djskribbles
Legend
Agreed. This is pretty much what I got from watching the two videos.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Well maybe you've seen this but one DF FPS vid is here
I just watched the whole thing and in 8:25 of ridiculously packed action with titan action, to the exclusion of pilot action, so that's pretty much the most artificially demanding scenario possible, and the framerate only even dips into the 30's one brief moment. All of the rest of the clip it is 40+.
I've lamented DF's lack of average FPS anymore to give us a truer picture. I feel safe saying the TF average is probably 55-57+ FPS, if TF 360's is 47.5 or whatever it was.
There are also no "dips to single digits" like I've seen repeated many a time on Neogaf, even as "dips to single digits everytime you get in a Titan battle". Not sure how that falsehood got started but it certainly became accepted as truth quickly.
I would say the game FPS is certainly better than say, COD PS3 (though I'd have to recheck some of those vids to be sure, from memory COD PS3 is actually more like an average 45 FPS).
Maybe there are other vids I've only just watched that one, but there are no dips to 20's in that vid either (I eagerly await those vids with dips to 20's being pointed out to me very quickly), and again the clip is ridiculously Titan-action packed, if anything it's not a true picture in being less representative of a true game, a true game scenario would be less demanding (but then again that's fine imo, as the point of this game is the crazy action)
That is a beta video, watch the release video I linked. I can't see how it can average 57fps if it hardly reaches 50fps on foot. So either the beta was different somehow, or the map makes a huge difference.
Actually they have two launch video (three if you care about last titan standing).
Last edited by a moderator:
djskribbles
Legend
Average is probably closer to ~51-53fps on XB1, or ~5-7fps higher than X360. But the X360's framerate seems more stable/consistent, staying within a smaller range for the majority of the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said, Digital Foundry conveniently recorded many minutes of 60fps gameplay without Titans on the XB1 videos (I think the first 5 minutes of one of the XB1 videos are without Titans so at 60fps) when they never showed any Titan-less gameplay for the X360 video, well they have only done one video and it seems they even selected the more demanding scenes. Poor X360.
So, to be fair, if you only count the moments when Titans enter into the game in the XB1 perf videos, the average framerates is just slighlty above X360 by a rough estimation. Maybe 5 or 7 fps above like djskribbles wrote.
djskribbles
Legend
When you're in a Titan or there are 1-2 or more Titans on screen, the framerate is ~40-50fps for the most part, with dips into the 30s, and sometimes (albeit rarely) below 30fps. When there's little to nothing happening, then it's 60fps. So if you play like a sissy, then maybe the average is 57.
How do you guys define 60fps? I mean outside of Forza, are there really any AAA games this gen or last gen on console that are truly 60fps? 60fps should mean 60 frames per second but on console it typically means "Anywhere from 31 to 60 frames per second". It seems like it's exceedingly rare to get a true 60fps AAA game on console anyways with Forza being the only one I know of so Titanfall falls into the usual and expected "60fps on console" category. Not sure why it's such a big deal, 31 fps to 60 fps has been the accepted norm for "60 fps" console games for many years now.
Infamous: Second Son suddenly became a 60fps title!
Well you know what I mean right? Titanfall is another 60fps console game in the long list of 60fps console games that isn't really 60fps, but gets close enough to 60fps to earn that moniker. That's how 60 fps console games have been for years now, so I don't get why Titanfall is being singled out for it.
Because this is the DF thread and its the latest game to get analysis? You don't understand why a competitive FPS from the makers of COD who said "frame rate is king" might get some attention for releasing such a mess of tearing and sub-50 fps game play?
For one it's been analysed to death, Titanfall has been out for a while now so I don't know why this lingers. Secondly, frame rates on COD games didn't seem to matter last gen when "frame rate is king" COD's "60 fps" really wasn't 60fps yet people didn't seem to mind. Point being this isn't a new thing....it's not the first or last 60 fps console game that isn't really 60 fps. Normally it gets benchmarked, noted, then no one cares and considers it a 60fps game like always and things move on just like with past 45fps COD games, current games, etc. If you want real console 60 fps then talk about Forza. Outside of that, most other "60 fps" console games fall into the same category as Titanfall.
I swear you are being purposely obtuse.
