pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 52,201
thats not what proactive means...
all of this should have been caught in final testing. oh right, preorder/day1 guys are the final testers now....
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Jedi Survivor is the best showcase of a looming problem for PC players
- Thread starter Lakados
- Start date
all of this should have been caught in final testing. oh right, preorder/day1 guys are the final testers now....
I meant with public statements and announcements. Lip service goes a long way with corporate but yeah it should have been unnecessary because a lot of these glitches are apparent in the first 1h of play well inside the return window. You think that would set alarm bells of somewhere if somebody was doing their job.
Furious_Styles
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,535
All preorders for this game should get a beta testing achievement.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,567
If this game is like Destiny than the updates have been in the production queue out to get QC'd for 1-2 weeks already and just got approved. Either way there is "too early" for releases so they could have waited but seems like no company cares at this point they all do this it seems.
erek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 10,894
an interpretation of the Patch
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Receives First Patch on PC Today, Respawn Entertainment Shares Apology
by T0@st Today, 11:57 Discuss (6 Comments)Respawn Entertainment, the Star Wars division at Electronic Arts and Lucasfilm Games have today released their first patch for the PC version of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor - some folks must have been working like mad over the weekend in order to address some of the problems encountered shortly after the game's launch last Friday (April 28). The EA Star Wars Twitter account issued a statement regarding the initial batch of patches for all platforms affected: "Today a patch has become available for the PC version of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, and tomorrow (5/2) we'll also be issuing a patch for PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S. We are hard at work on patches that will further improve performance and fix bugs across all platforms. There are more updates to come across all platforms, and we will share that timing when it is available."
"The patch notes for today's PC-only update only mention "performance improvements for non-raytraced rendering" so it seems the developers have a lot more work to do over the coming weeks"
a good start but it's going to take many more patches to get this game in good shape
Rev. Night
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,493
i'll apply this patch later tonight and see if the fps improves for the Coruscant level
Furious_Styles
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,535
It appears to mainly be a console patch since lots of the fixes are already in the current PC version.
Vader1975
Gawd
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 821
I run a 5950X with 64GB at 3866 with the cpu boosting around 5G all core. (excessive watercooling involved) With a Merc 310 7900XTX and i am playing on 1440P with all options at max including ray tracing and the only glitches i see are sudden cut scene executions taking a moment to engage. Game runs smooth as can be. I'm 16 hours into it.It's not malicious, they just put all the dev time into the consoles. Like the previous title and it's PC issues (shitloads of them) it's likely geared to run at 30 FPS, so I'm just gonna dial my system into those settings and sit back and play the game the way it was intended to be played, like a console.
If it runs like ass at 30FPS then I may start throwing shit around the room and swearing.
I am very curious to see how it will run on my 13900K and 7900XTX, if it has any AMD graphical optimizations in it it may run perfectly
will probably take the same amount of time to 'fix' as the LoU PC...Last of Us released 4 major patches in a month and things are better but it still needs work...I'm expecting Survivor to take at least 2 months to patch
The Xbox Series X/S version of the game is about 134 GB. Conversely, the Jedi: Survivor PS5 download size is roughly 148 GB, PC 155GB
Rev. Night
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,493
oh you know whats super fucking annoying? the game compiles shaders every boot up. ffs
And then somehow forget them constantly and re does them mid game…
Legendary Gamer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,590
Well, yeah! I had some serious issues until I realized that the E Cores were causing problems. I turned em off and the game ran buttery smooth at 4K with maximum settings and Ray Tracing. I attribute most of that to the fact the game is optimized for AMD over Nvidia and my 7900XTX had no issues at all running the game. I have 1/2 your RAM and I had no issues. More than anything I got sick of the absurdly long and involved jumping puzzles. The broke my immersion in the game completely.
OutOfPhase
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,579
I read that somewhere. It pre-compiles some things every time. And the rest, still does on the fly for fun.
