• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 6

THUMPer said:
Yeah. I realize a lot more is going on though. But having to close the game and go back in after an hour or whatever could be annoying.
Click to expand...
How to search for servers? Is it possible to choose servers, is there ping on the servers? Can I determine by myself in the search which mode I want and with how many players, etc.? What is the start of conquest matches with 64 players? How to hijack a vehicle at the beginning? How many tanks are there? Do they all start from bases or?
 
Here is a Youtube video of the open beta for BF3 and its interesting to compare it to the BF6 open beta. The BF3 open beta had bugs but the map (Metro) was small with no vehicles but it didn't feel small imo because of the pacing and level design. I do recall that with all the issues in the BF3 beta I still preordered the game.

I think most agree the maps in the BF6 beta is too small and affects the pace of the game. It's like DICE is over correcting for the large maps in 2042. I'm hoping the other maps will be better.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFgLNwm7WA
 
TangledThornz said:
Here is a Youtube video of the open beta for BF3 and its interesting to compare it to the BF6 open beta. The BF3 open beta had bugs but the map (Metro) was small with no vehicles but it didn't feel small imo because of the pacing and level design. I do recall that with all the issues in the BF3 beta I still preordered the game.

I think most agree the maps in the BF6 beta is too small and affects the pace of the game. It's like DICE is over correcting for the large maps in 2042. I'm hoping the other maps will be better.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFgLNwm7WA
Click to expand...

Metro is a top map, every battlefield should have it. Rush, conquest, team death match...
So this BF6 is not like BF3 but more like BF5? I haven't played BF5.
It will probably have some big maps.
 
TangledThornz said:
Here is a Youtube video of the open beta for BF3 and its interesting to compare it to the BF6 open beta. The BF3 open beta had bugs but the map (Metro) was small with no vehicles but it didn't feel small imo because of the pacing and level design. I do recall that with all the issues in the BF3 beta I still preordered the game.

I think most agree the maps in the BF6 beta is too small and affects the pace of the game. It's like DICE is over correcting for the large maps in 2042. I'm hoping the other maps will be better.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdFgLNwm7WA
Click to expand...


Metro is also _extremely_ controlled chaos. Same with Locker.

It bottlenecks in incredibly... reliable ways and places. You can just run though giant chunks of the map and encounter nobody until you hit the specifically placed clusterfucks. I think that's why they're so liked. For as meat grindery as they are, I don't think it really felt like you were dying in a bullshit way.

Here you're just getting shot from 37 angles at any time if you're not careful. And the spawns are super haphazard. You can easily spawn straight into death or have people spawn directly on you.

I tried to spawn on a squad mate last night and it put me in the building next to them instead of on them. Which unfortunately had enemies in it. I was dead before my screen faded in. I've also mulched entire squads that spawned straight in front of me - NOT on a beacon either.
 
Is it possible to play BF6 this weekend without any of the early access or signing up.
 
killroy67 said:
Is it possible to play BF6 this weekend without any of the early access or signing up.
Click to expand...

Yes.

socK said:
Metro is also _extremely_ controlled chaos. Same with Locker.

It bottlenecks in incredibly... reliable ways and places. You can just run though giant chunks of the map and encounter nobody until you hit the specifically placed clusterfucks. I think that's why they're so liked. For as meat grindery as they are, I don't think it really felt like you were dying in a bullshit way.

Here you're just getting shot from 37 angles at any time if you're not careful. And the spawns are super haphazard. You can easily spawn straight into death or have people spawn directly on you.
Click to expand...

Yep but I wonder if its something we have to get used to because of the new destruction? It's only the first weekend of a open beta so I'm trying to keep an open mind without defaulting to "muh BATTLEFIELD 4 was better!!" :ROFLMAO:
 
so much for their secureboot strategy on anticheat. Paid cheats are already up for sale.
1754663513712.png
 
WilyKit said:
Not sure why those settings exist in any game. All are forms of visual distortion. I disabled all three even before the game unlocked.
Click to expand...
Because all the cool kids (developers) run around with legacy cameras and don't understand why photographers pay 4-5 figures for gear that removes those distortions.
 
Strange bird said:
I have an RTX 4070 Super and a Ryzen 5600X at 4K, some balanced settings on low, I don't know how they will behave in the game itself...
70fps isn't bad on ultra, but there's little difference between low and ultra settings. But it's still probably better than consoles.
4K is mostly too much for all gpu except for rtx 4090 and 5080/5090.
Click to expand...
Running 4k should OK from 4070 ti super/9070 xt and up. The 5080 is much closer to 4080/5070 ti than it is to the 4090.

From what I saw on my fps counter I average somewhere in the mid 80s to mid 90s, with lows being high 70s and highs being above 100 fps on my 5070 ti at 4k with high settings and DLAA. Feels smooth enough and never felt like it hindered my performance with that level of FPS on a 240hz 4k OLED. Battlefield isn't about being super precise and super fast so I don't need 200+ fps to perform close to my limit.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
Will have to check and see what it is set to. I think it was TAA. Still, looks worse than typical TAA or really anything. Your screens do look better though.



