• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Far Cry 4 PC tech trailer

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I don't mind Uplay. It could be better, but it's a minor inconvenience. I don't understand anyone who refuses to play a game just because it's on Uplay.

It was a bit of a headache to install, and yes it's an extra step, but so what?
 
Haserath said:
I actually don't care how real it is. There are so many things that aren't real that it would be nice if they were.

I like the flowing fur.
Click to expand...
flowing fur? ok. that crap in the video looks stupid and it was a silly waste of time to implement it. resources could be allocated for things that actually made the game look better.
 
toyota said:
flowing fur? ok. that crap in the video looks stupid and it was a silly waste of time to implement it. resources could be allocated for things that actually made the game look better.
Click to expand...

I usually don't disagree with you, but in this case I do. I thought the hair looked decent. Much better and more subtle on the Tiger, but definitely not at all bad. I thought it looked much better than Tomb Raider's tressfx.

Oh wells. To each their own. That is the joy of PC gaming though. We can turn off graphical features if we don't like it or if it is too taxing.
 
chimaxi83 said:
Another cool Nvidia advertisement. Unfortunately, HairWorks and TXAA (which you unsurprisingly didn't bold, I wouln't have either) look like fresh horse manure. Meh.
Click to expand...

I am starting to see this pattern too. There are countless games coming out like Dragon Age Inquisition but the focus on tech trailers seems to be on GW titles and by extension these happen to be from Ubisoft. Notice how NV and AMD perform rather well under TressFX but it's like NV is purposely crippling AMD by writing heavy tessellated code for God Rays and HairWorks? Typical to see almost all Ubisoft GW titles run worse on AMD. I've been saying forever that GE vs. GW will become simply a practice of who throws more money at developers. Given that NV is hitting record profits, a company will less cash can't possibly compete. I wish both GE and GW completely went away. Let the developers choose what tech to use. I only want NV and AMD to bundle games, nothing more. The idea that NV or ATI would throw in GPU architecture specific code into a popular AAA game would not be deemed acceptable in the 1990s or 2000s. Now it is common practice because with $ it seems you can buy anything.

Anyway, hopefully the game is fun. Right now it looks like a slightly upgraded FC3. Neither FC4 nor AC U look next generation to me.
 
Looks nice, but did not wow me like Ethan Carter, a DX9 game. Holy cow that was good.

Also, two different ways to make shadows appear more shadowy, are you kidding me? I struggle to notice the difference or rather, I cannot appreciate that minor alteration knowing it costs massive performance to enable (if typical of other games).

Then there's TXAA, why are you still alive you blurry Vaseline filter?!

I hope FC4 has proper MSAA support...

ps. I'm surprised Hairworks even runs on AMD hardware. I guess GPU-PhysX being limited doesn't get enough performance benchmark comparisons because its invalid on AMD wasn't a good idea.. so Hairworks is 10x slower on AMD hardware, all the NV favourite review sites are going to have a ball. 🙂
 
Silverforce11 said:
Looks nice, but did not wow me like Ethan Carter, a DX9 game. Holy cow that was good.

Also, two different ways to make shadows appear more shadowy, are you kidding me? I struggle to notice the difference or rather, I cannot appreciate that minor alteration knowing it costs massive performance to enable (if typical of other games).

Then there's TXAA, why are you still alive you blurry Vaseline filter?!

I hope FC4 has proper MSAA support...

ps. I'm surprised Hairworks even runs on AMD hardware. I guess GPU-PhysX being limited doesn't get enough performance benchmark comparisons because its invalid on AMD wasn't a good idea.. so Hairworks is 10x slower on AMD hardware, all the NV favourite review sites are going to have a ball. 🙂
Click to expand...
This so true and lol.
 
RussianSensation said:
Notice how NV and AMD perform rather well under TressFX but it's like NV is purposely crippling AMD by writing heavy tessellated code for God Rays and HairWorks? Typical to see almost all Ubisoft GW titles run worse on AMD.
Click to expand...

TressFX was garbage and totally unviable for games from a performance perspective. Lara Croft was the only character to have it, and enabling it resulted in a significant performance hit for just that one character, making widespread use of it impractical..

I know AMD has improved the technology by now, but comparing TressFX in Tomb Raider to Hairworks in Far Cry 4 or even the Witcher 3 just doesn't fly.

Hairworks is efficient enough to use on multiple entities and assets, and it uses DirectCompute for the simulation, just like TressFX, so it's not restricted to NVidia hardware. The hair and fur simulation isn't taxing in and of itself, but the rendering is.

It's not NVidia's fault that AMD didn't invest in more tessellation resources. AMD has always been weak in tessellation compared to NVidia, and only with Tahiti were they starting to catch up.
 
Carfax83 said:
TressFX was garbage and totally unviable for games from a performance perspective. Lara Croft was the only character to have it, and enabling it resulted in a significant performance hit for just that one character, making widespread use of it impractical..

I know AMD has improved the technology by now, but comparing TressFX in Tomb Raider to Hairworks in Far Cry 4 or even the Witcher 3 just doesn't fly.

Hairworks is efficient enough to use on multiple entities and assets, and it uses DirectCompute for the simulation, just like TressFX, so it's not restricted to NVidia hardware. The hair and fur simulation isn't taxing in and of itself, but the rendering is.

It's not NVidia's fault that AMD didn't invest in more tessellation resources. AMD has always been weak in tessellation compared to NVidia, and only with Tahiti were they starting to catch up.
Click to expand...

TressFX is also in lichdom battlemage game, it is quite impressive tbf
 
davie jambo said:
TressFX is also in lichdom battlemage game, it is quite impressive tbf
Click to expand...

Any links? I want to see it.

Silverforce11 said:
I'm seeing two (a few?) Yaks and a Pussycat.

I much prefer realistic hair on gorgeous BABES. 😛
Click to expand...

Lots of the wildlife in Far Cry 4 apparently have it, including monkeys, wolves, snow leopards etcetera..

I don't know whether it's on any characters though.. Witcher 3 will definitely use it for characters, that I know..
 
Carfax83 said:
Any links? I want to see it.



Lots of the wildlife in Far Cry 4 apparently have it, including monkeys, wolves, snow leopards etcetera..

I don't know whether it's on any characters though.. Witcher 3 will definitely use it for characters, that I know..
Click to expand...

so it looks better than tressfx, can be used on almost the whole screen and you think it will run as good as tressfx? prepare to run trisli for playable fps.
 
Found a video of TressFX 2.0 in Lichdom..

Looks decent I suppose, but the simulation is still a bit off. Also I don't know how many characters it's enabled for..

In the Witcher 3, Geralt, Triss and Yennefer for certain will have Hairworks enabled; likely more as well. Plus animals, monsters, even fur coats..

so it looks better than tressfx, can be used on almost the whole screen and you think it will run as good as tressfx? prepare to run trisli for playable fps.
Click to expand...

Judging by the latest Witcher 3 demo videos, it runs very well, and they used a single Titan if I recall..
 
RussianSensation said:
Notice how NV and AMD perform rather well under TressFX but it's like NV is purposely crippling AMD by writing heavy tessellated code for God Rays and HairWorks?
Click to expand...

Actually Tomb Raider ran like total crap on nvidia when it initially came out. Subsequent drivers fixed it. So perhaps AMD drivers can improve Far Cry hairworks performance.
 
The article updated, and the games are back in the U.S steam store, but not in the U.K one.

Anyway, I find it alarming how many people "refuse" to buy games that aren't on Steam. Do you think Valve alone has the right to monopolize the digital distribution market?

I say bring on the competition. EA's Origin to me is a much better digital distribution service than Steam, just for the fact that they allow refunds whereas Steam doesn't..

The word is, Ubisoft pulled the games from Steam because they're tired of paying Valve's 30% fee, which is exorbitant considering they are only distributing the game and nothing else.

Uplay is the worst out of the trio, but it's improving. That said, I think Ubisoft could have handled this better. Instead of pulling the games from Steam, they could simply offer greater incentives to buy the games from Uplay instead.
 
30% is the industry standard for anything digital download. Music, movies, games, software. 30%. It's not exorbitant when the publisher no longer has to pay for physical production, shipping, premium shelf space, and give retailers a cut. PC gaming would not be where it is today if Valve didn't come along and revolutionize digital distribution as well as massive holiday sales. Competition is welcome, but when games are removed from a service that isn't competing. Competing is when the game is offered in several places so I can choose from where to get it. And with Ubisoft's abysmal PC record (very poor ports, late releases, horrendous performance, lack of patching, always-on DRM) if I'm buying a ubisoft game I want them to receive as little of the profits from me as possible.
 
tviceman said:
30% is the industry standard for anything digital download. Music, movies, games, software. 30%. It's not exorbitant when the publisher no longer has to pay for physical production, shipping, premium shelf space, and give retailers a cut. PC gaming would not be where it is today if Valve didn't come along and revolutionize digital distribution as well as massive holiday sales. Competition is welcome, but when games are removed from a service that isn't competing. Competing is when the game is offered in several places so I can choose from where to get it. And with Ubisoft's abysmal PC record (very poor ports, late releases, horrendous performance, lack of patching, always-on DRM) if I'm buying a ubisoft game I want them to receive as little of the profits from me as possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why should Ubisoft pay Valve's 30% fee, when they can rake in 100% of the profit themselves using their own DD service? Thats the point.

And the games are still on Origin. In fact, I recently pre-ordered AC Unity Gold edition from EA Origin using the Hola trick, and when the game is released, EA will send me the license key.

So that makes you wonder why they removed it from Steam, but not from Origin if 30% is the industry standard as you claim.

I'm betting that EA is charging a smaller fee than 30%..
 
Ubisoft making another failure of a decision negatively affecting PC gamers, colour me surprised 🙄

The reality is Steam has the overwhelming majority of the market and it's now about the end user's experience. I don't want to juggle between multiple DRM clients, I just want one and that one is Steam. I put up with Origin because Battlefield is just that good. Ubisoft's content does not hold a candle to DICE's, so they don't have that killer game.
 
Is it me or are the cloth effects just not right. The flags are just not waiving right, they are little more than rigid, twirling in a circle.
 
Carfax83 said:
Yes, but why should Ubisoft pay Valve's 30% fee, when they can rake in 100% of the profit themselves using their own DD service? Thats the point.

And the games are still on Origin. In fact, I recently pre-ordered AC Unity Gold edition from EA Origin using the Hola trick, and when the game is released, EA will send me the license key.

So that makes you wonder why they removed it from Steam, but not from Origin if 30% is the industry standard as you claim.

I'm betting that EA is charging a smaller fee than 30%..
Click to expand...

I've used steam for years. It's where all my friends are that game (the few that do lol).
Having Origin, Ubiplay, and Steam up each time is quite annoying.

I don't disagree, I don't think Ubisoft should pay 30% at all. But I believe that it's time that they negotiated better terms to get their games on Steam instead. Yes, it's "not fair" but life isn't fair and those companies with bigger franchises have more leverage.

Quite frankly though the truth is, I just won't play the game if it's not on steam. The hassle of loading up the other services I just won't bother. I rarely load up BF4 as it is (basically just as a tech demo at this point to show off PC Gaming) but otherwise, I stick to loading up steam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top