Callaghan Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 So I just booted the game up for the first time in a very long time. I upgraded my system recently, and now have an i5 6600k OC´d to 4.4Ghz, an R9 390 8GB, and 16gb DDR4 2666 on a good motherboard. Why then do I see no performance improvement in Naval Action over my 2010 system? I ran the game with the very same settings, 1080p, everything maxed out apart from AA which I had on low, and I had maybe 24 FPS. I´ll try again later, could be an anomaly, but I have the latest drivers and everything. I´m running it on Windows 7 64 bit. Am I the only one getting shockingly bad performance? This PC should easily be able to handle the level of geometry and the textures and simulation in Naval Action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raskolnikoff Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Please try switching to low or medium and to high right after (click Apply after each step). Might be that game messed up a bit after GPU change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Did you uninstall your previous graphics drivers when upgrading? or did you reinstall windows at the same time or what did you do? are you running the latest graphics drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Maurice Benyovszky Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Hmm, I have:i5 4690k 4,4Ghz8GB DDR3 2400MhzGigabyte GTX970 1,55Ghz Core and 8,2Ghz Memeverything on Gigabyte z97x Gaming 5.Windows 7 64bitIn Open World sailing mode:Everything on Ultra, AA is OFF60 FPS flat, card usage tops out at 90%Everything on Ultra, AA x245 FPS flat, card fully utilizedEverything on Ultra AA x429 FPS flat, card fully utilizedI think in Battle Mode I have a lot more FPS than in Open World Mode.Just turn off AA completely, don't use it all and you should be good. My bet is, even 980Ti can't run this game with AA x4. Edited January 14, 2016 by Count Maurice Benyovszky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Loe Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Don't use AA, Use FXAA it gets better FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Don't use AA, Use FXAA it gets better FPS. Or dont use AA at all, some might find that FXAA makes things look more blury(due to how FXAA works). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octanen Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Intel i7 4770k clocked to 4.5Ghz Asus ROG Maximus Hero VII 32gig DDR3 Kingston Beast 2400mhz Ram Game runs off 500GB Samsung EVO 840 SSD Asus Nvidia Titan 6GB Running Naval Action at 1920x1080 with everything on Ultra, runs around 60+fps No issues here with AA turned off, FXAA, as OlavDeng2 mentioned makes it look, a bit blurry, nicer but blurrier, and well overall works a tad better then AA. In general at 1920x1080, AA is rather... meh useless (at maximum just use 2x, higher than that might not give any effect, since it all depends on how the game/engine is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaghan Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Ok so it seems like their AA is very badly optimised. I appreciate that with the level of geometry added by all of the rigging and lines then AA is going to be expensive, fine. But in 2016 we´re so used to not seeing jaggies that it really undermines the beauty of the game, especially because there are so many lines that need AA. FXAA is a nasty blur and counteracts the effects of having high res textures and anisotropic filtering. Are Gamelabs looking into ways of optimising their AA options further, or will it be down to the players to just lower their settings? In response to Octanen, AA is anything but ´useless´, it is one of the most powerful ways of adding verisimilitude to a game, and any experienced gamer should easily be able to tell the difference between 0x, 2x, 4x, and then also supersampled AA. Anyway, looks like other people are having equally bad performance. Now I just want to know if this is something that is being worked on. Edited January 15, 2016 by Callaghan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Ok so it seems like their AA is very badly optimised. I appreciate that with the level of geometry added by all of the rigging and lines then AA is going to be expensive, fine. But in 2016 we´re so used to not seeing jaggies that it really undermines the beauty of the game, especially because there are so many lines that need AA. FXAA is a nasty blur and counteracts the effects of having high res textures and anisotropic filtering. Are Gamelabs looking into ways of optimising their AA options further, or will it be down to the players to just lower their settings? In response to Octanen, AA is anything but ´useless´, it is one of the most powerful ways of adding verisimilitude to a game, and any experienced gamer should easily be able to tell the difference between 0x, 2x, 4x, and then also supersampled AA. Anyway, looks like other people are having equally bad performance. Now I just want to know if this is something that is being worked on. It will be worked on, but as the game is still in very early development adding new features is of higher priority for the devs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts