Graphics

Suggestions
1

i have set all graphic options to lowest, and now i run on 20 fps instead of 15, but some of stuff could further be reduced, like bushes and grass are still very detailed, the fire’s constantly changing illumination causes lag too

1 Like
2

Lol how about change your potato PC instead?
I have mid-range PC and can do above 100fps at high settings 1080p…
Game is well optimized they can’t do miracles for old hardware.

4 Likes
3

This^^^^

Change your PC. 20FPS is no way to play a FPS game.

3 Likes
4

im just using outdated graphics card, processor and other things are doing quite well

5

though, i will have to stick to this one for now…

6

When technology that came out 8 years ago and only cost $400 can run the game fine, the issue isn’t the game. Its the rig.

1 Like
7

I really hope to not have the same ULQ issues where people that turn down graphics can see through bushes etc

1 Like
8

nono, i can shoot at enemy soldiers well even with all the bushes and grass in the was (FPS is high enough) what causes serious lag is fire detail

9

though, bush and grass detail could be lowered a bit, allowing me the game to run at 23 FPS (which is quite a diffrence in low FPS measurements)

11

can you screenshot your options and show me how i should set?

15

i didnt say that that issue was already there, i was saying that i dont want them to change it so the ULQ issue starts existing in enlisted too

1 Like
16

I get over 200 fps at 2k, this game runs smoother than any other game I’ve ever played

17

100/200 fps at 1080p.
cant complain. game runs amazing for an alpha and even tho i dont care about how games looks, this one catches my eyes prety well.

upgrade your rig. i dont enjoy games where someone finds advantages by lowering the options to a point where grass and stuff doesnt render at some distances.

18

dude wtf, that was not my point, do you even realize how much flame detailed is even at lowest graphic? (the illumination quality)

19

The problem is by drastically reducing the graphics to allow you to play, will just result in people abusing the system in order to remove foliage and grass, which again. Results in people having an advantage over those running the game at higher graphics settings.

This game isn’t demanding at all.

I suggest instead of Darkflown investing 1000’s on having their developers Reduce the graphics in order to please the minority that have pcs that cannot run the game and creating a gameplay imbalance between high and low graphics settings, I suggest you just upgrade your rig,

Hell this game would run fine on even the most budget cpu and gpu, your upgrade will cost you less than 400

2 Likes
20

Yeah, if it cant run above at least 30 fps at low settings, better uninstall or upgrade PC, end of discussion.

21

why? im still able to play the game

22

all im asking for is to be able to further reduce graphics

23

Further reducing graphics would require a switch to a different rendering method because the stuff you mention (bushes etc) are merely 2d images clustered toghetter to fake a 3d effect. To change the render pipeline to further reduce the draw calls would be an extremely costly change, probably taking dozens of hours from the entire dev team to accomplish. Honestly not worth the development time. Mind you: they are a company with the intention of earning money off this game. If you can’t spend money on a rig that can properly run the game, chances are, you can not afford to put money into the game either.

24

They dont need to reduce the graphics but the game is atm NOT well optimized, that will change in the future.

I get 100 frames in War Thunder (Ground forces) on Ultra/High graphics 2560x1440 resolution, in Enlisted 80 with Medium and 1650x1050 resolution… 110fps usually at the beginning of the game and 70ish at the end, it seems like burning tanks and all other stuff is super demanding