Starfield

Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't. I was planning on waiting a while to buy. (I'm not usually one to jump on new releases at launch)

Iratus both has the game runnung AND a 3960x. Been trying to coax him into sharing some performance numbers, but I guess he is busy actually playing the game, rather than testing it for those of us who aren't, and who can blame him? :p
Click to expand...

I tried again earlier but can’t load any of my saves at all now. Just hard reboots the whole pc. So I’ve just been playing on Xbox (20 hours in) I’ll try to do a new game tomorrow

Generally though I haven’t got the patience to track down the problem, I’ve seen a few people have memory timing issues and problems with amd overclocking so maybe that, could even be an old school one because I have 128gb of ram or a secondary quadro

Never actually had a game bug this bad but my machine is the definition of edge case.
 
I'm at 65 hours and there is still so much more for me to do in the game. This game is packed. I don't see a need for mods to add more content any time soon but there is definitely a need for QoL and performance mods.
 
Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose

For better or worse, that's a part of reality that Starfield deliberately tries to capture, according to a recent NYT interview with Ashley Cheng, Bethesda's managing director, and Todd Howard..."The point of the vastness of space is you should feel small," Cheng told the NYT, "It should feel overwhelming"...addressing fans' worries that Starfield's 1000 planets "are going to be boring," Cheng pointed out that not every planet "is supposed to be Disney World…When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren't bored"

So Starfield's many globes are meant to be sparse because, hey, the vast majority of planets out there are sparse too...but the sparsity is compensated for—or meant to be compensated for—by the wonder of exploration...the sheer thrill of stepping onto a planet previously untouched by humanity should more than make up for the lack of, well, much of anything else going on...

https://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-sa...othing-there-but-they-certainly-werent-bored/
 
dub77nj said:
I'm at 65 hours and there is still so much more for me to do in the game. This game is packed. I don't see a need for mods to add more content any time soon but there is definitely a need for QoL and performance mods.
Click to expand...
Rest assured the QoL ones will be the priority early on.
 
I gave her the chameleon spacesuit but she’s wearing it wrong


IMG_2010.jpeg
 
Iratus said:
I tried again earlier but can’t load any of my saves at all now. Just hard reboots the whole pc. So I’ve just been playing on Xbox (20 hours in) I’ll try to do a new game tomorrow

Generally though I haven’t got the patience to track down the problem, I’ve seen a few people have memory timing issues and problems with amd overclocking so maybe that, could even be an old school one because I have 128gb of ram or a secondary quadro

Never actually had a game bug this bad but my machine is the definition of edge case.
Click to expand...


That's a shame.


I decided to go ahead and buy the game, and posted about my results a few pages back. It ran pretty well for me.

I wonder if maybe you have an issue that is not game related.

When in th egame did you start seeing issues? I suspect I might be beyond that point already.
 
polonyc2 said:
Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose

For better or worse, that's a part of reality that Starfield deliberately tries to capture, according to a recent NYT interview with Ashley Cheng, Bethesda's managing director, and Todd Howard..."The point of the vastness of space is you should feel small," Cheng told the NYT, "It should feel overwhelming"...addressing fans' worries that Starfield's 1000 planets "are going to be boring," Cheng pointed out that not every planet "is supposed to be Disney World…When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren't bored"

So Starfield's many globes are meant to be sparse because, hey, the vast majority of planets out there are sparse too...but the sparsity is compensated for—or meant to be compensated for—by the wonder of exploration...the sheer thrill of stepping onto a planet previously untouched by humanity should more than make up for the lack of, well, much of anything else going on...

https://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-sa...othing-there-but-they-certainly-werent-bored/
Click to expand...
They also said that the bugs are not important to them, "freedom for gamers" is more important. So basically it's not a bug it's a feature, according to them.
 
