Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[iroboto]

You know this how?

I don't.
But I don't champion the idea of this build of the game being near final product here. It's clearly not optimized as noted in the DF article. For one the game's simulation are based on 60fps as noted in the article by Frankie, DF makes their own case that it could be based on 30. That means animations, particle effects, aiming, network code and everything should be as I understand it based on a 16ms tick.
Losing frames in this case would be bad for gameplay and cause an equivalent of gameplay oddities if the frame time isn't being met.
Looking at the graphics right now I'm not seeing anything particularly crushing, in fact a lot of textures look really bad.
That being said, I have a hard time believing they will release a first party, highly funded title with the latest developments in SDK where they must run a resolution of nearly less than 720p. Granted there is no proof XBO can do this style and scope of game better than Dice with BF4@720/60 - but it shouldn't do worse than a launch game; which has been outright confusing to read on this thread.

 

[Billy Idol]

This is a good point, the game just can't be as bad as it is right now wrt performance...if so, they should license DICEs old engine.

But, all in this thread agreed that one has to wait for the final product after optimization and posted this multiple times! So, no need for accusations or anything imo.

 

[forumaccount]

Common guys, even this is a bit much for you guys. Dynamic resolution you drop the resolution so that the GPU can meet its refresh target. If you are hitting super low resolution and still can't hit your refresh it's not the GPU, it's the CPU.

If your resolution is *not* at the low end and you're still missing your framerate target, it's CPU. That's all you can conclude, unless the implementer has either seriously screwed up or seriously misunderstood the point of dynamic res and how it's supposed to work.

And, just IMO, shipping below 1600x900 or a nearly equivalent resolution on XB1 is a no no, as is shipping below 1920x1080 on PS4. But the Halo guys showed what they had before it was really ready to get this kind of judgement. I doubt that their final resolution will be similar.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Digital Foundry: Star Wars Battlefront on PS4 shows huge promise - but needs work

 

[iroboto]

If your resolution is *not* at the low end and you're still missing your framerate target, it's CPU. That's all you can conclude, unless the implementer has either seriously screwed up or seriously misunderstood the point of dynamic res and how it's supposed to work.

And, just IMO, shipping below 1600x900 or a nearly equivalent resolution on XB1 is a no no, as is shipping below 1920x1080 on PS4. But the Halo guys showed what they had before it was really ready to get this kind of judgement. I doubt that their final resolution will be similar.

Right whoops! I went too extreme and ended up putting back the only case in which it could be GPU related.

 

[iroboto]

This is a good point, the game just can't be as bad as it is right now wrt performance...if so, they should license DICEs old engine.

But, all in this thread agreed that one has to wait for the final product after optimization and posted this multiple times! So, no need for accusations or anything imo.

Right. Cleaned up my post.

 

[London Geezer]

Digital Foundry: Star Wars Battlefront on PS4 shows huge promise - but needs work

Don't know how anyone can be surprised. The hype - as far as technical aspects are concerned - was quite high and, considering their track record, a bit unwarranted after Battlefield's disaster.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't see why devs are trying in vain to go to 60 with these CPU's. Just lock it to 30 and give us a consistent experience with the leeway that gives. The most your going to get in these games is variable 30, not variable 60

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's almost as if these consoles aren't very powerful and require compromises to reach 60fps.

 

[tuna]

If you drop from 60 fps to 30 fps you will have to redesign the game since it will be harder to aim. You will have to reduce the speed of enemies, the number of enemies and possibly other stuff. Not very fun for 343i.....

 

[London Geezer]

If you drop from 60 fps to 30 fps you will have to redesign the game since it will be harder to aim. You will have to reduce the speed of enemies, the number of enemies and possibly other stuff. Not very fun for 343i.....

Surely it will be hard to aim when the game struggles to hit any sort of stable framerate. Cause we all know that this will never, ever be locked at 60 or anywhere near it.

 

[psorcerer]

go to 60 with these CPU's

Yeah, and how exactly CPUs are to blame for that?

 

[function]

Sometimes, frame rate is CPU limited.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Yeah, and how exactly CPUs are to blame for that?

Er...well there are 3 major components that make up a game system, and if one of the 3 components doesn't have the strength to pick of the slack, that is what is known as a "bottleneck".

I think everyone knows that these jaguar cores are not all that strong. Going to stable 60 at the fidelity Battlefront is pushing with the amount of enemies and other stuff on screen is probably not going to happen, even at 900p.

I say its not worth pursuing, but that's just me who thinks stable 30fps is fine for most titles unless your making a twitch shooter, sim racer or fighting game.

I played BF3, Halo, Resistance and literally almost every other FPS that was not called Call of Duty at 30fps last gen and was perfectly fine, i dont see why its suddenly not okay now. Its even better if you lock things to 30 at this point cause your more likely to get stable 30 than you were last gen with much better visuals and IQ to start with.

 

[Scott_Arm]

For multiplayer, I prefer a fluctuating framerate in the 45-60 range to a locked 30. I will accept pretty much any optimization to get to 60. If the graphics aren't the best, doesn't matter. For multiplayer, I'll take gameplay over graphics.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

Have you played the MCC? I've heard people say that 60 in campaign makes a big difference?

It makes a world of difference. Controls become super responsive with just 1 frame of latency (warthog controls especially), and the clarity that 60fps gives to busy scenes with lots of enemies make it far easier to track where shots are coming from and where enemies are heading.

After playing Halo at 60fps there is no going back.

 

[tuna]

Surely it will be hard to aim when the game struggles to hit any sort of stable framerate. Cause we all know that this will never, ever be locked at 60 or anywhere near it.

To my knowledge there have been no studies how a variable frame rate affects aiming. I personally think it is easer to aim when you get a higher frame rate whether that is variable or not.

 

[London Geezer]

To my knowledge there have been no studies how a variable frame rate affects aiming. I personally think it is easer to aim when you get a higher frame rate whether that is variable or not.

It probably depends on the person. In my case an unstable framerate is a killer. It also probably depends on how variable it really is.

 

[tuna]

I played BF3, Halo, Resistance and literally almost every other FPS that was not called Call of Duty at 30fps last gen and was perfectly fine, i dont see why its suddenly not okay now. Its even better if you lock things to 30 at this point cause your more likely to get stable 30 than you were last gen with much better visuals and IQ to start with.

How well did the other games sell compared to COD?

 

[tuna]

It probably depends on the person. In my case an unstable framerate is a killer. It also probably depends on how variable it really is.

What exactly do you mean by "killer"? Do you mean that you aim worse or that you just don't like it?