I’m playing with a Ryzen 5 and a 970 and it runs pretty smooth on low settings. I’m not a graphics whore though so I don’t mind the visuals on low.
Game does not really look good even at high settings. Releasing something with such bad performance and nothing to even show for is just insulting.
Not my experience at all, looks really nice, I did get rid of the overblown LUTs tho for a neutral one from nexusmods.
There are definitely some silly things like some of the random gen NPCs look… Disturbing sometimes.
Other then that though, very detailed environments, textures are very high quality and shadows/lighting is good
I’ll take another look at it today after I fiddle with the settings a bit. What I saw yesterday was not impressive - occasional stuttering while barely utilizing my 2060 on low/med settings while looking worse than Skyrim did in 2011.
It’s sad that this is necessary. And given that it took less than a week for modders to get actual performance gains means that bethesda could’ve easily done it themselves.
Don’t think Bethesda is focused on making their gaming look specifically bad just to make it run on older hardware. Similar to all other companies there is a minimum spec. I do think that having such great mod support allows for this to happen which is great.
They are sabotaging their own sales by not doing it. Starfield is such a hyped game that many people who don’t usually game much will want to play it and those people tend to not have the most up-to-date hardware. The PC I built in 2018 for about 1100€ is pretty much exactly the minimum spec for starfield. And given that minimum specs usually target 30fps for some reason, I’d need this mod if I wanted to play it at a reasonable framerate.
I’m surprised that the mod is even necessary given that the game can run on the Xbox S or whatever the hell it’s called.
They probably optimized the minimum settings for that and spent zero time considering low-spec PCs.
I’d guess that this is a management issue and not a development one.