Best of both worlds!
Bankie
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,469
https://www.dsogaming.com/videotrai...rvivor-dlss-3-frame-generation-mod-showcased/
A modder has added DLSS to Jedi Survivor. It's not great as it doesn't have access to all of the information it needs (apparently due to Denuvo) but it does appear to work.
A modder has added DLSS to Jedi Survivor. It's not great as it doesn't have access to all of the information it needs (apparently due to Denuvo) but it does appear to work.
III_Slyflyer_III
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,252
The ideal DLSS will be one that can inject itself into any game. I have no clue what that would take, but seeing as the GPU renders the frames and the drivers for the card determine how that is done on a system level, I feel like it could be possible someday...
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,940
The important thing was that people assumed it did, then praised it. This maybe a PS4 game that was converted to PS5 and etc, but the developers went with assuming LZ4 because time. BTW the PC version runs poorly because both the CPU and GPU are heavily underutilized. Do we know of a game that had a similar problem and then hackers removed Denuvo, which to their surprise brought an increase to performance? I bet you the PC version has a DRM problem causing poor performance. Consoles are just weak, but the biggest problem for PC is Denovo, or whatever DRM they're using. The game uses Unreal Engine 4, which is already well optimized, so DRM is the only explanation why it runs poorly on PC.
Rev. Night
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,493
So i'm here on EA Origin and I have no idea if the patch was downloaded. How do I see what version history I am on? The 'properties' is a joke, just allows arguements
Rev. Night
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,493
played more of Corsecant. FPS is the same, so maybe the patch did nothing, or my hardware wasnt their target audience
edit: nvm, now its downloading.
edit: nvm, now its downloading.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,768
So I've got a few days of gameplay in. Applied the setting changes in the GameUserSettings.ini as I detailed in a previous post.
This game is pretty beautiful, and the worlds look great, with some amazing areas.
The worlds are larger.
The story so far has been quite good.
The platforming is annoying,, running on walls wasn't in any Star Wars movie. This is only real downside to this game.
Some areas are locked off the first time you visit, so I know I will have to go back to be able to find everything. It looks so good though, and I like just running around exploring... so the revisits will not bother me. YMMV
Performance is acceptable after the fix, but it does still occasionally stutter, FPS likely dropping below 30 sometimes.
I think the performance issues are due to some combination of: 1) Game was rushed out before it was ready. Sadly typical is a lot of games these days. 2) Also believe issues are due to the shitty capabilities of current (what, 1 year old?) consoles. So games like this are written to render at 720p and upscale so they can even work on a console. Since consoles use AMD graphics, it might be why they chose to let AMD sponsor it, maybe they thought it would be an easier task... hell if I know. But if they have learned anything, it might be that choosing to be an AMD sponsored title was a shit idea... Nvidia has the resources to properly assist game dev's in getting it working like it should. I'm still not sure that AMD didn't 'sabotage' the Nvidia performance... depends on what all they were responsible for. The game's default setting is to render at 50%, whatever the ResolutionQuality setting we manually edit the file and set from 50 to 100, does, for Nvidia hardware. But using FSR that doesn't have an impact/that setting is properly set? So AMD sponsored apparently means they leave the setting for the competitor at a shit setting. It was either that, or incompetence. It's a stain on AMD's 'halo'. AMD can't say "But I'm the underdog!" anymore either.. they make tons of money on their CPU's, they don't have any excuse for not having a better partner program. Put your money where your mouth is AMD.
FSR...
The game has shown that FSR can be shit on non-AMD hardware.. it's 'selling point' is that it was purported to work on everything. Clearly that is not the case. (FYI I play with a 4090 and I turned that shit off). It's fine to build it in, but they should have built DLSS in as well. Nvidia has 80% of the market share, lots of cards out there that support DLSS, and it is a superior tech. If it's on the to-do list, great.
