Patch 18.104.22.168 vs Patch 22.214.171.124
Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:46 PM
What's your choice?
Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:17 PM
Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:43 PM
for what i can see, u should maybe stick to 126.96.36.199, since 188.8.131.52 gives a FPS drop
Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:35 AM
Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:58 PM
|QUOTE (Wass @ Thursday, Jun 14 2012, 10:35)|
|Patch 184.108.40.206 is much better and for the pixalated shadows you can fix them with the motion blur filter(after some shader editing of corse),this filter also will smooth the trees and make a minor anti-aliasing effect,it's not working on patch 220.127.116.11,in the end will get the much better image quality without losing performence|
Nice and how you edit this shader? Can you post it for download (edited shader or tool about that)?Or you just make a praise yourself?
Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:22 PM
18.104.22.168 all the way
Posted 16 June 2012 - 12:30 AM
Posted 21 June 2012 - 03:05 PM
Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:22 AM
I've installed 22.214.171.124 patch but it is giving error efc20 and I've searched whole internet but there is fix for efc20 for 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 patches only. Please provide a link for this error's fix and if there is no fix for .7 then should I install .4?
Posted 29 November 2013 - 06:06 AM
Not to dig this up, but I did some extensive number crunching on the two patches, and 184.108.40.206 is far and wide superior to 220.127.116.11 by a great margin. Yes you have to deal with the ugly shadows, but honestly unless you use Very high shadows on 7, then they look worse most of the time.
So for me I found a spot on the freeway in Alderney above the PaynSpray looking east towards Algonquin. Then I cranked up my view and detail distance to 100 each. Here's my findings:
18.104.22.168 = 39 fps
22.214.171.124 = 60+ fps (I have a 60 fps cap so it might have been even higher for all I know)
This is with the exact same hardware, exact same time of day, no mods, and same graphics settings everything else. When I enable shadows, here's what I got:
126.96.36.199 = 31 fps
188.8.131.52 = 54 fps
So yeah, massive improvement in FPS. F*ck the new patch. Rockstar ruined GTA 4 on PC instead of fixing it. I sincerely hope the eventual PC version of GTA V isn't like the IV port.
- Usman55 and Naroon like this
Posted 10 July 2015 - 08:29 PM
For me this is very simple.
184.108.40.206 = 40 FPS incl. lag at high settings
220.127.116.11 = 61 FPS no lag at highest settings
I have 4k resolution, and 18.104.22.168 looks slightly better as for graphics.
But since performance is more necessary, i'd go with 22.214.171.124
- Naroon likes this
Posted 11 July 2015 - 09:03 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users