People are wondering why a Source engine based games from the 'Framerate is King' devs has a highly variable framerate that weirdly dives below 20 at times and seems to actually average in the mid 40s AT best. Supposedly Source was chosen due to how well it runs, yet a brand new console which paid for exclusivity runs it sub 1600x900 and with horrid tearing and FPS issues.
It's not any more complicated than that.
EDIT: The release of the 360 version has reignited the discussion. It has only been out a day, not 'for a while now.'
People are wondering why a Source engine based games from the 'Framerate is King' devs has a highly variable framerate that weirdly dives below 20 at times and seems to actually average in the mid 40s AT best. Supposedly Source was chosen due to how well it runs, yet a brand new console which paid for exclusivity runs it sub 1600x900 and with horrid tearing and FPS issues.
It's not any more complicated than that.
EDIT: The release of the 360 version has reignited the discussion. It has only been out a day, not 'for a while now.'
djskribbles
Legend
Yeah, the Titanfall discussion was reignited by the recent 360 analysis. We've been discussing the similarities between them. It's not like we've been discussing Titanfall this whole time. The full comparison will most likely lead to even more discussion.
Except it isn't 40s "at best". It's higher than that. It would be in the 40s for the most part in the worst case while piloting a titan, with incredibly rare dips into the 30s. As a pilot, which is most of the time you're playing, you're in the 50s, if not at 60 fps. It doesn't have horrid fps issues, or horrid tearing. I wouldn't call the frame rate an issue at all. It just isn't perfect 60Hz. The frame rate is generally very good. Also Source was not chosen for performance. That's why they pretty much rewrote the entire renderer. The interview I saw, they said they chose Source for ease of prototyping. Some people said it was chosen for PS3 performance. I never saw that interview. Either way, it was never chosen for good performance on next-gen.
No I don't get what you mean.
Titanfall is touted as a 60fps game and I:SS is touted as a 30fps game and accepted as such, but by your definition both are 60fps games.
Either one game is getting too much credit or the other is receiving too little.
30fps locked games, 30~60 fps games that average 40~50 and 60 fps rock solid (or very close to rock solid, with the rare dip into the high 50s) are three very separate categories in my book.
only flaw in your description is that in the DF video, you only need one or two titans on screen to force the FPS to dip into the 40s.
http://youtu.be/ihU3J4dZNzA?t=2m26s
I may not own the game but I've played in the beta enough to know that at 2:26 the player is not sitting in a titan, and the fps is definitely not in the 50s.
If people are going to pick and choose places where there isn't any action to prove that the game is hitting 50fps+, then we might as well as look at the ground to prove almost all games can hit 60fps.
Never mind then, resume your "60 fps" discussions.
Once again the overstating. I guarantee the "average" is over 50. There's many more seconds spent at exactly 60 FPS than any other number (since this is kind of the baseline the game returns to).
Urgh, we really need average FPS to come back. But I think the reason DF ditched it is over any long clip the average tends to trend toward 30/60, which they felt gave an unfair picture. If a game averages 58 FPS, DF felt that gave an unfair picture, whats important would be the dips/action in their view. So they'd rather people just watch the clip than quote an average.
That's probably somewhat true, but I feel like something is definitely lost without the info of the average.
The game is 60, then dips into mostly 40's-50's in heavy action (which is a lot). Similar to COD I suppose (though I think 360 COD may fare better) In fact a lot of firefights dont even dip below 50 for that matter.
And there's a LOT of action going on, watch the vid a few posts above you cant miss it. And when the screen is filled with smoke, explosions and fire, those are some of the most demanding moments in video games across any genre.
Again misleading, it actually sticks at 60 when there isn't any action, not "50+". Even a few light firefights manage to not deviate from 60.
In this opening section for example it sticks at 60 from seconds 2 through ~45 and maybe longer including the beginning of some pilot combat, it appears DF suddenly cut the video at ~45s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihU3J4dZNzA&feature=youtu.be&t=2s (in the first second there's an airborne explosion that dips it to 56).
Also seems likely some maps are more demanding than others, skyboxes and such.
Edit: That second vid definitely paint a worse picture of the FPS as it's frequently in the 40's and even 30's. DF definitely cuts the vids to be almost all firefights though, have no idea what Globalisateur is on about.
- Status
Similar threads
