Correct, it's not all gravy, the new transformer model has some issues that need to be worked out
Last edited:
-
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
Correct, it's not all gravy, the new transformer model has some issues that need to be worked out
I actually don't like the Hogwarts 'improvements'. The stability is good, and that's a plus, but everything looks overly sharp, overly glossy and like it's got more texture because more is 'better'. Makes me think of super saturated TVs because more colour equalled better picture.If performance is better then of course quality will be better than the old quality on CNN yeah
"Better than native" - Finally nobody can hate on that claim.
That's the true intent of the devs though, you can see it easily but it's just diminished due to the softness of the existing RT implementation which the devs never bothered to fix (among other things) - This example just highlights where DLSS4#s gains are most beneficial.
As someone who doesn't own/hasn't played hogwarts - does that mean if you turn off RT and upscaling the floor looks that rough and textured? Because the picture makes it look more uneven than the pavement outside our house 
if it's truly that rough then I'm stunned.
Don't get me wrong, the other images do look too smooth, but I'd expect reality to be closer to them tbh.
if it's truly that rough then I'm stunned. Don't get me wrong, the other images do look too smooth, but I'd expect reality to be closer to them tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,246
The DLAA testing should have been with DLSS4. It would have been (normally) better.If performance is better then of course quality will be better than the old quality on CNN yeah
"Better than native" - Finally nobody can hate on that claim.
Had chance to try this out yesterday on a slightly older game "Remnant 2" opened up the game and made sure fg was set to on, closed the game and opened up the nvidia app selected graphics tab and set the models preset to latest and booted the game back up im getting 121fps im most instances with ultra settings 4k on a 4080FE and i cant really see any difference in quality on screen looks great, i then changed super res to dlaa 100% and it dropped the fps to mid 80's but still a great uplift.
+1
And MSAA was ok as long as you didn’t have transparencies. I remember there used to be an additional MSAA for alpha but was very costly and had to run it maxed out to notice any difference. Plus, no idea if it would have worked on animated transparencies ( think **** used to be static back then, like no moving ‘grass’ or ‘fences’ or anything like that ).
Anyway, back to current times.
And in current times all the transparencies were replaced by lower resolution transparent textures with forced TAA for temporal accumulation which blurs the hell out of them - in effect you get often smeary mess instead of proper image (unrelated to upscaling or AA used in the game). I don't call that progress, it's they opposite. Some Devs are able to make such things good, most have no clue how to, it feels
Last edited:
Start IJ in the forest with transformer model, look at the foliage at the edges of the view (about 1cm thick area for me) and move forward, back, left and right. Come back and say that again.
For people who do not have that game: it's a garbled mess of artefacts. FG is off.
Last edited:
I've found a few cases of very buggy, garbled mess regression too. It seems global turning it on missing in Nvidia app might be missing because of that - Nvidia is likely aware it's not always better, so they do it case by case only.
Still garbling in IJ foliage in movement, though.
Start IJ in the forest with transformer model, look at the foliage at the edges of the view (about 1cm thick area for me) and move forward, back, left and right. Come back and say that again.
Seems fine to me??
I've tried to capture it on video, but there's nothing on it - I can see it very clearly on the screen, but I can't capture it with NVIDIA software. Interesting!
Edit: Actually, I think both on my vid and yours it's there just video compression butchered it so it's hard to see. Easiest way to do it is to look straight down, move over foliage - when you move forth then the top of the screen will show garbling with ghosting. When you move backwards, it will be on the bottom of the screen etc. It changes depending on how you move the camera. It's as if the algorithm was unable to stack frames and fill in the blanks properly on about 1cm line on the edge of the data freshly arriving to the frame and then catches up as it moves across the screen. Foliage makes it easiest to be seen. That said, this might be actually because new algo is better in preserving details and the fault is in the game's engine not DLSS - it's just easier to see it happen with profile J and K of Transformer, whereas older CNN was bluring it enough to not be visible. However, checking it both with CNN and TAA (DLSS off) and it's almost not there at all, but VERY visible with Transformer.
I've also noticed artefacts caused by PT, but that's unrelated to DLSS.
Edit 2:
I made a vid with my phone of it, as should be much easier to see than on direct capture - just waiting for YouTube to process to 4k and fingers crossed:
Last edited:
Well, I see it on the screen but on the av1 capture 100mb it's just not very visible there at all (I see it even on yours but if one didn't know what to look for, one wouldn't spot it easily). On my mobile video it's visible enough (still not as clear as in person but it's there). That said, I'm not sure how you can't see it in your game, it's there, even in your own video (just much less visible than in person). Maybe we just have eyes sensitive to different things.
Just btw, you could be capturing even 200Mb but YouTube will still kill quality with their own compression, so you can't call anything from YouTube a "raw footage".
Last edited:
Raw as in direct from the capture unedited/touched.
As for in person, like I said it was the same as shown in the video, as in no real issue at all, nowhere you'd mentioned it was a garbled mess of artefacts which is not accurate as it's nothing like that at all. I could record record the screen off-screen with blackmagic camera at 200Mbps and still show the same results after uploading the video to google drive but that's a whole lot of effort to show the same results as the youtube video does anyway which would have shown a garbled mess regardless of youtube's own compression if there was a garbled mess as youtube compression only makes existing artefacts look worse, not the other way round.
Edit* From your phone video you are moving the camera around really fast which goes far and beyond "normal" gameplay camera movement, deliberately doing this to highlight any potential motion artefacting is kind of unfair as that kind of use goes beyond what is considered normal gameplay. If we all just cherry picked things this way then yes even the most native of native renders will show artefacts or error, as no mode is ever perfect, it's all about the best balance, which this is.
As for in person, like I said it was the same as shown in the video, as in no real issue at all, nowhere you'd mentioned it was a garbled mess of artefacts which is not accurate as it's nothing like that at all. I could record record the screen off-screen with blackmagic camera at 200Mbps and still show the same results after uploading the video to google drive but that's a whole lot of effort to show the same results as the youtube video does anyway which would have shown a garbled mess regardless of youtube's own compression if there was a garbled mess as youtube compression only makes existing artefacts look worse, not the other way round.
Edit* From your phone video you are moving the camera around really fast which goes far and beyond "normal" gameplay camera movement, deliberately doing this to highlight any potential motion artefacting is kind of unfair as that kind of use goes beyond what is considered normal gameplay. If we all just cherry picked things this way then yes even the most native of native renders will show artefacts or error, as no mode is ever perfect, it's all about the best balance, which this is.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,246
If he's moving very fast, you stay very still
) it is amusing to me how every flaw is put to 11 for RT/PT/FGRR, while raster flaws are basically forgotten or forgiven. Or even older games are praised on how "good" they were / are.
Last edited:
Skyrim just got a free NVIDIA DLSS 3 Frame Generation Mod
Modder 'doodlum' has released a new mod for Skyrim Special Edition that adds support for NVIDIA DLSS 3 Frame Generation.
www.dsogaming.com