*cries in console*

​@@lyonidus3073you get what you deserve

@@lyonidus3073 but the game should be optimized on consoles, no need to really look at graphics settings and stuff.

@@acezero8132 yes, i actually learnt this when i was 2 minutes through. i played a few games that have customizable graphics settings for ps5 and i thought helldivers 2 would be one of them.

cool

as if a pc with an rtx 4070 doesn't fall under the same category..i was expecting a i5 - 4th to 6th gen with gtx gpu

Im sorry if youre still using a 2016 era computer youre seriously delusional, thats almost a decade old now and you expect your computer to play modern games? ​@johndank2209

10700k, 3080

@@PneumaticFrog money

@@PneumaticFrog I'm sorry that you live in a bubble made out of money. God forbid something happens and you'll end up facing reality without it.

I also noticed going from low to medium that the haze is significantly less murky, letting you see silhouettes of enemies a good 10 meters or so more. It’s hard to describe but at least for me I’m much more likely to notice enemies or quickly locate them when scanning my surroundings on medium compared to the dozens of hours I played on low. My frame rate does suffer a little but I am able to maintain a consistent 60 and I’ll take that over less visibility.

Mine goes from fuzzy and not functional to very clear and almost realistic and very not functional. I blame my graphics card for this

This is why I stopped believing in games having legit ultra settings these days. There's virtually next to no massive difference between high/ultra, and even with games in the past 5 years, there's even less difference between medium/high, especially with lighting/fog. The most noticeable settings in games these days are SSR, AO, and shadows/texture quality, everything else is so minute.

true the only thing that makes a big difference is supersampling but that kills your fps so perhaps isn't worth it

@@dirge7459 what do you expect, for a game to go from 3d to 2d when switched from ultra to high?

@@zedus4042 I'm sorry, what?. I was talking about games in general these days, not the 90's. We've had games in the past where there were objectively stark differences between high/ultra.

That is super fascinating and valuable info. Thanks :)

Gonna be honest, since Arrow head are using a woefully outdated and non supported engine for this game, and it's already been 2 months now, I don't see them rolling out performance fixes and stabilisation. They made the absolute worst decision to use an engine that stopped receiving support 2 yrs into the game dev cycle. They really should have taken that as a sign of issues to come and just rolled with something like Unreal engine instead. Most games receive performance patches within the first month of a game's release and further on down the road, and the fact this game still hasn't had any performance updates or bug fixes tells me that they can't do anything about it, because of their engine. This is also the first co-op game I've played where I cannot even play the higher difficulty levels, simply because the more AI that get spawned into the mission end up crippling my framerate drastically. Also their in-game scaler is barebones, their fps and vsync options actually increase 1-2 CPU cores to 100%, which is not normal, and setting my fps cap and vsync via my Nvidia control panel yielded better results. Arrowhead should have really put some effort into their PC port tbh, because the second Horizon game came out recently, and that's obviously got a bigger open world and AI roaming around in it, and yet that's performing way better than a co-op shooter that only uses small maps and few buildings.

