MS just announced removal of framerate caps in UWP games

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

and I suspect exclusive full screen as well. 

no it won't - should take a read of the MS blog post; they're quite keen on the direction they've taken and exclusive fullscreen is not part of their "vision"

 

+ @Giddyguy

 

whatever UWP was, it wasn't designed to handle PC games; it was probably designed to handle XB1 games,  but that doesn't translate well when porting it to PC

MS ignored that, and here we are

you need to keep in mind that MS' PC gaming is handled by the XBox division

[GoodBytes]

10 minutes ago, zMeul said:

no it won't - should take a read of the MS blog post; they're quite keen on the direction they've taken and exclusive fullscreen is not part of their "vision"

 

+ @Giddyguy

 

whatever UWP was, it wasn't designed to handle PC games; it was probably designed to handle XB1 games,  but that doesn't translate well when porting it to PC

MS ignored that, and here we are

you need to keep in mind that MS' PC gaming is handled by the XBox division

Where do they say it is not part of their vision?

How "deisgned for XBox One games" makes any sense.. the console is a PC, running a modified version of Windows 10.

 

[ThreePinkApples]

@zMeul

UWP wasn't designed for anything else than mobile/tablet games originally, they started supporting PC games with Windows 10, and are steadily improving the support as it goes on. There are probably many consumers that have no real problem with how it really launched, and they knew that when they launched. They probably knew that the "hardcore" gamers would have issues with it, they are not stupid, but they launched to start reaching those that maybe have mostly experienced games through the App Store or Google Play, for that, the solution was good, and that's the market were they really have a lot to gain from. Us "hardcore" gamers are already deep in Steam, Uplay, Origin, GOG Galaxy etc. MS is smart enough to know that they can't turn many of those over, and most of them that are going to use MS Store will probably just use it now and then for some games. 

 

The UWP platform is really needed, you should watch Microsoft keynote speak at Build 2016 were they talked about why the UWP platform is good, and why the WIn32 must should be slowly pushed away, for most use cases.

They are launching a tool that can take a .exe or .msi install file, analyse it, and then create a .appx install file to install the Win32 program as a UWP app. Devs can then, in their Win32 app, add UWP specific code which will be utilized firstly after it have been run through this tool to create the .appx (or they build there app directly for UWP through Visual Studio). 

This will allow the app to run securely inside a sandbox, where it has it's own register, it's own "file system". etc. Which basically means, all apps installed through an .appx or the Windows Store, will install and un-install completely cleanly.  Thus obliterating the issue about machines getting "bloated" over time, even though you remove unwanted and no longer used, programs. 
Also it increases security, and as @GoodBytes already mentioned, the GUI is run on the GPU, giving more headroom for the CPU (and maybe allowing more smooth animations/transitions inside apps/programs). 

 

They can continue building UWP specific code on top of their Win32 app as much as they want, adding a separate UI, adding live tiles, taking advantage of the UWP API's etc. All this without touching the WIn32 code, and being still able to build the same code base for both Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10 and UWP 

 

 

So to conclude, the UWP platform isn't perfect, but they have some really great plans for it, and within not long, UWP will be preferred over Win32. Probably already in Redstone 2 late this year/early next year, or whatever comes after

[zMeul]

to address that fact that MS won't be implementing exclusive full screen in UWP, here's a quote from MS' blog post:

Quote

Full screen exclusive mode was created back in the original release of DirectDraw to provide games with enhanced performance when using the entire screen. The downside of full screen exclusive mode is that it makes the experience for gamers who wish to do other things on their system, such as alt-tab to another application or run the Windows GameDVR, more clunky with excessive flicker and transition time.

We thought it would be cool if gamers could have the versatility of gaming in a window with the performance of full screen exclusive.

So, with Windows 10, DirectX 12 games which take up the entire screen perform just as well as the old full screen exclusive mode without any of the full screen exclusive mode disadvantages. This is true for both Win32 and UWP games which use DirectX 12.   All of these games can seamlessly alt-tab, run GameDVR, and exhibit normal functionality of a window without any perf degradation vs full screen exclusive.

