Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[Jay]

This is the baseless thread, isn't the point that any leak should be taken with a bag of salt?
Guess going to be pages about person who this is from again now.

 

[anexanhume]

Personal information? Where?

"Lead graphics engineer."

 

[VitaminB6]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/next...leaks-thread.1480978/page-1000#post-256994247
"No its running at 90fps locked. native 4k."
Why? It makes very little sense to me to have a game running locked at 90FPS on console. Why not use the overhead to improve assets? I know in racing games higher FPS makes sense to help with controller latency but this sounds like a first person shooter. If the game is locked at 90FPS that means it's consistently running well over 100FPS? That seems like a lot of wasted overhead for a console game.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

"Lead graphics engineer."

How many graphics leads are there in a studio with 3500 employees? More than a hundred perhaps?
Assuming this is Ubisoft Montreal, of course.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/next...leaks-thread.1480978/page-1000#post-256994247
"No its running at 90fps locked. native 4k."
Why? It makes very little sense to me to have a game running locked at 90FPS on console. Why not use the overhead to improve assets? I know in racing games higher FPS makes sense to help with controller latency and I guess this is a twitch style shooter but you don't see Call of Duty or other games trying to lock their games at 90FPS and sacrificing IQ in the process. If the game is locked at 90FPS that means it's consistently running well over 100FPS right? Again why?

Does "locked" mean won't go above 90FPS or always at 90FPS?

In the PC, a game locked at 30FPS is a game whose engine won't go above 30FPS, so it's an upper limit.
Locking at 90 FPS as a maximum threshold seems reasonable enough to me. They prefer that the system waits for the next frame to start within the 11.1ms window, and it's how they achieve predictable frametimes.

 

[DieH@rd]

Why? It makes very little sense to me to have a game running locked at 90FPS on console.

New TVs can now show 4K120, and locking the framerate to any point below that range will produce a nice flat frametime graph and consistent input lag. IMO that's the most important point for every game, no matter if its locked at 30, 60, 90, 120 or any place between 60-90. Consistency leads to good game feel.

And VRR will make sure that the panel is not tearing, showcasing new frame on time [every 11.1ms for a 90fps game].

In fact, HDMI 2.1 can do uncompressed 1080p240, 1440p240 and 4K120 with DSC [but panel support is missing for now].

but this sounds like a first person shooter

FPS games can greatly benefit from high framerate.

 

[VitaminB6]

"FPS games can greatly benefit from high framerate."
I understand that but I find it unlikely that a console game would sacrifice IQ to hit 90FPS when all other console first person shooters are at max 60FPS and some even 30FPS. This could change with next gen hardware and 90FPS could become the standard but that seems unlikely to me. Your average gamer doesn't care and will never notice the difference between 60 & 90FPS, but they will notice a difference in how the game looks. I could see a game like Call of Duty having an option for higher FPS for hardcore gamers possibly but I doubt they would aim for 90FPS as their default target when they could've used that overhead to improve assets/rt/res. etc.

 

[Jay]

Visually and input latency can be improved with higher framerates, for 90% of game types.

If it's a locked framerate and locked resolution then the minimum framerate is the locked value and you will be running at higher than it most of the time, probably usually a lot higher.

As for why above 60 for this game:

• Game is still in development, doesn't mean it will release at over 60.
• If it's cross gen game, then they mave have already maxed out everything that is easily done.
• RT may be in limited use so far.
• Would like to release a game with a 90fps mode.

Just a few reasons I could see for it.

 

[VitaminB6]

For sure, there is logical possibilities as to why it would be locked at 90FPS. Personally for me I find it unlikely and it caused me to question the veracity of this supposed insider's post.

 

[iroboto]

How many graphics leads are there in a studio with 3500 employees? More than a hundred perhaps?
Assuming this is Ubisoft Montreal, of course.




Does "locked" mean won't go above 90FPS or always at 90FPS?

In the PC, a game locked at 30FPS is a game whose engine won't go above 30FPS, so it's an upper limit.
Locking at 90 FPS as a maximum threshold seems reasonable enough to me. They prefer that the system waits for the next frame to start within the 11.1ms window, and it's how they achieve predictable frametimes.

I have hard doubts here. I have family in Ubisoft. It’s locked down hard there.

Each building has keycard rooms specifically for NDA projects and NDA hardware. Each person signs an NDA. They have two desks. Etc. They can track a leak pretty easy the rest of the employees don’t know what’s behind those NDA doors.

I have huge doubts on his account. And that’s my account from being on the office floor of Ubisoft Toronto. It’s setup to protect.

I really don’t know what to take of the story. Just seems utterly careless if true.