​ @dirge7459 I do not believe that to be justified While yes, The engine stopped getting supported mid-development, that doesn't mean you can just swtich so easily, with AHs team scale and budget, going back to nearly 0 and doing it over would have been a bad move, it might even have cause the cost of development to go up, forcing them to partake in more agressive monetization for example, or just unable to make the game due to budget overruns Switching Engines is a massive undertaking consider the time they took mastering the current engine, just to throw it all out of the window to learn and attempt with a new one Skills with Game Engines have some in common with eachother, but they are by no means trasnferrable fully you are learning from scratch, and lose the ability to use all the tech you learned from the previous engine Switching engines is considered the absolute last resort, or you do it in prototyping, so no actual final game building not to mention the engine was chosen for a reason, as it was (and still is) one of the best engines at simulating and handling massive hoards of AI characters, it was a natural fit for the game's nature. Chosing engines isn't simply about graphics and support, it's also about what the Engine is good at, and what it can/cannot do. in this case, the hoard handling capabilities of the engine warranted keeping it even after support ended also, Dev teams with decent experience alter and tweak engines to suite their needs, so it's not like the lack of support stops them from improving the engine on their end as for the comparison with Horizon, that is wholly unjustified for one, Both are open world, but Horizon is a static and pre-built world, while HD2 has semi-procedural generation for the maps Why does this matter? because optimization is not just some magic an engine does, there are things devs do to save performance, and not all methods suit all games for example, a game like Horizon with a pre-build map can use certain methods of lowering load of far objects significantly by hand-crafting extremely low poly and fidelity versions, or completely non-functional stand-ins. while HD2's procedural map cannot take advantage of it to such a massive degree, with many aspects needing be done in a smaller scale as you cannot predict what the map will look like fully Namely, HD2 has a siginificantly larger area of interaction, with you able to interact(well, shoot, mostly) and see things in the far distance in singleplayer games, you only ever need the immediate surrounding area of the player to be "active". HD2 cannot do that, thus it must take extra performance to keep the whole map active to a degree the presence of other players also play into this significantly, as you need to be able to see what other players are doing across the map, you need that section of the map to still be functional. This means both their bullets and stratagems, but also every enemy they are fighting, even if they are lower poly versions you still need to be able to shoot them, and I mean ALL of them, it is a significant load on the device, and it is something singleplayer games can forgo completely Simply put, optimization of a game is not simply about changing some settings and/or getting a "better" engine There are countless tricks and techniques developers use to achieve optimization, and some games are conceptually unable to partake in many of these aspects from what I can see, some technical stuff is definitely to be desired, but HD2 is still and amazingly optimized game for what it is doing I am willing to bet, if AH did change into an engine like UE back during development, HD2 would be a very different game UE is actually a very performance heavy engine, and does not specialize in hoards like the current engine does either (i forget the name) so the HD2 of that theoretical world would likely run like absolute crap, with significantly less enemies, smaller maps, and less interaction range, such as bullets disappearing at a middlingly far distance, or being unable to see players from afar or enemis for that matter or alternatively, less players, smaller and select hand-crafted maps (so less variety) and similarly small interaction range I do not think either of these theoretical games is any better than the HD we have It'd look good, sure, but what does it matter if the game loses its soul for it? UE is an impressive engine, but people should stop touting it as the only engine devs should use because "Look at all this graphics! performance!" UE has its place, and it is amazing of an engine, but not every game needs to, or should be built with that engine The right tool for the right job, Engines are a tool, and they have jobs they suit It is unfortunate that the performance of higher difficulties have been rough for you, but I believe the choices AH made were the right ones for the needs it demanded Thankfully videos like this exists, so we can hopefully work around the issues we have currently to have a better experience giving up on a bit of graphical fidelity is a bummer, but it's still good to be able to play this game at such difficulties

you guys enjoying 60 + fps while iam happy my pc is running it at 45 fps lol

@@lunarveggie All I got was "unjustified" and a novel to go with it. I'm sorry, but I am not reading all of that. I've been guilty of writing our a few paragraphs before, but you're honestly taking the piss and arm-chairing to boot. The game was 2 yrs into it's dev cycle when the engine ended support, they still had more years before 2024, and seeing as how it's an AA game and not AAA, they still would have had time. No the devs aren't perfect and no the engine isn't either. I don't care what's "unjustified", sometimes shit doesn't work and sometimes end of life support does in fact mean dire consequences.

4090 gang ✊

@@-The-Golden-God-”daddys money gang”

@@HyperDevv I'm 40 years old and run my own business, you stain. Jealously is such a turn off. Do better.

@@-The-Golden-God-gay

same

Bullshit, I'm getting 40-60 fps on 2060

​@hughjaenus2235 ever heard of other components

Even on helldive difficulties?

@@kato2395 a bit lower on Helldive difficulty but not by more however fps does dip lower when being overrun by bots or bugs.

@@markb9896 does it dip below 60?

@@kato2395 no

I see, seems like the game runs well on 8 core ryzen 7, I use a 3060 and should not be too different from the 4060. This game is very CPU heavy, thanks for sharing man.

I have the same rtx, might you be kind to share what your settings are?

@@Rougie1993 yes of course, I ll do that. With the New patch I experiencd crashes so I tell you more about my config as well

So first, I have an Intel Core i7 9750 H2.6GHz , 16 Giga Ram and I run the game on my internal SSD. Then, here is my settings for now:

- Render Scale ultra quality - Depth of field On - Bloom Off - Sharpness 100 - Texture Quality High - Object Detail quality Medium - Render Distance High - Shadow Quality Low - Particle Quality Medium - Reflection Quality : Low - Space Quality Low - Ambiant Occlusion ON - Screen Space Global Illum OFF - Vegetation and Rubble Density Medium - Terrain quality Medium - Volumetric Fog Low - Volumetric Clouds Quality Low - Lighting Quality Low - Anti Qliasing On - Async No

Finaly it is worth pointing out that it is a 6 years old MSI laptop and that I need to blast the fans to maximum speed to helping me play the game at in between 35-70 FPS. I ll maybe go down to some values but crashes are just happening anyway with the new patch, so i ll figure this out later.

They must have changed the description as I remember it saying that too, as of newest patch it says "modifies the resolution of the space backdrop when on missions".

That one is best left off unless you have a particularly old or slow CPU with a GPU that has good computational capability for asynchronous compute. (AMD GPUs from Polaris onwards are able to use spare cycles to compute rather than render)

Still waiting for update