 

---

 

to address why MS (un)intentionally kept VSync ON on Windows 10 UWP

 

games on XB1 very rarely exceed 30FPS or 60FPS for that matter; and this was before MS planned to put W10 on XB1

so, what they did was to lock the framerate to 30, with VSync on - very few games offered the option to turn VSync off; if I remember it right, one of those games was TW3

 

when MS turned to Windows gaming on PC, the only way they saw fit to distribute their games, was via Windows Store and be packaged with UWP because it offered portability

the problem with that, UWP was not intended for "unshackled" PC gaming; it was just a universal platform adapted to fit gaming

 

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, aerandir92 said:

UWP platform is good, and why the WIn32 must should be slowly pushed away

then Windows can go fuck itself

I do not want to live in the same ecosystem where UWP exists as a dominant programming platform - UWP is a platform specifically designed to handle portability on different devices

Windows gaming cannot do that - PC gaming is not about integrated graphics and "oh boy, it consumes too much power"; PC gaming is about letting the idiot in front of the monitor to customize his/hers experience as he/she sees fit

 

the only reason for UWP existence is for MS to control; what? everything

[ThreePinkApples]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

then Windows can go fuck itself

I do not want to live in the same ecosystem where UWP exists as a dominant programming platform - UWP is a platform specifically designed to handle portability on different devices

Windows gaming cannot do that - PC gaming is not about integrated graphics and "oh boy, it consumes too much power"; PC gaming is about letting the idiot in front of the monitor to customize his/hers experience as he/she sees fit

You might actually be right about PC games for the UWP platform, that is too early to tell. But they have solved the V-sync and fressync/g-sync problem now, and a solution for multi GPU is coming. So the only issue left, if I'm not mistaken, is that the games are always run in borderless fullscreen?
To me, that is actually a bonus, as long as the apps priority is set right. I love borderless mode, and would have all my games in it, if it wasn't for something simple as a Skype notification making it stutter like hell. Hopefully they can do some magic to fix borderless, or, they might end up creating a workaround to allow fullscreen. If non of those happens, I agree, PC gaming can't fit on the platform. 

 

I really really wish for them to "fix" borderless, and it looks like that is their goal, based on what they've said about it earlier (you're quote two posts above for example)

 

For programs/apps though, UWP is so, so welcome. Very very welcome. 

[GoodBytes]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

to address that fact that MS won't be implementing exclusive full screen in UWP, here's a quote from MS' blog post:

 

---

 

to address why MS (un)intentionally kept VSync ON on Windows 10 UWP

 

games on XB1 very rarely exceed 30FPS or 60FPS for that matter; and this was before MS planned to put W10 on XB1

so, what they did was to lock the framerate to 30, with VSync on - very few games offered the option to turn VSync off; if I remember it right, one of those games was TW3

 

when MS turned to Windows gaming on PC, the only way they saw fit to distribute their games, was via Windows Store and be packaged with UWP because it offered portability

the problem with that, UWP was not intended for "unshackled" PC gaming; it was just a universal platform adapted to fit gaming

 

 

Console games don't enable V-Sync. The developer set a frame limiter.

If V-Sync was on, then games would drop between 30fps down to 15fps. It doesn't.

The idea of the frame limiter, is that if the game runs at a solid 45fps with a minimum of 30fps, limiting the frames to 30fps, means you'll get a super smooth, continuous experience. This is why when you read game benchmarks on PC with graphics card, you don't only look at the average, but rather the minimum and maximum, and you want both to be very close to each other, if you plan to disable V-Sync. If you game jump from 120fps down to 90fps and back to 120fps, trust me, you'll see the jump and break the immersion of the game. This is how all console games are designed, and hence why bad PC ports the devs leaves the frame limiter.

 

[zMeul]

Quote

If V-Sync was on, then games would drop between 30fps down to 15fps. It doesn't.

Quote

A PS4 and Xbox One frame-rate analysis on patch 1.01. We get v-sync for both, but only PS4 is capped to 30fps with stutters below during gameplay. Meanwhile Xbox One runs the gamut between 20-40fps, which causes its own frame-pacing issues.

source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-face-off

 

Quote

To summarise console performance, PS4 has an advantage in capping its frame-rate at 30fps, while Xbox One daringly keeps things unlocked. Both are v-synced, but the issue for the latter case is that its frame-rate goes between 20-40fps, meaning there's no consistency to when your screen refreshes with a new frame. In theory, this issue is fixable on Xbox One with a patch, as theoretically it rarely dips below the 30fps mark. Sony's platform is our preference right now though, but even here its performance profile isn't exactly ideal. Both drop frames around Novigrad City, suggesting issues with streaming NPC, textures and geometry, while spell effects cause drops below this number during griffin encounters, perhaps more indicative of a GPU bottleneck.

 

[GoodBytes]

Yea exactly my point. V-Sync is not turned on. If V-Sync is turned on, that graph line would be perfectly flat, and jump straight down to 15, and up to 30 in one shot under intense scene.

[zMeul]

huh!? can you explain to me what do you understand when DF says they're both V-Synced

how does one understand that V-Sync is turned off from that?!

[GoodBytes]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

huh!? can you explain to me what do you understand when DF says they're both V-Synced

how does one understand that V-Sync is turned off from that?!

I don't care what they decide to call it. I know what V-Sync is, and what frame limiter is.

If they like to call frame limiter "V-Sync", then I don't care. I know what I am talking about, it is my job.

