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.
The picture in my head of that scenario playing out is funnier than it really should be.
Knowing Bug, Star Citizen.
What game is that.?
It also bring up another point, realistic lighting vs artistic. Sometimes the ray traced realistic lighting is going to look flat and boring, whereas the artistic raster implementation will look better. Especially for cinematic scenes in games it will still have a place.
Cool, I didn't know that.
If you could make it so you drag a slider over the combined images I'm sure it would be easier to see a difference.
i agree tbh. probably better psychologically, since users won't be seeing a solid lower resolution scale in their graphical menu (this is how console games work, people are happy as long as they don't know what's behind it. same for dlss, but at least it does some actual work besides lowering the res and applying a sharpen filter)
It's still a good feature to have. Having a resolution slider in all games is a good thing and something I've been waiting for - but it's not a competitor to DLSS in its current form, I'll still use DLSS in games where it's supported and use FSR only in games that don't have DLSS and if I need extra frames otherwise Native will be better than FSR.
AMD May expand its FSR libraries with new feature me more akin to DLSS if they put AI cores in RDNA3
but it's not a competitor to DLSS in its current form
Why? That's a really strange statement to make, like the rest of us you know absolutely nothing about it.
TBH, I haven't found any ray traced scene to look flat or boring so far, based purely on metro, control and cyberpunk. I think for games like BF/COD, it would add a lot given the graphics/artistic touch already aims for realistic graphics and BF 1 + 5 and COD are pretty damn good in terms of their textures, physics etc. already so it's mainly the lighting which holds it back from being just that extra step closer to almost photo realism. In days gone, the lighting is very good (better than most games) but you can tell it is very fake looking and just feels of, almost like a low budget film using a green screen behind the characters all the time.
It's still a good feature to have. Having a resolution and sharpening slider in all games is a good thing and something I've been waiting for - but it's not a competitor to DLSS in its current form, I'll still use DLSS in games where it's supported and use FSR only in games that don't have DLSS and if I need extra frames otherwise Native will be better than FSR.
AMD May expand its FSR libraries with new feature me more akin to DLSS if they put AI cores in RDNA3. I.e AMD may add Microsoft's MLSS into FSR at some point
Most of the entertainment industry is using fake lighting because realism is so boring.Referring more to over the top cinematic lighting that you likely wouldn’t see in real life but in some games it feels right in the environment. The artistic interpretation can look better than the realistic interpretation depending on the scene etc.
Doom Eternal can be the best game with
Most of the entertainment industry is using fake lighting because realism is so boring.
Yeah. They use a lot of artificial lighting in movies and TV for a reason. We want our games to look as crappy as the reality looks. OMG take a look how dark it is!Whereas in gaming we’re trying for more realism , depending on the game of course.
What game is that.?
Whereas in gaming we’re trying for more realism , depending on the game of course.
True.for battlefield and cod Ray tracing is a waste of time most people play on lower settings with nearly everything turned of
The most important things are frames and visual clarity