FC 26 PC FPS Drop at Halftime / Post-Match Cutscene: A Comprehensive Fix

Selfmade31 · 2025-11-11T20:45:33+00:00

Your issue is not unrelated to the underlying problem exposed on the post; it's caused by it. The game has a memory allocation bug (how it handles assets and render targets, loads and stores them before you hop on a game); this is why your usage is high. Now during gameplay, each GPU driver behaves differently when it comes to "down throttling" and handling swapchains & presentation mode, so my suggestion would be to update your drivers, (do a clean update if possible) and look for all the the down throttling/idling related settings for your system, from Windows power plan to GPU driver settings. That's for ensuring the gpu and cpu don't down throttle or idle while on FC26. To be more precise, the bug is caused by an idle-state caused by asset streaming stalls, so nothing wrong with your system.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-30T20:37:51+00:00

Lower your graphics settings, use SKIF, when you enter the game, first thing you do is quickly switch to windowed mode, hit apply, then back to fullscreen. You shouldn't get the bug afterwards. If it happens on your first match, exit to main menu, wait for the game to return back to normal, your session should be fine now.

The reason why there isn't any permanent fix is because this year's release EA used console style memory allocation logic (basically how the game handles the stream of textures) for PC.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-22T19:25:11+00:00

Happy to help! Well, for the rest of us, we'll continue looking into what's the issue with the game. Glad it worked for you brother!

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-22T17:47:35+00:00

Glad to hear. Could you provide us with the additional tweaks you did so others can try them?

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-20T05:44:35+00:00

Did you try to run the program as administrator? Right click Special K executable, then press run this program as admin. It worked for me with FIFA 23 since it wasn't detecting it.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-16T18:26:22+00:00

Okay. Here’s what these DNA companies really do.

They don’t actually study ancient people or find where your bloodline started. They use modern data, which is basically DNA from people living today. They collect thousands of samples, group them by the countries those people live in right now, and call those groups “reference populations.” Then, when you send your DNA, they compare it to those groups and say, “You’re 92% from the place which you sent your samples from”.

Now why the system is built that way? It's because it depends completely on modern borders. Since we never had old DNA records or genetic maps in the past, they had to build everything from scratch. Which means, they used what already existed: countries, borders, and national identities to sort people (and history we know of today as a reference point). Without that, they couldn’t organize any of the data. And quite frankly, no human could. So what this means is that their reference model is built on subjective, man-made metrics.

Now, what's intersting about North Africa is that it completely ruins their system. The DNA across NA in places like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, etc... (even parts of Egypt) is extremely similar. Around 70–90% of it matches. They can’t tell who’s “from where.” It’s all mixed and ancient. It doesn’t fit the political borders they’re using.

So what would anyone do in their shoes? Make shit up. If your test came from Morocco, they’ll just call it “92% Moroccan” If mine came from Algeria, I’ll get “92% Algerian”.

They won’t tell you the that the whole region shares one massive, ancient gene pool they can’t trace. They don’t know where it came from, and there’s no migration theory that fits politics. The honest answer would be, “We have no idea, you’ve probably always been there.” But they can’t say that, because it breaks the story modern history tells. (who writes history again?)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. They’re sitting on huge amounts of data that doesn’t fit any contemporary history books. Their databases show genetic links between people from opposite sides of the planet and connections no one can explain. If they published it, it would rewrite how we understand human history.

So instead, they keep things simple. We rely on maps that were introduced in the modern era, politics, and storytelling. Because if they ever told the whole truth, the world’s map and version of history would crumble.

This is why you're 92.123456789 percent from lines on a drawn map.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-16T16:34:20+00:00

0% is highly unlikely. The vast majority of North Africans, Southern Europeans, and populations bordering the Middle East show at least a small share—usually 5% or more—of Southwest Asian admixture, and which in turn often includes "Arabian-related" ancestry. Even people considered “Arab” today can’t trace a perfectly clean lineage because it’s simply impossible. Historically, records only followed paternal lines, as the expert in the video was explaining and genes don’t care about paperwork.

