Hair texture quality, among other texture qualities.

[LaaZa]

Some hair textures are better... The lalafell-only hairstyles have good textures I think. Why that diffrence?

They have to have specific memory and complexity(polygons) budget for everything in the game so they can ensure that the system can handle all situations with given limitations(visible player count etc.). So all hairstyles must meet this budget for memory and complexity, making larger volume hair have more stretched textures and thus appearing lower resolution. On that note lalafells' hairstyles are rather simple thus look better.

I really wonder why they can't give us option to use higher resolution textures as it should have nothing to do with the console versions.

[raelgun]

Is that level of detail not something to strive for? Especially in our own characters?
And it's not like they'd have to remove the lower quality assets. That should still be available for lower end computers.

As much as I like fidelity, I have a system that allows me to crank up the settings to 11 here, most people do not have strong machines, it is fine to have settings for them so their systems can handle it, this is where the problem lies, many people that play FF14 are obsessed with graphics and will crank up the settings beyond acceptable performance and they will take these settings into group content and will be 'lagging' all over the place, I for one find this unacceptable as people who play FF14 don't seem to play within reason.

[Riardon]

They can give us a higher resolution texture pack for the pc this won't affect the consoles at all. We need to be heard about that. I know a lot of pc players want better texture quality. The plants are also horrible looking. I hate plants that look like a small pile of cards. I think they don't do it because they have not the budget for it. They are focused on creating frequent content and patches rather than impr Going the visuals. Yoshi said that they will keep improving the game's visual quality but we don't know exactly what he meant. If we keep asking for this I'm pretty sure that they will do something about it.

[Gramul]

As much as I like fidelity, I have a system that allows me to crank up the settings to 11 here, most people do not have strong machines, it is fine to have settings for them so their systems can handle it, this is where the problem lies, many people that play FF14 are obsessed with graphics and will crank up the settings beyond acceptable performance and they will take these settings into group content and will be 'lagging' all over the place, I for one find this unacceptable as people who play FF14 don't seem to play within reason.

People can do that now.
It's called the PS3.

Restricting better textures because some people might ruin their frame rate with it and bring their poor performance into groups seems like a really watery counterargument to me. If they're foolish enough to play in conditions where it hurts their ability to play, they probably aren't very good players anyway.

[KisaiTenshi]

That specific hairstyle also looks really weird when it moves in the wind etc, and if you tilt the camera a certain way, it looks awful. But yeah, this really is down to the fact the PS3 can't handle it.



PS3, yes. PS4 can handle a lot graphically. Not as much as PC's of course, but they definitely can handle more than people assume.

What people readily forget is that the texture sizes are already reduced on the consoles, and when you play it at a lower resolution the mipmapping itself uses lower resolutions. Hence, SE will ship higher resolution textures on the PC version, and the GPU will scale it down to what it can use, where as the PS4 and PS3 will actually ship with the lower resolution textures to begin with to conserve video memory as part of the optimization process.

This is how you end up with the same game performing the same across multiple platforms. The performance of the game dictated by the lowest-capable device, but the visual quality is dictated by the highest capable device. Hence all the chopped up maps, that's why the PS3 version of V1.0 never materialized. A high end PC in 2010 and a High end PC in 2015, V1.0 still performs worse (go test the bechmark if you don't believe me.)

FFXIII uses Crystal Tools as well, and they locked it to 720p on the PC at release. The performance issues for it mirror that of FFXIV V1.0, No surprise.

[Risvertasashi]

Yup. If the PS3 is ever left behind I imagine there'll be a decent increase in visual quality, but until then we're kind of stuck.

The dream is that, eventually, max settings will be back to 1.0 quality.

From what I've heard (forum rumor, I don't have a source, sorry)-- SE does have HD textures. But yes, we're not getting them to keep the platforms relatively equal.

Pity really. The pixellation is also painful on my WHM AF...

[silentwindfr]

they want to make revelant to get the console version, if the pc version was able to use all the texture and such, the game will be too beautifull and poeple on console will have no real reason outside have the console.
now most of the new pc can run the game with the graphisme in high... you don't need a big computer for this. and a lot of people own a pc now...

[Jin-]

SE does have HD textures.

Always they are done like that and then reduced the size. That's why i don't understand why so many gaming companies slack providing HD textures.

[KisaiTenshi]

Always they are done like that and then reduced the size. That's why i don't understand why so many gaming companies slack providing HD textures.

To avoid a repeat of "ugh the game is too slow" and "ugh the loading time takes forever" and "ugh omg why is this download 50GB"

The textures in the game are a compromise between all three. Not everyone has a SSD to install the game on, and not everyone has 8GB video card from which to be able to use them. If you look at GPU-z you'll probably find less than 1GB of the video memory being used, because that -is- what the average video card has. A lot of crappy video cards have 2GB, it doesn't make them capable of actually using larger textures. Depending on the generation of GPU, it can vary significantly. DX9.1 is 2k x 2k max. DX9_3 is 4k x 4k, DX10.0 is 8k x 8k, DX11 is 16k. And until DX12, there is still a limit of 128 textures.

128 textures works fine in a Single player game, but not a MMO where everyone wants to be a snowflake. You work around this with texture atlases, so that you get more out of one texture, at the cost of effectively making the "texture" smaller.

[Risvertasashi]

To avoid a repeat of "ugh the game is too slow" and "ugh the loading time takes forever" and "ugh omg why is this download 50GB"

The textures in the game are a compromise between all three. Not everyone has a SSD to install the game on, and not everyone has 8GB video card from which to be able to use them. If you look at GPU-z you'll probably find less than 1GB of the video memory being used, because that -is- what the average video card has. A lot of crappy video cards have 2GB, it doesn't make them capable of actually using larger textures. Depending on the generation of GPU, it can vary significantly. DX9.1 is 2k x 2k max. DX9_3 is 4k x 4k, DX10.0 is 8k x 8k, DX11 is 16k. And until DX12, there is still a limit of 128 textures.

That's why some games have an HD client, or a tickmark in the launcher to download the highres texture packs.

Always they are done like that and then reduced the size. That's why i don't understand why so many gaming companies slack providing HD textures.

I think a lot of it is logistics. The company now has to maintain two production chains for textures. Not a huge deal if they set it up right... two output settings, one goes to one set, the other goes to the other set, but it's not zero effort either and if they're already slammed...