***The Official Dying Light 2 thread***

[Nexus18]

Found the place last night by accident. It is near the main terminal. Tried out the different gamma settings and sure as **** it makes a HUGE difference.

I took two screenshots. On both settings are the exact same which is using DLSS Performance, so I could make it look better if I just turned off DLSS or went DLSS Quality, but wanted to just show what I am seeing. One is the gamma setting I use myself and the other is turning it way up to illustrate how it can have an impact on IQ.

Time of day and angle of picture I found makes a big difference to the image also. This was a quick screen grab I did not spend ages on. But now that I know the place I can take more shots another time if there is demand for it

Oh and I noticed Shanks has a different FOV also which would have a small impact on the way it looks.

What do you guys think, from what I can see my image quality looks better personally.

TNA the debunker!

So just up gamma and get RT quality folks

But in all seriousness, much improved, however, how does it look in other areas? As generally changing things like gamma, brightness, contrast can work great for "certain" scenes but look awful in other areas, it's why I don't like any redux/sweetfx presets now.



I got to the center last night and it is definitely rather different to the first area! This area is a lot more demanding than the first area too (cpu usage has gone up a fair bit too I think?), at least on my end and also a few frame spikes in this area compared to first, still very playable on the whole though. As you can tell, my paragliding skills aren't quite there yet

Combat is improving somewhat in terms of variety now that I have got more weapon mods, throwables, skills, different weapons although the bow I got is pitiful! Literally pointless using the standard arrows unless when upgraded they do a lot more damage.....

 

[gpuerrilla]

But not sure what that has to do with my post above? I am asking your thoughts on post 633

Those images highlight the first one is nice, the second is awful. lol

I was referring to:

Well I have played probably 15-20 hours and only come across a couple of bugs which were nothing to write home about. I got it for £25.99 anyway which is kind like a sale price

and some of these:

Gotta say this was a very mixed bag for me. At times this was a 2/10 game and in others an 8/10 game but never higher. Some ropey low res textures, animations are not great but at times it did look good. So many annoying bugs with the key bindings rendered it broken for left handers. The plot was terrible, truly terrible and none of the main factions were likeable. The combat became stale and boring because of the massive reliance on melee. The UI was convoluted mess and most of the skills were worthless and I had something like 3 unused skill points because nothing did anything remotely useful. By the end I was running past locked chests because they never contained anything of worth.

6 out of 10 for me. I do often wonder how people can score a game 10 out of 10 despite the fact they acknowledge it has bugs, a poor skill tree and horrible UI?

About 10 hours in and it's no better than dying light 1.

I am not long in and as yet not feeling the love and so far the first game seems better as far as gameplay is concerned.

Let's be honest, they both look bad. The devs put no effort into non RT. RT is nothing special in this game, it's just without it looks bad. I guess that's one way to try and promote the feature. The graphics in the game are just very ordinary, the textures are bad too, and no HDR.

Yes, it's no better than Dying Light one and perhaps even a little worse in some aspects.

Based on that, definitely a spec savers visit!

 

[LtMatt]

Like I said, its identical to the FC6 thread. People thought it was ok, samey, not as good as previous x version, graphics not much better than previous version.. I had one crash in the few weeks I played it and thought the game was good. I would have been happy to pay under £30 for it too, however got it free with my now almost full SSD, so just like your summation - reflects what I could not understand a minority were slating that game for. Weird behaviour nonetheless! #justmyOrfepinion

The conspiracy theories were wild in that FC6 thread initially.

FC6 may not be a 'great game' for some, but the graphics are superior to DL2. For a start it has proper 4K textures (if you meet the requirements that is ) and HDR support/RT support. The game is visually vibrant.

DL2 on the other hand is glum and dark for the most part. That's okay because of the setting, but its still a very bland, ordinary looking game by todays standards. HDR would have surely helped improve things, but it's not supported.

The main problem with DL2 is that despite the RT implementation being better/more demanding than FC6, the rest of the graphics are worse.

You can have a good looking game without RT, but not vice versa. For example, it's no good having great RT if the rest of the graphics are average, in my opinion at least. YMMV.

 

[TNA]

Those images highlight the first one is nice, the second is awful. lol

I was referring to:


and some of these:









Based on that, definitely a spec savers visit!

I get what you was referring to. But you still have not answered any of the questions in that post. Is that really the only thing you can say, one is good one is awful?

The conspiracy theories were wild in that FC6 thread initially.

FC6 may not be a 'great game', but the graphics are superior to DL2. For a start it has proper 4K textures (if you meet the requirements that is ) and HDR support/RT support. The game is visually vibrant.

