Yup the SP goal is to be locked @ 30fps
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Yup the SP goal is to be locked @ 30fps
Not too long ago I think I posted a couple of images, but they're easy to create for oneself. Get any image off the internet. Shrink one copy 50% vertically and the other 50% horizontally and then upscale to original size. I think generally the horizontally reduced version looks the best, probably due to perspective and average alignments placing more fine detail in the vertical. Dunno, but it's easy to test for oneself to see what looks best.
If you could keep the image quality relatively the same and get a big fps boost by interleaving frames, why wouldn't you? That's what I'm curious to know.
Frame rate wasn't locked at release.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Because Buzzwords trump everything.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You forget about the other trade-offs.
The part where people said it looks just as good knowing that it actually isn't?
Or that resolution aside, the game frames are actually tighter.
I didn't forget. I just don't know what they are, which is why I'm asking. To me, the image quality of the multiplayer looked pretty good. I don't know how it compares to say 900p, or how it compares to the 1080p in single player. Like I said, I'd have to get a better look at the side-by-side. Still, I think the image quality is good. I'm not sure what tradeoffs there are other than resolution (during movement) and artifacts from the de-interlacing, or whatever you want to call it. Those artifacts do not seem noticeable, at least not to me.
That wouldn't entirely be representative, as the downscale sort of supersamples more info into the images, compared to what a native non-antialiased image would have.
I'll try to see if I have any scenes laying around somewhere which I could render out without AA... later this week...
Yup, this is what I meant by when it's convenient.
It as because that resolution is one of the possible output on the display, and as a piece of software you try to support as many devices as possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice that you could choose. But when it comes to console games it's up to the developers to decide what they want in a game, which is perfect, 'cos on a console it makes no sense fiddling around with graphical tweaks.
We have Digital Foundry to tell us the truth about the actual resolution, about some effects that we might haven't noticed... etc, and that's great to know.
Still, Jedi2016 made an essential point and it is that the DF verdict could be removed. Let people judge themselves!! One of those verdicts can affect not only the sales of a game, but make PS4 or XB1 fans feel "inferior" because of their console of choice.
Not to mention that forums like GAF didn't react well, and the knight errantry started to march.
If you let people have their own take rather than pontificating about something, they will feel much better about themselves and their choices. :smile2:
I never had a Megadrive as the Xbox was my first console, but a childhood neighbour used to invite some kids to his house to play Megadrive, the console his parents had bought for him.
This was around circa 1994-95 I think? I can recall seeing him having a conversation about Street Fighter 2, that it was rumoured on videogaming magazines that the Super Nintendo version was 16 MB and the Megadrive version was just 8MB.
His response was: "Bleh... 8MB is more than enough".
And he purchased Street Fighter 2 Turbo for the Megadrive! :smile:The game was really good in the end, I think. But the point is that he blinded himself from criticism of his platform of choice 'cos he formed his own opinion.
We have enough reviews around and we don't need someone else telling us again what we should buy or not with a darn verdict when the point of DF articles is learning and sticking to the point of technological prowess -and viceversa- in games.
Sometimes they get to mention the gameplay department, but Kinect features aren't listed, nor sound, but the verdict is --quite unhappy with that. That goes without saying that I like DF to begin with, but that has to be said.
I wonder if that's the reason, or if it was because it was computationally faster to scale that way due to how data is laid out in memory along with use of cache and extended cpu instructions.
There is some info here..
http://www.gamers.org/dEngine/quake/info/techinfo.091
I remember buying a ppro to play quake being extremely disappointed until I found fastvid
Oh man, that Quake doc is just so good. What I wouldn't give to see a PC gamer read through it, just imagine the reactions!
It does not support any 3-D hardware accelerators
Does he mean the Oculus Rift?
However, the higher-resolution modes on this list require additional memory, and may not be available in 8 Mb systems.
Okay wait, how many cores do I need to get a total of 8MB cache?
The maximum resolution supported by Quake is 1280x1024.
Does he mean texture resolution? That isn't really high you know.
Under Win 95, the palette occasionally gets messed up when switching from
Quake to the desktop and back again.
Oh cool, this runs on Win98 too? I so hate Win8!
Performance can be improved in several ways:
* size down the screen with the minus key
Do what? You mean my monitor gets smaller?
Performance in 640x480 mode on a Pentium Pro/150 nearly doubled after FASTVID was run; Quake
was very playable (and looked great!) at this resolution.
Hehe funny, that's a joke about the Bill Gates quite right? Like 640x480 should be enough for everyone, right?
It does not support any 3-D hardware accelerators
Does he mean the Oculus Rift?
However, the higher-resolution modes on this list require additional memory, and may not be available in 8 Mb systems.
Okay wait, how many cores do I need to get a total of 8MB cache?
The maximum resolution supported by Quake is 1280x1024.
Does he mean texture resolution? That isn't really high you know.
Under Win 95, the palette occasionally gets messed up when switching from
Quake to the desktop and back again.
Oh cool, this runs on Win98 too? I so hate Win8!
Performance can be improved in several ways:
* size down the screen with the minus key
Do what? You mean my monitor gets smaller?
Performance in 640x480 mode on a Pentium Pro/150 nearly doubled after FASTVID was run; Quake
was very playable (and looked great!) at this resolution.
Hehe funny, that's a joke about the Bill Gates quite right? Like 640x480 should be enough for everyone, right?
- Status
Similar threads
