Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Alex was explaining this in the very tweets above and why it was really not a valid concern though?
Ah ok, understood, I was the one who was reading too quickly then.
I believe it was definitely more expensive on Radeon at least, and hence Maldo's mod offered an option to curtain tessellation with no visual impact.
The ocean I'm not arguing, more the concrete barrier and such.
Easy enough to check if you have a period correct ATI graphics card. The drivers have settings to adjust the maximum tessellation level, and it defaults with a certain level of optimization. Turing off and on those optimizations and benchmarking should solve the mystery.
Yup it did, back when I was playing/benching Crysis 2. That's why the comment jumped out at me.
There's still plenty of misconceptions about DX11 tessellation online. What these videos didn't show was how the tessellation factor goes up and down with distance from the viewport. Showing them in transparent wireframe mode also didn't help since each vertex is represented by a pixel.
In reality, one of those barriers might look like this at a distance. And if we zoom into that tessellated model then it looks like this. It's only 5365 triangles and not the 1m+ that people were led to believe. Capping it at 32x simply meant that you were clipping geometric detail nearest to the viewport while anything further away would still be using the same 0-32x tess factors as before.
My memory of the Crysis 2 tessellation drama is unreliable at this point. I think I remember many claims that the tessellation of many objects didn't have any actual benefit to the visuals. The concrete barrier being a good example because why would you tessellate that into so many vertices.
arandomguy
Veteran
At the same time my understanding was that one the touted benefits of DX11 tessellation was specifically scalable level of detail based on the viewport. I don't know if Crysis 2 was specifically handling it that way (and how well it was) but assuming so (based on some of the above post) then it seems like it would be behaving as intended from an optimization and design stand point.
Every time a new technology is introduced it gets overly used and misused, normal maps, bloom on everything during x360 days, tessellation on pc back in the days raytraced puddles nowadays.. i guess its fancy stuff depending on the time, but im afraid people are starting to feel the same for ue5 unless a really good looking game with good performance comes out and wows people.
may that discussion be blessed. I had the X360 version of Crysis 2 at the time 'cos my laptop wasn't powerful enough to run the game decently, and I think we didn't "know" what tessellation was at the time nor what Global Illumination "was", 'cos both features were absent. After watching the Digital Foundry video -and article- on Crysis 2 the PC version, I wanted so much to see GI on the X360 version that my brain wanted to believe that GI was active. it was huge at the time, at least for me. Alas, GI was never present in the X360 version....
davis.anthony
Veteran
I remember the Crysis 2 launch very well.
From people kicking up a shit storm that it looked worse than Crysis 1 in many area's and then the even bigger shit storm when the DX11 patch dropped and crippled AMD GPU's.
I had HD5000 series in crossfire at the time and they really didn't like the tessellation.
From people kicking up a shit storm that it looked worse than Crysis 1 in many area's and then the even bigger shit storm when the DX11 patch dropped and crippled AMD GPU's.
I had HD5000 series in crossfire at the time and they really didn't like the tessellation.
Last edited:
Riddlewire
Regular
With Elden Ring, you could install the One X version to Series X and play that, just like the PS5 allows.
It really wasn't any better, but you could still do it.
Is that not possible with this game?
They must have included the full Series X version on the disc, rather than making it a download this time.
It really wasn't any better, but you could still do it.
Is that not possible with this game?
They must have included the full Series X version on the disc, rather than making it a download this time.
One of the problems with From Soft's latest iteration of their inhouse engine is the lacking of the local light shadows, which leads to an insane amount of light leaking, especially for a hard-surface mech game. It's already kinda visually annoying in the indoor area in Elden Ring, but even more weird in AC6 when all the light sources from thrusters simply penetrate surfaces without any kind of shadow. I know it may come with a performance hit, but only rendering the player mech into the local light shadowmap alone can greatly improves the visual.
Ive noticed that but i stopped caring im starting to think japanese developers dont care much about graphics.. just like bethesda its already apparent that japanese devs focus on the gameplay, story and fun, graphics tech or performance come last... their games haven't changed much since ps2 days its the same principles just look at nintendo, they see no incentive to push graphics like western developers simply because people love and buy their games, its dejavu now
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No level of graphical sheen can make a game with uninteresting gameplay worthy of playing for me. And I consider myself really fortunate that when I look at a game that does not employ cutting edge graphical technologies, I don't the flaws, I just see a great game.
I see so many posts in this thread of people obsessing over minor graphical issues that I genuinely feel sorry they they can't get past those to enjoy the game itself. If you want great graphics, go outside. The graphics outside are amazing!!! The tessellation of the grass effects outside is very realistic, as is the realtime RT, and the time of day/night cycle! Pop-in in minimal.
edit: word missing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you actually test back then with console cvars at all though to see if they *really did not like the tessellation* or rather if they really did not like any of the other much more expensive things like SSDO, full res Motion blur, sprite based DOF, SSR etc.
Once again, I am pretty sure people's memory of the event is not the same as the event itself as there was not due diligence back then for checking out what was the actual culprit for DX11 being so heavy in Crysis 2. Testing I did back in the day (and can do again with the right hardware soon enough) showed that the tessellation was a pittance for performance in comparison to the rest of the Extreme quality things they added.
Yeah people online obsess about graphics, performance and pixel counts but in reality majority of gamers dont care some of my friends dont even know what fps is and thats the majority of gamers, i for one love the best of both worlds great graphics and gameplay if possible. I think were approaching an age where no excuse for compromise is allowed because the hardware and tools are simply there, but japan will always be japanNo level of graphical sheen can make a game with uninteresting gameplay worthy of playing for me. And I consider myself really fortunate that when I look at a game that does employ cutting edge graphical technologies, I don't the flaws, I just see a great game.
I see so many posts in this thread of people obsessing over minor graphical issues that I genuinely feel sorry they they can't get past those to enjoy the game itself. If you want great graphics, go outside. The graphics outside are amazing!!! The tessellation of the grass effects outside is very realistic, as is the realtime RT, and the time of day/night cycle! Pop-in in minimal.
- Status
Similar threads