DL2 on the other hand is glum and dark for the most part. That's okay because of the setting, but its still a very bland, ordinary looking good. HDR would have surely helped improve things, but it's not supported.

The main problem with DL2 is that despite the RT implementation being better/more demanding than FC6, the rest of the graphics are significantly worse.

Lol. So erm, what’s your thoughts on my post? Let’s get back on topic like, enough of FC6 in this thread.

 

[Nexus18]

Not to turn this into another FC 6 thread....

Don't disagree on textures, no doubt FC 6 is superior here and things like particle effects, explosions etc. all look better too but lighting, ao and shadows is a big part and DL 2 easily wins here (I would say in certain conditions, the characters models and overall look is better here). Obviously can't compare the 2 game world settings as completely different.... But I would say the overall design of the world is much better than FC 6, despite being a zombie apocalypse, it feels like it has more life to it and more dense i.e. it was lived in where as FC 6, my biggest complaint was how lifeless and empty it was, all the graphics in the world can't make up for that.

Suppose we have to remember that dying light 2 was originally intended to come out in 2020 iirc?

 

[LtMatt]

Lol. So erm, what’s your thoughts on my post? Let’s get back on topic like, enough of FC6 in this thread.

Sure. I think your image looks better than Pauls, without doubt. However, Shankly's image looks the best all around, and I think he was using FSR Quality, right @shankly1985 ? Native should look even better if that's the case.

 

[TNA]

Sure. I think your image looks better than Pauls, without doubt. However, Shankly's image looks the best all around.

Please break this down as to how you arrive at this conclusion

 

[LtMatt]

Please break this down as to how you arrive at this conclusion

Simple, I just compared the two images side by side. It's a good way of highlighting differences in quality, for example:

Shankly

TNA

 

[MoNkeE]

My days, imagine receiving constant notifications for this thread and this is what I have to read

 

[jonneymendoza]

Well I have played probably 15-20 hours and only come across a couple of bugs which were nothing to write home about. I got it for £25.99 anyway which is kind like a sale price

Ahh then why is reviewers etc all saying ts a buggy mess?

 

[LtMatt]

My days, imagine receiving constant notifications for this thread and this is what I have to read

Gluten for punishment if you’ve subscribed to the thread.

 

[TNA]

Sure. I think your image looks better than Pauls, without doubt. However, Shankly's image looks the best all around, and I think he was using FSR Quality, right @shankly1985 ? Native should look even better if that's the case.

I am using DLSS Performance, so I am sure mine would look better if did DLSS Quality or native too?

He is running at a higher resolution and imo mine still looks better and @Ayahuasca agrees also.

Simple, I just compared the two images side by side. It's a good way of highlighting differences in quality, for example:

Shankly

TNA

So you zoomed in? You crack me up. When it suits you you say no point zooming in and then when suits you again you zoom in… Even though I made it clear I am running DLSS Performance which is essentially 1080p.

Not only that, you clearly zoomed in a lot more on my image

My days, imagine receiving constant notifications for this thread and this is what I have to read

Well, at least I am attempting to talk about DL2

Ahh then why is reviewers etc all saying ts a buggy mess?

There has been multiple patches since then. Day 1 patch apparently fixed loads of bugs. I can only tell you my experience.

 

[LtMatt]

@TNA All I did was open the image full screen and use snip it to highlight a difference. You don't need to zoom in at all, just click the image and it becomes full screen and you will see a difference.

I did the exact same with Shankly's image too, it looks a little different due to FOV I guess and I used snip it, it's not a precise tool. You will see the differences yourself if you do what I did.

 

[bimbleuk]

Just made 1 change which has made a big difference to me. I was trying to avoid DLSS if poss with a 3080 and was using my old 34" UW 3440 x 1440 100Hz monitor. Was playable at 50-55 fps with DX12 Ultimate + RT but it was a bit juddery at times.

Swapped to my other monitor a 2560x1440 165Hz refresh and that was showing 55-60 fps but was basically smooth with Freesync working. Being VA it was a bit muddier than the IPS UW but seems to suit the game setting.

 

[shankly1985]

Found the place last night by accident. It is near the main terminal. Tried out the different gamma settings and sure as **** it makes a HUGE difference.

I took two screenshots. On both settings are the exact same which is using DLSS Performance, so I could make it look better if I just turned off DLSS or went DLSS Quality, but wanted to just show what I am seeing. One is the gamma setting I use myself and the other is turning it way up to illustrate how it can have an impact on IQ.