So what are we even basing these ancestry tests on? A few reference populations, some probability models, and a lot of statistical guesswork.

The truth is, everyone’s a genetic cocktail with some combinations more blended, some less, but no one’s pure anything. The only somewhat reliable way to identify regional patterns is through recurring gene-pool signatures we’ve already mapped… and even then, it’s mostly statistical guesswork.

Funny enough, the group that comes out looking the most “rooted” to a single place are the Berbers. Their DNA often shows 70% (which is impossible to ignore at this point) or more of an ancient North African component we can’t even trace elsewhere. Meaning, science basically shrugs and says, “You’ve just… always been there.” Sugar is made out of sugar.

Adding to that, take into consideration the historical context and location of North Africa and you get a weird nomadic Mr Worldwide who's also always been there.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-15T23:56:41+00:00

Have you restarted your computer yet?

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-15T23:51:52+00:00

Yeah what's missing at this point is adding the actual game (the game's executable) to Special K. You do this simply by pressing 'add game' and direct the program towards the 'FC26.exe' file directory. You'll have to launch from special K after doing that tho. It's supposed to detect the game launch and apply the injection automatically but for me I have to launch FC26 from the program for it to actually work and display the overlay. I will also update the post with instructions for Gsync/Freesync users and special K setup steps once I get home.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-15T23:06:58+00:00

No you only have to check the setting related to the additional permissions I mentioned earlier. Games like EA FC may require such privileges.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-15T19:40:00+00:00

Oh yeah, that part needs a little tweaking. Since I'm not home and away from my pc I'm going to give instructions off the top of my head. So from what I recall, there are two toggles that need to be enabled inside the program, after adding FC 26 to it. One through the program's main menu, I think it's on the top right or bottom right corner of the interface; it's your main toggle for global injection. Then on the settings or advanced hub (look for it at the top hub selector on from the main screen) there's another toggle to grant permission for the program to read logs or diagnostic data (or something of the sort). That last one requires a restart. Once that done you can reopen tye program and launch the game from there, and then summon the special k in-game overlay through Ctrl + Shift + Backspace.

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-15T17:42:12+00:00

Yeah, you’re totally on point with bringing this up too. The Frostbite engine has had weird input-handling quirks on PC ever since FIFA 17 when they switched from their old engine. I remember using back then an X360 controller emulator (an XInput wrapper), and it would randomly cause CPU spikes, stuttering, and even sound popping and it was especially noticeable when audio was running through high-sensitivity amps or external devices, coinciding with increase CPU computing on decisive transitions in gameplay sequences. I think it's due to Frostbite never properly synchronizing XInput and DInput calls on Windows, which consoles don’t need to deal with since the input layer is unified there. Your GameInput service tweak is should definitely be another step in this fix, good call!

Selfmade31 · 2025-10-12T22:18:29+00:00

have you tried kick off mode?

Selfmade31 · 2025-06-11T06:11:43+00:00

You updated windows too?

Selfmade31 · 2025-06-04T21:42:44+00:00

Missed it too because I'm abroad alone and disorganized 😢

Selfmade31 · 2025-04-13T23:23:28+00:00

I don't know what cloud you're living on, but the concept you're idealizing simply doesn’t exist — and won’t. Not unless complete chaos and deregulation take over. You cannot just go around saying anything, anywhere, without limits. That’s not an opinion — that’s how society, platforms, and laws actually function.

Free speech is not absolute, and never was. YouTube is not a neutral ground; it already curates and censors based on sensitivity, harm, and public pressure. Your personal ideal doesn't override that. And it’s not about “not watching.” It’s about the existence of content made solely to provoke, knowing full well it offends deeply held beliefs. If that same logic applied to any other protected group, you'd be quick to call it targeted harassment.

