Gawd, I really hope so.

Todd did say it's running on a new engine. So I am assuming (and hoping) yes it will be fixed and not an issue.

Did he? Was it not just an incredibly modified/upgraded gamebryo?

Well, you can see lots of shadows in the e3 footage. I think they look really good but everyone has their own standards. As for the fps thing?.. Skyrim was a 32 bit game. F4 is a 64 bit game. Would that make a difference in frame rate? I have no idea.

Meh, personally games have hit a sweet spot in gfx where I'm almost always happy with the look of a AAA game nowadays.

Also OP what monitor/display are you using? Does it refresh at 120hz+?

It's not a "new" engine. Expect small improvements to some systems. What those small improvements are remains to be seen.

one small improvement it being able to handle more than 3.1gb of ram seeing as the pc specs require 8gig minimum

I am always very amused by complaints of FPS.....have you ever watched a movie in your life? Did you complain about FPS issues? Why not? It was only 24 fps....that's the movie industry standard.

As for shadow bickering......roflmao.

This is not Borderlands I see no reason to play FO4 at a higher frame rate than 60FPS.

Upwards of 60FPS you get diminishing returns anyway, but to each their own. Wasn't the physics thing specific to Skyrim? That's all dependent on how Bethesda uses Havok in their engine, isn't it?

As for shadows, look at the gameplay footage and see for yourself. The shadows on our character model at least look way better.

I think that you're right that most AAA games are perfectly fine. I think Skyrim was an exception to that rule, however, because of the shadows and physics systems. I didn't really have a complaint about anything else. I'm personally using an ASUS ROG Swift (1440p, G-Sync and 144Hz).

Yes I've watched plenty of movies. Frame rate is one of my primary complaints about them. I'm happy that there are those in the industry attempting to move to recording in 48 FPS at least. I understand that they want to save money and so go with the absolute minimum frame rate of 24 FPS (it's more expensive to perform frame-by-frame anolog and digital special effects as the frame rate goes up). However, that doesn't work well with games. Games take input, and the lower the frame rate, the longer the wait between creating the input and the feedback I receive. I appreciate that being as minimal as possible. In addition, the smoothness between even 60 FPS and 120+ FPS is like night and day.

In regards to the statements on the shadows, you didn't really give me any meat to chew on as "rolfmao" isn't a valid argument. You, apparently, think the shadows in Skyrim were fine. I did not, however. They were heavily aliased and very low in resolution -- even when having set the shadow map to 8192. I still would have to decrease shadow distance to about 5000 from 8000 to make the shadows passable to my eyes (in case you didn't know, decreasing the range of the shadows stretched the shadow map less and created less stepping). However, that's a compromise, not a fix in my eyes.

Well, regarding the engine bit, it's not going to be a ground-up redesigned engine since they pretty much already did that with the creation of their in-house Creation Engine. Since they have access to the back-end of the engine now, they don't need to ever worry about having to start completely over from scratch with an entirely new engine. They can just freely make modifications to the current engine to include new features, modify optimizations, take advantage of new techs and whatnot. They're definitely going to be tinkering with the engine with every game, though, trying to improve it as much as possible. It simply doesn't make sense that it's an entirely new engine.

This one features a ton of new rendering features, though, like PBR and volumetric lighting. So who's to say what they've done for physics and shadows?

If you have a 60/75Hz monitor, yes, but if you have a 120Hz/144Hz monitor or better, the difference between 60/75 FPS and 120/144 FPS is like night and day.

I don't think Bethesda is using Havok for physics anymore and brought the physics engine in house, which is why Skyrim was the first game to have this issue with physics being incompatible with higher frame rates. I think they did with Havok Physics like they did with SpeedTree when they created their own foliage rendering system and created their own physics system. I know they're using Havok's Behavior system for animation blending currently, but I don't think the physics part of the offerings from Havok is being used.

Regarding the trailer and shadows, it's impossible to tell if the issue has been fixed. You see, you could up the shadow map resolution to 8192 and decrease the shadow distance significantly and have incredible-looking shadows (but then the shadows have a relatively small range in how far out they're rendered). That could be a similar setup they're using for marketing purposes, so it's not able to be determined from those vids.

That's exactly why I brought up the points. Only Bethesda knows, and what better place than the official forums for their upcoming release using said engine?

Pretty sure the footage we've seen is the quality we'll have on the consoles.

As for Havok, they've been using their physics middleware for every game since Oblivion, Skyrim included. There's no indication that they've gone in-house for their physics engine, although I guess anything's possible. Isn't a physics engine really complex, though?

And I know that with a great monitor it's still possible to tell the difference between 60fps and 120 - but you eventually reach a point where the human eye can't even detect a difference. And no mater how noticeable it is, there's still diminishing returns the higher you go.

They tied their script "speed" directly to the frame rate. The faster the frame rate the more scripts would run in given time. Some scripts that were time sensitive (such as combat scripts that need to execute in milliseconds) were sometimes impossible.

This was confirmed by the Bethesda programer (he is SmkViper on these forums) that made the new scripting system.

So yeah, as script "lag" was a huge pain in the backside for modding in Skyrim, I am praying (GOD PLEASE) that they optimised the scripting system or worked on faster frame rates.

Aha. I understand completely now what the issue is. I'm honestly surprised they tied the scripting system to the frame rate. Generally speaking, the less you can tie anything to frame rate, the better off you'll be.

It is an improved version of the Creation Engine. Todd even called it that. "[Fallout 4] is running on a next generation of our Creation Engine." From the E3 reveal.

The improvements are huge. "Physical-based rendering, and dynamic, volumetric lighting." Very few games are using PBR right now. Battlefront 3 and AC: Unity are two examples that do.

Those two things alone mean that Bethesda has an entirely new texture asset pipeline with Fallout 4, and a whole new way of handling lighting, because the lighting is tied to the textures in PBR. Anyone who needs a primer on PBR and gaming, just look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NjGETJMZvY

My biggest hope is that they have fixed the wonky physics engine, and we can properly stack items without them exploding, and we no longer have floating items that have to "settle".

To me, the biggest reason for higher FPS isn't visual quality - you are right that at a certain point it becomes hard to distinguish with the naked eye. But it is the INPUT and RESPONSIVENESS that makes higher FPS king. Anyone who has gamed at 60 FPS or more for months or years can tell you that going back to playing a game in 30 FPS feels like you are wading through molasses, and all your button presses seem off.

Thanks for the clarification on my broad statement. Just an amateur on the technical side. I fully expect there to be some physics wonk though. We always get it and personally I have a love/hate relationship with it.

Someone mentioned it's 64-bit? Ha more like BETHESDA themselves has confirmed this, especially with the specs showing that a 64-bit operating system and 8 gigs of RAM is required, have you seen the system requirements? The executable is absolutely 64-bit.