Lossless Scaling. FGx2-x20 & upscaling on ANY GPU! Miniguide page 11

[Cyan]

Don't have 160 mins to sit through the whole thing atm, you got any times for the good stuff?

regarding LS:

47:52 here they talk about some of the biggest requests they have is for them to multiply the framerate not only by integer numbers but also by custom multipliers of say, x2,5, x1,5, x4,5FG, etc. And also for the program to go to your monitor's Hz, simply like that. And they are working on alpha builds and testing those features.

But they want them to be excellent quality before adding them.

Also they are working of this crazy idea of "what if we only show the generated frames then". And that solves any problem, but the problem is now that they are only generated frames, which causes more artifacts.

That idea would lead to a great title "Only 100% generated fake frames" xD. The real frame won't be shown at any moment, which fixes any possible judder.

32:30 for those with judder when using Rivatuner to lock the framerate, he talks about the fact that we don't want Lossless Scaling to be capped by any external frame rate Caps or anything so that'll prevent that from happening, so you have to Add a new profile below Global to set the frame rate limit to zero for Lossless Scaling, so in this way Rivatuner will totally avoid it. He shows that on his own screen.

Basically you have to set Lossless Scaling in Rivatuner to not be exclusively framerate limited.

While the Global setting remains at your preferred limit or whatever.

As for the rest of the video, I've shared the details in the DF thread.

Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2025]

a setting like this could be the solution to games' optimisation, or letting ANYONE play a modern game, in toaster mode (or everybody's mode). This is a cool mod for Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 if you don't care if it looks like a half-finished game...

forum.beyond3d.com

 

[GhostofWar]

regarding LS:

Thanks appreciated.

 

[Cyan]

games where FG isn't the way to go are Vampire Survivors... and games like Divinity Original Sin Enhanced Edition -most of the time, sometimes it can be great-.

Vampire Survivors at higher framerates is super fun to look at when things get hectic. I remember playing it a a stable 165fps and the difference with playing it a 60fps was huge.

However I don't achieve rock solid 360fps on it, except at the beginning when there are less enemies.

The issue with FG in Vampire Survivors is that when 60fps is the base, the hecticness is lost compared to native 360fps in that particular game. Other than that it works well.

Divinity Original Sin is a turn based tactical RPG and FG doesn't do much for it. The scroll feels much better, but the game on my rig can achieve 240fps, which is very smooth. Still, the framerate varies so much, dropping to 140, 180fps, etc. I hate excessively variable framerate, I prefer to lock it.

Haven't tested FG during battles, but I guess it's there where it shines a bit.

 

[Cyan]

played Gears of War Ultimate. The game is so badly optimised -maybe an Intel thing, but I find it odd, the game runs under DX12-. I have to play it on Lowest, and tbh, thankfully so.

FXAA is horrible (it's disabled in the lowest and low settings, thankfully), the AO is the typical AO of old games, and it's so exaggerated the game looks dark in all the wrong places. I just play it at the LOWEST setting to have a chance to run it at 60fps base . But the textures and so on look good, also Lowest gets rid of the horrible AA and AO.

Also it's a game so meant for a console that some things don't work as expected. I am playing it with the kb+mouse.

360fps in this game is also a whole different level, etc. Shooting, moving, enemies..., everything feels sooooo mushy, floaty. I don't know how to describe it. It feels much better, but at the same time, it feels weird, not especially good like in other games, but it's much better to have it enabled, just not... as good as in games like Halo Infinite and many others.

Imagining playing this game at 30fps like in the original version makes me think about the things we had to cope with to play games, low framerates and lack of motion clarity it was a huge mess. That's where motion blur truly shone.

 

[Cyan]

as I mentioned before, LS shows some artifacts in the crosshair when playing Halo Infinite. The way I kinda fixed them to some extent was going to the accessibility options and increase the opacity and thickness of the crosshair to the max.

That being said, I got used to 360fps so much that now Halo Infinite feels totally unplayable at 45fps (my base framerate on which I use FGx8).

Alas, I'm not exaggerating here. At 45fps if you get used to 360fps you see the "jumps" between frames so clearly, and you don't see ANYTHING, all the screen once you start running or rotate the camera becomes a pixel mess.

It's playable for sure but... I'm surprised at how getting used to high framerates makes you much aware of those things. I've been playing Halo Infinite extensively as of late to complete the campaign.

 

[Cyan]

games where FG isn't the way to go are Vampire Survivors... and games like Divinity Original Sin Enhanced Edition -most of the time, sometimes it can be great-.