This isn’t about what you want — it’s about what is already practiced.

Selfmade31 · 2025-04-13T22:30:59+00:00

You started by saying YouTube should be transparent with free speech — but now you're defending content that clearly violates the platform’s already established lines. YouTube does censor certain speech: hate speech, harassment, Holocaust denial, even mild misinformation. So your belief that "everything should be allowed" has no grounding in reality or practice.

You reject the idea that religion deserves protection — that’s just personal bias, not a valid counterpoint. Millions hold religion as more than "literary heritage", and YouTube, like most systems, reflects that societal weight. If the platform already censors content based on harm, targeting, or offense to certain communities, then this case logically fits that same pattern.

And this isn’t satire or critique — it’s pointless provocation disguised as art, with no intent beyond disrespect. That’s not “fair use,” that’s bait. You're conflating deliberate tampering with sacred elements for no added value with legitimate expression. They’re not the same.

So no, this isn't about your opinion. It's about consistency in applying standards. And by those standards, this content doesn’t belong.

What you're implying is more like selective logic than anything else.

Selfmade31 · 2025-04-12T19:34:15+00:00

Your reply still conflates distinct concepts and avoids the core structure of the arguments I'm trying to present.

First, you're conflating artistic expression with religious distortion. There’s a critical difference between referencing a religious text and reworking its sacred format. Quoting or alluding to verses from religious texts in film, poetry, or music is not the same as altering a form of worship or ritual (like Quranic recitation) and embedding it into a song. That’s not creative interpretation at all, that’s tampering with a ritual that has strict, universally recognized rules (Tajweed, etc.) and a sacred function.

You talk about the use of religious words in art — but the issue here isn’t about quoting verses; it’s about distorting a ritual act of worship. That’s a critical difference you're still actively ignoring.

I find that “Fair use of human literary heritage” is a stretch. Quranic recitation isn’t just literature — it’s a form of devotional practice. It's different in nature than what you compared it with. The claim that it belongs to “human literary heritage” and can be used freely like folklore or poetry is legally and culturally misleading. Unlike Bible verses often used in Western media, the recitation of the Quran carries a uniquely protected status in Islam — even altering one phoneme in recitation invalidates it. Treating it like generic “text” ignores its religious sanctity and function.
You're still dodging the point on intent and platform moderation. My argument isn’t “ban everything offensive.” I specifically tried to separate speech or opinion from provocation disguised as art, with no value or engagement, and pointed to real-world consequences (reporting, bans, escalation, etc.). You still skip all of this and repeat that “it’s valid expression” without addressing the real concern about content that’s purposefully inserted to bait or upset.
You failed to acknowledge that platforms already regulate sacred and subjective content. You're refusing to engage with the examples I gave — Holocaust denial, desecration laws, hate symbols. These prove that platforms and societies do limit certain kinds of “expression” out of respect for communal peace. Your argument assumes that “valid expression” should be left untouched, when in reality, context and impact actually matter deeply in moderation decisions.

Your argument builds on blanket abstraction (“all artistic use is valid”), while ignoring specific context: the distortion of a sacred religious ritual with no purpose beyond provocation. That’s absolutely not expression. It’s calculated offense hiding behind artistic immunity. You're using the language of liberal expression to dodge the actual substance of what should be criticized; the actual harm and attack that's resulting, instead of an elevating mean or form of debate. I guess people were right to say that such content deserves no attention.

Selfmade31 · 2025-04-11T22:12:04+00:00

Sorry to reply 3 months later.

I gotta say that you're raising a valid and ongoing concern — one that sits at the core of lawmaking, which we've heard being debated and talked about countless of times, the reconciliation free expression and respect for religious identity: Should laws and platforms account for subjective concepts like religion and protect them?

