Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2018]

Status
Not open for further replies.
DF started as simply pixel-counters. Now dynamic res and reconstruction has made that difficult, plus multiple buffers at different resolutions makes it all kinda pointless IMO. But as pixel-counting is effectively DF's DNA and reason d'etre, they'll probably stick with it. They'll go extinct in another generation when they can't do that any more.
 

Im certainly not expecting technical discussions on that level, i dont even know if that would be fun for most people anyway. Most people that follow DF are just general pc/console users intrestet in games/hardware. Digital foundry is my favourtite youtube channel, love how they form their presentations, cover E3 etc, and their Retro is just excellent.
Some errors are to be expected? I mean, everyone can be accused and blamed for incorrect articles, i think its just that when one platform gets devoted by DF, like Xbox one having lower performance those xbox oners might dislike that and flame about it. This is to be expected and im sure DF is aware of that even before they do anything.

If people want that level and correct-ness like the link iroboto provided they can join B3D and ask here? or read links like that. When i wanted information about PS2 architecture and how devs got games to work on such difficult platform i landed here and got quit good info about the things that intrest me, there where old posts from PS2 devs even.

Cant DF work together with beyond3d somehow? So people who have questions can ask here on some sub-forum dedicated to DF's channel? The gaming industry is growing and more and more people get intrested in the tech behind it, be it consoles or pc.
 
DF gets a lot of their popularity due to platform wars. They're very much user focused over anything else. Even so, they're still niche compared to other gaming sites/channels.

It would be neat to have a Youtube channel or website that has experts talk about the technical details of computer graphics but I suspect the reason it hasn't been done is because it can be expensive and the audience wouldn't be that big.
 

Anthem use 2160p checkerboard rendering at 60 fps but was running on a very powerful PC

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-anthem-20min-demo-tech-analysis

the E3 hands-on ran on dual GTX 1080 Ti GPUs, albeit at 60 frames per second at full 4K.

Apart from what looks like a very short pre-rendered cinematic right at the beginning of the presentation, this is indeed full, real-time gameplay. It's running at 2160p, but curiously, the tell-tale stippling on edges associated with checkerboarding is also present, just like the initial reveal at the Microsoft conference shown at E3 2017. This commonality suggests Xbox One X as the actual host platform, but EA double-checked for us and re-confirmed that this is indeed the PC version featured in the capture, which makes the checkerboard-like artefacts a rather odd feature.
Based on what we're seeing here, Anthem's impact one year on from its initial reveal remains undiminished, and as a late-gen Frostbite title, it's great to see the technology being pushed in new directions, backed by some truly beautiful art design. Yes, it's open world and yes, there are strong hints of Destiny here - but the emphasis on extreme detail, plus the freedom of flight and a unique focus on verticality really sets it apart. It's a remarkable technological statement, to the point where it's just a case now of seeing just how well the visuals we're seeing here will scale across the multiple platforms the game is set to arrive on. With Gamescom next month, we really hope to spend a little more title with the game and fingers are crossed that we'll get to go hands-on with a console build - Xbox One X would do nicely! - to set the stage for the full rollout due in February next year.
 
Checkerboard rendering produces a full resolution frame. That's the most accurate way to describe it. Something else would be misleading.

Technically, but speaking honestly about it it's a massive difference. To the point where, I honestly prefer an artifact free 1080p image to checkerboard. At least in the games I've played. The uneven sawtooth edges and the sort of interlaced look particles can have is offputting.

And i'm talking checkerboard vs. 1080p on a 4k screen.
 
i did think it was weird they were doing that. it's a stretch, a big one.
This isn't new though..The Uncharted 4 reveal teaser got the same treatment 3 years ago (Drake waking up on the ground..).."analyzing a friggin' PR video/trailer is utterly ridiculous IMO. They've been doing this for years.
 
i did think it was weird they were doing that. it's a stretch, a big one.

This isn't new though..The Uncharted 4 reveal teaser got the same treatment 3 years ago (Drake waking up on the ground..).."analyzing a friggin' PR video/trailer is utterly ridiculous IMO. They've been doing this for years.

This is the nature of their business model. Clicks/views = money and people will click/view to read new things about exciting games. I'd be interested in hearing the genuine views of the DF guys. Corrections and comments like this ever so slightly erode the credibility/authority that DF has built up. I'm sure they'd much rather be producing solid in-depth analysis than highly speculative analysis of trailers, which must be a lot more work as well. You have no idea what limitations or compromises were made or how well it ran on he hardware people have. It must be like trying to learn five card stud with half a deck of cards.

Plus if they stop doing stuff like this, and there is nothing else they can cover this will have broad appeal and get a good number of clicks/views, then they lose revenue.
 
Plus, who else will do it? Someone will. Can be they be trusted to do as well as DF, or would they be better, or would they be worse? If they can do it better, why don't they and outcompete DF?
 
This is the nature of their business model. Clicks/views = money and people will click/view to read new things about exciting games. I'd be interested in hearing the genuine views of the DF guys. Corrections and comments like this ever so slightly erode the credibility/authority that DF has built up. I'm sure they'd much rather be producing solid in-depth analysis than highly speculative analysis of trailers, which must be a lot more work as well. You have no idea what limitations or compromises were made or how well it ran on he hardware people have. It must be like trying to learn five card stud with half a deck of cards.

Plus if they stop doing stuff like this, and there is nothing else they can cover this will have broad appeal and get a good number of clicks/views, then they lose revenue.

To add to that, the nature of clicks and views means that it's almost impossible for them to contact the developers before publishing an article and still getting the article out in time to gain the most clicks and views.

To get in depth and meaningful feedback from a developer would likely take a few days to possibly weeks unless they could talk to them immediately and avoid the whole e-mail/text chat back and forth. Not many developers or publishers would easily approve of something like that, although I'd imagine there are a few that might welcome it. Microsoft comes immediately to mind in making their developers accessible after a reveal, as they consider it part of marketing for the game and platform.

Post mortem's are far easier to schedule as that usually occurs when the teams aren't as busy with development on a game and trying to meet publisher milestones.

Regards,
SB
 
While having developer access is nice, DF should continue to be consumer focused and independent. Devs have many means to show off their tech. I'd hate to see them become the PR arm of game companies which they came awfully close to with Scorpio reveal access.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top