Hardware & Technical The "Gaming PC"

[shadragon]

This post rambles on a bit, but my point does take a bit of set-up, so bear with me.

I've seen other threads where people refer to a "Gaming PC". I looked briefly on the Internet and found this definition.

A Windows PC that has been modified for gaming. For the serious enthusiast, gaming PCs always have the fastest CPUs and GPUs available. Fitted out in a tower case to accommodate large graphics cards and elaborate cooling mechanisms, the gaming PC is the highest-performance Windows PC on the market.

Source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/gaming-pc

This is how I define a gaming PC as well, except for maybe the Windows part as I can get more performance out of Linux, but I digress. Top of the line components, with third party cooling and exceptional performance that falls in the top 5%. Yes, PC's with less processing power can run games, but they usually have to lower resolution, suffer FPS penalties or dial down graphics in some way to get reasonable play.

It's also one of the more expensive computers when finished. That's why "Budget Gaming PC" is a contradiction in my mind, very much like "Civil War" or "Military Intelligence."

Frontier has a dichotomy. Their code base needs to handle Gaming PC's, regular PC's, Macs, laptops and consoles. All of which have different hardware resources for handling games. For the most part, they've done a decent job as most of those devices can run Elite. Frontier have also embraced VR, 4K displays and almost every major control device made like HOTAS or TrackIR. However, graphically we've seen impact (whether deliberate or not) on one device from changes made to accommodate the others.

ObsidianAnt has a series of videos on graphics through the various patches. The earlier versions did seem to support more detailed and enhanced graphics like asteroid fields. As more platforms were accommodated, the graphic quality did suffer and degrade somewhat. We're told this will be corrected and I'm happy to accept the devs word for that in the short term. However, gaming PC owners have tweaked their settings by editing config files and using reshader add-ons, but I don't feel this is viable long term. One wrong edit and you can bork your system.

I invested a lot of time and money in my gaming rig to play games to their full potential on monitors and eventually VR. I play other games that have standard and hi-def versions and I have no issues playing them maxed out. Do you feel E: D would benefit from this as well? A hi-def or extreme graphics version of the game that took full advantage of a gaming PC's strengths. If not that, then extended or advanced graphics controls for the Power User to tweak settings from within the game safely.

I understand that this would only benefit those with "Gaming PC" level hardware and I have no issue supporting such improvements with a few extra bucks. Then the devs can have their standard package for non-gaming PC's while also supporting the enthusiast nerds like myself.

How do you feel about this, [up] or [down] ?

 

[Aldaris]

A gaming PC is one used to play games on.

I don't see why anyone would say no to having options available to those with the hardware for it. Just make it an optional tick box on the launcher so those who don't intend to ever run the game at that level can opt out of the additional download.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I'd like to see "just insane" settings available for those with rigs to handle them, with a little bit more oomph than the "gaming computer" a well meaning but misguided parent picks up in Argos for 299 quid.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The Cobra engine is supposed to scale with power but I have not seen any evidence of this when I jumped from a potato to a ninja-PC. (Granted it was silk smooth but graphically no difference that I could see)

IMO : FD should include options in the menu to turn the dials to 11 ...

 

[Zeta Legion]

A "Budget Gaming PC" is basically a system using parts 1-3 tiers below maximum (so an R9 380 instead of a Fury X for example), typically budget gaming PC's are purpose-built to exceed the power of current-gen consoles while offering more utility.

 

[tawittle]

For me, 60 fps is not good enough. Not even close. Anything less than 150 fps on my 144 hz monitor, and I won't be happy. My 980ti hybrid and i7-6700k @ 4.4 are working very very hard, when I am recording a fight in 1080p at the current graphics settings (ultra quality, obviously).

Other people have different playstyle/philosophy for playing the game, and for them, maybe better graphics make sense for their 4k setups. In my opinion, the current graphics are VERY good, and certainly much much better than the 1.4 graphics or even the 2.0 launch graphics.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make, is that I have a "high end" machine, and the game already taxes it to the limit, for the way I play the game.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Similar set up to myself but I use 1080p (TV not HD-Monitor) and the FPS is a solid 60.