Time of day and angle of picture I found makes a big difference to the image also. This was a quick screen grab I did not spend ages on. But now that I know the place I can take more shots another time if there is demand for it

Oh and I noticed Shanks has a different FOV also which would have a small impact on the way it looks.

What do you guys think, from what I can see my image quality looks better personally.

Well done

Question is this without RT? The image with the correct gamma looks better than mine least on my Samsung galaxy s20 plus phone.
Will look again later at pc but you dark shadows look more as I would expect them to be least of the inside truck.

 

[TNA]

@TNA All I did was open the image full screen and use snip it to highlight a difference. You don't need to zoom in at all, just click the image and it becomes full screen and you will see a difference.

I did the exact same with Shankly's image too, it looks a little different due to FOV I guess and I used snip it, it's not a precise tool. You will see the differences yourself if you do what I did.

Maybe he can let me know his FOV and we can do a like for like comparison. Mine is already at a disadvantage due to being a lower resolution than his. That said, even as it is, if you look at textures mine look better. Look at the posters, you can read the text on mine much easier. Overall I am surprised you think his looks better, would have liked for you to describe how personally.

Well done

Question is this without RT? The image with the correct gamma looks better than mine least on my Samsung galaxy s20 plus phone.
Will look again later at pc but you dark shadows look more as I woukf

Thanks for your honesty fella. No that is with RTAO and RTAI enabled, but that as far as I understand only impacts the shadows cast in the truck.

What is your FOV?

 

[TNA]

@TNA All I did was open the image full screen and use snip it to highlight a difference. You don't need to zoom in at all, just click the image and it becomes full screen and you will see a difference.

I did the exact same with Shankly's image too, it looks a little different due to FOV I guess and I used snip it, it's not a precise tool. You will see the differences yourself if you do what I did.

Just had a look on my pc, you definitely zoomed in at least 2x on that image dude… At first I thought what you said did not seem right, then I went and had a look myself and no way is that a direct unaltered crop, just look at the resolution for starters

 

[LtMatt]

Maybe he can let me know his FOV and we can do a like for like comparison. Mine is already at a disadvantage due to being a lower resolution than his. That said, even as it is, if you look at textures mine look better. Look at the posters, you can read the text on mine much easier. Overall I am surprised you think his looks better, would have liked for you to describe how personally.

Just had a look on my pc, you definitely zoomed in at least 2x on that image dude… At first I thought what you said did not seem right, then I went and had a look myself and no way is that a direct unaltered snip, just look at the resolution for starters

All I did was click on your image to expand the image to its full size, save to desktop. Open paint, open snip it, new snip, capture the point i highlighted, saved, upload. Did the same for Shankly's too.

Just clicking on your image here and his top image here will highlight what I captured, without using snip it. If you use the small cropped version that's embedded on the forum, then sure the edges don't show.

It's not a big deal anyway, you just asked me for an example of why I preferred his so I immediately downloaded both images and compared them side by side. It just comes down to the edges, but yours is more crisp I agree. I'd just disable FSR and Shankly's will lose that FSR Q blurring that is present in this game.

I guess ultimately you'd want a combination of them both for the best image?

 

[TNA]

All I did was click on your image to expand the image to its full size, save to desktop. Open paint, open snip it, new snip, capture the point i highlighted, saved, upload. Did the same for Shankly's too.

Just clicking on your image here and his top image here will highlight what I captured, without using snip it. If you use the small cropped version that's embedded on the forum, then then sure the edges don't show.

It's not a big deal anyway, you just asked me for an example of why I preferred his so I immediately downloaded both images and compared them side by side. It just comes down to the edges, but yours is more crisp I agree. I'd just disable FSR and Shankly's will lose that FSR Q blurring that is present in this game.

I guess ultimately you'd want a combination of them both for the best image?

Thing is whatever you did it still ends up as 2x zoom minimum. Zoom is zoom dude. Does not matter how you arrive at it.

I asked you for a breakdown, you did not do that. There is more to IQ than that. There are things in my image that are better even when zoomed in, like the posters.

Let me ask you this. Without zooming in which is better? Please feel free to go into detail

 

[LtMatt]

Thing is whatever you did it still ends up as 2x zoom minimum. Zoom is zoom dude. Does not matter how you arrive at it.

I asked you for a breakdown, you did not do that. There is more to IQ than that. There are things in my image that are better even when zoomed in, like the posters.

Let me ask you this. Without zooming in which is better? Please feel free to go into detail

I think you are misunderstanding. All I am doing is looking at the original, full size images by clicking on them. Hopefully this will clarify.





If I had to judge on the embedded images, I can't really see significant differences other than brightness as the images are so small. Does that make sense?