for those who think 12gb vram can max out everything

[Onasi]

@Zazigalka
The usual cope answer is that you need a 9999K screen to properly appreciate the higher texture quality. Might be. But the truth of the matter is that raw texture resolution can visually scale only so much before hitting insane diminishing returns, especially in motion. Same as with raw amount of polygons per model, that was a flex developers liked to roll out several years ago, I remember.

 

[Zazigalka]

@Zazigalka
The usual cope answer is that you need a 9999K screen to properly appreciate the higher texture quality. Might be. But the truth of the matter is that raw texture resolution can visually scale only so much before hitting insane diminishing returns, especially in motion. Same as with raw amount of polygons per model, that was a flex developers liked to roll out several years ago, I remember.

just realized I did not restart the game after changing textures from high to max, as the game requires.
So this time I did it properly, change->restart game
Prepare to be blown away how much that changes.
mind you, in Indiana it goes high->ultra->extreme->max, so it's 3 presets higher, not one.

Imgsli

funniest thing is, the texture pack was an optional 40GB download, lol.
definition of wortless.

 

[Onasi]

@Zazigalka
They are, unironically, the same picture. And this is static. In movement in game there will be absolutely no difference. I am not even mentioning upscalers and temporal blur. But yeah, filling up however much VRAM with even just textures is not that hard - those dogshit Skyrim mods that plaster an 8K texture over each insignificant barrel, pot and piece of horse dung are a testament to that. It's completely unnecessary, but people have a compulsion to just slide every setting to the right without actually checking whether it makes any visisble difference and then complain how they neeeeeeeed 64 gigs of VRAM on every card and that the games run poorly. Which, yeah, they do, but there is a nuance there.