- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
You’ll love Microsoft flight Sim. Get ready for the best single core performance bottleneck of your life
Just open up 50 chrome tabs, have discord, Spotify and all your other junk running in the background.
That’s why I went with a dual computer setup at home. My gaming PC just runs the game (and monitoring software because I’m a nerd) and my second PC does all the internet browsing/other stuff.
My first thought was, “Huh, that’s the opposite direction Star Citizen took” and this is someone who isn’t hating on it. I play SC occasionally.
That particular person appears to believe that upscalers, such as like DLSS and FSR, are “basic features”
Do people really like DLSS/FSR that much that they consider it a basic feature? I can’t stand the look of it and I’d rather just run actually at a lower resolution since it ends up looking better.
“Like” it? No, but it runs way better, and if you are using a high-resolution display, the quality upsampling methods are pretty decent on most games unless you are pixel peeping. I’d rather get 90+ fps with FSR3/DLSS3 with a 5 percent decrease in visual quality over ~45 fps at native resolution.
My qualm is all of the visual artificing I see. Maybe it’s just the games I play, but there are some pretty bad graphical glitches that bother me, and the frame timing is off or something because it makes the game feel less smooth. Part of the smoothness is probably the relatively weak CPU in my laptop. But even on my desktop the frame pacing doesn’t feel the same as native.
I think preferring a lower-than-native resolution over DLSS as a blanket statement is a bit of a wild take, but there can definitely be problems like artifacts, especially in certain games. I’m playing RDR2 at the moment and the TAA (which is forced to High with DLSS) is poorly implemented and causes flickers which is definitely annoying, as an example. I played Alan Wake 2 on an older laptop that barely ran it and I definitely noticed artifacting from DLSS there, though in fairness I was demanding a lot from that machine by forcing it to play AW2.
Frame time will of course be impacted so if you’re playing something really fast and twitchy you should stay away from DLSS probably. It’s also less bad if you don’t enable Frame Generation. Finally, both DLSS and Frame Generation input lag seems to scale with your baseline FPS. Using it to try to reach 60+ FPS will usually mean some input lag, using it when you’re already at ~60 FPS to get 80-100 or whatever means less noticeable input lag.
Finally, both DLSS and Frame Generation input lag seems to scale with your baseline FPS. Using it to try to reach 60+ FPS will usually mean some input lag, using it when you’re already at ~60 FPS to get 80-100 or whatever means less noticeable input lag.
In most cases DLSS actually reduces your input lag because you’re getting a higher framerate. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Might be just frame generation I was thinking of.
Yeah frame generation is crap, I wouldn’t ever use it.
I don’t think frame generation is crap outright, it’s still free frames, it’s just only really useful when you’re already at a solid frame rate.
I’ve had a horrible experience with fsr, but dlss I haven’t noticed a single issue and always turn it on
dlss
I tested it in BG3 and it didn’t work very well with trees and other small objects.
DLSS has nothing to do with the frame timing. DLSS also has very little, if any, visible “graphical glitches”.
Do people really like DLSS/FSR that much that they consider it a basic feature?
Absolutely, at least DLSS. DLSS is a gamechanger and a godsend. It can actually look better than native resolution while giving you massive performance increases. At worst it looks basically the same as native while giving you a massive performance boost. I’ve got a Ryzen 7/3070 PC and I’ll use DLSS everywhere it’s available as it’s basically just free frames.
The same can’t be said for FSR however, it’s trash.
I can’t stand the look of it and I’d rather just run actually at a lower resolution since it ends up looking better.
DLSS rarely, if ever, looks worse.
The wildest thing is combining DLSS with DLDSR if you’re running say a 1440p system like I am. Set your monitor to 1.78x DLDSR resolution, run your game at 3413x1920 and enable DLSS quality. In the end you render at 2275x1280 but end up with way better image quality than native, and the upscaling+downsampling ends up being a great anti-aliasing method since it sorts out a lot of the bad TAA blur.
Maybe complete the game fully before releasing it? Maybe people wouldn’t have an issue and you wouldn’t have to come up with excuses to justify a non-complete game.
The people working on DLSS support are not the people working on “more content”. Not having DLSS is unforgivable at this stage.
I want to buy this game, but I’m not going to until it gets DLSS support. If the game is dead by that time then so be it, I’ll keep my money.
Wow. You game dev don’t you
I am a software developer, yes.
You are completely incorrect with your guess on who does what in game studios
I’m definitely not. DLSS support is a low level engine feature. The engine developers working on this are not working on content.
DLSS support should be in the engine before there is even any content - it should be there before there’s even a playable build.
No, the tech works content too. A lot.
In general no, they don’t. Engine programmers aren’t designing levels or characters or missions.
Also as I said, DLSS support should be in the engine before there is even any content.
You are not correct.
