Graphic Downgrade with every Patch on PC

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

I have to agree, totally horribe looking game! Just look at all the low poly objects and the crappy textures, 1.22:

View attachment 11229491View attachment 11229494View attachment 11229497View attachment 11229500View attachment 11229503

Most people who defend the graphics use 2k or 4k pics (most made with photo mode with effects), usually with RTX card and ray-tracing and usually at night masking some of the bad graphics.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

Textures themselves are fine. The reason your game looks like garbage is that most other settings are set to either "low" or "off".

Moving the goalpost?! You said: "Most games tend to have low-res and low-poly objects when you set graphics settings to "lowest"
Textures look fine? They look garbage. Wish u could see on my TV how bad it looks.

What setting to set at medium to improve the game? Huh?
Volumetric fog settings? they don't improve much the visuals.
Scree Space Reflections. That bugged still. game looks grainy. Worse.
Subsurface Scattering remains and Cascade Shadows settings, Distant Shadows.

 

[Guest 3847602]

Most people who defend the graphics use 2k or 4k pics (most made with photo mode with effects), usually with RTX card and ray-tracing and usually at night masking some of the bad graphics.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

Moving the goalpost?! You said: "Most games tend to have low-res and low-poly objects when you set graphics settings to "lowest"
Textures look fine? They look garbage.

What setting to set at medium to improve the game? Huh?
Volumetric fog settings? they don't improve much the visuals.
Scree Space Reflections. That bugged still. game looks grainy. Worse.
Subsurface Scattering remains and Cascade Shadows settings, Distant Shadows.

Screenshot I already posted looks infinitely better than what you're showing. 1080p, no RTX.
So, the game is definitely capable of looking great.

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

Screenshot I already posted looks infinitely better than what you're showing. 1080p, no RTX.
So, the game is definitely capable of looking great.

Most people who defend the graphics use 2k or 4k pics (most made with photo mode with effects), usually with RTX card and ray-tracing and usually at night masking some of the bad graphics.

What setting to set at medium to improve the game? Huh?
Volumetric fog settings? they don't improve much the visuals.
Scree Space Reflections. That bugged still. game looks grainy. Worse.
Subsurface Scattering remains and Cascade Shadows settings, Distant Shadows.

 

[grill3]

Most people who defend the graphics use 2k or 4k pics (most made with photo mode with effects), usually with RTX card and ray-tracing and usually at night masking some of the bad graphics.

There was a time, when I was happy to play some games at all on my low-end low-life hardware...

Pray to the Lord and - just maybe, there will be a nice GPU under your christmas tree.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Besides, I wonder why not directly display detailed textures even from very very far away, since they are displayed when we get close enough.
Sound weird, it'nt it ?
There could be a good reason, I don't know...

Or maybe it's just the well know expression :
"Why make it look beautiful, when you can make it look aweful !"

 

[Guest 3847602]

Most people who defend the graphics use 2k or 4k pics (most made with photo mode with effects), usually with RTX card and ray-tracing and usually at night masking some of the bad graphics.

What setting to set at medium to improve the game? Huh?
Volumetric fog settings? they don't improve much the visuals.
Scree Space Reflections. That bugged still. game looks grainy. Worse.
Subsurface Scattering remains and Cascade Shadows settings, Distant Shadows.

No idea, not interested in experimenting, maybe try playing on medium and see what each option does to the overall graphics quality. Cranking up one thing at the expense of everything else is evidentially not enough.

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

No idea, not interested in experimenting, maybe try playing on medium and see what each option does to the overall graphics quality. Cranking up one thing at the expense of everything else is evidentially not enough.

Medium High Most settings. Still Garbage. On my TV in real looks worse then even in this video.

So blurry. Its like i need glasses.

 

[greeks]

I would like to ask you a question. What side are you on?


I want the game to look and work great. If the game get fixed and will look great and work great-- everybody will win. Me. You. Everybody. If the game stays the same ugly mess, who will win? Me? You? Anybody? I gess only the people who walked away with their bonuses.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

Patches don't fix things for selected few. Patches fix things for everybody.

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

You might not be able to play the game at full details now. But wait a couple of years, maybe get a job. Buy yourself a rocket of a computer and play it again. If the game stays a mess as it is, you will still play a mess on your rocket of a computer. Is this so difficult to understand?

 

[backtron]

Posting photo mode shot in thread about dynamic quality is insulting ridicule to others. Same as blaming LOW settings. One of main complaints here is that the actual quality has been reduced for HIGH / ULTRA options so load happens right in your face while your expensive hardware is underutilized.

If the patches are meant to address large part of average hardware users those changes should happen for medium-high settings and make ULTRA push the engine and hardware as far as it can go. Or better yet, add more setting values and fields so users can fine tune the rendering to their liking and we don't need to have this discussion. Too low fps - user has selected too high setting. Too bad quality - turn up the slider and get better hardware. The engine is capable and artwork is there.

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

Posting photo mode shot in thread about dynamic quality is insulting ridicule to others. Same as blaming LOW settings. One of main complaints here is that the actual quality has been reduced for HIGH / ULTRA options so load happens right in your face while your expensive hardware is underutilized.

If the patches are meant to address large part of average hardware users those changes should happen for medium-high settings and make ULTRA push the engine and hardware as far as it can go. Or better yet, add more setting values and fields so users can fine tune the rendering to their liking and we don't need to have this discussion. Too low fps - user has selected too high setting. Too bad quality - turn up the slider and get better hardware. The engine is capable and artwork is there.

It looks garbage 1080p High-Medium Settings( High Textures, High LOD, High Color Precision, Medium Shadows).
Most pics that looked good that i have seen on the forum are 2k-4k Ray traced, photo mode-effects and at night.