polonyc2 said:
Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose

For better or worse, that's a part of reality that Starfield deliberately tries to capture, according to a recent NYT interview with Ashley Cheng, Bethesda's managing director, and Todd Howard..."The point of the vastness of space is you should feel small," Cheng told the NYT, "It should feel overwhelming"...addressing fans' worries that Starfield's 1000 planets "are going to be boring," Cheng pointed out that not every planet "is supposed to be Disney World…When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren't bored"

So Starfield's many globes are meant to be sparse because, hey, the vast majority of planets out there are sparse too...but the sparsity is compensated for—or meant to be compensated for—by the wonder of exploration...the sheer thrill of stepping onto a planet previously untouched by humanity should more than make up for the lack of, well, much of anything else going on...

https://www.pcgamer.com/bethesda-sa...othing-there-but-they-certainly-werent-bored/
Click to expand...
LMAO, what a load of bullshit. Just say it wasn't feasible to dedicate developer time to have everything detailed on such a scale.
 
Meeho said:
LMAO, what a load of bullshit. Just say it wasn't feasible to dedicate developer time to have everything detailed on such a scale.
Click to expand...
All they had to do was hand craft ~300 locations like Skyrim, then tell the proc gen to spawn them as the player explored a planet.
They didn't do this. I am guessing Starfield has like 50 POIs max. I saw duplicates within the first 10 hours of gameplay.

Starfield better have way more quests than Skyrim to compensate. Because exploration is dead in this game.
 
Meeho said:
LMAO, what a load of bullshit. Just say it wasn't feasible to dedicate developer time to have everything detailed on such a scale.
Click to expand...

I don't know man. When I heard that most of the 1000 planets would be uninhabited cold rocks, I though "That makes sense". That's exactly what a real human space exploration era galaxy would look like. The overhwelming majority of solar systems in th ereal galaxy are likely completely uninteresting apart from their mineral content. Finding something with life is likely one in a million, if not one in a billion.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't know man. When I heard that most of the 1000 planets would be uninhabited cold rocks, I though "That makes sense". That's exactly what a real human space exploration era galaxy would look like. The overhwelming majority of solar systems in th ereal galaxy are likely completely uninteresting apart from their mineral content. Finding something with life is likely one in a million, if not one in a billion.
Click to expand...

but this is a video game and not a space simulation...it doesn't need to reflect reality, it needs to be entertaining
 
I really dont want lots of stuff on planets, exploring and finding something should be a discovery not just a "oh look this again". Elite dangerous felt appropriate, no mans sky felt like everything was populated and you could never be alone. I feel starfield balances the two better imo.
 
robbiekhan said:
I'm using the Neutral-LUTs mod which removes the washed out green/yellow filter and restores the darkness of space. This mod isn't a reshade btw.
Click to expand...

Thanks I found it.

I haven't installed it yet, but looking at their sample screenshots, I think it looks better almost everywhere (except in the ship).

The modder said you can customize it and keep the LUT's you prefer. I might do that.

1693925051997.png


1693925066661.png


1693925086385.png


1693925096432.png


1693925117942.png


1693925139640.png


1693925159559.png


I think in most places it makes sense, but the ship looks better before.

That said, I am concerned about losing the colored atmospheres on some planets where it makes sense (Like Mars/Cydia)


I had forgotten how much modding Bethesda games often take to make us happy.
 
polonyc2 said:
but this is a video game and not a space simulation...it doesn't need to reflect reality, it needs to be entertaining
Click to expand...

I tend to find things that are more believable to be more entertaining. Things that require too much suspense of disbelief generally lose my interest.

To each their own I guess.
 
When your companion makes a kill, do you get XP for the kill or do you have to at least land one hit on the enemy like FO4?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Thanks I found it.

I haven't installed it yet, but looking at their sample screenshots, I think it looks better almost everywhere (except in the ship).

The modder said you can customize it and keep the LUT's you prefer. I might do that.



I think in most places it makes sense, but the ship looks better before.
Click to expand...


I wonder if that is what Edios was going for with Deus EX and all the Yellow filters in that game. I might have to try that mod when I get the game running today.
If the game looks decent enough on my LG Oled I might not change it at all.
 