Vampire Survivors at higher framerates is super fun to look at when things get hectic. I remember playing it a a stable 165fps and the difference with playing it a 60fps was huge.

However I don't achieve rock solid 360fps on it, except at the beginning when there are less enemies.

The issue with FG in Vampire Survivors is that when 60fps is the base, the hecticness is lost compared to native 360fps in that particular game. Other than that it works well.

Divinity Original Sin is a turn based tactical RPG and FG doesn't do much for it. The scroll feels much better, but the game on my rig can achieve 240fps, which is very smooth. Still, the framerate varies so much, dropping to 140, 180fps, etc. I hate excessively variable framerate, I prefer to lock it.

Haven't tested FG during battles, but I guess it's there where it shines a bit.

as a brief continuation on this, of course playing at 360fps via FG feels amazing, like the real thing -input response aside-.

However, if you play games like say Battlefield 1 and use the machine gun of the tank, at higher framerates you are going to see more pellets and much more clearly. Say you shoot the gun at 60fps and you see 3 pellets. At 165fps you see like 6 or 7 pellets, and at 360 you see around 18.

That doesn't happen when FG is enabled. You will see 3 pellets instead of 18 like at base 60fps when using 60x6 FG.

 

[GhostofWar]

as a brief continuation on this, of course playing at 360fps via FG feels amazing, like the real thing -input response aside-.

However, if you play games like say Battlefield 1 and use the machine gun of the tank, at higher framerates you are going to see more pellets and much more clearly. Say you shoot the gun at 60fps and you see 3 pellets. At 165fps you see like 6 or 7 pellets, and at 360 you see around 18.

That doesn't happen when FG is enabled. You will see 3 pellets instead of 18 like at base 60fps when using 60x6 FG.

Interesting, most people only think about latency with higher fps but this scenario to me makes it sound like actually hitting something with that machine gun would be easier when you can see more bullets/tracers and you wont get that with FG. Now you have me wondering if this is why crazy good pilots in bf3/4 always seemed to be running low details at high framrates, if that scenario applies you would get a clearer view of your machine gun fire which would be a boon in air 2 air fights and even ground strafing a little bit.

 

[Cyan]

Interesting, most people only think about latency with higher fps but this scenario to me makes it sound like actually hitting something with that machine gun would be easier when you can see more bullets/tracers and you wont get that with FG. Now you have me wondering if this is why crazy good pilots in bf3/4 always seemed to be running low details at high framrates, if that scenario applies you would get a clearer view of your machine gun fire which would be a boon in air 2 air fights and even ground strafing a little bit.

when you test the tank's machine gun in the very first mission at 30fps, you see like a single projectile or two, also they are very very small, almost imperceptible. At 60fps there are like 3 projectiles but barely visible too.

From 180fps on, you start seeing like a stream of fire, a bit more like this. From then on I don't know, the max I can get without FG and with several compromises is 230-240fps.

Not exactly like that but to illustrate my point -this image came up searchinf for "call of duty firing machine gun".

That's something unique to Battlefield. With other games like Halo Reach I tested with the default weapon and there isn't a difference between 60fps and 200fps -the max I get-.

The animation is totally different in Halo Reach. When you fire in Halo Reach the animation looks more like the edge of the weapon's cannon in the image above, no trail of projectiles.

On a different note, now that I'm playing practically all my games, if not all of them, at 360fps, the feeling is really good and so on, but now the novelty wore off and what I notice is that at 60fps everything looks "jerky" and "jumpy" and blurred. It's like unacceptable but you know deep down it's an okay framerate to start playing a game with a minimal IQ.

The main advantage I find, great smoothness aside, is that in games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, in very intense action scenes, I'm surviving much better than I did.

Like when the flood happens in the very first stage of the game. I usually died there 'cos I couldn't see things clearly, and you have to turn left or right at critical moments and avoid obstacles, it was much easier this time.

In old games, it's fun to play at a stable very high framerate, you get the best of FG and the best of input response. Some of those games at max detail don't look bad and run so fine.

 

[Cyan]

this is what resolution scale actually does, explained by the creator of LS. That's why it doesn't affect the resolution of the game at all, but using less pixels as a reference some UI elements and other stuff might be more prone to have artifacts.

Image taken from this video.

On the motion clarity at quite high framerates, the difference in 3rd person camera games isn't that pronounced tbh.

In first person camera games it's night and day though.

A 1st person camera game at 360fps for instance looks quite crisp even if you rotate the camera, but once you get used to a high framerate, at 30fps you don't see anything, it becomes borderline unplayable, at 60fps you don't see a thing either, just big jumps between frames and a mess of pixels moving in between.