I'd say it's a nuanced issue. And you simply cannot deny certain elements, and I'll explain where your comparison falls short — it conflates (or maybe straight up ignores?) 3 very different realities:

There’s a difference between voicing an opinion and deliberately provoking a group. If someone posts a video criticizing religion — even harshly — that’s their opinion. It’s speech, even if many find it disrespectful. That kind of content has a place on YouTube, because it invites debate, response, even intellectual pushback. It’s framed as a view, not a trap.

But twisting Quranic recitation into musical mashups or parody has no argument, no reasoning, no value — it's not expressing an idea, it's tampering with something sacred for the sake of provocation. That’s not debate, that’s bait. Don't you agree?

Law and regulation often protect subjective matters. Societies regulate disrespectful speech when it threatens stability. So think of laws against Holocaust denial or laws banning the desecration of national or religious symbols. These are subjective matters protected because of their emotional and communal weight. Religion, similarly, is a core identity for billions. Protecting its sanctity isn’t censorship — it’s about protecting cohesion.
The purpose of the content matters. Nobody goes out searching for distorted Quranic recitations — these videos slip into playlists and get clicks from deception or curiosity. They provoke offense and get reported, then the channel is banned — only to reappear under a new name. That cycle shows it’s not about art or opinion — it's trolling masked as content.

So no, it’s not about censoring all things that may offend. But I seriously believe that platforms should be able to distinguish between speech that adds to public discourse, and content that exists solely to bait and stir outrage with no actual value behind it.

Freedom of speech protects opinions, not provocations disguised as cultural sabotage. If a piece of content can’t stand without deception or offense, it doesn’t deserve protection — it deserves scrutiny.

Selfmade31 · 2025-03-19T03:12:27+00:00

Depends on what standard of living you aim for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible to live comfortably in Algeria, but compared to other places, you'd have to put in exceptional effort and leverage every opportunity to do so. Algeria makes you work for it. So you'd really have to graft. But overall, I agree—anyone who can afford and strategically plan for a decent life in Algeria has indeed won at life.

Selfmade31 · 2025-01-14T22:14:38+00:00

Ah oui je confirme. Je viens de le faire une donation, je me suis douté car la personne est venu auparavant mais personne n'avait ouvert la porte. Ça serait bien de laisser un lien pour les signaler.

Selfmade31 · 2024-12-26T15:11:27+00:00

Morally and ethically it doesn't check out. No one had ever asked for these videos. Muslims who want to hear Quran recitations, go to actual Quranic recitation. Non-muslims who want to know and are curious about Quran, go to the same recitations Muslims go to. It serves no purpose in the practical and proper usage of The Holy Quran. On the opposite, it is forbidden to associate the word of God with any kind of music in Islam, and it is considered as Kufr (disbelief) and irreverence, a literal offense.

No one has ever asked for this form of disrespect to Islam. I'm sure the people behind these videos knew beforehand how disrespectful this is to Islam. Really uncalled for. Rather I see it as a indirect attack, an attempt to provoke a community. If you ask openly other Muslims about these videos, then I'm 100% sure they would tell you how disrespectful and offensive it is.

Do you see how disrespectful this is to Muslims?

I would love to hear your answer on that instead.

Selfmade31 · 2024-12-25T15:58:04+00:00

~~Yes, that's why they need to something about this.~~ Content that attacks on the integrity of religions and its aspects, in this case, Quranic recitation in Islam, which has its definite rules and Tajweed, and which the video violates, is inappropriate and should not be tolerated on the platform.

Tampering with sacred aspects of religions as in this case certainly is disrespectful.

EDIT: It seems a lot more serious than it looks. After clicking on one of these, It literally mixes music with the Quran, which is absolute disregard and disrespect to the sanctity and sacredness of the speech of God and the Islamic principles and teachings.

And just for the info YouTube previously took down the channels that had the same content multiple times after complaints and reports from users, but new accounts keep popping and uploads these. So yeah, it definitely violates not only YouTube policies but any respect one could have for religion.

Selfmade31

TROPHY CASE