Recommended Posts

Well BF4 automatically puts in "optimal" graphics settings for you anyway. It may not be the highest that your card could do but for multiplayer its all about the fps. You dont want your frames dipping low when your going into to kill people cus then you die.

 

The latest beta driver from AMD is supposed to increase performance with BF 4 i think so try installing that. Im running 13.4 atm and it runs fine i might update me drivers soon

Well BF4 automatically puts in "optimal" graphics settings for you anyway. It may not be the highest that your card could do but for multiplayer its all about the fps. You dont want your frames dipping low when your going into to kill people cus then you die.

 

The latest beta driver from AMD is supposed to increase performance with BF 4 i think so try installing that. Im running 13.4 atm and it runs fine i might update me drivers soon

BF4's auto setting are no good for me, get about 35-40 on auto, nvidia's settings I get 55-65.

May be different for everyone else, but deff with a try if you're not getting great performance.

probably nvidias settings are setting the details lower to achieve better fps, only using a 1GB 6870 so was better than expected. will be getting a 280X and overclocking the doo dads out of it so ill be in the hundreds prolly hahaha

Oh yeh nvidia's settings are lower than on auto, my point was that nvidia's settings hit the magical 60fps whereas auto doesn't.

I can't launch the game because the site doesn't recognize that the Battlelog Plugin is installed. Not sure where to go from here.

Which browser?

 

I had the same issue (Firefox Aurora), and the problem turned out to be the default settings for the ESN plug-ins (two of them) - they were set to NOT load automatically; changing the settings to load automatically solved the problem (Windows 8.1 RTM x64 - yes, Aurora is my default).  BattleLog (and the ESN plug-ins) use your default browser, though it loads rgw plug-ins in ALL your browsers - if you launch from Origin it will use your default browser, but you can launch BattleLog from any browser.  If BattleLog has issues, check your plug-in settings.

I can't get myself to love the Graphics on the Xbox 360, but I'm dying to play it on the One.

 

Compared to other games like Gears of War, COD, and Halo, or even Medal of Honor, the recoil in BF4 is intense as hell, I'm not even sure if I'm even getting enough feedback when hitting players though.

I can't get myself to love the Graphics on the Xbox 360, but I'm dying to play it on the One.

 

Compared to other games like Gears of War, COD, and Halo, or even Medal of Honor, the recoil in BF4 is intense as hell, I'm not even sure if I'm even getting enough feedback when hitting players though.

The beta doesn't have the HD texture pack included on 360 the final will look a lot better, of course one will look even better.

The beta doesn't have the HD texture pack included on 360 the final will look a lot better, of course one will look even better.

 

I should have known. I wish it did, I'd be able to get a feel of who I'm shooting at.

AMD doesn't have an equivalent yet, they're working on it.

They do actually. It's basically a rebranded Raptr that can optimise some of your games' settings. Very few are supported from the looks of it and I'm not sure if BF4 is among them since I don't have it installed any more.

They do actually. It's basically a rebranded Raptr that can optimise some of your games' settings. Very few are supported from the looks of it and I'm not sure if BF4 is among them since I don't have it installed any more.

It's not. Even BF3 isn't yet supported because of "This game does not yet have enough data from the AMD community to suggest optimal settings. Please check back soon."

I have played about an hour so far so I still need some gaming time. Plus my controls are not set up so that affects my game play. I have always played BF on PC and played the original, 2 and 3. I never played 2142 or whatever it was. I have not played console games since PlayStation.

 

1. I have some questions. The game graphics, at least the menus, have this wave or ripple go down the screen. I think it is a part of the game and its style or is my graphics messed up. Maybe it does it in the game but I can't remember at the moment. Do you get that?

 

2. So far I like the graphics like smoke, small objects floating around like the paper, and fire but everything else seems blockish. I know in an interview they were saying that they did not care so much about the best graphics but I feel textures could have been better. What do you think?

 

3. The map has a large feel to it but I still need some more game time. How do you guys feel about the map?

 

4. As far as game play. It does not feel like the previous games. It feels like a console game or something. When fighting another person to me it feels like whoever fires the gun first is going to win. I don't know how to explain it but I just don't like the feel of the game. What do you guys think?

Glad to report that the beta drivers and the latest patches have fixed all the issues I was having, I also just put all my settings to medium as right now for whatever reason EVGA Precision is not reporting my framerate so I just had to go on instinct, but today confirmed I will no doubt be picking up the PC version, as my aging PC can still handle it, even if it is not the best graphics, still looked pretty damn good to me.

 

The tanks really were put in this game for me, I just love the thrill of using them properly, and I can drive them just as good backwards as I can forwards. I do wish World Of Tanks was a better game overall.  :laugh:

 

I just love the fact I cannot play this game consistently yet still have decent rounds. 

 

post-34384-0-34913700-1381601043.png

 

Battlefield will forever be the FPS I can always go back to no matter what. Have played it since the very beginning, and although there have been some major changes over the years, especially when comparing what it is today to 1942, I do feel as if the core game has never really changed all that much, which is why despite having very limited playing time over the years, I can still hop in a random match, and do decent enough I do not want to rage quit. There is no doubt, I also have a few negative rounds, but for the most part I always have decent rounds, and I believe that is a testament to DICE themselves. They have had to progress the series, but its essence still remains Battlefield.

 

In short, I think I will always love this damn series.  :wub:

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!