Ike Turner
Veteran
But it also tanks just before that while in the water no?
Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
It's because cutscenes in this game, even if it's a simple 2 second animation such as opening a door, run at 30FPS.
If you can see, it's sitting at perfect 30FPS then goes up for a bit (like 1 or 2FPS) then sits at 30 again. I haven't been at that part of the game yet but I would guess that a short cutscene precedes it.
From what I can tell there are three different level of quality in this game as far as graphics go:
1) Gameplay, usual graphics during gameplay.
2) First person cutscenes (these are the sequences ranging from opening a door to talking to a person in front of you while you travel or listen to story dialogues etc). I noticed higher quality particles like rain and things like debris blowing in the air and such. The difference isn't big enough here.
3) Third person cutscenes, the character models and lighting quality is a notch above the other two and it is very noticeable.
Last edited:
Apparently the PS4 version of Black Ops 3 isn't native 1080p like we previously thought but has a dynamic resolution:
http://imgur.com/gallery/fTnQn
These are the pics 'VGTECH' on youtube took to determine that the resolution is dynamic. He claims "The Playstation 4 version of Black Ops 3 seems to use a dynamic resolution system. Native resolutions seem to vary between roughly 1360x1080 to 1920x1080." Any truth to it?
http://imgur.com/gallery/fTnQn
These are the pics 'VGTECH' on youtube took to determine that the resolution is dynamic. He claims "The Playstation 4 version of Black Ops 3 seems to use a dynamic resolution system. Native resolutions seem to vary between roughly 1360x1080 to 1920x1080." Any truth to it?
Seems to be the case, atleast for SP.
It's tied to the soldier's in-air elevation. See right now he's falling down from his 50fps platform, and he'll land @ 30fps. He'll probably jump up a bit later on according to the graph.And "Dynamic" frame rate apparently...
Let's not do this in here.
He also claims in the comments that XB1 resolution varies from
The discussion here suggests it's locked 60 fps except for when it's dropped for cutscenes. If I've read it right. (?)
Nope it's indeed all over the place, you will frequently come across areas where it will feel like 40s and then suddenly feel near 60.
It's just that the fact that these 2-3 second long 30FPS "cutscenes" make the experience feel even more sluggish.
There is also tearing, which coupled up with the dynamic res plus the unstable framerate and the locked cutscenes end up making this the worst performing COD this gen atleast as far as SP goes in my opinion.
If you go to about 3m in the above video, it gets a little nutty (and I'm fairly certain it has already dropped to ~1360*1080 in that area. Of course, it might just be an isolated case where the water mesh & waves are causing issues.
@ around 5:08, the view goes into a corridor and the performance doesn't improve either, so maybe there's something else going on there than pixel load. The whole last battle is kinda janky with even a sustained 30fps bit while he's on the turret, but it's predominantly 50fps there.
Last edited:
I would actually like to see an analysis of this game from DF/NX Gamer where direct comparisons are made to Advanced Warfare. The dynamic resolution is indeed a curious choice if the game still runs around 40FPS even with the reduction in resolution.
Then I guess we're looking at an imperfect solution that they haven't managed to get working in time, and perhaps it'll be patched? The intention at the outset may have been dynamic res, solid 60, and they set their artists to a certain standard, but the implementation of the dynamic resolution couldn't hit their own targets. Maybe it'll get fixed in a patch?
That really looks like a soft cap at 30fps when fps < ~50fps during gameplay. It's not like we haven't seen this before.
It's a strange behaviour because there are moments when it's running 35-48. I didn't see if the 30fps cap was elsewhere during normal gameplay. So it must have a rather bizarro algorithm.
edit: Ok, so the 35-45 are usually short segments, and maybe it's still trying to decide if it should cap to 30 or not.
What other game does all this nonsense though? If you're talking about 30fps cut-scenes, 60fps gameplay, ok. But capping mid-gameplay? That's a helluva lot more jarring than going between SP@30 and MP@60.
Last edited:
BF: Hard-line did it too. But at least it didn't drop to 30 when you press a button or open a door.
Ah, first time I heard of it.
The fps average can be misleading if we search for a soft cap because computed during one whole second (normally). The frame-time values are much better for this and here very telling with sustained 33.3ms values during relatively long period. Statistically too long.
The Witcher 3 on PS4 did this before patch 1.10. Soft cap at 20fps when fps < maybe ~25fps (here it's probably < ~50fps).
Also some previous MGS games did this (like MGS4 on PS3) along with Shadow of the colossus on PS2 with a 20fps and even 15fps cap depending of the scene.
Also MGS5 cutscenes on PS4. When fps is < ~50fps the game is capped at 30fps during a very short time, seen in maybe 2 cutscenes in the whole game though.
20fps made sense from the POV of it being double-buffered (accidentally) though. Different list of render settings between cut-scene & gameplay? *shrug*
Are you sure it's not just due to double-buffer v-sync? 20 and 15 fall right in line with that behaviour if it missed the refresh interval by a fraction.
29fps -> drop to 20
19fps -> drop to 15
Weird. I hadn't seen this discussed.
Who's to say the purpose of dynamic resolution is to always obtain a perfect 60 FPS? Like any other resolution lowering, it can also be used to increase graphical fidelity and that may have been their goal. Dynamic resolution and 40-60 FPS was almost certainly their intent.
Off topic for this thread I suppose, but I think "dynamic resolution" may become the new, more effective 1080pr. For multiple reasons, one that it's more confusing/hard for pixel counters to pin down or describe (what resolutions does it run at and how much of the time will be much harder to quantify). Two in that as long as it runs up to 1080P (or maybe even if it doesn't) "dynamic resolution" will be the first equivocal descriptor applied, not a lacking, pejorative "900P" or what have you. Third if it runs up to 1080P, some may accept it as such, I saw a website yesterday refer to Halo 5 as an example of a 1080P Xbox One game "albeit with dynamic resolution" or something like that. Just in general I dont think "dynamic resolution" has as negative connotations as 900P or 720P.
As 60 fps is COD's USP, it seems a logical expectation. Are the graphics particularly impressive to warrant lower res and lower framerate?
Similar threads