There are only 9 maps at launch though. If this article is right, two are infantry only. Seems like there maybe be three BF3/4 sized Conquest maps, and one old one (four total). I don't mind infantry only maps like Close Quarters, but the vehicle maps we have in the beta are quite bad and feel like infantry only maps so I'm pessimistic. I'd say they're a bit too big for infantry only, but too small/limiting for vehicles.

This is why a server browser is important though. If I want to play with vehicles, I'd like to set a filter for the four big maps.
Click to expand...
Seems like hardforum did a heavy compression on my screenshots. A crop from the second screen with the upper being from the original and the lower being after processing by hardforum. Could be kind of the same that happened to your image.

1754665956454.png


bf6_screen2_crop_hardocp.png
 
evhvis said:
Because all the cool kids (developers) run around with legacy cameras and don't understand why photographers pay 4-5 figures for gear that removes those distortions.
Click to expand...
These filters have already been repeated in many previous titles, they obviously want some kind of state of war and people don't want that, they want weapons that you can see through perfectly, that have no recoil, no bullet spread, and the like.
 
Getting some type of crazy lag joining matches this morning....3 in a row, unplayable atm
 
Gabe3 said:
I can't get my fps with nvidia overlay to consistently show
Click to expand...

I can't either and it captures videos at 720p for some reason

German Muscle said:
so much for their secureboot strategy on anticheat. Paid cheats are already up for sale.
View attachment 746678
Click to expand...

I mean this doesn't even mean it isn't detected or won't be.

All modern AC delay bans. These cheats literally automate shutdown if they think it is detected to try and minimize blast radius. So they try to cull as many as they can in one shot.
 
TangledThornz said:
Here is a Youtube video of the open beta for BF3 and its interesting to compare it to the BF6 open beta. The BF3 open beta had bugs but the map (Metro) was small with no vehicles but it didn't feel small imo because of the pacing and level design. I do recall that with all the issues in the BF3 beta I still preordered the game.

I think most agree the maps in the BF6 beta is too small and affects the pace of the game. It's like DICE is over correcting for the large maps in 2042. I'm hoping the other maps will be better.
Click to expand...

I think that is the case. The maps in BF3/4 were good, but for different modes. BF3/4 had some great large, vehicle maps, which were enhanced with server rules that allowed for instant spawning or more numbers. Not BF 2042 large, but enough to be spread out and open enough for vehicles. Take Golmud Railway. It also had a small town which was good for infantry to fight in. Some of the DLC maps were good, like Operation Mortar.

Metro was a great map, but only in Rush. It was designed for it and worked great for a defense/attack map. The TDM/Domination version was not that good. Locker was great for TDM/Domination, not so good for the other modes. The Close Quarter maps were good. Some of the maps in TDM/Domination were not that great honestly, and that can be a problem when you need to design for Conquest Large & Infantry only. In particular Lumphini Garden was quite awful in TDM/Domination.

I think Battlefield has an interesting position, they can do both large scale vehicle based maps and small scale infantry maps. There is overlap like myself, but at times some of the player population exclusively plays one or the other, as was the case in BF3/4. I think if they realize they are essentially making two games in one, and focus on making some maps specific to each game style, it can do really with catering to two different groups. Right now it seems like they're trying to focus more on the infantry only side of things seeing that two maps are infantry only or very small for Conquest. I hope they can figure out and release a lot of good maps to cater to both.
 
King of the Hill is a little better, but I never understand the point of so much downtime between matches. This on top of the fact you can't do anything while waiting. You can't even tweak your loadout.
 
brennok said:
King of the Hill is a little better, but I never understand the point of so much downtime between matches. This on top of the fact you can't do anything while waiting. You can't even tweak your loadout.
Click to expand...

It also auto spawns at the start, unlike BF3/4. So I start to edit my weapons and then get killed in the menu.

Strange bird said:
These filters have already been repeated in many previous titles, they obviously want some kind of state of war and people don't want that, they want weapons that you can see through perfectly, that have no recoil, no bullet spread, and the like.
Click to expand...

I was referring to motion blur, vignette, etc. I want weapon recoil and smoke as long as it is realistic. MW2 got a lot of complaints about the smoke, I think it looked great. Comparing BF4 to MW19/MW2, I have to say the overall sound design isn't quite as good. Suppose it is hard to design sound around maps that physically change via destruction? Though even the weapon sounds are a notch below. You can clearly hear things like trigger reset on most of the weapons in MW19/MW2. Amazing detail and clarity. BF6 isn't bad, just disappointed it isn't up to par. Infinity War does an amazing job with sound, animations and immersion. The other CoD studios don't come close either.

