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

Fair enough. At least I didn't cheat and look at the FPS numbers first because that would have been a dead giveaway. :cry:

@TNA - I'll record the video and use Paint to do the snipping, I think that'll be the easiest way to show there's no zoom added by me.
 
TNA said:
Make sure you show the before and after pixel count. It will all soon make sense to you ;)
Click to expand...
Now you realise there has been no zoom applied, it's just a snip of one area to show the edges and difference between the two images.

The pixel count would change because I'm cutting out a specific section of both images to highlight the edges, so both images would see less total pixels as it's just a small fraction of the original image size.

Okay, maybe a video is not needed after all.
 
LtMatt said:
Now you realise there has been no zoom applied, it's just a snip of one area to show the edges and difference between the two images.

The pixel count would change because I'm cutting out a specific section of both images to highlight the edges, so both images would see less total pixels as it's just a small fraction of the original image size.

Okay, maybe a video is not needed after all.
Click to expand...
No, that does not make sense at all. Not sure how you got that from my reply? A video is needed, please proceed ;)
 
I don’t even know what you guys are debating here, y’all so off base and arguing over pride.

I’ll summarise for the inept:
  • We all know the RT looks better than non-RT.
  • Some may argue that Techland haven’t put ‘enough effort’ in to making the non-RT settings look good enough. Others don’t agree.
  • If you make your image look completely washed out by using rubbish gamma/brightness values, your game will (shockingly) look like ass.
  • RT cannot outshine (pun intended, maybe, possibly) poor texture quality.
  • A game with poor texture quality can still look good.
  • Looking good is subjective.
  • Some people have an inexplicable amount of time to debate subjective material.
  • Others have found there’s actually a game hidden behind the RayTracing Benchmark tool also known as Dying Light 2.
 
MoNkeE said:
I don’t even know what you guys are debating here, y’all so off base and arguing over pride.

I’ll summarise for the inept:
  • We all know the RT looks better than non-RT.
  • Some may argue that Techland haven’t put ‘enough effort’ in to making the non-RT settings look good enough. Others don’t agree.
  • If you make your image look completely washed out by using rubbish gamma/brightness values, your game will (shockingly) look like ass.
  • RT cannot outshine (pun intended, maybe, possibly) poor texture quality.
  • A game with poor texture quality can still look good.
  • Looking good is subjective.
  • Some people have an inexplicable amount of time to debate subjective material.
  • Others have found there’s actually a game hidden behind the RayTracing Benchmark tool also known as Dying Light 2.
Click to expand...
I think you summed it up appropriately.
 
MoNkeE said:
I don’t even know what you guys are debating here, y’all so off base and arguing over pride
Click to expand...

Agreed.

MoNkeE said:
  • Some people have an inexplicable amount of time to debate subjective material.
  • Others have found there’s actually a game hidden behind the RayTracing Benchmark tool also known as Dying Light 2.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
MoNkeE said:
I don’t even know what you guys are debating here, y’all so off base and arguing over pride.

I’ll summarise for the inept:
  • We all know the RT looks better than non-RT.
  • Some may argue that Techland haven’t put ‘enough effort’ in to making the non-RT settings look good enough. Others don’t agree.
  • If you make your image look completely washed out by using rubbish gamma/brightness values, your game will (shockingly) look like ass.
  • RT cannot outshine (pun intended, maybe, possibly) poor texture quality.
  • A game with poor texture quality can still look good.
  • Looking good is subjective.
  • Some people have an inexplicable amount of time to debate subjective material.
  • Others have found there’s actually a game hidden behind the RayTracing Benchmark tool also known as Dying Light 2.
Click to expand...
Nice summary :cry::D

mrk said:
Just don't zoom 2x :p

Zoom = Bad m'kay.
Click to expand...
Haha. I have no issue with it, my issue is one minute he says zooming is not cool, then he does it when it suits him to make a point, then denies he is doing when it is plain to see he is. Happy to drop this, but I will still wait for that magical video that he promised to make. Though I can see him making an excuse not to make it :p:D
 
TNA said:
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.



