Soldato
Will be interesting seeing the performance with PureDarks DLSS2+3 mod.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
DLSS Momentum Continues: 50 Released and Upcoming DLSS 3 Games, Over 250 DLSS Games and Creative Apps Available Now
- Thread starter Nexus18
- Start date
Will be interesting seeing the performance with PureDarks DLSS2+3 mod.
Indeed. I look forward to that. Will use FSR in the meantime to see what that is like.
Soldato
With no atmospheric flight, Both landing and take off being handled with cutscenes and planets being split up into 4+ different sectors so you run into invisible walls, Really took my excitement away from the game.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,097
To be expected based on their "deep dive". Ocean wide, ankle deep.
Soldato
No mans sky does it better with planet exploration. Starfield could have been so much more but devs never bothered. Fallout 4 in space.
Soldato
Using a modified 10+ year old engine doesn't help either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,097
They should have used NMS engine. Results would have been a lot better! And it does DLSS!
)
Last edited:
They already said that would be the case though. At least a month or two ago.
They should have used NMS engine. Results would have been a lot better! And it does DLSS!
Would have been a very different game imo. This is more a fallout/Skyrim with space tacked on rather than the other way around.
I never played NMS as that is not my kind of thing. I hate crappy procedural generated stuff which is what that game is imo. Same with Elite Dangerous, almost infinite planets, but who cares when nothing to do on them. At least there was not when I was playing it when it came out.
I guess we all have different expectations
Purely from a technical/engine perspective Star Citizen seems to me indeed much more impressive than Starfield in what it accomplishes (no loading, completely free roaming, planetary tech, etc.)
Being a backer of Star Citizen from the very beginning I however perfectly understand why Bethesda made those design choice. They accepted to make compromises to be able to move faster and focus on other parts of the game while CIG (Star Citizen developing studio) made none of these compromises but as a result are struggling to deliver a game which has already been in development for 10 years.
Still very much hoping they will eventually be able to pull it off but in the meantime I'm glad I'll have a game like Starfield to enjoy
Being a backer of Star Citizen from the very beginning I however perfectly understand why Bethesda made those design choice. They accepted to make compromises to be able to move faster and focus on other parts of the game while CIG (Star Citizen developing studio) made none of these compromises but as a result are struggling to deliver a game which has already been in development for 10 years.
Still very much hoping they will eventually be able to pull it off but in the meantime I'm glad I'll have a game like Starfield to enjoy
Purely from a technical/engine perspective Star Citizen seems to me indeed much more impressive than Starfield in what it accomplishes (no loading, completely free roaming, planetary tech, etc.)
Being a backer of Star Citizen from the very beginning I however perfectly understand why Bethesda made those design choice. They accepted to make compromises to be able to move faster and focus on other parts of the game while CIG (Star Citizen developing studio) made none of these compromises but as a result are struggling to deliver a game which has already been in development for 10 years.
Still very much hoping they will eventually be able to pull it off but in the meantime I'm glad I'll have a game like Starfield to enjoy
The thing is. When it comes out, will SQ42 be as strong RPG as Starfield? I mean i would love it to, but I get the feeling these games will have different strengths.
Caporegime
I told some of you here, obsessing about the GPU side it will be heavy on the CPU. This is why the consoles are probably capped to 30FPS.
I am primarily CPU limited at QHD in settlements with a lowly RTX3060TI in modded Fallout 4.
I think people should worry more about that then what upscaler it uses. It's kind of telling many don't seem to realise how CPU heavy Creation Engine can be. You saw that in the Fallout 4 benchmark thread. It makes me wonder how well threaded the Papyrus scripting is.
If people don't know what Papyrus scripting is, it's the coding behind NPC AI, gaming mechanics, etc.
Last edited:
I don't understand the obsession with the Ultimate module. Sure it offers a lower range but as someone who has tested that back when I had a screaming fast TN panel with ultimate module in it(and an nvidia gpu), its a freaking slide show due to the sample and hold nature of modern monitors. I actually prefer going the other way and limit the lower range(and LFC kick in) and while input lag will increase slightly at least my eyeballs wont get cancer from playing a power point presentation. My current monitor has a lower limit of 48 that I've increased to 71 and due to that I can actually tolerate lower framerates(again due to LFC) should I be so unlucky and see any. I guess it's very dependent on the person doing the watching and my eyeballs may just be overly sensitive to certain things.
Back in the day, the hardware module was a huge advantage not just from a range pov (agree you don't really want to be dropping below 50 fps at most regardless of free/g sync anyway) but most importantly, having variable pixel overdrive/response i.e. essentially motion clarity for when your fps is fluctuating. TFTcentral (arguably one of the best monitor reviewers) did a good article explaining the pros and cons:
Variable Refresh Rates - G-sync and FreeSync - TFTCentral
A detailed look at variable refresh rates (VRR) including NVIDIA G-sync, AMD FreeSync and all the various versions and certifications that exist
tftcentral.co.uk
There is a lot more to it than just the range differences.
