Batman: Arkham Asylum [BLUS30279]

RPCS3 v0.0.6-7901-7ea04d5d Alpha | HEAD

Intel® Xeon® CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz | 16 Threads | 31.96 GiB RAM | AVX

Log:
  RPCS3.log.gz (Size: 1.55 MB / Downloads: 89)

Default Settings Except:
Resolution Scale: 400%
Renderer: Vulkan

The Game Runs Quite Well and has little graphical issues. This Game is now playable.

NOTE: The Game Crashes when your run it first with Vulkan. After you run it first with OpenGL then you can run it on vulkan.
You have to repeat this step everytime you change the config.

Screenshots:

hi.
I´m stuck at intensive treatment loby door in the beginning. The door doesn´t open. I testrf the goty edition blus30515.
thanks

Can you please show performance in another outside area, the three screens provided are looking towards walls or the edge of the map and i'm concerned the game runs slow during combat/outside looking off to the distance

Can you please show performance in another outside area, the three screens provided are looking towards walls or the edge of the map and i'm concerned the game runs slow during combat/outside looking off to the distance

   
Unfortunately the game doesn't run well in large open areas if the camera is panned toward it.
My CPU isn't the best but it should work well indoors. i'd like someone with a better CPU to test it ex. i7 6700k or newer.
Performance seems to be based on what is being rendered in the FOV.
if it only has to render a single small part of the level it runs at a smooth 30 for me. and can dip extremely low when in open areas or in large inside areas.
needs more testing. But Dummy thicc batman is fixed
   

Doesn't meet our playable standards, if a game has issues you need to mention them, taking screenshots specifically at walls or the edge of a map is very misleading and makes it hard for us to moderate please don't do this again in the future or i will have to issue a warning.

We need someone with faster hardware to test to make sure they can achieve good performance before saying this is playable.
For now, I've moved this back to ingame.

Doesn't meet our playable standards, if a game has issues you need to mention them, taking screenshots specifically at walls or the edge of a map is very misleading and makes it hard for us to moderate please don't do this again in the future or i will have to issue a warning.

We need someone with faster hardware to test to make sure they can achieve good performance before saying this is playable.
For now, I've moved this back to ingame.

it was an honest mistake but the threat of a warning makes me not want to test more games and feels like a slap to the face. Since a lot of untested titles i have tested were not verified due to their title id not being super conventional despite being official and is stated on the dev wiki as a valid id. i feel like its not worth even testing some titles now.  A lot of my unverified threads don't have any reason to be moved that was stated. So i'd like to know so that i can feel motivated to do more.

We take playable reports seriously, there has been many instances where there have been games reported as playable but they're not actually playable because the tester didn't mention any of the issues. This results in users being angry with us and an incorrect compatibility statistic. The OP post says that the game had no issues and works well, then the later posts show 20fps at the starting area and 11fps when you go to the open world, and it's likely going to dip even below that on your hardware because that area isn't even at e.g the edge of the map looking towards the other side of the map.

You can see it as a slap in the face if you want, (even though it's just a slap on the wrists) but we have to have some kind of deterrent for bad playable reports because they cause us a lot of problems.
I've had to retest hundreds of people's questionable playable reports over the years to see if they were actually playable, many of them were not actually playable.
It's a huge waste of time.

As for the other threads you made, yes, if they don't meet the guidelines https://forums.rpcs3.net/thread-196671.html they will be moved to general discussion, fix the title ID in the title and we can move it back out. But I checked your post history and I'm not sure what threads you're referring to.

We take playable reports seriously, there has been many instances where there have been games reported as playable but they're not actually playable because the tester didn't mention any of the issues. This results in users being angry with us and an incorrect compatibility statistic. The OP post says that the game had no issues and works well, then the later posts show 20fps at the starting area and 11fps when you go to the open world, and it's likely going to dip even below that on your hardware because that area isn't even at e.g the edge of the map looking towards the other side of the map.

You can see it as a slap in the face if you want, (even though it's just a slap on the wrists) but we have to have some kind of deterrent for bad playable reports because they cause us a lot of problems.
I've had to retest hundreds of people's questionable playable reports over the years to see if they were actually playable, many of them were not actually playable.
It's a huge waste of time.

As for the other threads you made, yes, if they don't meet the guidelines https://forums.rpcs3.net/thread-196671.html they will be moved to general discussion, fix the title ID in the title and we can move it back out. But I checked your post history and I'm not sure what threads you're referring to.

I see, but I'm not sure how to even fix those threads, do i just lie about their title id

The non-commercial games you reported shouldn't even be in the commercial games topic, I am not sure why but another moderator moved the threads back after i moved them to general discussion for some reason. I will have to talk with them.

i mean whats your definition of commercial games then