dying light unplayable fps

[MasFBailey]

hi guys, been looking forward to dl for months, finally picked it up and i cant play it without feeling sick, Im hitting maybe 40 fps constant in areas with more than 6 zombies, certain areas cripple my fps for no apparent reason, constant stuttering, loading when turning, moving, jumping, shooting, kicking, hitting, sitting. i started with max settings 1440p, decided to do an area test and 6 FPS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAX SETTINGS 1440P and min settings 1080 p. does anyone know any tricks or tips for getting the fps to 60 ? (tried reducing the view distance very little effect) i mean shit the game isnt even that nice looking and yet it runs like crysis

 

[James Mason]

try lowering the resolution even further:
Width Height Standard
640 360
864 486
960 540 qHD
1024 576
1280 720 HD
1366 768
1600 900 HD+
1920 1080 Full HD

also what are your system specs?

 

[MasFBailey]

try lowering the resolution even further:
Width Height Standard
640 360
864 486
960 540 qHD
1024 576
1280 720 HD
1366 768
1600 900 HD+
1920 1080 Full HD

also what are your system specs?

my specs are int he description but i5 3570k @4.0 ghz and gtx 770 4gb sli 8gb ram. resoloution makes very little difference, and i dont even think of playing below 1080, its the game thats the problem i was just looking for a temporary fix to make it playable

 

[James Mason]

turn off SLI.

I have a 770 4gb and I never had any performance issues.

 

[Vici0us]

The main problem with the game is View Distance. It's set 0% on concoles.

Try lowering the View Distance, it might fix your problem.

 

[James Mason]

The main problem with the game is View Distance. It's set 0% on concoles.

Try lowering the View Distance, it might fix your problem.

That's probably a problem with your AMD card(s), Dying light just runs like garbage on AMD cards for the most part, and SLI/Crossfire also seems to cause extra problems.

 

[Frag Maniac]

The main problem with the game is View Distance. It's set 0% on concoles.

Try lowering the View Distance, it might fix your problem.

That's probably a problem with your AMD card(s), Dying light just runs like garbage on AMD cards for the most part, and SLI/Crossfire also seems to cause extra problems.

You're right about the SLI/Crossfire, though Draw Distance IS in fact THE biggest performance hit. However it's just not true that the game runs like crap on AMD vs Nvidia GPUs. It's only the AMD CPUs that struggle. Kotaku shows the 280x running only one frame lower than the equivalent if not higher priced 960 at 1080p, and the Ghz Ed 280x running one frame faster.

http://kotaku.com/dying-light-benchmarked-graphics-and-cpu-performance-1682948936

I feel the record need be set straight here, because the fact is, a lot of Nvidia endorsed games more and more are poorly optimized in general, and often use Nvidia's graphics crippling method of so called driver optimization in the game patches. The first patch dropped the Draw Distance values in general. The last one dropped the Shadow Map values.

This can easily be seen just by looking in the video.scr file before and after patching. So please, do some research before claiming AMD GPU performance is bad. A lot of people don't even have a clue what certain settings in this game do, or how poorly optimized and patched it is in general.

Personally I'm looking forward to devs getting back to AMD endorsed titles. Nvidia can't even seem to write drivers very well lately, and they seem to influence devs to patch just as poorly.

 

[Vici0us]

The main problem with the game is View Distance. It's set 0% on concoles.

Try lowering the View Distance, it might fix your problem.

That's probably a problem with your AMD card(s), Dying light just runs like garbage on AMD cards for the most part, and SLI/Crossfire also seems to cause extra problems.

You're right about the SLI/Crossfire, though Draw Distance IS in fact THE biggest performance hit. However it's just not true that the game runs like crap on AMD vs Nvidia GPUs. It's only the AMD CPUs that struggle. Kotaku shows the 280x running only one frame lower than the equivalent if not higher priced 960 at 1080p, and the Ghz Ed 280x running one frame faster.

http://kotaku.com/dying-light-benchmarked-graphics-and-cpu-performance-1682948936

I feel the record need be set straight here, because the fact is, a lot of Nvidia endorsed games more and more are poorly optimized in general, and often use Nvidia's graphics crippling method of so called driver optimization in the game patches. The first patch dropped the Draw Distance values in general. The last one dropped the Shadow Map values.

This can easily be seen just by looking in the video.scr file before and after patching. So please, do some research before claiming AMD GPU performance is bad. A lot of people don't even have a clue what certain settings in this game do, or how poorly optimized and patched it is in general.

Personally I'm looking forward to devs getting back to AMD endorsed titles. Nvidia can't even seem to write drivers very well lately, and they seem to influence devs to patch just as poorly.

Obviously there's an Nvidia fan boy going on here. With my 290's I am running 60+ FPS @ 1440P. So what exactly are you talking about? Most of my friends own Nvidia cards and their performance is the same with SLI GTX 780's if not worse.

 

[Frag Maniac]

Obviously there's an Nvidia fan boy going on here. With my 290's I am running 60+ FPS @ 1440P. So what exactly are you talking about? Most of my friends own Nvidia cards and their performance is the same with SLI GTX 780's if not worse.

You really should have quoted only James Mason in saying that.

