AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 (FSR 2.0) tech produces compelling imagery from low native rendering resolutions, but how was it developed - and what's coming next? To find out, PC graphics enthusiast Alex Battaglia speaks to AMD's director of game engineering, Nicolas Thibieroz.
That's from June. There's been an update to the game about a week ago and patch notes mention "various FSR 2.0 improvements"
PC improvements:
Added AMD FSR 2.0 support.
View attachment 6877
Red Dead Redemption 2 Title Update 1.31 Notes (PS4 / Xbox One / PC) - Rockstar Games Customer Support
[January 31, 2024] – Game Stability and Performance (PC)Fixed several issues that could result in a crash in Red Dead Online[March 23, 2023] - Maintenance (PC)General maintenance[February 7, 2023] - Maintenance (PC)General maintenance[September 6, 2022] – New Content and Features, General...support.rockstargames.com
So what is it? Has it not changed or do developers need to pay attention? Sigh.The application-side FSR 2 API has not changed, so updating to FSR 2.1 from 2.0 should be simple. Developers should pay particular attention to the changes to the Reactive Mask to get the best quality upscale.
Probably just means it's easy as in its a drop in replacement.So what is it? Has it not changed or do developers need to pay attention? Sigh.
even junior HTML developer knows that change of algorithm does not require change of API.So what is it? Has it not changed or do developers need to pay attention? Sigh.
I totally agree with you, but that image shows a great improvement overall. Kudos to AMD on this. Finally Radeon owners, and indeed all gamers, can rely on a very good upscaling solution regardless of whether the game is Nvidia sponsored or not!View attachment 6889
View attachment 6890
So top is 2.0, bottom is 2.1
We can see the ghosting trails from the back of the harvester have disappeared in 2.1 As well we can see it's slightly sharper. However there's now some sort of artifacting around the mirror on the right that wasn't there previously. Also there's a temporal "zipper" artifact on one of the harvester's edges, right above the word "Nordsten". This results from overagressive temporal rejection, which some programmers seem to think is "correct" due to rejecting sub-pixel drift, however this is IMO entirely incorrect. Sub-pixel accumulation is the entire point of TAA, and even if tiny movements slightly decrease coverage of an area and introduce new pixel centers, the partial coverage is still correct and the zipper artifacts just look obvious and incorrect in either case.