 

[Cyan]

EA Sports FC 24. Great game for FG, since the camera has little movement. Nice to play at really high framerates. Without FG on my PC I run it at 115fps maximum at most, no matter what I do, even running at 100p , due to the CPU -the 3700X is a mediocre CPU by today's standards-.

The nets moves soooo softly... There are some artifacts on certain angles on the net when the camera is very close to it during repetitions. A game where FG adds to the gameplay.

 

[JPT]

EA Sports FC 24. Great game for FG, since the camera has little movement.

That picture p*** me off, what is the left and right back doing there, they are messing up the offside trap? And if they are the attackers come on, that is clear offside.
And what about the guy in the middle, looks like he is finishing a 100m sprint and leaning forward for the finish line. That really breaks immersion for me

 

[GhostofWar]

There are some artifacts on certain angles

the players in the centre don't seem to have any ghosting but most do out further, is that FG artifacts or some messed up game effect?

 

[Cyan]

the players in the centre don't seem to have any ghosting but most do out further, is that FG artifacts or some messed up game effect?

tbh I don't know. The game looks okay. I guess it's simply that I was playing when I pressed Windows key + Backspace to get a screengrab with Snipping Tool. The app took like 2 or 3 seconds to load, so it might be that.

Since the last W11 update some apps like the Magnifier, Telegram and Snipping Tool take a while to load, especially the first time you launch them. Oddly enough, my W11 partition is well taken care of and W11 runs very fast. Dunno why that happens now, because general use is surprisingly snappy. (I disable all the background processes, that trick works like a charm).

While playing very close to the screen I don't see any ghosting.

I checked once again and it's a Snipping Tool thing, it takes a while to load and the game's image gets fully paused (though the game is still running) when it loads, and that's what happens with many small objects -players- moving.

Goy 2 screenshots one looked like it had applied motion blur to a static image, the whole image looked so smeared and with the other, the result was much better 'cos Snipping Tool loaded almost instantly but still not perfect -several players look a bit off-. This is the second one.

The spectators look bad no matter what though.

 

[Cyan]

That picture p*** me off, what is the left and right back doing there, they are messing up the offside trap? And if they are the attackers come on, that is clear offside.
And what about the guy in the middle, looks like he is finishing a 100m sprint and leaning forward for the finish line. That really breaks immersion for me

hahahah, more real than real life. Seriously though, the game is arcadey as hell. I loved PES6 for instance. Still, these games are totally unrealistic. I ended up winning 4-1 (the defense was a total joke, my players seemed to play like Real Madrid players, so were the opponent's players), it was the first match of the game with my favourite team, and the difficulty was adjusting. But these games are too unreal.

No CPU sliders are going to help with that. Using games I had I tried to play actual 45 minutes games each half like in the real sport as a kid, and even if they were more archaic they were as realistic as this game.

 

[GhostofWar]

This is the second one.

Yeh much better, couple of legs ghosting but i've had worse with native FG in some other things and used it so should be fine.

 

[Cyan]

Xcom 2, not a game where FG is going to shine the most, but it equally shines when it comes to uniformity.

I use FG in this game for one simple reason. There are no jerky locked frames due to sample & hold on monitors.

That is, if you have a 240Hz monitor, and the game runs at 60fps, the monitor will continue with its usual refresh rate but the image will remain fixed on the screen, showing the same frame 3 times.

That plays a bit with the brain.

I appreciate it even in simple games, it tires my eyes less not noticing a frame being held by the monitor.

When that happens is when you see the jumps between frames.

I can play Xcom 2 at 60fps without problems, or even 100~, 200~ dancing framerates -which I hate-, but playing it with fake frames at 360fps is good for my health.

It's a stable, uniform experience, which is what counts. No jumps between frames.

Yes, everything is super smooth, even the running animations, EVERYTHING, whatever. But in Xcom 2 it's not the biggest factor. It helps 'cos you don't worry about what you see on the screen, you don't notice stutter, nothing, and that's REALLY nice.

 

[Cyan]

what I noticed after playing many games. basically almost all the games I have, with FG on is that depending on the camera, a game can be borderline unplayable or just palatable.

Playing first person camera games at 45 or 60fps is almost unplayable. If you get used to it, it looks ok, but you aren't going to see much once you start moving forward or rotate the camera.

On 3rd person camera games 45fps or 60fps is palatable. There is a big difference between cameras. I know a guy who can't play first person camera games cos' he feels kinda ill, but can play 3rd person camera games.