Of course!! I was just trying to be funny. In a satirical way. I love Avalanche.
1 Like
And if it turns out they still haven’t focused on optimization and all the gamebreaking bugs that have been reported for the last 2 or so months, I don’t think I will be waiting any longer… the game is going to get old, repetitive, and boring before it even starts working properly…
I have a 970 an i5 6500 and 16GB of ram with no performance issues at all I do however agree with the bug fixes, especially the ammo loss and quest bugs
The performance issues seem to be a bit random, as people with powerful or weak computers can run into FPS drops, crashes, etc. The June update is focused on fixing quests/missions so you have that to look forward to!
The only thing consistent about the performance issues is that they arrived with 1.03. It seems to be pretty rampant on consoles. With PCs it’s weird.
From what I’ve been able to gather from what people have posted here and other sites, it would appear the majority of PC users who are encountering performance issues fall into 2 camps. There are the low spec / older systems with older, less capable video cards, which can be expected to some extent, and people with beefier hardware running above 1080p.
Like I said above, I was able to run 4K full detail at near 80 fps before 1.03. Best I can eek out now is 70-ish fps at 1440p. Nothing to complain about, but it’s a huge hit in performance compared to what I was getting before 1.03. I suspect whatever is causing this is also the cause of the slowdown on consoles, since they were performing fine before 1.03.
1 Like
With my old computer : Intel Core i7-4790K CPU at 4 GHz;
8 Go RAM
Nvidia Geforce GTX 970
Windows 10 family 64 bits,
I experience a stable 60 fps with no performance drops and only two unexplained crashes within 10 days. I feel a happy man.
@danzkin - I suspect you’re playing at 1080p on a 60 Hz monitor and thereby not seeing issues.
2 Likes
1920x1080 at 60 Hz. What resolution do you use?
Not sure if you asked me or someone else but i play 1920x1080 with 120 hz.
I am just wondering why I do not have performance problems and was curious what are the display and graphics parameters the players here use.
I’m on 1920x1080 at 144hz. I usually get between 80-90 fps I think? I don’t always keep an eye on the fps counter.
Windows 10, geforce rtx 2080 8gb.
@Bazyl - I figured as much. Running 1080p 60Hz you wouldn’t have seen a frame rate drop after the update anyway with your setup. With a 60 Hz monitor, there’s no perceivable difference between 100 fps and 60. I suspect you’re probably running in the 70 fps range.
I was asking Bazyl, but any answers here are useful. It seems to reinforce that PC gamers NOT seeing a performance issue are running at 1080p, typically with a GTX 900 series level card or better. Reading the Steam community, and Reddit posts, this is the pattern I’m seeing. Performance issues are from people with consoles or running above 1080p.
Yeah, you should be blazing along way faster than that at 1080p. I was hitting about 80 fps at 4K with max detail before 1.03 with my RTX 2080 (just a regular Gigabyte Aorus 8GB - not OC or anything fancy). Now I’m getting about 70 at 1440p… If you’d checked your fps before 1.03, I’d bet you were screaming along at probably closer to 130+ fps because that’s what I was getting at the time with 1080p.
And that’s the point here. Whatever was done in 1.03 caused serious performance issues across the board, only most PC gamers wouldn’t notice. And that’s when the serious complaints about console performance started as well.
I think this is actually very important information that should make it to the devs. They’ve acknowledged performance issues on console, but not PC (that I’ve seen publicly, at least). And I think the reason is that PC gamers aren’t really noticing any performance issues because the vast majority are running 1080p.
There was a huge performance dip with 1.03, but not enough to affect the majority of PC players because it didn’t drop the frame rate down to levels where the frame rate drop was terribly noticeable. According to the Steam hardware survey, GTX 9x0 and 1060 level cards make up about 50% of results. Any of those people would not see that frame rate drop in a detrimental way. Although there are some that notice it when action gets heavy. Those are likely people with older GPUs. Console gamers, on the other hand, did notice drastically.
In addition to the above - I had done some frame rate comparison with a friend I play with. He has a Ryzen 5 1600 and a GTX 970 and runs on a 1080p 60 Hz panel. He was getting about 110 fps back when we first got the game on launch. After I noticed my big frame rate drop with 1.03 and mentioned it to him, he checked his frame rates and was down to about 70. Still very playable, but still a pretty massive performance hit.
I had started this thread a while back, but it got no traction at all. The only suggested problem was a bad nVidia driver, which I confirmed wasn’t the case after updating.
I’ve always felt the fps was a little low, but it never bothered me since the game is so easy on the eyes already. I didn’t play before April so I wouldn’t know what it was before that point 
I bet it’s awesome! Thanks for the info.
At 4K with max detail, it’s really beautiful. Still looks good at 1080 and 1440, but I do miss being able to run it at 4K. The sharp, crisp details were amazing to see running so smoothly.
I’m not sure what game should i compare it with but i use to play Tom Clancy’s Wildlands on ultra (insanely demanding game) with 117-118 fps (2-3 less fps than the monitor hz which is optimal for a very smooth gameplay). GZ use to run very well before the major updates. So now, after the latest update, started a new game and of course on ultra, 5-10 minutes into the game and the frames drop to 15-20, lag, stutter, etc. What is weird is that sometimes the game is smooth at 20 fps lol. It’s like a girl on her period changing moods. So i switched to high/medium and low and i see no improvemen in gameplay, fps or anything else in the same session. If i exit the game and go back in, all is fine again. And starting to act again after 5-10 minutes in the new session. I have a asus rog gtx 1080 8 gb, 120 hz gsync, 64 gb ram, i7-8700K, you know the drill.
That there describes exactly what I was seeing at 4K. My actual graphics settings didn’t matter after the 1.03 patch dropped. Resolution matters, but graphical detail has no effect on frame rate. Whether I was running on 4K ultra everything or 4K “potato” mode, I saw no perceivable difference in my frame rates at all. Yeah, it didn’t look anywhere near as good running at all low settings, but I was getting the same frame rate (within a margin of error) as running on Ultra.
I just remembered i switched to borderless window as soon as they implemented it, for easy alt tab. I doubt it has anything to do with it though. I remember my gsync being active for both fullscreen and windowed. I’ll test.
I take back the “doing nothing”. from earlier. I haven’t tried messing with resolutions since 1.05 since I haven’t really played it other than about 2 hours to see it was still broken. I tried 4K and it was still unplayable, so never messed with the other quality settings and went back to 1440p. Different graphics levels at 4K now show a noticeable difference in performance.
4K Low gets me 60-ish fps.
Medium gives me 50-ish,
High is in the 40s.
4K Ultra is still unplayable now hovering in the mid 30s.
4K Ultra used to get me 80 fps before 1.03 dropped.
That’s clear. Has Avalanche responded to the performance bug reports just after the 1.03 update? Did they tell the community what performance related changes they introduced to the game or to the engine at that moment? One may presume it be linked with the problems reported by the console players.