Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[Arwin]

I understand it won't be easy for all cases but also think it wouldn't be that hard in others. Although being CPU bound may happen sooner in some cases (ironically especially in case of PC ports) n the end it's no different from what happens in PC land. It's a choice and sure it has consequences, but it is possible (Project Cars, Last of Us)... In fact I think what console developers do, optimize to get a stable frame rate, may actually be harder.

 

[hesido]

I'm wishing next gen optimizes for 1080p60 and not for 4k30fps with a 1080p30fps (probably super sampled) fallback. I don't care if the cpu sits idle half of the time when the frame rate is dropped to 30fps from 60fps for a game optimized for 60. Next gen should come with interesting for choices for devs, and VR should have say in that too, if it gets popular.

 

[Davros]

Why not 4k 60fps ?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

VR should be 60fps at the very least...

 

[pjbliverpool]

By the time the next gen consoles arrive, anything less than 4K at 90fps for VR is probably going to be considered sub-par.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I actually expect resolution and framerate to be more important for devs with VR, compared to details and perhaps even IQ to a level. Even current day graphics are more then enough to be pretty damn impressive in a VR environment IMHO, so it makes all kinds of sense.

 

[nightshade]

I’d suggest nothing needs to be done. It can remain idle. I agree that it’s not the best use of resource, but you’re not losing out on anything compared to the 60hz game, you’re getting exactly the same. And you definitely don’t want to start changing the whole simulations based on the framerate.


Isn’t that essentially the same as what you’d get if the game were designed as 30fps anyway? The only loss would be the unused cycles.

Let’s be honest here, some people really do prefer resolution over framerate (I’m not one of them), so an option to play Halo 5 at 1920x1080 @ 30fps (static!) and some better AA and shading could be a bonus to some. Especially in the single player game. I don’t agree that it fundamentally changes the game.

And besides, didn’t TLOU:R actually implement a 30fps option? If I remember correctly that actually had some better shadowing.

And yet it looked worse than the PS3 game that had FPS in the mid 20s range. The reason? The motion blur was modified to suit 60FPS, and by putting in the cap and making it run at 30FPS the motion blur broke which ended up giving the 30FPS version a very janky look compared to even the original.

And I doubt it would have been that simple to just have Halo 5 at 30FPS so as to get a static 1080p resolution. And like others have said, the game at 30FPS would have been a different game because these decisions go into game and level design and it shows when you play them.

 

[Nesh]

And yet it looked worse than the PS3 game that had FPS in the mid 20s range. The reason? The motion blur was modified to suit 60FPS, and by putting in the cap and making it run at 30FPS the motion blur broke which ended up giving the 30FPS version a very janky look compared to even the original.

And I doubt it would have been that simple to just have Halo 5 at 30FPS so as to get a static 1080p resolution. And like others have said, the game at 30FPS would have been a different game because these decisions go into game and level design and it shows when you play them.

First time I hear that it looked worse at 30fps than the PS3 one. I havent checked it at 30fps. You made me curious now

 

[Clukos]

 

[Billy Idol]

TLOU remaster had 30/60 Hz option!

All PC games offer 30Hz and 60Hz locked options. Where is the problem...lol! Console people shouldn't mystify those things...it can be done if they'd care enough

But, of course it will never happen because of money...maybe as a paid DLC!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Where is the problem...lol! Console people shouldn't mystify those things...it can be done if they'd care enough

Naughty Dog and Bluepoint hate console gamers confirmed!

 

[Shortbread]

Face-Off: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on PS4

 

[Scott_Arm]

TLOU remaster had 30/60 Hz option!

All PC games offer 30Hz and 60Hz locked options. Where is the problem...lol! Console people shouldn't mystify those things...it can be done if they'd care enough

But, of course it will never happen because of money...maybe as a paid DLC!

The Last of Us is an old game. They were able to get it running at 60Hz and then decided to add a 30Hz option for some more visual improvements. The expectations for a new game are very different. Console peasants expect their hardware to be pushed "TO THE METAL!". If you design your game to max out the hardware at 60fps, you could make a 30fps option, but you'd be leaving a lot on the table. You wouldn't get the same results you'd get if you targeted 30fps from the start, which would piss console gamers off. And if you target 30fps from the start, you're not going to be able to add a 60fps option. So, basically, unless you want all games to target 60fps and then have sub-par 30fps options, then you're not going to get your wish.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

TLOU remaster had 30/60 Hz option!

All PC games offer 30Hz and 60Hz locked options. Where is the problem...lol!

There's no problem at all when the game is 60 fps and you just offer a 30 fps mode that only renders every other frame and wastes half your available GPU cycles. IIRC the motion blur was also 'broken' for 30 fps as it was using a 60 fps length.