Comixbooks said:
I wonder if that is what Edios was going for with Deus EX and all the Yellow filters in that game. I might have to try that mod when I get the game running today.
If the game looks decent enough on my LG Oled I might not change it at all.
Click to expand...

I guess I can understand what they were trying to do with all of those color filters. I just feel like they got carried away in places where it doesn't make sense.

The mod author admits that this is a "sledgehammer" approach that replaces all filters with the games standard filter. Long term the ideal solution would be a reworked set of filters that are better suited to where the player is rather than just removing them all, but this is a first quick step. Redoing an doptimizing all the filters would be a much larger task, requiring some artistic judgment calls.
 
Meeho said:
LMAO, what a load of bullshit. Just say it wasn't feasible to dedicate developer time to have everything detailed on such a scale.
Click to expand...
IDK, it wouldn't make much sense for every planet to be dense like a city. I don't mind that many planets are barren, there are still often outposts or facilities to find. Exploration would be dull if you bumped into something every step of the way.
But some planets do actually lack detail, like Paradiso for example.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I guess I can understand what they were trying to do with all of those color filters. I just feel like they got carried away in places where it doesn't make sense.

The mod author admits that this is a "sledgehammer" approach that replaces all filters with the games standard filter. Long term the ideal solution would be a reworked set of filters that are better suited to where the player is rather than just removing them all, but this is a first quick step. Redoing an doptimizing all the filters would be a much larger task, requiring some artistic judgment calls.
Click to expand...
As I got used to it I actually started to appreciate the haze, it makes the game look less artificial. I think turning it off completely would be a net negative. And it actually makes sense to use the flashlight at least, while in other games you can still make out everything when in the dark.
 
Starfield: FSR 2.2 Review

The in-game TAA solution has a very blurry overall image across all resolutions, even at 4K, and very poor rendering of small object-detail—thin steel objects and power lines, transparent materials, tree leaves, and vegetation in general...also, the in-game TAA solution has shimmering issues on the whole image, even when standing still, and this is especially visible at lower resolutions like 1080p...all these issues with the in-game TAA solution, except shimmering, were resolved as soon as FSR 2.2 was enabled, due to a better quality anti-aliasing solution and the sharpening filters in the FSR 2.2 render path

With FSR 2.2 enabled at 100% render scale, the overall image quality improvement goes even further, rendering additional details compared to the in-game TAA solution...however, the FSR 2.2 implementation isn't perfect and the image is suffering from shimmering on thin steel objects, transparent materials, tree leaves and vegetation in general...these shimmering artifacts are visible across all resolutions and quality modes even when standing still...the FSR 2.2 implementation also has some visible pixelation on particles and disocclusion artifacts on NPCs, which is especially visible at lower resolutions such as 1080p, and it can be distracting in motion for some people...

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/starfield-fsr-2-2/
 
NightReaver said:
So now FSR is "better than native"?

People should be asking why is native res being so shit.
Click to expand...
Because TAA just blurs things. It’s never been a huge improvement from FXAA. The problem with this game compared to FO4 is that TAA is just by default enabled and you can’t disable it like in FO4 unless you enable FSR instead.
 
polonyc2 said:
in some instances DLSS was also better than native- I think Death Stranding was one example
Click to expand...
Tbf I just noticed your post said rendered at 100%. So I guess that's still full resolution....if I understand it correctly.

So in either case both are just being used for the AA, right?
 
NightReaver said:
Tbf I just noticed your post said rendered at 100%. So I guess that's still full resolution....if I understand it correctly.

So in either case both are just being used for the AA, right?
Click to expand...

that's what it sounds like...apparently at 100% render scale it's not using any upscaling and is similar to Nvidia's DLAA...so it just replaces the TAA with a higher quality solution
 
Oh no… the piracy debate.

Every gaming forum should have a separate thread for that.
 
The ship building i have wasted way too much time on lol. I need to be able to save presets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top