Anything less than 150 fps on my 144 hz monitor, and I won't be happy.

Why would you want more fps than your monitor can handle ? Wouldn't that introduce shearing ? Lock it to 144 and be done ?

 

[Zeta Legion]

For me, 60 fps is not good enough. Not even close. Anything less than 150 fps on my 144 hz monitor, and I won't be happy. My 980ti hybrid and i7-6700k @ 4.4 are working very very hard, when I am recording a fight in 1080p at the current graphics settings (ultra quality, obviously).

Other people have different playstyle/philosophy for playing the game, and for them, maybe better graphics make sense for their 4k setups. In my opinion, the current graphics are VERY good, and certainly much much better than the 1.4 graphics or even the 2.0 launch graphics.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make, is that I have a "high end" machine, and the game already taxes it to the limit, for the way I play the game.

I'd rather have a solid framerate than 4k resolution too. 30 FPS is too low and causes noticeable input delay. 60 is playable for me but I prefer 120.

 

[Leper Messiah]

As Aldaris says a gaming PC is used primarily for gaming, you can have budget/low end rigs, mid rigs and high end rigs. To say a gaming PC only has top end components thus any PC without said components is not a "gaming PC" is daft IMO. I have a I5 3.8ghz, 8gb RAM and a 660 TI, yeah I have to compromise a little bit with graphics, to get a solid 60fps at 1080p. But it's STILL a gaming PC.

But I do agree that games shouldn't compromise the higher levels, just have enough settings so that the lower levels are happy...although then we have the Sony and Microsoft people maybe not wanting the PC versions to look so stunning (pure conjecture on my part there), they mainly sell their consoles on the back of graphics so.....hmmmm.


mind you I DO find the whole resolution thing laughable at the mo....I remember using the + and - keys to minimise the original Doom so that it was playable on my old 386sx!! Then I bought a 486 DX and Doom ROCKED in 320x240 or something like that!! LOL kids today huh?

 

[Ian Skippy]

IMO : FD should include options in the menu to turn the dials to 11 ...

Sure, because that is precisely how this works. If an engine can scale, devs can just 'add an option' to any game using that engine and bingo, awesome graphics. While we're at it, they should add a 'planetary atmo landing' and 'FPS' option, too, because the engine supports it.

 

[Space Dandy]

A gaming pc is one built with gaming in mind. It doesn't have to be all top of the line components, it just has to be built with gaming in mind and not be some junk prebuilt from walmart built for general use and web surfing.

People need to remember even if your build uses all top tier components they wont be top tier for very long as PC's get old quickly so to speak so 4 years down the line your gaming pc may still be using lots of parts that are no longer top tier but it's still a gaming pc, just an older build with maybe just the gpu having been upgraded in that time and the cpu having been OC perhaps.

Generally speaking a gaming pc will also be built using better quality parts than what most pre builts use barring you get a pre built that has gaming in mind and is built accordingly.

 

[Gedemon]

If development time was a free resource, I would support this.

But like any other "do you want free cookies ?" threads, I think your question should not be "do you want some ?" but more like "which ones do you want to eat first ?"

Not that one in my case, as even a 980ti can already reach it's limits on ultra settings on planets, in VR, triple screen, 4K or simply by raising the supersampling at 1080p.

Is it a "gaming PC" or a supercomputer that you're using, shadragon ?

 

[Midnight Sun]

It's a tricky problem. Not all choices for the graphics can be represented with an menu option. Sometimes the devs will have to choose between performance for the masses or prettiness for the die-hard enthusiasts. Unfortunately we can see easily on our screens which choice they make.

 

[the100thmonkey]

From what I understand FD to have said on the issue, the decrease in quality in texture and geometry meshes is not directly related to graphics quality on users' PCs. This suggests to me that there has been an issue with the Cobra engine - possibly a major flaw - that required a rewrite of low-level code. This might well be related to the switch from 32 to 64-bits.