Still, I'm having a pretty good time playing Jedi Survivor. The first day it crashed like 6 times. Today it crashed once. I've sent the crash report in every time. It has its issues, for anyone who doesn't yet own it, just wait 3 months, but definitely give it a try.
It's sad the launch is going like this, because it really is a gorgeous game. I like the characters. They interact in amusing ways. The facial expressions show various emotions, must be captured from actors faces. Combat with the lightsaber is fun. The customization options are cool.
This game is pretty beautiful, and the worlds look great, with some amazing areas.
The worlds are larger.
The story so far has been quite good.
The platforming is annoying,, running on walls wasn't in any Star Wars movie. This is only real downside to this game.
Some areas are locked off the first time you visit, so I know I will have to go back to be able to find everything. It looks so good though, and I like just running around exploring... so the revisits will not bother me. YMMV
Performance is acceptable after the fix, but it does still occasionally stutter, FPS likely dropping below 30 sometimes.
I think the performance issues are due to some combination of: 1) Game was rushed out before it was ready. Sadly typical is a lot of games these days. 2) Also believe issues are due to the shitty capabilities of current (what, 1 year old?) consoles. So games like this are written to render at 720p and upscale so they can even work on a console. Since consoles use AMD graphics, it might be why they chose to let AMD sponsor it, maybe they thought it would be an easier task... hell if I know. But if they have learned anything, it might be that choosing to be an AMD sponsored title was a shit idea... Nvidia has the resources to properly assist game dev's in getting it working like it should. I'm still not sure that AMD didn't 'sabotage' the Nvidia performance... depends on what all they were responsible for. The game's default setting is to render at 50%, whatever the ResolutionQuality setting we manually edit the file and set from 50 to 100, does, for Nvidia hardware. But using FSR that doesn't have an impact/that setting is properly set? So AMD sponsored apparently means they leave the setting for the competitor at a shit setting. It was either that, or incompetence. It's a stain on AMD's 'halo'. AMD can't say "But I'm the underdog!" anymore either.. they make tons of money on their CPU's, they don't have any excuse for not having a better partner program. Put your money where your mouth is AMD.
FSR...
The game has shown that FSR can be shit on non-AMD hardware.. it's 'selling point' is that it was purported to work on everything. Clearly that is not the case. (FYI I play with a 4090 and I turned that shit off). It's fine to build it in, but they should have built DLSS in as well. Nvidia has 80% of the market share, lots of cards out there that support DLSS, and it is a superior tech. If it's on the to-do list, great.
Lol.. I played Cyberpunk at launch, I didn't have any issues. I played on PC, I think most of the showstopping bugs were the console performance issues. On PC the game was great. It had some glitches but nothing showstopping. And I didn't have to Mario my way across the map.
Still, I'm having a pretty good time playing Jedi Survivor. The first day it crashed like 6 times. Today it crashed once. I've sent the crash report in every time. It has its issues, for anyone who doesn't yet own it, just wait 3 months, but definitely give it a try.
It's sad the launch is going like this, because it really is a gorgeous game. I like the characters. They interact in amusing ways. The facial expressions show various emotions, must be captured from actors faces. Combat with the lightsaber is fun. The customization options are cool.
When nVidia marketing forgets the mission.
Funny how FSR seems to be working just fine to promote the 4090 (and this was before the patch).
Also PC issues are pretty well documented with Cyberpunk and the issues were in no way limited to consoles. Hell there's bugs even now with DLSS 3 being broken on Ryzen CPUs and that game came out 3 years ago. I guess they rushed it.
Last edited:
This could be slightly off topic. What version of FSR is supported in the game. Is it FSR 2.3 ? HUB's comparison of DLSS vs FSR showed that FSR 2.3 could match DLSS 2 but many games didn't have FSR 2.3
They just say FSR 2 in the article. Feel free to look through it.
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor doesn't need the Force to play at 8K... just the Nvidia RTX 4090
D
Deleted member 312202
Guest
Have e cores turned on here with no issues on my 13900K.