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? :)
Click to expand...

FOV is maxed
 
LtMatt said:
There is no added zoom, the only difference could be FOV difference between the two images, since I am snipping roughly the same area.

Nonetheless, here they are side by side.
Imgsli

Here's the two images that made the side by side above.

TNA
Nn75jbS.png

Shankly
MilFeIt.png

Do you want me to record a video to show I am just snipping the default image you provided?
Click to expand...

Textures do look shaper and more detailed on my image. But you all know I am a not fan of this zoomy zoom.
Also dare I say better AA less gagged edges.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Just don't zoom 2x :p
Zoom = Bad m'kay.
Click to expand...
TNA said:
Haha. I have no issue with it, my issue is one minute he says zooming is not cool, then he does it when it suits him to make a point, then denies he is doing when it is plain to see he is. Happy to drop this, but I will still wait for that magical video that he promised to make. Though I can see him making an excuse not to make it :p:D
Click to expand...
It's uploading now. I showed what I did to capture the images, then showed what it would look like with 300% zoom applied which is what you seem to be referring to.

shankly1985 said:
Textures do look shaper and more detailed on my image. But you all know I am a fan of this zoomy zoom.
Also dare I say better AA less gagged edges.
Click to expand...
Yep, no zoom was applied to those images, just a snippet taken from both native.
 
Do you not find max FOV makes it a bit too fisheye at the edges? For me on ultra wide FOV at 10 is just about right, anything more and the distortion at the edges is too distracting to be useful in game.

Also why are more people not on an ultra wide! The aspect ratio of a superior gaming experience is 21:9, not 16:9 :cool:
 
mrk said:
Do you not find max FOV makes it a bit too fisheye at the edges? For me on ultra wide FOV at 10 is just about right, anything more and the distortion at the edges is too distracting to be useful in game.

Also why are more people not on an ultra wide! The aspect ratio of a superior gaming experience is 21:9, not 16:9 :cool:
Click to expand...
No, I think it looks better as you can see more of the screen. I like a 120FOV, see more of the world. Looks great on a Big OLED TV 4K or a Ultra Wide.
 
shankly1985 said:
FOV is maxed
Click to expand...
Thanks Shankly. Will have a look at this later today.


shankly1985 said:
Textures do look shaper and more detailed on my image. But you all know I am a fan of this zoomy zoom.
Also dare I say better AA less gagged edges.
Click to expand...
Thing is you are running at a higher resolution so that is not exactly a surprise when you zoom in. When you look at the image properly without pixel peeping, as you say that is not the case.



LtMatt said:
It's uploading now. I showed what I did to capture the images, then showed what it would look like with 300% zoom applied which is what you seem to be referring to.


Yep, no zoom was applied to those images, just a snippet taken from both native.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to the video :)
 
mrk said:
Do you not find max FOV makes it a bit too fisheye at the edges? For me on ultra wide FOV at 10 is just about right, anything more and the distortion at the edges is too distracting to be useful in game.

Also why are more people not on an ultra wide! The aspect ratio of a superior gaming experience is 21:9, not 16:9 :cool:
Click to expand...
Not a fan of high FOV, you end up with fisheye. Also FOV for me can be different from game to game.
 
mrk said:
Do you not find max FOV makes it a bit too fisheye at the edges? For me on ultra wide FOV at 10 is just about right, anything more and the distortion at the edges is too distracting to be useful in game.

Also why are more people not on an ultra wide! The aspect ratio of a superior gaming experience is 21:9, not 16:9 :cool:
Click to expand...

I guess with me using 16:9 max FOV is a great experience. I don't however do this for all games.
 
Fair, I might play with FOV on 20 for an hour or so just to see in this game if there is something extra it adds for what I'm used to in most other games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom