I'm not a fan of this type of PC scaling. Hardware requirements skyrocket with very marginal improvements to the actual image.
Last edited:
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a fan of this type of PC scaling. Hardware requirements skyrocket with very marginal improvements to the actual image.
Yeah this doesn't look much different for what is likely 3x the hardware requirement.
Plus, some guy in the Twitter comments mentioned PS5 quality mode has better volumetric lighting effects which nearly looks identical to the max PC configuration.
Plus, some guy in the Twitter comments mentioned PS5 quality mode has better volumetric lighting effects which nearly looks identical to the max PC configuration.
Definitely see the difference with what a quality presentation brings on the PC and glad the developers made the "dial it up" options available. I don't think anyone expected PS5 fidelity to match similar PC fidelity but it is definitely enough to get a truly enjoyable experience.
All PC players are going to play at max settings used in that comparison and 60fps?
Welcome to diminishing returns. Ultra settings are almost never worth it. Better to run pc games near console settings, because you'll get 80-90% of the visuals with massively improved performance.
Is it more cinematic at 30fps too?
I've heard the saying "ultra is only for screenshots". Even if we cant play on ultra at 60fps one day we will
The oldest game I have installed on my pc is System Shock from 1994 - my god 29 years old but that was bought from gog a few years ago, the oldest install on my pc is Descent from 1995 and it was installed in 1995 when I upgraded either the old hdd was put in the new machine or the games folder from that drive was copied onto a newer bigger drive, but the game was only ever installed from the 3.5 floppy disks once.
The oldest game I have installed on my pc is System Shock from 1994 - my god 29 years old but that was bought from gog a few years ago, the oldest install on my pc is Descent from 1995 and it was installed in 1995 when I upgraded either the old hdd was put in the new machine or the games folder from that drive was copied onto a newer bigger drive, but the game was only ever installed from the 3.5 floppy disks once.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Then is would be even more cinematic at 24fps.
It doesn’t have to be this way though. It’s just developer choice.
Subtlesnake
Regular
No, the comparison was used to demonstrate the scalability of the engine, not to say that everyone will be using a 4090.
Unobtanium is not intended for cross platform performance comparisons. It's simply there to allow game to keep scaling when the performance is available. Arguably it doesn't make sense today even on a 4090 because the performance hit is enormous for a relatively small visual jump. Still better t have the option that not though, but definitely a good idea to hide it behind a command line.
As usual, the consoles in quality mode will likely be running at some mix of High-Ultra settings which a 4070 (and possibly lower) should have little trouble pushing out at 60fps with comparable or better image quality with DLSS. As a reminder, here are the console resolutions which use FSR2 to output to 4K:
As usual, the consoles in quality mode will likely be running at some mix of High-Ultra settings which a 4070 (and possibly lower) should have little trouble pushing out at 60fps with comparable or better image quality with DLSS. As a reminder, here are the console resolutions which use FSR2 to output to 4K:
Consoles are a mix of high and medium
Indeed that is the purpose - people seem to not get that which I find pretty annoying at times. We at DF are about "the cutting edge in the future, past and present." Looking at the game at its "max" is trying to ascertain how it scales and where the cutting edge lies. It has nothing to do with petty console wars. We always look at max and then at "optimised".
Stills do not indeed do justice to the differences incurred in the settings like that - like for example, those shots I have on twitter, the difference is stills actually is favourable to the performance mode presentation, quite heavily so.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It could even be vintage cinematic frames per second if it was a variable 14-26 frames per second.
Frame Rate History — Why Speeds Vary - Vanilla Video
vanillavideo.com
If you have variable frame rate in your game that can't hit above 20 FPS, just call it vintage hand cranked cinematic film FPS for the ultimate authentic filmic game experience.
Regards,
SB
Inuhanyou
Veteran
I don't really understand this mindset. Avatar is clearly accounting for scale of rendering with graphical features that consoles cannot do properly yet. And even have an extra mode on top of that with even greater fidelity settings, but everyone gets a good experience regardless. How is that not enough?I wish games were scaled down to consoles, instead of up to PC.
Consoles having a fixed target makes them easier to focus on as a baseline. This isn't new phenomenon, especially when games got so complex every developer had start to account for parity in quality of release, and even then it's hard to do as we see.
You say "scale down", but that just implies by default that the PC configuration for games that devs have to account for is the highest of all high end hw, so bleeding edge that it affects the design of the game, which just doesn't make any sense.
Literally no developer is going to make a game that has a 4090 with a high end CPU and 32gb of ram as a baseline and then try and figure out how to cut that down to work if they want to also sell on consoles. That inherently goes against the entire concept of scaling itself and is a waste of time for developers.
I understand nostalgia of old PC days where they literally got different games from console because they could not even work in the same way, but this isn't 2005 or earlier anymore.
There is practically no inherent game design that cannot be done in a console configuration and work well enough to be used for a baseline for a game at this point, atleast as far as accounting for mainstream PC hardware instead of bleeding edge.
If there is a PC game that devs specifically want to show off the power of PCs absolute highest tier(which is what I am assuming you want), it definitely won't be launching on console because cutting such a thing down would again be a total waste of time.
Which makes the whole notion of scaling down to consoles pointless.
Especially when by default they would have to account for lower end pc configurations anyway, putting a hard limit on any real merit there would be to focusing completely on the highest end without compromises. The game will have to be compromised to work for multiple lower end configurations regardless. So no wonder devs who are third party just decide to work on console by default and scale up.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
