Quantum Break [UWP]
- Thread starter Clukos
- Start date
Problem is a driver is not enough, a game has also to be optimised for each architecture.
I saw an interesting review test regarding Rise of the Tomb Raider where they tested it on two different game builds back in Feb and also late March where it had functionality built in around Direct3d 11.3 and VXAO-CR for NVIDIA.
Before March in their reviews NVIDIA was trailing at every tier, with the latest build the position had swapped.
Using this to show game development and releases can be very nuanced and unfortunately goes beyond just driver, although my goodness NVIDIA definitely do need a driver here to deal with stability and performance as much as they can.
Cheers
I saw an interesting review test regarding Rise of the Tomb Raider where they tested it on two different game builds back in Feb and also late March where it had functionality built in around Direct3d 11.3 and VXAO-CR for NVIDIA.
Before March in their reviews NVIDIA was trailing at every tier, with the latest build the position had swapped.
Using this to show game development and releases can be very nuanced and unfortunately goes beyond just driver, although my goodness NVIDIA definitely do need a driver here to deal with stability and performance as much as they can.
Cheers
VFX_Veteran
Regular
Despite the framerate drops, the game is still one of the best looking games to grace the home. Very surprised by this leap in quality.
Jawed
Legend
If you set the volumetric light resolution to the minimum do you get a performance hit?
I doubt it has anything to do with async compute. That feature's absence wouldn't account for such a massive drop in performance.
I'm running the same setting as X1, "medium" it only gets worse the higher you go.
This is really interesting because many are saying this so perceptually it works.
But perception aside is it really the best looking game; how many times have gamers railed against using lower res textures in a game, and that is the interesting point because the game even on PC uses temporal reconstruction to take native 720p rendered objects and make then 1080p/etc.
I feel a lot of the perceived quality improvement is how they have subtly blurred defining outlines, and of course very well done captured real-time rendering of actors and I thought clothes.
Anyway funny how now a game that in essence is using 720p objects-textures is now seen as one of the best looking games.
VFX not disagreeing with you as it is a perception thing and many agree with you, rather that technically is it really one of the best looking games due to its native resolution being upscaled (ok temperal reconstruction in the render engine),
Cheers
It's really good looking in motion but breaks too easily (lots of screen space effects) GI is calculated in screen space too (or at least parts of it). It definitely has a grainy look and texture quality and asset polycount are rather low by AAA standards but I think the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of visuals, now if we could only get it to run consistently that'd be great 
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
What went wrong with Quantum Break on PC?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Resolution is only one of very many things that comprise what makes a title graphically impressive. Native resolution is always welcomed, but if they can do more with a lower resolution and still make it look good, then it's not so bad.
On TV resolution is obviously far less important than on a computer monitor as the distance and pixels per arc minute (more pixels per arc minute for a TV at typical living room distances making it more difficult to perceive each individual pixel).
So on PC the lower resolution would be easier to spot in motion but it isn't much different than games using full screen motion blur when the camera moves. Either way you lose some definition during camera movements. For traditional full screen motion blur you must use valuable compute resources to attain that effect. Granted it's visually slightly different. But in either case you are losing definition.
When there is no motion like when you are focusing on something the reconstruction works to make things nice and sharp. It's a compromise that mostly works. More important on TV's where the lower resolution is going to be less noticeable, and what the game was targeted at.
They can then use that to bolster other effects which can have a far larger impact on the perceived IQ. Lighting still needs lots of work to become believable in such a way that you aren't constantly thinking about how it doesn't look real. Hence their focus on lighting. For most people it's the right choice, as it makes the whole far greater than if they focused on native resolution but sacrificed lighting and other effects.
Also to note that aliasing is one of the major sticking points for low resolution, but they addressed that by using 4xMSAA which greatly reduces the negative impact of a lower resolution (hell of any resolution). I'd take a very well AA'd lower resolution over a higher resolution with no AA or subpar AA any day of the week.
TL: DR - resolution is important, but it's only one part of the graphics IQ pie and not even the biggest part.
Regards,
SB
Also probably fair to say their temporal reconstruction as part of the engine does a very good job rather than just a standard upscale outside of the engine.
Maybe it is part of the future *shrug*
Although it does seem some from a perception aspect they really dislike this - talking about those that do not know about the 720p aspect and seems biggest issue is some kind of cognitive visual dissonance for them.
So this game I think is going to polarise views.
Cheers
Maybe it is part of the future *shrug*
Although it does seem some from a perception aspect they really dislike this - talking about those that do not know about the 720p aspect and seems biggest issue is some kind of cognitive visual dissonance for them.
So this game I think is going to polarise views.
Cheers
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't necessarily think this is the future. But it was a good compromise "now" for what they wanted to achieve on the limited hardware they had available. And it mostly works, but not completely and not for all people.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
Mate people were calling it the best looking game before it even released (and yes some of the prerendered movies do look good) but the actual game itself?
Well if this is the best a beast of a PC can do in 2016 at sub 50fps, its pretty sad
Yeah, there are aspects that really do not match some other games out today, along with my concerns about the 720p temporal reconstruction on objects-textures.
Which is why I am not sure if it is the best looking game to date but interesting how in terms of perception it has its followers feeling it is.
Cheers
It seems absolutely ludicrous that they don't allow native resolution on the PC. I'm half inclined to think it's a move deliberately influenced by Microsoft so as not to have the PC version stand out too much from the console version.
I think it is more to do with the work required on rebuilding the Northlight's rendering engine.
Look at Witcher III, early on they scrapped the original render engine developed on PC (the original was too much for consoles) because it was a nightmare to maintain two separate designs, so they went with the best one that could work on console and PC (unfortunately meant PC lost some of what was great with the original engine).
Sucks, and why maybe latest UE and similar engines are critical to PC gaming as they should be heavily optimised for PC as well as console.
Cheers
Similar threads
