Yeah, seems to be turned off or at least reduced in high contrast areas (hand against the cup). Which makes sense since these are the places you look for ghosting most of the time with TAA.
Last edited:
Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Yeah, seems to be turned off or at least reduced in high contrast areas (hand against the cup). Which makes sense since these are the places you look for ghosting most of the time with TAA.
It seems that Fallout 4 on Xbox One uses a dynamic resolution ranging from 1600x1080 to 1920x1080. Here's some frames that show this (http://imgur.com/a/g8d9w).
Indeed, I find ~1650 horizontally on this one with fog:
http://i.imgur.com/UPrqoXC.png
Esram natural advantage to deal with alphas wasn't enough?
I don't have access to the physical version of the game, so I couldn't say. However, the resolution dips seem to be quite rare, and it could be the case that the dynamic resolution slipped by unnoticed.
This shot (http://imgur.com/J9imbUx) shows the PS4 version running at 1920x1080 during a similar scene where the Xbox One was running sub-native. Unfortunately I don't have the Far Harbor dlc, so I can't test that area, although it's probably less taxing on the gpu now that they've toned down the fog effects.
Battlefield 1 now seems to use a dynamic resolution. My pixel counts put the resolution range to be between roughly 1320x744 and 1780x1000, but it may vary more than this as those would be rather strange bounds. http://imgur.com/a/1pufh
Pixel counts indicate that conquest mode in Battlefield 1 on PS4 uses a dynamic resolution. The lowest and highest pixel counts found during regular gameplay were approximately 1100x620 and 1807x1014 respectively. There also appears to be a rare bug that causes the resolution to drop to an extremely low pixel count for a short period of time as can be seen here http://imgur.com/a/jHoB2. The lowest pixel count found during this drop is about 160x90.
Source
90p, wow, I think that's a new record.
At least Pro will get 180p...but only using checkerboard rendering. Native 180p would be too much.
At least Pro will get 180p...but only using checkerboard rendering. Native 180p would be too much.
Sinclair ZX81 was 48p.
Just a bug, but a strange one to slip through this far.
160x90...
1600x900....
So, pretty sure this is a typo bug if the res is dropped to actually 160x90, but I doubt that's the actual case. Would be funny, though.
If you take a look at the captures linked, then it does look like it might actually be hitting 160 x 90 ...
I had when I made that post. Though, I didn't see the third capture which is definitely higher res than the first two, but still not very good(854x480? That'd be a much, much higher res but still piss poor for this day and age. It's also high enough to be actually legible and playable in most cases even if it looks like dogshit).
morphinapg
Newcomer
It would be bottlenecked by the CPU, so not much more than they were getting at their existing targets.
Sent from my OnePlus One using Tapatalk
Similar threads