 

[northwold]

Medium High Most settings. Still Garbage. On my TV in real looks worse then even in this video.

So blurry. Its like i need glasses.

What are you asking for, here? For the rendering dynamically to scale up every time you zoom in?

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

There was a time, when I was happy to play some games at all on my low-end low-life hardware...

Pray to the Lord and - just maybe, there will be a nice GPU under your christmas tree.

Ryzen 1700 8 core 16 threads CPU + 16 GB RAM 3200 MHZ + GTX 1060 6GB/RX 580 4GB is low-end low-life hardware?

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

What are you asking for, here? For the rendering dynamically to scale up every time you zoom in?

To be wondered by the next gen game that was advertised. To the game having better visual then Crysis 3.
To not look so blurry like i need glasses. To not see 2d stuff in 2021 after so much hype.
At least if looking garbage to perform ok. But it does not perform ok and neither looks good.
Expecting a next gen game from 2020 to look good on 1080p High-Medium settings.

 

[northwold]

Ryzen 1700 8 core 16 threads CPU + 16 GB RAM 3200 MHZ + GTX 1060 6GB/RX 580 4GB is low-end low-life hardware?

Post automatically merged: Jun 24, 2021

To be wondered by the next gen game that was advertised. To the game having better visual then Crysis 3.
To not look so blurry like i need glasses. To not see 2d stuff in 2021 after so much hype.

The specific thing I don't understand about your video is that you *zoom in*. So I don't understand whether you're complaining about a lack of dynamic re-rendering whenever you hit the zoom button.

Which would be fair enough but you would need to expect a performance hit.

 

[cartlidge]

Ryzen 1700 8 core 16 threads CPU + 16 GB RAM 3200 MHZ + GTX 1060 6GB/RX 580 4GB is low-end low-life hardware?

I had similar to that and didn't think it looked bad.. Think I used the settings from here https://steamlists.com/cyberpunk-2077-gtx-1060-6gb-best-settings/

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

The specific thing I don't understand about your video is that you *zoom in*. So I don't understand whether you're complaining about a lack of dynamic re-rendering whenever you hit the zoom button.

Which would be fair enough but you would need to expect a performance hit.

But it does not perform ok and neither looks good.
As u can see from the video it stutters and freezes. Low frames.

I zoomed to see closer, better how bad everything looks.
How big traffic is from distance and when one gets close the city is much more empty on streets.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Displaying detailed textures as far as you can see, it is for me the domain of the dream... It's always been that way, and always will be (whatever the next-gen).
The only way to make it less visible is to use "hyde-misery" to block the view (buildings, mountains...)

That the distance increases a little (even a lot), yes... You just have to be patient

 

[grill3]

Ryzen 1700 8 core 16 threads CPU + 16 GB RAM 3200 MHZ + GTX 1060 6GB/RX 580 4GB is low-end low-life hardware?

To stayon topic, I can't say I've experienced some kind of graphics downgrade. That does not mean there is none. Maybe, maybe not... I just speak for myself.
I think it looks ok on your hardware relative to your specs. That does not mean you have to have the same opinion.

It just seems like you are having more fun pointing out that you don't like the graphics on your hardware, than playing the game.

 

[northwold]

But it does not perform ok and neither looks good.
As u can see from the video it stutters and freezes. Low frames.

I zoomed to see closer, better how bad everything looks.
How big traffic is from distance and when one gets close the city is much more empty on streets.

So specifically on zooming, the game does not re-render with higher resolution assets when you use the zoom function (nor does it swap out the "far away traffic" routine). It's distracting, but I'm not sure it's helpful in demonstrating what the game looks like at its native field of view.

Essentially all 3D games use multiple models of increasing mesh complexity and texture resolution depending on how far away they are. When you are right up close to something you need an orgy of polygons. When you are not, it should look like crap because a couple of pixels on your screen need not to take up a gigabyte of VRAM and all the processing power of your GPU.

Objects further away also need to be reduced in complexity because there will be more of them on screen at the same time because your field of view gets wider and wider the further away you are looking.

So I think the question of how the game looks zoomed does need to be kept separate. I'd love to see it dynamically scale. But the performance hit of doing so would likely be very significant.

 

[sL3nd3rmAnn]

So specifically on zooming, the game does not re-render with higher resolution assets when you use the zoom function (nor does it swap out the "far away traffic" routine). It's distracting, but I'm not sure it's helpful in demonstrating what the game looks like at its native field of view.

Essentially all 3D games use multiple models of increasing mesh complexity and texture resolution depending on how far away they are. When you are right up close to something you need an orgy of polygons. When you are not, it should look like crap because a couple of pixels on your screen need not to take up a gigabyte of VRAM and all the processing power of your GPU.

Objects further away also need to be reduced in complexity because there will be more of them on screen at the same time because your field of view gets wider and wider the further away you are looking.

So I think the question of how the game looks zoomed does need to be kept separate. I'd love to see it dynamically scale. But the performance hit of doing so would likely be very significant.

The game looks bad without zooming and 50 m in front of me. Everywhere. In the city. The walls of building, structures, NPCS and cars 50 m away are low polygon, low textures.

 

[northwold]

The game looks bad without zooming and 30 m in front of me. Everywhere. In the city. The walls of building, structures, NPCS and cars 30 m away are low polygon, low textures.

So I agree that texture and poly popin was made worse (too close) by previous patches. I don't think it looks "bad" but, having seen it look *better* before, it is extremely annoying and it would be nice if they found a way to restore the original performance for more powerful machines.