 

[Avesomefthat]

You could try participating in the Steam beta for Dying Light - It's mostly bug-fixes and such; but I've gained a couple of FPS from the latest beta patch.
To do this, right-click on Dying Light and select "properties".
Click on the "Betas" tab and put this into the box - "W31c0m3t0b3tt3rH4rr4n".
I did this four days ago, and it worked like a charm, however the content that was in the beta has been released as an official patch on Steam; so I'm not sure if the beta code still works or enables anything.

 

[James Mason]

Obviously there's an Nvidia fan boy going on here. With my 290's I am running 60+ FPS @ 1440P. So what exactly are you talking about? Most of my friends own Nvidia cards and their performance is the same with SLI GTX 780's if not worse.

I'm just going by what like half of the steam forums are saying complaining about their AMD systems running like garbage.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/239140/discussions/0/

Don't start calling people names needlessly, I didn't insult AMD at all, I just reported that if he wants less issues he should go with Nvidia because Dying Light has issues with AMD.

 

[Frag Maniac]

...I just reported that if he wants less issues he should go with Nvidia because Dying Light has issues with AMD.

But that IS a bit misleading, playing it on a 7970 myself, I know that It's more the case of AMD CPUs that are struggling.

The game in general is just not optimized very well. Techland wouldn't be dropping Draw Distance and Shadow Map values across the board in two of their so called "performance" patches if it weren't having performance issues on MOST systems, including those with Nvidia GPUs.

This kind of visual downgrade method has been going on with Nvidia endorsed games for some time, with drivers AND patches. I know you didn't mean it to be an AMD vs Nvidia thing, but I feel if these kind of facts aren't pointed out, it can easily turn into that when the "AMD GPUs don't run it well" rumor mill gets out of hand.

 

[Avesomefthat]

...I just reported that if he wants less issues he should go with Nvidia because Dying Light has issues with AMD.

But that IS a bit misleading, playing it on a 7970 myself, I know that It's more the case of AMD CPUs that are struggling.

The game in general is just not optimized very well. Techland wouldn't be dropping Draw Distance and Shadow Map values across the board in two of their so called "performance" patches if it weren't having performance issues on MOST systems, including those with Nvidia GPUs.

This kind of visual downgrade method has been going on with Nvidia endorsed games for some time, with drivers AND patches. I know you didn't mean it to be an AMD vs Nvidia thing, but I feel if these kind of facts aren't pointed out, it can easily turn into that when the "AMD GPUs don't run it well" rumor mill gets out of hand.

Agreed. My AMD FX 8350 struggles to keep this game running at above 40 fps; HOWEVER I have tried this game using both and R9 290 and a GTX 980. (I bought the R9 to replace a gtx as it was going faulty), and there is little-to-no difference in terms of performance. I get maybe 2 or 3 fps more with he GTX 980.
This tells me that the game is very dependent on the CPU, seeing as a friend of mine has an Intel i7 rig and a Radeon HD 7950, and he's getting at least 6-10 fps more than me.
BTW setting the CPU priority of the game to "high" does help a lot, however it makes my CPU bloody hot.

 

[Vici0us]

...I just reported that if he wants less issues he should go with Nvidia because Dying Light has issues with AMD.

But that IS a bit misleading, playing it on a 7970 myself, I know that It's more the case of AMD CPUs that are struggling.

The game in general is just not optimized very well. Techland wouldn't be dropping Draw Distance and Shadow Map values across the board in two of their so called "performance" patches if it weren't having performance issues on MOST systems, including those with Nvidia GPUs.

This kind of visual downgrade method has been going on with Nvidia endorsed games for some time, with drivers AND patches. I know you didn't mean it to be an AMD vs Nvidia thing, but I feel if these kind of facts aren't pointed out, it can easily turn into that when the "AMD GPUs don't run it well" rumor mill gets out of hand.

Agreed. My AMD FX 8350 struggles to keep this game running at above 40 fps; HOWEVER I have tried this game using both and R9 290 and a GTX 980. (I bought the R9 to replace a gtx as it was going faulty), and there is little-to-no difference in terms of performance. I get maybe 2 or 3 fps more with he GTX 980.
This tells me that the game is very dependent on the CPU, seeing as a friend of mine has an Intel i7 rig and a Radeon HD 7950, and he's getting at least 6-10 fps more than me.
BTW setting the CPU priority of the game to "high" does help a lot, however it makes my CPU bloody hot.

It's because the game only uses 2 cores so it makes it terrible on any CPU.

 

[Frag Maniac]

The game doesn't use only two cores. I have tried it both with and without HT on my i7 950, and in each case I get about 3.5 cores worth being fully active. The scenario for me is 4 cores fully active, with one dominant, and one weak core, but the dominant core is not excessively above the others, nor is the weak core excessively below.

I have finally settled into a pretty decent visual and performance result on my i7 950, 7970, 8GB RAM rig. I'm running everything max with HBAO+ and AA On, and Vsync, Dof and Blur Off, using 50% Draw Distance at 1080p.

I've done file edits to disable film grain, noise, aberration, cloud shadows, and desaturation, and doubled the saturation values. I'm also using a SweetFX preset that really makes it look much better overall.

The only thing that really bothers me is the ending is horrible as most have said, and there's a couple of challenges I skipped due to ridiculous melee auto aim interruption. Other than that it's not a bad game, but as I said earlier, I don't like that they gimped visuals vs doing true optimization.