has anyoone noticed with ports, only thing you can really change is shadows and textures!

I just got farcry 3 and tested it out with my 6990m, all maxed dx11 I get 20-30fps when I max dx9 I get 50fps average and notice 0 differance I even took pictures to see if it was subtle things, but the pictures looked identical. when I fiddled with the settings I noticed I could only change shadows and textures every other setting did nothing.

does anyone else notice the trend of adding features that only lower performance?

proof.

Far Cry 3 - Splitscreen Graphics Comparison Low vs Ultra high HD - YouTube

 

rep when I can.

Basically it depends on the game, but overall they are all the same yes.. that's why ports are s***.

Darksiders II did get a big patch released with loads of new options to optimize the graphics and it still looks like the console version even though there's a small difference.

All the options cranked up to ultra are basically only visible once you go to ultra high resolutions, pixels that allows to give you a good idea of how good the actual game looks with the options enabled. Otherwise it's all crap tbh
... that's why people hate ports, never ending discussion about the money the company saves doing so and the performance we lose buying a port

 

Even with the awful youtube quality I could tell the difference between low and ultra. Low settings have terrible jaggies, worse textures, no high def ambient occlusion, no motion blur, etc.

 

its subtle at best failwheeldrive. blurs on low also...I took pictures of the differance and you would need lazer eyes or no brain to see a differance.. akin to looking at the clouds and imagining theres a image of something in the sky....however in reality their is no differance only imagination.

rep for imagination failwheeldrive

 

I'm playing the game right now, switching between low and ultra and wondering how you can't see aliasing everywhere, blocky shadows, bad textures (especially on plants) etc. Nice try calling me brainless in the same sentence you misspelled "difference"... twice lol. I'm beginning to think your eyesight is as bad as your grammar.

 

^ I'm not sure why an article featuring someone's opinion is proof?
It's not factual evidence.

Anyway i can't see much difference between to two settings, just the slight texture/shadow difference not worth a massive fps tradeoff.


Hitman absolution looks much better than it's console counterparts however.

 

The texture difference varies a lot, some things don't change much from ultra to low, but others look awful on low (road and ground textures, lots of plants, etc.) I play it maxed out except for 2xMSAA and it averages 45 fps, so I don't feel the need to lower settings I guess. If I had a mid-range card then I definitely agree with you though. I'd rather play it at 60 fps on low than 30 fps on high.

 

Far Cry 3 has pretty good Post FX, and there is are two separate AA functions, MSAA and something called "Alpha to Coverage," which is like AA that is only applied to the foilage. If you only disable MSAA, the FXAA and Alpha to Coverage are still reducing some of the jaggies.

The only way to completely turn off Alpha to Coverage and Post FX is by tweaking the settings in GamerProfile.xml. If you do that, you will definitely see some prominent jaggies; however, AFAIK it is not possible to completely disable these two features with the in-game graphics settings menu.

 

This thread was beyond repair and it is now closed.
If you want to go off topic, do so, politely, HERE.