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't care what they say. I know what V-Sync is, and what frame limiter is.

If they like to call frame limiter "V-Sync", then I don't care. I know what I am talking about, it is my job.

how the hell they call frame limiter Vsync when in the same sentence they note that the PS4 version runs with frame limiter on?!

Quote

PS4 has an advantage in capping its frame-rate at 30fps, while Xbox One daringly keeps things unlocked. Both are v-synced, but the issue for the latter case is that its frame-rate goes between 20-40fps

 

I do not care what your job is .. take it with DF to explain their conclusion, not me

they could very well run something similar to nVidia's Adaptive V-Sync

 

look at the frametimes on XB1, it's a fucking jig saw from the start to the finish

[Unhelpful]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

 

I don't give a singular fuck about this argument... But you know that "it's my job" should never be used in a tech-based discussion. Especially on the internet where it's unverifiable. 

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

I don't give a singular fuck about this argument... But you know that "it's my job" should never be used in a tech-based discussion. Especially on the internet where it's unverifiable. 

Sorry, but if you have trouble looking at definition of things, than this is not my problem. So yes, it is verifiable. Very easily in fact, as this is basic stuff. Anyone who touch GPU accelerated graphics development of any age, would know this.

 

 

[Unhelpful]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Sorry, but if you have trouble looking at definition of things, than this is not my problem.

Did you respond to the wrong person?

[Unhelpful]

6 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Sorry, but if you have trouble looking at definition of things, than this is not my problem. So yes, it is verifiable. Very easily in fact, as this is basic stuff. Anyone who touch GPU accelerated graphics development of any age, would know this.

Again I'm talking about exactly nothing regarding your argument. I'm talking about the "it's my job" line. That's bullshit to use in an argument, especially on the internet, where your qualifications are unverifiable. Not that it helps much if/when they are verifiable, it's just a quick way to end discussion instead of actually exploring an issue. If issues ended by using that line then no qualified people would ever be able to argue. It's stupid.

[zMeul]

@GoodBytes

here, Quantum Break ran on W10 capped at 50FPS with double buffered V-Sync

there is one caveat tho: DirectX doesn't use "buffering", it uses swap chain

[deviant88]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

-blabla-

 

 

They still havent fixed core windows problems that are as old as windows itself, and you expect them to deliver a usable UWP experience? my UWP apps still crash at random sometimes or refuse to start altogheter, searching is still crippled and works intermittently also if i cant use store and apps without connecting with an account its pointless or at least connect with an account in the store but leave my OS account alone

I will care about anything MS does when they will start removing all snooping they put inside windows, and when they will stop preinstalling garbage; if you install the TechPreview now you will notice its added even more garbage preinstalled that doesnt even have a uninstall button, like candy crush and other junk that reinstalls itself. Oh and the damned Mail app still doesnt show any emails, i like to keep reminding this since it proves how crappy MS actually does things.

 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, deviant88 said:

They still havent fixed core windows problems that are as old as windows itself, and you expect them to deliver a usable UWP experience?

What issue that Windows 1.0 has still there today?

 

Quote

 my UWP apps still crash at random sometimes or refuse to start altogheter, searching is still crippled and works intermittently also if i cant use store and apps without connecting with an account its pointless or at least connect with an account in the store but leave my OS account alone

They are variety of reason why UWP apps crash, the common ones are

 -> Buggy GPU drivers.

 -> System tweak tool or something change the folder permission of the apps.

 -> Corrupted install of apps, or framework due to something causing the corruption (upgraded without removing the A/V, just to mention a potential case, or another case: corrupted previous version of Windows where the corruption carried over the upgrade).

 

Quote

I will care about anything MS does when they will start removing all snooping they put inside windows, and when they will stop preinstalling garbage; if you install the TechPreview now you will notice its added even more garbage preinstalled that doesnt even have a uninstall button, like candy crush and other junk that reinstalls itself. Oh and the damned Mail app still doesnt show any emails, i like to keep reminding this since it proves how crappy MS actually does things.

You have 2 "garbage" apps. Pre-installed, or click-to-install. Click to install, you just unpin them, they don't have the uninstall option as they are not installed.

Installed one, just uninstall them. Due to the sandbox nature of UWP framework, they uninstall/unpin clean.

 

Windows 10 does not "snoop", they collect telemetry data, much like Windows 8, 7, Vista, and XP. If you have never opted out before, then you were in.

The only difference is that now you can't fully opt out, and that now the privacy policy doesn't require you to seek a team of lawyers to understand, but rather written in plain English, so now people freak out. I guess Microsoft should do like Google, and hide it really well, and use complex language to hide the fact that they are actually spying on you, to know you specifically, and sale that information. This is the main source of income for Google, with Google Play Store.