 

[Billy Idol]

I just don't get it and hope for a better explanation:

PC offers 30Hz/60Hz mode in most games. Thus, technically this can't be a big problem.

Of course, you need to start with a 60Hz console game and downscale the fps to 30Hz. This should give you headroom on the GPU and thus offer better GFX (although Sebbi said that uping GFX can/may have an impact on CPU usage as well, I still think that there should be room for noticeable(!) improvement, e.g. change adaptive resolution to fixed high resolution).

It can't cost to much money. We all moan that no money is invested in the PC versions of the games...but most feature the fps options...thus it can't be an expensive/difficult feature.

(It seems that mostly console only devs seem to have problems to support different fps on PC...like the infamous Dark Souls 1).

Console games are all CPU limited? Fine, see that still on two consoles with nearly same CPU the one with better GPU gives often/mostly higher resolution!? So being CPU limited doesn't seem to be a problem at all (on the contrary imo!).

This directly supports that it should be possible to downscale a 60Hz game with dynamic resolution to a 30fps variant with steady higher resolution.

This was exactly what ThePissartist suggested iirc, and got brutally attacked in this thread up until accusations of whatever being bent over something something...

It makes sense to me that this is possible and a very good option for future games (design 60Hz with adative resolution, add option to lock to 30Hz with higher GFX) and other than people shouting 'not possible' from the roof and 'H5 looks great what is the problem' no one offered a real argument other than myself (of course!): game devs just don't care to give console gamers an/this option

Is the QA fundamentally more expensive for such games and thus a nightmare wrt time management and money? How/why did ND include it in their remaster?!

 

[hesido]

Is the QA fundamentally more expensive for such games and thus a nightmare wrt time management and money? How/why did ND include it in their remaster?!

I support 60fps / 30fps options, that said TLoU's 30fps option didn't do much to enhance graphics other than setting shadow map resolution higher, and I remember it was mentioned that the 30fps option did not accomodate for the low fps with enough motion blur (I may be wrong though), so that's not really a good example. It was just there to accommodate for people who were looking for the original fps "feels".

 

[Arwin]

Indeed, because not that long ago several people were arguing that's 30 FPS was more cinematic. So in that case there isn't even any image enhancement necessary.

So in any case, I already argued earlier that there will be differences for games that are CPU limited versus games that are GPU limited in terms of how effective it will be for enhancing the image quality.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I just don't get it and hope for a better explanation:

PC offers 30Hz/60Hz mode in most games. Thus, technically this can't be a big problem.

The only reason this is possible on (some) PC's is that the games are designed for console and (some) PC's have a ton load more CPU power to throw at the problem. So a game that has been deigned to complete each frame in 33ms on both the CPU and GPU in consoles can naturally do that in 16ms and less on more powerful PC's. It's not that the game has been designed to run at either 30 or 60 fps specifically for the PC.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Digital Foundry: Hands on with Rainbow Six: Siege
60fps - with a twist.

Overall, Rainbow Six: Siege is shaping up nicely - but it's something of a radical departure from existing entries in the series, and the emphasis on multiplayer could be divisive. That said, 'upgrading' this franchise to 60fps presents a clear, tangible improvement to the gameplay - something we'll explore in more depth soon.​

 

[hesido]

Digital Foundry: Hands on with Rainbow Six: Siege
60fps - with a twist.

Overall, Rainbow Six: Siege is shaping up nicely - but it's something of a radical departure from existing entries in the series, and the emphasis on multiplayer could be divisive. That said, 'upgrading' this franchise to 60fps presents a clear, tangible improvement to the gameplay - something we'll explore in more depth soon.​

PS4 uses trilinear, Xbox uses ~4x AF.

What was the verdict in our discussion? I'm getting old.

This game also is a curious example of 30 / 60fps, with the 30fps having not much additions in the name of graphics upgrades, yet runs at 30fps on consoles for a game mode:

According to Ubisoft, Terrorist Hunt operates at a lower frame-rate due to this mode featuring advanced AI - far from acting like mindless drones, on higher difficulty settings, your opponents take time to put up barricades, place barbed wire around possible entry points, and set-up charges to destroy the environment to their advantage, in addition to shooting down players from behind boarded up windows or wooden doors.

Should AI be tied so much to the fps? Is this not a design problem? I mean, what if it took 4 seconds to decide whether to place a barbed wire, instead of 1 seconds? What if it took 1 second for an AI to decide its waypoint, instead of 0.2?

Is it not possible to time-slice these so things keep running at 60fps? Does 60fps preclude such options?