"Budget gaming PC" is not a contradiction to my mind - it's all about the FPS/$ ratio, given the constraints of not wanting to spend too much money. Sure, I could afford a 980Ti, even two in SLI if I really cared, but the game runs better than fine at 2K on a GTX970. My wife, on the other hand, isn't so concerned about running Archeage at ultra all the time (and she likes to play it on the cheap 720p TV in the bedroom anyway), so a card like mine (GTX 970) would be utter overkill. The MSI 750Ti (more than $200 cheaper than my card) is perfectly appropriate for that. The distinction is artificial and imposed by GPU manufacturers in particular, but it's real - those that chase the top end performance are more interested in unicorn farts (and telling themselves that they can really smell the difference) and will pay for the privilege of smelling them at 144Hz.

Comparing Linux on openGL to Windows DX11 is apples Vs. oranges at best, but in the case of E|D, is like comparing apples to the flavour of unicorns' farts. If FD were to port Cobra to DX12 and Vulkan, and release a Vulkan Linux client, we'd be able to make a comparison. But they haven't. So we can't. Don't go there.

 

[shadragon]

Is it a "gaming PC" or a supercomputer that you're using, shadragon ?

Once I get my hands on some of the new 32 core AMD Zen chips, DDR4 memory and a new ASUS AM4 mobo, it'll be a little of column A and a little of column B. [hotas]

 

[Asp Explorer]

Thing is - there used to be a real tangible benefit to having a gaming PC. I remember the first time I saw hardware assisted rendering in Quake 2 or Unreal - the difference was enough to make me go and buy a Voodoo 2 12Mb straight away. Now I have a 12Gb card - I want to see how far it can be pushed

 

[Bigglesof206]

'IMO : FD should include options in the menu to turn the dials to 11 ...'
- and your favourite band is Spinal tap, yeah?

My gaming PC rig isn't that great, it ran pretty well for a while, but then DOS 6 kinda gave way to Windows 3.1, and next thing you know all the newer gaming PCs started putting 8, 16, even 32 Mb of RAM in and paired a couple of Banshee cards up and I dunno, suddenly it wouldn't hack the latest games and all......

I wish luck to the person wanting 150 fps as a minimum, you must have an awesome eye-brain connection there mate.

By all means push the edge graphically as you go along, but my point (as I finally ramble up to it) is this - no, FD don't need to have an 'insane' setting, they need to have the game graphics maxxing out at the point where a really, really good gaming PC struggles to deliver 30 fps, and every couple of years to revisit this and see if they need to be upped another notch in a graphics upgrade.

'Yeah, but ours go up to 11....'
Dave

 

[the100thmonkey]

I wish luck to the person wanting 150 fps as a minimum, you must have an awesome eye-brain connection there mate.

You've never smelled unicorn farts, have you?

By all means push the edge graphically as you go along, but my point (as I finally ramble up to it) is this - no, FD don't need to have an 'insane' setting, they need to have the game graphics maxxing out at the point where a really, really good gaming PC struggles to deliver 30 fps, and every couple of years to revisit this and see if they need to be upped another notch in a graphics upgrade.

'Yeah, but ours go up to 11....'
Dave

I do wonder - on planets, yeah, sure, more detail is always going to be better. In space, however, it just becomes irrelevant.

 

[Gedemon]

Now that I think a bit more about the graphic settings, there is something that could be used on Elite and would benefit to all players: "adaptative quality"

There are some settings that can be changed "on the fly" (like resolution scale) and would allow players to get the best possible visual experience everywhere based on their hardware.

It's not useful in a lot of game, but it is used now in the source engine (as VR need a constant framerate) and in Elite we have different environnements that require very different processing power (deep space, asteroid rings, stations, planets)

 

[Porina]

I'd propose a better definition of a "gaming PC" is one that has relatively strong GPU performance relative to the CPU. This would scale with budget, and at a given price point you can still have gaming less gaming optimised options. It kinda annoys me that many advertisements for so called gaming PCs contain an expensive CPU and a joke of a GPU, when for the price level they would be better served with a lower end CPU and divert more of the budget to GPU.

Total CPU power is of questionable benefit to gaming at this time anyway, especially if it is spread over too many threads.

Still, I would like better graphical control options. It seems there are many that are hidden in config files that would help with being exposed and documented better.