Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2017]

Is it possible that the higher res textures plus superior texture filtering is responsible?

It almost seems like the same details exist in the other versions but are smoothed over by either a lower res texture and/or filtering.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=247030834&postcount=160

 

It looks like there are some differences in lighting and depth of field, but I don't know if those are technical changes or just changes to the art direction.

 

Based on DF the X version at its current stated lacked DOF. This is probably why it looks sharper.
The textures do look improved on the character though

 

Yes, I also believe Sony&MS wouldn't have bothered with rushing 4K features if there were no direct and indirect benefits to 1080P at all. It should however be clear that more games could need 1080P enriched visuals or unlocked framerate modes like RoTR or Hitman.

I'm having a hard time to understand why they downright removed DOF for that trailer unless you will be able to turn it on/off in the final build. If so this should also be patched for PS4 then

 

A guy took a photo of the scene on GAF and it seems there is a problem with the DF footage on PC
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=247141614&postcount=1307

He just disabled the postprocess effect



Impossible to do the same thing on PS4 Pro

It is a problem with Rise of the Tomb Raider post process effect, he needed to disable the post process effect to obtain the same result than the Xbox One X texture. If Nixxes give the option to disable post process effect on PS4 we will probably obtain much better texture clarity...

 

DoF breaks additional textures?

 

I want to ask the option to disable postprocess in PS4 PRo version now...

 

Maybe they had to disable everything in order to get the game running at a stable 30fps on XBX ? And there are still occasional framerate drops at 4K according to DF.

Now if you compare PC (which should be XBX with same settings of Pro bar the higher textures quality) with Pro, there is much less difference in sharpness, like DF found out when they first compared PC with Pro. All this fuss for not much.

 

DF: Forza Motorsport 7 Xbox One X Gamescom Demo: Sonoma Footage + Analysis!


Basically rock solid 60fps.

Interesting bit about diff between PC and X1X version starting @0:57

 

Was there a reason why DF didn't look into the PC settings on making sure there was no heavy handed post-processing effects going on? If they had a feeling that XBX DoF/Bokeh was not implemented, why not simply turn off the PC edition effect, for a more equal ground approach!? Better yet, why not both? One on, one off.

 

wasn't a feeling it wasn't turned on, on the 1X they knew it wasn't. So nothing to confirm.

the question is, why would they think post processing/DOF on pc would change texture like that, or is that obvious in the menus?
that looks like it should be under texture level option or something like that.

 

I would think DF being the technical-arm of Eurogamer they would have taken the time on sorting out the PC settings. The PS4-Pro seems to be using the same post-processing settings as well (maybe a patch on allowing user preference settings). But there is no doubt the XBO-X should have the advantage over the PS4-Pro when it comes to texture size/resolution and native 4K support for Tomb Raider. Hopefully, when DF does their final analysis, the PC situation (settings) should be sorted out.

 

I've just looked at last couple pages on gaf and it's not as simple as that, in fact DF hasn't been unable to recreate it on pc. Sounds like may be a bug when using chapter selection?
maybe you could give them a hand.
also don't forget their doing everything from the trailer and not feed they've captured.

sounds to me like their putting in quite a lot of time and effort especially as one is on holiday (the one talking on gaf)

 

Yeah, I took a look at the GAF thread as well and it's not nearly as simple as people here are painting it.

People in the GAF thread have posted shots from the PS4-P version without the heavy DOF filter and it's still noticeably less detailed (but much closer) than the XBO-X version. People speculate that variations are due to the procedural nature of how the skin details are generated as well as other random environmental effects.

Regards,
SB

 

It's a difficult game to compare due to the dynamic wear and tear on the character. Not to mention the game is still a work in progress on XBX. DoF is absent and AA seems to be bit rougher on XBX. DoF will probably be added to the final game.

DoF seems to soften the image, more so the background but also objects in focus slightly.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=247306202&postcount=1810

DoF or not, XBX is definitely noticeably more detailed than 4Pro and resembles PC very high settings for texture detail (this is to be expected). It is not, however, sharper or more detailed than PC as some people thought earlier before we discovered the extra details were due to the dynamic wear and tear, and that DoF causes softening to the overall image.

 

Have to say Call of Duty WW2 looks pretty good on PS4. No real interest in playing it though. But out of all the 60fps games what i've seen from Battlefront 2 still remains unbeaten.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-halo-wars-2-xbox-one-x-hands-on

Snippet of the article...

If there's one aspect of Xbox One X coverage we've yet to explore in depth so far, it's how enhanced first-party titles compare with existing PC and Xbox One versions of the same game. For example, all marketing of the beautiful Forza Motorsport 7 has been on X hardware, while other titles such as Sea of Thieves have only been demoed thus far running on the Xbox One S. The good news is that at Gamescom, we were given access to an early build of Halo Wars 2 running on Xbox One X, and armed with 4K direct feed capture, we're able to offer an early look at scalability on an established Xbox Play Anywhere title.

The results are suitably impressive, but of course, we are looking at early Xbox One X code so we should expect to see some changes and improvements before the enhanced version releases in November. We only have really limited comparison points thus far - essentially based around the tutorial and the first mission - but there are areas where Xbox One X looks better than the maxed-out PC experience, though whether this down to work-in-progress lighting bugs or by deliberate design remains to be seen.

However, the crux of the matter is resolution and the extent to which Xbox One X scales up compared to base hardware - and this is somewhat crucial for a title like Halo Wars 2. Real-time strategy games are rich in detail, and the 'god's eye' view of the area benefits tremendously from the increased pixel-count, whether we're talking about intricate terrain detail, blaster fire or the units themselves. Comparing Halo Wars 2 on X to base hardware sees a dramatic boost to overall detail level; native 4K is delivered and it's an enormous upgrade over the 1080p original.

 

What I take from that. Consoles really need to beef up the CPU at some point to truly offer a compelling alternative for PC users (snobs)...like me.

Basically the CPU prevents it from being able to offer a higher framerate which is very important (IMO). Something that both the PS4-P and XBO-X suffer for.

If these things can be changed, then it'd be very easy for me to say good-bye to PC gaming and hello to gaming mostly full time on console. 60 FPS is absolutely essential for almost all games. And for me, KB/M is also essential. Gone are the days when I could tolerate the inaccurate, loose, and slow console controller inputs in most games. On PC now, I only use a console controller when I'm forced to.

Regards,
SB

 

I think DF is very misleading here. Yes, Halo 2 seems to be a little bit cpu-intensiv but on the other side, RTS games are not really that demanding. Yes AI got better over the years, but there's nothing in Halo Wars so far that should be CPU intensive because of AI.
I really think it is still heavily single-thread limited on the CPU side.
You really must see it from the GPU perspective. The GPU can't handle 4k & 60fps @Max details in that game, after all it is just a bit better than a RX480. Yes the CPU might get a bottleneck, too but as I wrote, there is nothing in halo wars 2 that's so cpu-intensive that 6 jaguar cores couldn't handle 60fps. It Is just a matter of time and optimization.
On the other side, the GPU should have enough power for 1080p, 60fps @Max details. But you have always compromises.

 

X1X CPU has a 30% increase in raw clock speed, plus IPC improvements over the original Jaguar cores.

In the final version I'd expect to see minimum frames rates significantly above the X1 version, or I'd be thinking that it's the rendering load and not the CPU that's the bottleneck.