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
I don’t like that reviews format…
When they say 8K they never specify an actual resolution. They are also talking about how smooth and great the game plays at 21.6fps with dips down to 16.
I can’t tell if it’s satire or just poorly written but I recommend writing classes regardless.
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
I love that they go out of their way to call them out for going out of their way to not including DLSS and XeSS, as adding them in UE4 is easier than leaving them out.
Yeah they do (7,680 × 4,320).
?
"the game certainly struggled, hitting 21.6fps (frames per second) on average, and dropping down to just 16fps."
That was before they enabled FSR. At balanced they said, "Switching FidelityFX Super Resolution 2 to 'Balanced' saw another leap to 45.8fps on average, with a maximum frame rate of 54.1fps recorded."
Weird how FSR worked for them.
Rev. Night
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,493
the fact that fsr quality is enabled by default should tell you everything you need to know.
Yes weird how it worked for them and literally nobody else who has reviewed the game.
OK I missed the resolution, I am glad they used a proper 8K and not the fake 8K that is actually 6K that was prevalent in most of the marketing stuff for a long time.
FSR though for this game upscales from a base image of 942p, and everybody else complains it is incredibly fuzzy with a terrible motion-generated blur which happens independent of any motion blur settings in place and that is at 4K let alone 8K, the writer says it doesn't distract them or overly ruin their enjoyment which is good but I wouldn't call that working.
Maybe this guy has a newer patch than the other reviews so I am going to take it as progress, I hope things get better soon but the Jedi Fallen Order was best fixed by fan mods and not the actual devs and I am expecting this to be the same.
The game certainly struggled, hitting 21.6fps (frames per second) on average, and dropping down to just 16fps. However, there were some promising signs. For a start, the game didn't crash or refuse to run as I had feared. Animations were certainly choppy, but the game was kind of playable.
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor has combat that relies heavily on well-timed attacks and parries, which means you want the game to be as fast and fluid as possible. So, while you wouldn't want to play it at 21.6fps, it wasn't the complete horror show I was expecting.
Seem a clear step below being smooth, it is the same lowest frame rate than say a PS5.
Would that be the case in 8k mode, wouldn't FSR use a ratio of the output resolution and not a setted affair ?
Nope because that is one of the known bugs at the moment, no matter the output resolution it scales up from 942p.
But PureDark is already on the case, his mod has DLSS 3 working in the game overtop of FSR 2 and it dramatically increased quality and frame rates, though there are some visual glitches because it is taking the FSR 2 output and then feeding it into DLSS 3. But he did that in under 24h... and most of his problems in modding have been caused by Denovo which is preventing him from adding DLSS 2 to the game.
Last edited:
Why does going from quality to balanced seem to change the reviewer FPS, if the resolution stays always the same:
'Quality', which minimizes the amount of upscaling performed to improve graphical fidelity while sacrificing performance gains, the average frame rates leapt to 37.9 fps, peaking at 43fps.
Switching FidelityFX Super Resolution 2 to 'Balanced' saw another leap to 45.8fps
And why does it go that slow on a 4090, those frame rate would be slow for native 4k, let alone 1080p play
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...or-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/4.html
Because it changes how much work it is doing to the image, not the base image itself.
FSR 2 is shader based, as it upscales the image it applies existing smoothing methods such as AA and others, lower quality simply turns down those various smoothing methods like going from 16xAA down to 2xAA, still applying the smoother just at a lower rate.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,567
I dont understand why people are complaining why DLSS wasn't added. Its an AMD sponsored game.
I dont think I have ever seen people complain about FSR not being added to a game.......lol
I dont think I have ever seen people complain about FSR not being added to a game.......lol
I feel like DLSS being always as good or better should make this extremely easy to understand. As well as the other way around you are talking about.
It is also a title for which DLSS 3 would make a lot of sense (cpu limited a lot)
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924