Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
One thing that interests me with 120 Hz is if it'll make VRR tolerable for me?
Currently at 60 Hz, VRR is only not annoying when it's there to catch the 1-2% of frames that don't hit 60 Hz. Anything more than that and the randomly changing control -> Feedback loop becomes annoying for me.
I have a feeling that it'll still be the same for 120 Hz, but the frame variance window might be slightly more tolerable. Going to be a bit, however, as there's still no HDMI 2.1 video cards, and there's no way I'm going to have 4:2:0 or 4:0:0 chroma in Windows (/shudder).
Regards,
SB
Currently at 60 Hz, VRR is only not annoying when it's there to catch the 1-2% of frames that don't hit 60 Hz. Anything more than that and the randomly changing control -> Feedback loop becomes annoying for me.
I have a feeling that it'll still be the same for 120 Hz, but the frame variance window might be slightly more tolerable. Going to be a bit, however, as there's still no HDMI 2.1 video cards, and there's no way I'm going to have 4:2:0 or 4:0:0 chroma in Windows (/shudder).
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
as they say, those are very modern features that they support. But I've talked this with a friend and other features like ultrawide screens aren't supported on the Xbox. Why... I don't know. In some competitive games Ultrawide screens are banned, but on the Xbox, not having support for 21:9 resolutions is a bummer.
When developing games for consoles, you have a nice, fixed 16:9 aspect screen so design everything for that. Ultrawide displays means having to target more than one aspect and needing some test hardware. It's definitely nicer for devs to just use the default TV standard. I expect my game ionAXXIA won't work properly on super-wide aspect because the wraparound teleporting of objects will be on-screen instead of off to the side, and I couldn't fix that without either forcing a closer zoom or needing a larger level for ultra-wide screens, which I have no means to test. Given it's a remarkable niche for consoles, it's not worth considering at any point in their design. I think there's a goodish chance of that changing with XBSX being more PC like.
Edit: Turns out I made ionAXXIA to support ultra wide screen! (on PC) Just ran it in Unity editor in ultra-wide aspect. I remember upping the minimum level size to support that. You're welcome.
Last edited:
well, I gotta test the game then, if I get a ultrawide monitor --I am torn between a ultrawide monitor with HDR but only 75Hz and a QWHD monitor for both office work and gaming with 165Hz and great HDR-. If not, I shall test it in a 1440p monitor. Still I am happy about the fact that you added ultrawide support. There are a few 49" 3840 x 1080 monitors out there, but that's like 32:9, crazy.... I wonder if those have ultrawide support on Unity.When developing games for consoles, you have a nice, fixed 16:9 aspect screen so design everything for that. Ultrawide displays means having to target more than one aspect and needing some test hardware. It's definitely nicer for devs to just use the default TV standard. I expect my game ionAXXIA won't work properly on super-wide aspect because the wraparound teleporting of objects will be on-screen instead of off to the side, and I couldn't fix that without either forcing a closer zoom or needing a larger level for ultra-wide screens, which I have no means to test. Given it's a remarkable niche for consoles, it's not worth considering at any point in their design. I think there's a goodish chance of that changing with XBSX being more PC like.
Edit: Turns out I made ionAXXIA to support ultra wide screen! (on PC) Just ran it in Unity editor in ultra-wide aspect. I remember upping the minimum level size to support that. You're welcome.
As for resolution support..., well.., Xbox has a history of supporting different cables, which when the X360 was perfect. I found a chinese VGA cable, with very low quality, but it was the only way I could play on my 1280x1024 CRT monitor back then.
People began to use HDMI in 2007 with the Xbox, iirc, so I got a 1366x768 HD Ready TV to play the console games. DF said that HDMI gave better image quality than the VGA, which was partially true.
I say partially 'cos yes, the colours were more vibrant and real with HDMI, but resolution support was a hit and a miss. The console didn't support 1366x768 via HDMI, but 1280x720, so the image had better colour but was stretched. Jaggies were very apparent.
On my 1400x900 monitor the X360 had native support for that resolution via the VGA cable. Jaggies were almost non existent, there were some horizontal black bars, but still the image looked less jagged and more defined, at the cost of colour which tended to be a little on the red-ish side and looked a lot duller. Still, the X360 was an amazing product because of that back then, when consoles couldn't accept a VGA monitor and those were the standard, the X360 had it all.
originally x360 didnt support 16:10 AR tho. Microsoft added it a short while after they revamped the whole dashboard (16:10 AR support was one of the top requested feature on the old xbox insider feature request website). 16:10 AR also got to the top of PlayStation Share (the feature request website) for awhile but sony keeps ignoring them and now that feature request is no longer at the top (probably more and more people have 16:9)
I think the difference is xbox dash rescales all output to final resolution and the game dev has no idea.
On PlayStation, especially ps3 it was I believe the game devs did know the output and were in charge of scaling to some degree. Many games did not upscale for their native 720 to 1080 for example.
Changing aspect ratio on ps3 would be a nightmare I think.
Thanks, will do
DavidGraham
Veteran
If you have time maybe do a dive into Deliver Us The Moon use of RTX shadows and reflections, some interesting use of the tech there. Also DLSS seems of excellent quality.
Thanks, will do
And the SC-follow up on next gen ssd loading/streaming it’s a hot topic everywhere
that's one of the reasons PS3 sucked so much back then. If I were a PS user then I couldn't play at HD at all, because I only had a VGA monitor. That and the fact that it didnt support some resolutions. I wondered how PS users coped.
That alone was a big selling point for the X360, although in the end a few years later everyone, more or less, was using HDMI.
Nowadays, it seems it's all about the 4k craze -save for RT which is a bit more reasonable, specially with DLSS ,and make an actual impact-.
I have a 4k monitor and the image quality is good but the impact it makes is a tad disappointing.
If we are talking about HDR..., that's a whole different story. 100Hz or more framerates, 1440p on a 30 something inches screen and HDR, now that's heavenly.
Early HDTVs were 1080i/480i only (maybe 480p), and there were issues with PS3 there as well. If a game was 720p/480i only, you were limited to 480i.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I had so forgotten this. What an absolutely bonkers piece of hardware the PS3 was.
- Status
Similar threads