I also think the pistols are much more satisfying and feel more life like in MW19/MW2. BF6 is an improvement over BF3/4 without a doubt, but still not as good.

I think the RPG-7 will get nerfed. It is really good at range, don't really need to aim. Too easy to knock out vehicles and snipers from a distance. Abrams only getting 19 shells is an odd choice as well.
 
Flogger23m said:
It also auto spawns at the start, unlike BF3/4. So I start to edit my weapons and then get killed in the menu.



I was referring to motion blur, vignette, etc. I want weapon recoil and smoke as long as it is realistic. MW2 got a lot of complaints about the smoke, I think it looked great. Comparing BF4 to MW19/MW2, I have to say the overall sound design isn't quite as good. Suppose it is hard to design sound around maps that physically change via destruction? Though even the weapon sounds are a notch below. You can clearly hear things like trigger reset on most of the weapons in MW19/MW2. Amazing detail and clarity. BF6 isn't bad, just disappointed it isn't up to par. Infinity War does an amazing job with sound, animations and immersion. The other CoD studios don't come close either.

I also think the pistols are much more satisfying and feel more life like in MW19/MW2. BF6 is an improvement over BF3/4 without a doubt, but still not as good.

I think the RPG-7 will get nerfed. It is really good at range, don't really need to aim. Too easy to knock out vehicles and snipers from a distance. Abrams only getting 19 shells is an odd choice as well.
Click to expand...

The RPG is bonkers. I saw some dude just using it against infantry for a good chunk of the game yesterday. He had like 50 kills with the thing.

It's fast and the splash is huge
 
Snappshoota said:
Theres a built in FPS counter. Its in the advanced section of graphics. or just open your console and type perfoverlay.drawfps 1
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty great because it tells you your CPU and GPU fps, so it's super obvious which part is struggling

But the text is about 6 pixels total and you need the Hubble telescope to see it
 
Snappshoota said:
Theres a built in FPS counter. Its in the advanced section of graphics. or just open your console and type perfoverlay.drawfps 1
Click to expand...
I tried that but showed everything but the fps. I'll try that command, thanks.
 
CAD4466HK said:
Looks like 6C12T (5600X) CPU's are getting hammered @ 1080p & 1440p.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjNo3HInDa8
Click to expand...

Okay, so I have a 4k monitor, there's a difference between a $150 5600x and a $500 CPU in a few fps.
And that's a stupid comparison because the 8core ryzen 5700x is not at all better in games than the 5600x, often worse.....UNLESS suddenly BF5 really benefits from more cores.
And then someone says that bf6 is accessible for those with a weaker machine. And what's worse, the graphics are a disaster.

He could have put up tables showing the differences between 6-core and 8-core CPUs.
 
Last edited:
Well, since BF1 in 2016 the BF games have much preferred 6core or better cpus.
 
pendragon1 said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFoO9LiPC4U
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. This is EA we are talking about. If the campaign isn't stuffed with girl bosses and pride flags I'd say wait until the DLC to make sure the game isn't stuffed with microtransactions and magic wielding freaks with art design that was ripped out of Concord. They almost always do the bait and switch at this point. If I play it will be for a subscription which will be canceled after a month. Until they prove otherwise, I'm not giving them money for a full game purchase anymore. Last game I bought from EA was the Command and Conquer remaster.
 
Doing a bit of performance testing across my rigs

R9 9950x3d + RTX 4090 @ 3440x1440
With all the selectors set to High/Ultra I'm hitting my 170 fps cap with DLSS Quality enabled and in the 140s with DLAA (GPU limited)

R9 5900x + RTX 3080 (10G) @ 2560x1440
Balanced preset with DLSS Quality getting around 100-120fps dropping to DLSS Balanced gives about a 10 fps bump

Not too bad for covid era hardware
 
socK said:
The RPG is bonkers. I saw some dude just using it against infantry for a good chunk of the game yesterday. He had like 50 kills with the thing.

It's fast and the splash is huge
Click to expand...

That is my experience too. Reload time is a bit too quick. Perhaps they can add the "arming" animation to slow down the reload time. My accuracy with it is much higher than with it in previous BF games. It might be too much detail for a BF game but RPGs are shaped charges anyways. They do make frag rounds and it would be interesting if you could pick different ammo types or a mix in your loadout. Those won't do anything against a tank. But again, probably too much detail for a BF game.
 
Also HDR works

There's seemingly no settings though?
 
Snappshoota said:
It will be in the top right corner, in green. Will show you CPU and GPU FPS so you can see where the bottleneck is.
Click to expand...

so I'm getting 242 fps? the cpu is less so thats the bottleneck? what does sim mean?

edit: I limited my frame rate to 157 in the game's settings and I'm still getting 240 fps(if im reading this right)
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20250809_023256721.jpg
    PXL_20250809_023256721.jpg
    418.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top