I would argue that for LCD screens, the gsync module holds more pros and less for oled since oleds pixel response is instantaneous, however, PCM2 has stated even here, the gsync module has it's advantages:
I remember PCM2 as I had a discussion with him about it a long time ago on this very topic where we certainly didn't agree (I got nothing against him and have used his site plenty of times on other matters). Variable pixel overdrive, as you call it, is also possible through the use of adaptiv sync/freesync. Problem here is not the tech itself but how the companies decide to implement it, or incase of adaptive sync, not implement it most of the time. Though the amount of adaptive sync displays that also make use of variable overdrive is increasing. I just don't see the value of the Gsync Ultimate module, even considering variable overdrive. From what I've read and experienced it's only a feature that really comes into its own under a certain hertz and by then, in my case atleast, LFC has long kicked in. I guess its preference thing in the end.Back in the day, the hardware module was a huge advantage not just from a range pov (agree you don't really want to be dropping below 50 fps at most regardless of free/g sync anyway) but most importantly, having variable pixel overdrive/response i.e. essentially motion clarity for when your fps is fluctuating. TFTcentral (arguably one of the best monitor reviewers) did a good article explaining the pros and cons:
Variable Refresh Rates - G-sync and FreeSync - TFTCentral
A detailed look at variable refresh rates (VRR) including NVIDIA G-sync, AMD FreeSync and all the various versions and certifications that exist
There is a lot more to it than just the range differences.
I would argue that for LCD screens, the gsync module holds more pros and less for oled since oleds pixel response is instantaneous, however, PCM2 has stated even here, the gsync module has it's advantages:
Are you sure you're not confusing these 2 things:
- variable refresh rate i.e. the range at which g/free sync operates in e.g. sync happens between 30-144 hz/fps
- variable overdrive with regards to pixel response time depending what your fps is at i.e. "NVIDIA also talk about how their G-sync technology allows for “variable overdrive” where the overdrive is apparently tuned across the entire refresh rate range for optimal performance." so for example on a freesync monitor a pixel response overdrive setting of +1 will only look good with fps of over 100 but if you drop to say 50 fps, that +1 setting will exhibit inverse ghosting because the pixel response setting is set to high and you would need to drop this to 0 or -1 to eliminate the inverse ghosting
My last iiyama freesync premium screen was a perfect example of where gsync module would have been perfect as when fps where over 100 fps and with a setting of + 2, motion looked nice and clear but as soon as fps went to sub 80 fps, noticeable inverse ghosting started thus had to drop the setting to 0.
Either way, there is more to gsync ultimate module than just that, essentially it's not quite the "freesync does exactly what gsync ultimate does" that some would have you believe, I would say the more important advantage with having gsync ultimate is better QC/certification i.e. amds lack of qc allows monitor manufacturers to ship lesser monitors out with things like worse HDR performance.
Soldato
And that's when my excitement for this game vanished.
Back in the day, the hardware module was a huge advantage not just from a range pov (agree you don't really want to be dropping below 50 fps at most regardless of free/g sync anyway) but most importantly, having variable pixel overdrive/response i.e. essentially motion clarity for when your fps is fluctuating. TFTcentral (arguably one of the best monitor reviewers) did a good article explaining the pros and cons:
Variable Refresh Rates - G-sync and FreeSync - TFTCentral
A detailed look at variable refresh rates (VRR) including NVIDIA G-sync, AMD FreeSync and all the various versions and certifications that exist
There is a lot more to it than just the range differences.
I would argue that for LCD screens, the gsync module holds more pros and less for oled since oleds pixel response is instantaneous, however, PCM2 has stated even here, the gsync module has it's advantages:
A shame the DW is now end of line with only the DWF in production.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,097
Would have been a very different game imo. This is more a fallout/Skyrim with space tacked on rather than the other way around.
I never played NMS as that is not my kind of thing. I hate crappy procedural generated stuff which is what that game is imo. Same with Elite Dangerous, almost infinite planets, but who cares when nothing to do on them. At least there was not when I was playing it when it came out.
I guess we all have different expectations
It would have allowed to improve upon the exploration part which Starfield seems to suffer on, space and planet ship combat, build underground bases and such, have vehicles, etc. All in all, get a better feeling of freedom, of exploring.
Purely from a technical/engine perspective Star Citizen seems to me indeed much more impressive than Starfield in what it accomplishes (no loading, completely free roaming, planetary tech, etc.)
Being a backer of Star Citizen from the very beginning I however perfectly understand why Bethesda made those design choice. They accepted to make compromises to be able to move faster and focus on other parts of the game while CIG (Star Citizen developing studio) made none of these compromises but as a result are struggling to deliver a game which has already been in development for 10 years.
Still very much hoping they will eventually be able to pull it off but in the meantime I'm glad I'll have a game like Starfield to enjoy
If they'd pull a Bethesda/NMS thing, giving their planet gen tools, you could have plenty of systems done pretty quick with a mix of procedural generation and hand made stuff. They're picky, that's why it takes a lot longer. And, most likely, managed poorly, spending too much time with SC instead of releasing SQ42 already...
IF they can actually launch it in the state they'll want to, it will be better - minus the RPG elements, of course. For instance, there's a big difference in how much details goes into level building and stealth mechanic in SC/SQ42 compared to SF - where they've showed practically nothing in that deep dive - 'cause there isn't much to show that hasn't been done already in their games.