Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Battlefield V with DXR on tested from Techspot(Hardware Unboxed)

Quote

 frame rate target will effect the image quality

Where? Show me. I showed you 10 games that have the image quality set to "ultra stupid high", and did not allow frame rate target to lower image quality. Find me 1 game that does this (because I know they exist, but then I can show you the limiting factor, and if it is resolution, VRAM, cuda core pipeline, game engine, development budget etc).

 

Quote

No I used that show show that asset being used in a game would result in a lower graphical looking game. 

Yes, but no one is using the lower assets. I gave an example of 10 games using the higher assets than were *possible* at the time. Show me the 1 game using lower assets. :)

 

Quote

Now where it's actually important to this discussion is if the low quality asset has to be used to achieve 4k on current hardware

Which no one is doing. The GamesRadar article on 1 game (Crackdown) says "we lower the FPS" not the art assets*. So can you find me the 1 game that lowered the art assets? ?

 

*They do mention a theoretical "better" game at 1080p, but they do not provide any numbers/facts to back that up, such as how much extra money to spend on the art team, or how much VRAM spare, or how many cPU/GPU cycles spare

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The issue I think is cropping up here is what people value more and consider a better graphical game. My taste, what I use to measure is different so my conclusion is going to be different to another person. I could see a beautiful realistic looking game and be amazed at it and call it the best graphical game ever, someone else might look at it and say it's not because it's not being rendered at 4k so has drawbacks that are more important to them.

i do agree you seem to be arguing on different points there, and some confusion that don't care to go into. 

But i do get your point 4k doesn't make a " beautiful realistic looking game" on it's on, it makes for a good looking game, and those aren't the same thing. 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i do agree you seem to be arguing on different points there, and some confusion that don't care to go into. 

But i do get your point 4k doesn't make a " beautiful realistic looking game" on it's on, it makes for a good looking game, and those aren't the same thing. 

Yes this. Image quality *is* improved with 4K. Art quality is not. Art quality is improved *at any resolution*. FPS count is not. These are separate things, and some game developers/Users push for them as if they are the same.

 

Leadeater

Quote

Far cry 5.

I posted the Ultra HD Texture pack... They did not lower the quality for 4K!!! ? ??

 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm saying you don't seem to realise, the games higher art assets are there. No one is downgrading to hit 4K. They are dynamically lowering the assets when choosing 4K, but increasing them back up for 1080p.

 

Show me 1 game that took out the 1080p art assets/shaders/textures/polycounts to hit a 4K 60FPS budget.

 

[Just 1 addition to your edit]

 

Quote

What if a game was to start development today and 4k was completely off the table, lets go as far as to remove it as a game resolution option. How good graphically could the game be made to look under this set of conditions, in my view better than if 4k was a forefront goal.

But they cannot. Because no one can do a photorealistic game at 300x200p. Resolution is not the limiting factor!

 

Again, I don't disagree with you. I'm saying no one in the industry is doing this to you. It sometimes happened in the past due to mainly DVD size/VRAM/code/GPU limits. It sometimes happens on Consoles (see Crackdown), but even then, it does not remove the art assets, as these get released later when those limits drop.

 

Quote

And I'm not opposed to that at all, and that is for the consoles anyway. You can make that statement but replace console with PC, replace 1080 with 4k and my reply would be fine do it, now lower the resolution to 1080p.

No! Because you just fudged the numbers into the Simpson's Paradox again.

220px-Simpson%27s_paradox_continuous.svg.png

Blue is 1080p, red is 4K. Notice both increase. FPS, art assets, gameplay. If we say "4K is making 1080p worse" we are following the black line. But both the red and blue lines exist. No one took away the blue line, 1080p, when they invented the red line (the GamesRadar article says they MIGHT do that, but currently DO NOT and instead lower the FPS).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I posted the Ultra HD Texture pack... They did not lower the quality for 4K!!! ? ??

 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm saying you don't seem to realise, they games higher art assets are there. No one is downgrading to hit 4K. They are dynamically lowering the assets when choosing 4K, but increasing them back up for 1080p.

It was not in the base game, sooo..... art assets were reduced.... It's not dynamic if it's a DLC or a mod, later released outside of base game.

 

So Far Cry 5 is my example, it wasn't a serious example because I'm not looking for games that have done it. I have no interest in trying to find one because that is not a position I'm trying to say has happened, not in the way you are trying to represent it. The way you are trying to phrase it is not correct to what I'm wishing for, so there is no good reason to keep trying to go down that path.

 

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that targeting 4k will have an impact on choices game developers will make that will effect game graphics, and not always for the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It was not in the base game, sooo..... art assets were reduced.... It's not dynamic if it's a DLC or a mod, later released outside of base game.

 

So Far Cry 5 is my example, it wasn't a serious example because I'm not looking for games that have done it. I have no interest in trying to find one because that is not a position I'm trying to say has happened, not in the way you are trying to represent it. The way you are trying to phrase it is not correct to what I'm wishing for, so there is no good reason to keep trying to go down that path.

 

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that targeting 4k will have an impact on choices game developers will make that will effect game graphics, and not always for the better.

BECAUSE IT WAS 29GB!!!!!

 

[Edit, the WatchDogs2 Texture pack was Ultra, not HD, so that one was 85GB]

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

Yes this. Image quality *is* improved with 4K. Art quality is not. Art quality is improved *at any resolution*. FPS count is not. These are separate things, and some game developers/Users push for them as if they are the same.

 

it's much easier to throw pixels at the problem and let the gpu do the work. The point i get from Leadbeater is that gpu power is very limited, and doing so you sacrifice a lot of other important aspects of the game. Still "4k" as a marketing slogan sells, you just have to see the console 4k craziness, like pointed on the article not even the xbox one s has the power to do decent 4k without a lot of compromises, and still it sells, it's 4k ?

 

on a personal note it will be funny if RTX really works well to see how sony and microsoft deal with it after so long pushing 4k to pair themselves to the PC market even with multiple console releases in a single generation. Will they completely ignore it and forget the war with PC, or will they sacrifice 4k?

(i know they are on amd and will probably continue and wont have rtx, but imagining they can change to nvidia)

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, asus killer said:

it's much easier to throw pixels at the problem and let the gpu do the work. The point i get from Leadbeater is that gpu power is very limited, and doing so you sacrifice a lot of other important aspects of the game. Still "4k" as a marketing slogan sells, you just have to see the console 4k craziness, like pointed on the article not even the xbox one s has the power to do decent 4k without a lot of compromises, and still it sells, it's 4k ?

 

on a personal note it will be funny if RTX really works well to see how sony and microsoft deal with it after so long pushing 4k to pair themselves to the PC market even with multiple console releases in a single generation. Will they completely ignore it and forget the war with PC, or will they sacrifice 4k?

(i know they are on amd and will probably continue and wont have rtx, but imagining they can change to nvidia)

True, But you can still choose 1080p on a 4K monitor. You can still choose 4K low AND high. No one is stuck with 1080p Low.

 

Leadeater

Quote

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that targeting 4k will have an impact on choices game developers will make that will effect game graphics, and not always for the better.

I don't because they don't. I've been following games art since 1997, and the assets and redner pipelines were there back THEN. I gave the example of Spirits within from 2001... guess what, you cannot game on that quality even at 300x200p! The GPU power was not there period. This is not the fault of screen resolution (we had 1200x1200p back then, we had Myst or Quake!!!). It is not the fault of render target/budget in development. XD

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

True, But you can still choose 1080p on a 4K monitor. You can still choose 4K low AND high. No one is stuck with 1080p Low.

but that choice that you make as a user of the game will have no impact on the choices the developers had to do to bring you a game developed for 4k, and that's what @leadeaterhas being trying to tell you

the problem is the choices done upstream of the user experience. The user choices will always be there on PC, have been seen the dawn of pc games and will continue no matter the tech, people play AAA games on intel igpus, it's just a question of how low can you get the settings

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching Jayz video on this and what it occur to me is that this should have been on something like a big RPG title where you actually encourage exploration and could have time to slow down and appreciate the new fanciness...Also where playing at 30 FPS wouldn't fucking matter nearly as much.

 

I guess Nvidia was shit out of luck since there seems to be no major RPG releases lined up. There's fallout 76 but that's already so broken I don't think slowing it down to 10 FPS was feasible anyway.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

BECAUSE IT WAS 85GB!!!!!

So, what impact to VRAM did it have at 1080p? Oh no I have to download a bigger game because it's the best graphics experience possible, wait I have 1Gbps internet so zero cares. Could have been in the base game for PC only and not for consoles, not my problem if others don't have very good internet and have to download the game for 3 days straight to get it.

 

The game developers obviously thought it was a bad idea to put them in to the base game because of the increased file size. This doesn't support what you said or implied that it was not included because of VRAM, now it sounds like you are saying it's because of file size which I'm more in agreeance with than it being VRAM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I was watching Jayz video on this and what it occur to me is that this should have been on something like a big RPG title where you actually encourage exploration and could have time to slow down and appreciate the new fanciness...Also where playing at 30 FPS wouldn't fucking matter nearly as much.

 

I guess Nvidia was shit out of luck since there seems to be no major RPG releases lined up. There's fallout 76 but that's already so broken I don't think slowing it down to 10 FPS was feasible anyway.

Yep. They showed off a nice little robot game with Raytracing, and it used the *other* effects (lighting, volumetric, ambient occlusion, DOF) and it looked wonderful.

70

 

Leadeater

Quote

So, what impact to VRAM did it have at 1080p? Oh no I have to download a bigger game because it's the best graphics experience possible, wait I have 1Gbps internet so zero cares. Could have been in the base game for PC only and not for consoles, not my problem if others don't have very good internet and have to download the game for 3 days straight to get it.

 

The game developers obviously thought it was a bad idea to put them in to the base game because of the increased file size. This doesn't support what you said or implied that it was not included because of VRAM, now it sounds like you are saying it's because of file size which I'm my more in agreeance with than it being VRAM.

Which is why it's DLC. It's not WITHHELD. You said "imagine a 4K game where they make it worse to hit 4K" and said "Farcry 5" is one... I showed it's not. Because they did provided the "better" art assets. You are saying they did not. But they have.

 

It IS because of file download size *and* because of VRAM. VRAM at 4K and download size at 1080p. Again, you seem unable to realise there are multiple reasons (I can add more, 1 is VRAM, 2 is download size and I can list 3 or more if you wish), none of these are resolution dependant. They may be resolution influenced.

 

Find me 1 game where they removed the art assets to hit a higher resolutions. As said, I know games where they removed assets exist, I've followed game art developments since 1997, so you could choose an old game, or a new one:

 

Can you think of any reasons you cannot fit "photorealism" on your card at 1080p? Can you list some things preventing photorealism on your graphics card at 1080p?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I don't because they don't. I've been following games art since 1997, and the assets and redner pipelines were there back THEN. I gave the example of Spirits within from 2001... guess what, you cannot game on that quality even at 300x200p! The GPU power was not there period. This is not the fault of screen resolution (we had 1200x1200p back then, we had Myst or Quake!!!). It is not the fault of render target/budget in development. XD

But time has moved on and now we do have the GPU power to be able to do it, but wait we want 4k now so we'll not do that and do something else instead so we can meet that magic 4k marketing goal. Well damn we almost got CG grade game graphics but 4k got in the way, now I'm sad.

 

No the above is not being serious towards actuality, what is happening or has happened.

 

GPU resources is your center point of the seesaw, on one side is resolution and other the other side graphical fidelity/realism. If one goes up one must come down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It IS because of file download size *and* because of VRAM. VRAM at 4K and download size at 1080p. Again, you seem unable to realise there are multiple reasons (I can add more, 1 is VRAM, 2 is download size and I can list 3 or more if you wish), none of these are resolution dependant. They may be resolution influenced.

Wow you actually said exactly what I've been saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But time has moved on and how we do have the GPU power to be able to do it, but wait we want 4k now so we'll not do that and do something else instead so we can meet that magic 4k marketing goal.

Where? Who? This is like some imagined bogey man. This does not exist. Crackdown has the high quality 1080p content at 60fps, and runs at 30fps in 4k, it does not reduced effects/quality at 4K. The developer imagined they *might* be able to improve graphics if never looking at 4k, but have not said what they can add at 1080p that does not already exist. They said "we cannot add anything else that the 10% improvement 4K already gives us". Currently they can think of nothing to add to 1080p, other than a 4K resolution slider (in a console game as well!), but imagine they could given an infinite budget and time make it look better... but don't have infinite money.

 

Quote

 If one goes up one must come down.

But the developer does not put the resolution up. Even in Crackdown, the *user* chooses 1080p or 4K, and (same as FarCry 5) the developer provides *both* sets of art assets.

 

So you cannot have "photorealism" at 1080p, or 720, or 600, or 524, or 320... can you show me a photorealistic image at a lower resolution? This imagined game you think the developers are holding back from us?

 

[edit from your double post]

"Influenced". Yes, influence =/= forced. I have said all along, you, as a user, can override the developers choice. You have said the developers have stopped you making a choice, and have chosen 4K when you want 1080p or 1440p. You have yet to show me a game where 4K was chosen and the 1080p content not included, or the textures blurred, or the poly count reduced. You showed a theoretical FF image of where it may be done to increase FPS... but I don't know of a game that does do this!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You said "imagine a 4K game where they make it worse to hit 4K" and said "Farcry 5" is one

You're the one that asked for the example, I gave one. It's not like I put any thought in to it because you keep positioning the argument away from what I'm discussing to lead to a point you are trying to make. Well forgive from doing the same then.

 

If you're unable to unwilling to discuss a hypothetical then don't, you want real examples of something we both know does not exist in the way you are articulating your points.

 

You want me to show examples where 4k forces a downgrade, not what I was saying, not the position I was ever taking. You are putting that on to me.

 

I am purely of the position that if we don't target 4k, don't try to make it possible on current hardware at acceptable performance we can make a game that would look graphically different and be improved in different areas. It's about getting closer to not actually photorealism, it about getting more accurate realistic lighting, it's about a lot of different things but no you for some reason what me to find an existing game that used worse quality assets or reduced graphical quality to reach 4k. I've got two answers to this for you and you can pick which ever one you like best 1) I'm not going to answer it or 2) Every current game, especially console games.

 

20 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I have said all along, you, as a user, can override the developers choice.

And I have said you can't override and pick something that is not made available to you, that is impossible. You can't, without making a mod or some other way, do anything the game developers have not allowed you to do.

 

Edit:

20 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You showed a theoretical FF image of where it may be done to increase FPS... but I don't know of a game that does do this!!!

Depending on which image you are talking about it's not theoretical. I'm going to guess you are talking about the low ploy vs high poly character models used in FFX. Both are used in the game, in scenes where the the PS2 is not powerful enough the low poly model is used otherwise the high poly model is used. This isn't actually dynamic though, the swapping is done at known times, in known scenes where they know they have to. It's not actually dynamic scaling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You're the one that asked for the example, I gave one.

You did not. Farcry 5 has the HD texture pack. It has high poly count characters/scenes. It has high shader count. It has high effects in 1080p. Where have they cut content for 4k?

 

Name 1 game that cut content to meet a resolution budget (as said, I know they have to do this, but I also know the reason they do). Find a game, and you can see the code/art assets and why they cut it. I can tell you know, "because it's a higher resolution" is not the case (as with Farcry 5, they provide the higher assets, regardless of resolution).

 

Quote

I am purely of the position that if we don't target 4k, don't try to make it possible on current hardware at acceptable performance we can make a game that would look graphically different and be improved in different areas. It's about getting closer to not actually photorealism, it about getting more accurate realistic lighting, it's about a lot of different things but no you for some reason what me to find an existing game that used worse quality assets or reduced graphical quality to reach 4k. I've got two answers to this for you and you can pick which ever one you like best 1) I'm not going to answer it or 2) Every current game, especially console games.

Then show me a game that does it at 1080p. They don't. Can you tell me why? They don't make the lighting better. Do you know why they don't?

 

Quote

And I have said you can't override and pick something that is not made available to you, that is impossible. 

Show me 1 game they don't make it available! I provided links to 10 games that did make it available, and 1 The Order 1886 which also provided the content. Gamesradar shows Crackdown also provides the content. That's 12 games providing the content at 4k!!! Show one that dropped the content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

You did not. Farcry 5 has the HD texture pack. It has high poly count characters/scenes. It has high shader count. It has high effects in 1080p. Where have they cut content for 4k?

 

Name 1 game that cut content to meet a resolution budget (as said, I know they have to do this, but I also know the reason they do). Find a game, and you can see the code/art assets and why they cut it. I can tell you know, "because it's a higher resolution" is not the case (as with Farcry 5, they provide the higher assets, regardless of resolution).

You know I gave two options to this for you right? I suggest you pick option 1 gave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You know I gave two options to this for you right? I suggest you pick option 1 gave.

"Every current game, especially console games." They don't. Every game does not. Like literally. I said I follow the render pipeline developments and art asset creation tools... THEY DON'T DO THIS. But you are imagining they do/might/may.

 

[Crackdown 3]

50ymi8m.jpg

They don't cut it down to match 4k... those are OVERSAMPLED assets. The developer said "we may" be able to improve at 1080p, but that "we cannot think of anything we could possibly add". They reached the limit of 1080p... they are as good as they can make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TechyBen said:

"Every current game, especially console games." They don't. Every game does not. Like literally. I said I follow the render pipeline developments and art asset creation tools... THEY DON'T DO THIS. But you are imagining they do/might/may.

Right so rendering at 4k doesn't increase GPU demand? I have followed the part in bold, you're just still positioning the argument to suit your position. I'm going to pretend you went with option 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Right so rendering at 4k doesn't increase GPU demand? I have followed the part in bold, you're just still positioning the argument to suit your position. I'm going to pretend you went with option 1.

Yes. It increases the GPU demand. How does that lower the visual quality of your game at 1080p?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TechyBen said:

Yes. It increases the GPU demand. How does that lower the visual quality of your game at 1080p?

It doesn't, that's not what I'm saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't, that's not what I'm saying.

Then I assume you are saying we cannot do the same graphics at 4k? Then I ask, how then is there a 4K + Ultra slider/settings in GTAV (for example), if we cannot do 4K at ultra? 4K increases GPU demand. So? You seem to be saying this is bad? Why is it bad?

 

On topic, this also applies to Raycasting. It is a performance hit. But it does not make the game look "worse", it lowers FPS. It has not caused them to scale down the other assets to hit the FPS of raycasting (or in the GTA+4K example, no one dropped assets or quality to hit 4K, they included both and let the user decide which to choose).

 

Later, we *may* get companies dropping support for DX11/older cards, or only supporting the RTX brand... but I doubt that will ever happen (see PhysX or similar tech that never cut off a market, just was an addition). Yes, it may mean developers stop using non raytraced effects. That would be bad. But I've never seen anyone drop support/effects/assets to meet a resolution budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Show me 1 game they don't make it available!

Make what not available? What do you mean, I suspect a part of you not understanding my point lies somewhere around here. Show you a game where they did not implement a lighting method that would be too demanding on any GPU at 4k but is at 1080p? No such thing exists but what I am saying is it could be done but won't be if you are targeting 4k.

 

Show you a game where they used geometrically too complex models to be rendered at 4k on current hardware but can at 1080p? Again no such thing exists, again this won't happen with 4k as a target, why would it?

 

It is just not possible to show you anything of the point I am raising.

 

15 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Then I assume you are saying we cannot do the same graphics at 4k? Then I ask, how then is there a 4K + Ultra slider/settings in GTAV (for example), if we cannot do 4K at ultra?

Close you're almost at what I'm saying. Now imagine that Ultra setting is actually more demanding than it is, see how you can't make that Ultra setting any more Ultra than it is. You can't do that, the developer can. Now why would they not make that setting more demanding, why would developers not make the graphics of a game more demanding than to a certain level. What factors would influence this? One of them is resolution target, another is frame rate target. There are more.

 

No where am I saying or implying that if you select 4k, or 1080p for that matter, that the in game graphics options will be changed so you can't pick Ultra or are forced to Low or in any way would change based on what you pick.

 

You're taking cannot do 4k way to literally, you can't if it's at 1 FPS or 10 FPS or 15 FPS. Your game would fail at user acceptance, you are actually rendering at 4k but no one is actually going to say your game is capable of being rendered at 4k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No such thing exists but what I am saying is it could be done but won't be if you are targeting 4k.

It does not exist, but could be but wont be? Yeah. You're confused here.

 

The target is 4K. Where have they dropped light count or texture or shaders? "but won't be if you are targeting 4k"

Crackdown. Literally they said "we hit 30FPS". They did not drop the light count. They did not drop the render target. They dropped the FPS. Image quality stays the same, but FPS tanks. (They say they could theoretically make a magic better looking 1080p, but I see no proof, just dreams and imagination).

 

Quote

You can't do that, the developer can. 

You've yet to provide an example... here.

 

Quote

 

You're taking cannot do 4k way to literally, you can't if it's at 1 FPS or 10 FPS or 15 FPS. Your game would fail at user acceptance, you are actually rendering at 4k but no one is actually going to say your game is capable of being rendered at 4k.

I posted a video of Quake 1 at 8k... Originally it ran at 1FPS at that setting. So again, it does not work how you are saying it does. Asus Killer provided the example of Crackdown, it runs at 4K 30FPS, and meets "user acceptance" without removing content. It does not work the way you are saying it does. You seem confused.

 

Let me ask you one question. One and only, to simplify and stop us both getting confused.

 

Do you know what oversampling assets is (not oversampling anti-asling)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You've yet to provide an example... here.

Million times, there is no example. Stop asking for one. Sigh the point really is lost on you isn't it.

 

11 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Do you know what oversampling assets is (not oversampling anti-asling)?

Great question, but I've got a better one for you that is actually relevant to my point. Can you, the gamer, use higher quality assets than which is provided with the game? Can you use which does not exist? Where is the option in the in game graphics settings were I can make the game look better than the developers designed it to be?

 

I will actually give you the answer you want though, you are talking about Lodding correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×