

These aren't bad graphics, just non-optimized on an old and problematic engine.

But it sounds like you aren't familiar with the FO games and Bethesda style "rush a nice husk of a game out and let the community fix it over the next year" design model. My advice is to wait many months and get it on a discount and after significant community patching and visual improvements.


To clarify why VATS exists in this game: FO (1&2) started out as a brilliant isometric turn-based strategy game in an open-ended, RPG heavy world. One of the best 2 games ever made in that classic era of PC gaming. Building your character for combat meant tuning for number of actions (moves per turn) and hit/crit % to better optimize each one of those turns during combat. Exploration was free, but the current map you are in would switch to a turn-based action point system whenever aggressive critters would appear. When Bethesda put out FO3 and turned it into this first-person world (what a poop idea), they tried to retain this VATS system, which is completely optional, as sort of a nod to the game's origins. You simply push a button during combat, and only if you want to, that slows down the world and brings up target points on each enemy with hit % per each enemy in the field. It is only in VATS where things like "Action Points" still matter in the FO games--basically how many shots you can fire per VATS targeting. So, a skill that you can points into and waste if you ignore that system entirely. It's still good to use if you outright suck at free targeting, and would have been better realized in these games if ammo was a truly scarce resource--thus encouraging you to exploit the system to make every shot count. It is useful early on, but soon enough ammo just becomes plentiful in these games and the skill system makes it nearly impossible to miss, let alone not crit.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I read this game has dated graphics and bad textures. You guys say it looks good. This makes me wonder if I should try the game. I don't really know why you have to pick a part of the enemy to shoot at though. That seems kinda strange.
For graphics, the game looks great except for wooden animations and faces - Bethesda still sucks at those. When people say it looks bad, they are saying compared to other AAA games the details and textures Bethesda is still lagging significantly. The Witcher 3 for instance looks considerably better. Most people are fine with how it looks, but some are really, really bothered.

As far as VATS it is purely optional. I never used it at all in New Vegas or 3. I do however applaud its inclusion, as some people do not like FPS mechanics and this allows them to enjoy a game they enjoy except for the combat mechanics. I wish they had similarly spent more time developing non-violent paths for those who prefer them, although that too doesn't affect my preferred style.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
I'm very early in the game, outside looks great, indoors not quite as good IMHO, however nothing to complain about in general.

My only complaint about the interiors is that they seem to put a much bigger load on my gtx 660 than the exteriors, for whatever odd reason. The museum in Concord really chugged it out, and even some of the other interiors in Concord got choppy.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
My only complaint about the interiors is that they seem to put a much bigger load on my gtx 660 than the exteriors, for whatever odd reason. The museum in Concord really chugged it out, and even some of the other interiors in Concord got choppy.

Have you done any of the tweaks? Such as adjusting the amount of vRam the engine will use?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
My only complaint about the interiors is that they seem to put a much bigger load on my gtx 660 than the exteriors, for whatever odd reason. The museum in Concord really chugged it out, and even some of the other interiors in Concord got choppy.

Wierd...I haven't had that issue..interiors max out my fps around 120fps until I put the frame rate limiter back on