 

[anexanhume]

How many graphics leads are there in a studio with 3500 employees? More than a hundred perhaps?
Assuming this is Ubisoft Montreal, of course.

All working on R6 with functional knowledge of its performance metrics?

 

[mpg1]

"Everything is based in reality including what happens when you shoot people or get shot. Its beautiful but it aint pretty." - Hunter S OsirisBlack

But seriously I find it coincidental that he is describing what sounds like Rainbow Six Siege..... it's one of the limited amount of games that have been already officially confirmed for PS5 /XSX and this confirmation was just days before his post. There was even a post on NeoGaf on Monday:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/rainbow-six-siege-coming-to-playstation-5-and-xbox-series-x.1526421/

Even though I don't really believe him I do kinda believe that those systems might be able to run the game at 4K/90fps. Though that he specifically mentions "native 4K" seems weird given that the other consoles were using some sort of reconstruction technique I thought.

 

[AlNom]

Maybe they're planning a VR mode.

 

[VitaminB6]

"In the PC, a game locked at 30FPS is a game whose engine won't go above 30FPS, so it's an upper limit.
Locking at 90 FPS as a maximum threshold seems reasonable enough to me. They prefer that the system waits for the next frame to start within the 11.1ms window, and it's how they achieve predictable frametimes"
I just meant that for a game to be locked at a certain resolution it would have to be consistently capable of running well above the target FPS.

 

[turkey]

I read the description and thought COD not R6. R6 has a terrorist hunt but that is all single enemies dotted about and you hunt them not the other way round. Also they have released the next 2 or more years road map.

However things that I don't think fit, 90fps that's way above the margin of headroom for 60fps locked. It is a well known VR fps target tho?

Native seems a big red flag, almost all AA have gone to reconstruction and similar which I assume would still be used unless that would make scaling back to current gen just too difficult.

 

[BRiT]

 

[Deleted member 13524]

90 FPS sounds like a nice framerate for those who value that factor, specially for console gamers who could never have anything above 60 FPS.



One developer of this game who is certified on resetera had this to say, on the follow-up of others questioning OsirisBlack:

I only work with/worked with other people in the industry. I have no access to dev kits myself, sadly. I do have info we chat about, nothing I will talk about here other than to say it lines up with what’s being said.

 

[Jay]

Native seems a big red flag, almost all AA have gone to reconstruction and similar which I assume would still be used unless that would make scaling back to current gen just too difficult.

Agree, most AAA games have gone towards reconstruction of some form.
Although the native resolution can be native 4k and still use reconstruction, just means the output resolution would be higher than 4k, which is stretching it a fair bit.
Would be putting the 8k printed on the xsx chip to use.

 

[arhra]

New TVs can now show 4K120, and locking the framerate to any point below that range will produce a nice flat frametime graph and consistent input lag.

Ignoring the possibility of VRR, 90fps on a 120hz display would be akin to 45fps on a 60hz display (except sped up 2x), with constant frametime variance between 16.7ms and 8.3ms.

You can only get smooth frametime graphs with integer factors of the base frequency - for 120hz that would be 120, 60, 40, 30, and a bunch of lower-but-useless framerates because no-one wants to go back to N64 performance levels.

 

[anexanhume]

Ignoring the possibility of VRR, 90fps on a 120hz display would be akin to 45fps on a 60hz display (except sped up 2x), with constant frametime variance between 16.7ms and 8.3ms.

You can only get smooth frametime graphs with integer factors of the base frequency - for 120hz that would be 120, 60, 40, 30, and a bunch of lower-but-useless framerates because no-one wants to go back to N64 performance levels.

If you have HDMI 2.1 to display those resolutions, you're pretty guaranteed VRR. I would be flummoxed if someone implemented 2.1 without VRR.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

The discussion that followed up to this, from the same certified dev:

Now for next gen? Well, the same thing keeps getting repeated over and over, that the SX isn’t as mature in dev kit but faster, the PS5 is more mature in dev kit but a tiny bit slower, and nothing matters because they are equal. That’s fine. That’s the best result. You WANT that. But some of you really are hurting at the fact SX may be that stupidly tiny little bit faster...? Hell I can’t say what I know, from my talks with my friends who have actual hardware in hand, all of different updates.

Anybody with an ounce of common sense is talking about how A) they don’t want Lockhart because it’s a bag of bollocks, and B) the best thing is that both consoles are on par. Yes, one console will be a teeny tiny bit better, and no, that won’t have any perceivable difference.

Ignoring the possibility of VRR, 90fps on a 120hz display would be akin to 45fps on a 60hz display (except sped up 2x), with constant frametime variance between 16.7ms and 8.3ms.

Why would a TV with HDMI 2.1 (which is always needed for 4K > 60Hz) not support VRR?