[TrigrH]

9 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

It's funny how much shit people are giving Microsoft for doing exactly the same thing Google's Play Store and Apple's app store do...

prove me if i'm wrong mate, uhhh didn't realise Google's Play Store and Apple's app store have full fledged PC game releases? 

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

...the real reason is that when UWP was made, the focus was on Apps, not on PC games.

Exactly I don't think anyone here is mad at anything other than the AAA PC games that shouldn't be using the UWP.

[zMeul]

@GoodBytes here mate, did my own testing using Talos with some crazy DSR to make the framerate go above 60 and below 60, with VSync on and off

 

Spoiler

OpenGL seems to behave like you said, but not DX11

other than enabling DSR, I have't played with NVCP settings; also OGL Triple Buffering was left OFF by default

[Giddyguy]

8 hours ago, zMeul said:

whatever UWP was, it wasn't designed to handle PC games; it was probably designed to handle XB1 games,  but that doesn't translate well when porting it to PC

MS ignored that, and here we are

you need to keep in mind that MS' PC gaming is handled by the XBox division

Right, but I think their whole argument is that PC games and Xbox games no longer have to be different entities. I think the plan is to ideally have devs release one game for both platforms and have each platform be able to have its own features. So on PC that means extensive graphic options/modding/sli,cfx,gsync,freesync,vr, etc support and on the console a more locked/streamlined and simple to use format since console gamers tend to be more casual. The fact that it isn't here yet, well that's the problem. Development has been quite slow and they are struggling to have basic features ready (which is frustrating).

 

7 hours ago, deviant88 said:

- They still havent fixed core windows problems that are as old as windows itself, and you expect them to deliver a usable UWP experience? my UWP apps still crash at random sometimes or refuse to start altogheter, searching is still crippled and works intermittently. Oh and the damned Mail app still doesnt show any emails, i like to keep reminding this since it proves how crappy MS actually does things.

- I will care about anything MS does when they will start removing all snooping they put inside windows, and when they will stop preinstalling garbage; if you install the TechPreview now you will notice its added even more garbage preinstalled that doesnt even have a uninstall button, like candy crush and other junk that reinstalls itself.

- if i cant use store and apps without connecting with an account its pointless or at least connect with an account in the store but leave my OS account alone

(I rearranged your comment to make it easier for me to talk about, hope that's ok.)

- Regarding your first point, that's your opinion on MS. I personally don't have issues with my windows 10 apps (though i dont use many, but mail works fine). But i dont doubt that people have issues with a new platform.

- About your second point, yes that's pretty dumb and they need to stop. I get the reasoning but its bad and shouldn't happen. (however idk about the not having an unistall button, i was able to remove whatever crap my pc had installed)

- #3. I think that's just what an OS has become now. If you look at Android, it requires a google account, iOS and OSX are based on an apple id. I don't see why the desktop has to be any different (My argument is continued after the next guy's comment).

 

3 hours ago, TrigrH said:

prove me if i'm wrong mate, uhhh didn't realise Google's Play Store and Apple's app store have full fledged PC game releases? 

Exactly I don't think anyone here is mad at anything other than the AAA PC games that shouldn't be using the UWP.

But really why does there have to be a difference between a game on the play to apple store and one released on windows? I be Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Flappy Birds and whatnot have made serious money, and have logged plenty of playtime from gamers. The reason why mobile has become such a big market is because its easy for developers to get started. So why is it bad the Microsoft is trying to create a similar enviroment for desktop games? We always complain about bad ports, so if this can alleviate that issue, isn't that a good thing?

 

And now back to my general comment. There's always talk about how mobile is taking over/pc sales dropping, with Android/Google and iOS/Apple leading the way and with Microsoft being the slow giant. Well this is their attempt to mobilize/become more agile. By splitting desktop apps into a store, they can push updates more frequently (ideally). By sandboxing apps, they're trying to make the development process simpler. Are they doing it perfectly? No, some things are being handled wrongly. But i appreciate their goals and the direction they're heading. Thanks for reading this, and i think i am finished on this topic (this is probably my longest post).

[rhyseyness]

Why can I still not change the download location of UWP apps.

That's what I wanna know.

[DXMember]

17 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Why lock fps in the first place?

because it wasn't used for gaming before the raise of the tomb raider

it was used for metro apps and candy crush

[zMeul]

3 hours ago, Giddyguy said:

- #3. I think that's just what an OS has become now. If you look at Android, it requires a google account, iOS and OSX are based on an apple id. I don't see why the desktop has to be any different (My argument is continued after the next guy's comment).

to install it!? you can get .apk from outside google play store, even google ones

there's even a 3rd party "Store" for indie devs - F-Droid; Amazon has it's own distribution service

 

more to the point, you don't need to be online to run the apps, well except those that are on-line services

 

to run MS Store apps you absolutely have to be logged in with the MS account