Well, i guess performance DID improve

[Dirgenator]

From the other side of things...
I've got a killer computer with a quad core processor and a geforce 9800 gtx 512mb GPC which I used mostly for HD video editing. I have always run PR on max settings, 8x anti a, 1020x1080, and fill view distance, and my game looked great and ran perfectly. With the new release, the view distance change on maps IS noticeably, and having life like view distances was one of the things I loved about PR. I have also noticed a slight reduction of overall graphic quality. Shrubbery and bushed don't draw as well, and edges shimmer and move.

While I completely understand the rational behind dropping graphics for better performance on standard quality PC, and I don't condem the DEV team for it, i do want to express my sadness..

I might also add to the PR community: Hey, isn't this game GREAT enough to spend a little savings on some extra RAM... I'm broke myself, but I would probably rob a bank if PR needed new hardware! lol!

[Jigsaw]

From the other side of things...
I've got a killer computer with a quad core processor and a geforce 9800 gtx 512mb GPC which I used mostly for HD video editing. I have always run PR on max settings, 8x anti a, 1020x1080, and fill view distance, and my game looked great and ran perfectly. With the new release, the view distance change on maps IS noticeably, and having life like view distances was one of the things I loved about PR. I have also noticed a slight reduction of overall graphic quality. Shrubbery and bushed don't draw as well, and edges shimmer and move.

I have a virtually identical system and have seen no noticeable difference whatsoever in the view distance going from 0909 to 0917, the game simply runs a lot better and everything is smoother. Strange that you think that there is a difference. In addition undergrowth draw distance has only been reduced on Iron Ridge...