Thread Rating:

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battlefield 1 performance analysis & video settings
Korte samenvatting Battelfield 1 video settings

(PCGamer (By Jarred Walton) Thx mateSmile

Resolution scale:

does exactly what you'd except—it renders offscreen at anywhere from 25 percent to 200 percent of the current resolution, and scales the result to your selected resolution. If you have spare graphics horsepower, you can opt for a value greater than 100 to get supersample antialiasing, though the demands for that are quite high. Going below 100 is less useful, unless you're already at you display's minimum resolution—and upscaling anything below 50 percent tends to look pretty awful.

GPU memory restriction:

is designed to help the game engine avoid using more VRAM than you actually have available. I don't know what exactly gets downgraded or changed, but on both GPUs I tested, turning it on actually helps performance to the tune of around five percent. That's partly because I'm starting at the ultra preset as my baseline, but it still appeared to give a small boost even when starting from the medium preset on a 4GB card. Grabbing a couple of screenshots, this appears to impact the amount and quality of showmaps used, but it ends up being a very small change in image quality.

Texture quality:

on the 3GB and 4GB cards I checked has very little performance impact, so this one is best left at ultra, or at least high. The drop in quality at low and medium is too great to warrant the 2-4 percent increase in performance. Texture filtering also has a negligible impact on performance (2-3 percent going from ultra to low), though the visual impact is less. I'd leave both on ultra unless you're severely VRAM limited.

Lighting quality:

is one of the settings that has the biggest impact on performance. This is mostly for dynamic lighting and shadows, and turning this to low improved performance by around 15 percent. But lighting and shadows do make a visible difference, so I wouldn't necessarily turn it to low unless you absolutely need to.

Effects quality:
isn't really explained well—does this mostly deal with explosions, or something else? In my limited testing, I saw no difference in performance between low and ultra settings, so I'd leave this on ultra.
Post processing:
in many games tends to be undemanding, but it all depends on what the game engine is doing. In the case of Battlefield 1, post process qualityends up being the second most demanding setting next to lighting, and turning it to low improved performance by nearly 15 percent. I couldn't tell just looking at the game while running what was changed, but after grabbing a couple of screenshots, this appears to include reflections. That explains both the high impact and negligible change in image quality, so turn this down as one of the first options if you want higher framerates.
Mesh quality, terrain quality, and undergrowth quality:
all appear to affect geometric detail, perhaps with some tessellation being used. Terrain and undergrowth quality didn't change performance much at all, while mesh quality could add up to five percent higher fps when set to low.
Antialiasing post:
Frostbite 3 is a deferred rendering engine, so doing traditional multi-sample antialiasing is quite difficult and performance intensive. In place of this, most modern games are turning to various forms of post-processing like FXAA, SMAA, and TXAA (though the names may differ). BF1 lumps these under antialiasing post, and has options for off, FXAA medium/high, and TAA. FXAA doesn't work very well in my experience, while TAA does a good job while introducing a bit of blurriness. Given the amount of aliasing otherwise present, I'd set this to TAA, but you can improve performance by 7-8 percent by turning this off.
Ambient occlusion:
is another setting that relates to shadows, with three options: off, SSAO, and HBAO. Turning this off can add about 10 percent to fps, but it does tend to make the game look a bit flat. SSAO is a middle ground that adds some shadows back in with about half the performance impact.

Fov hor+ 80 &  Fov vehicle 3d hor+90

Lekker meespelen, hor+ boven 90 is niet aan te raden.

Mouse sensitivity:

Hier is geen bijbel of handleiding maar wel 1 tip...Hoge dpi.....Nooooooooooooooo check: 

Met dank aan JackFrags & Gwar:

Battlefield 1 Performance: 

DX11 Vs DX12

I mentioned earlier that Battlefield 1 and the Frostbite 3 engine support both DirectX 11 and DX12. In many games, that has resulted in a decent boost to AMD GPU performance. I'm not going to bother with a graph here, because in Battlefield 1, DX12 does almost nothing for performance on the cards I tested—and in several cases it made things substantially worse in the form of periodic choppiness.
This happened with both AMD and Nvidia GPUs, and while DX12 didn't usually drop performance much (maybe five percent at most), for most users it's not going to be a huge boon. A few AMD cards, like the R9 380, did show a slight (1-2 percent) improvement with DX12 in some situations, but the Fury X and RX 480 performed worse. Given the lack of CrossFire support under DX12 and the apparent non-changes to performance, I didn't do extensive testing across all AMD hardware.
f that seems unusual, my results aren't the only numbers showing little to no benefit with DX12. AMD provided some performance results with DX11 and DX12 figures, and in many cases they also reported slightly lower performance under DX11. Props to AMD here for actually showing the performance loss caused by the API they normally champion—I appreciate the honestly at least. The bottom line is that DX12 at present isn't really helpful for most GPUs in Battlefield 1. We'll have to see if a future patch changes the situation.
For testing Battlefield 1, my primary benchmarks all use the single player War Stories campaign (to be precise, the final act from the Mud and Blood campaign where you're in Black Bess facing off against a pair of A7V's and two FT light tanks). This involves plenty of explosions and represents a better view of performance than a sequence with no combat, but even so it's not quite the same as the multiplayer experience; more on this below. I use four test settings: 1080p medium quality, and 1080p/1440p/4K ultra quality. Note also that last minute driver updates from both AMD and Nvidia delayed my reporting; all of the results were tested with Nvidia's new 375.63 and AMD's Crimson 16.10.2 drivers.
Vanavond eens kijken of ik wat meer fps uit mijn systeem weet te krijgen
Thanks voor het delen!
Ben benieuwd waarom een fov ban boven de 90 niet aan te raden is?
(01-11-2016, 11:15)Fonta Wrote: Thanks voor het delen!
Ben benieuwd waarom een fov ban boven de 90 niet aan te raden is?

Als je het stukje leest over fov dan wordt het vanzelf duidelijk!
Welk stukje? Waar precies?
(02-11-2016, 13:37)yrew Wrote: Welk stukje? Waar precies?

Ah, figures, de embeds deden net niet inladen
(02-11-2016, 14:01)yrew Wrote: Ah, figures, de embeds deden net niet inladen

Nee, heb later toegevoegd...Puh2
Toch verteld hij niet waarom je beter niet over de 90 heen kan gaan.
Ook is hij volgens mij aan het spelen op een console volgens mij.
(02-11-2016, 20:07)Fonta Wrote: Toch verteld hij niet waarom je beter niet over de 90 heen kan gaan.
Ook is hij volgens mij aan het spelen op een console volgens mij.

Meten een hoge fov ( en dan bedoel ik Hor+) kun je verder zien maar wordt bv target onduidelijker!  Ligt natruulijk ook aan je scherm en speelstijl.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)