Read more.Quote:
The JRPG will be one of the first titles to feature a choice between these technologies.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The JRPG will be one of the first titles to feature a choice between these technologies.
This may come down to using the wrong engine for DLSS up to now. Unreal is ahead on support for this IRC, so maybe his experience is more about unity than DLSS being difficult. We will have to wait to see what unreal people say about supporting both first IMHO, because at this point we have too many questions. Unreal was first, and I'd like to hear their devs opinions about difficulty vs. FSR. There are more devs on unreal with experience with DLSS, and if there are things that get easy after learning curves, that would be important to know.
https://www.engadget.com/unity-nvidia-dlss-support-game-engine-164535941.html#:~:text=Unity%20will%20add%20native%20NVIDIA%20DLSS%20support%20to,in%20games%20with% 20little%20work%20needed%20for%20developers.
Apr21, says adding it native with little work from devs, which kind of says this guy probably was using it half working, or more difficult to optimize still. Maybe his next project would be easier with better NATIVE support from day1. That article says available to DEVS by the END OF THE YEAR. So, I don't think you can take any info from a UNITY dev working with bad tools as legit DLSS info. The unity engine dev themselves says native wont' even be ready yet for months. Of course it is tough to work with crap tools that aren't native in the engine yet. The BF5 devs said it took a few weeks to optimize though they said they had much more they thought they could wring out over time (and they did get more with patches).
Unity devs shouldn't comment on DLSS until it's NATIVELY supported, which looks like Christmas or so. They say DLSS can be turned on with a few clicks at that point (unity said this). That sounds easy compared to what is described by the dev in this article today. I wasn't too impressed with 1.0. But I sure hope most of my future gaming has DLSS2.0 included. It's free perf that lets me hang on to my next card even longer.
This thing is not about FSR or DLSS... this is about setting the standards and going after that, as long as there is not standards we will keep on having these weird solutions for everything.
Enforce standards, so developers know what to go at... all these special features from whatever team is basically a waste of time.
A lot of developers are biased towards Team Red or Team Green - so it's nice hearing these comments from a smaller indie dev team that are likely free from the influence of the GPU vendors.
The comments about the development effort needed are telling - as the majority of studios now use third party engines, Unreal / Unity / ID Tech Engine / etc, rather than starting from scratch.
Looking forward to being able to run some comparisons on my own rig in the future - always good to see the results first-hand.
That's pretty much what AMD are angling at... offering something similar to NVidia's proprietary DLSS technology, but making it open enough to use on any vendor's GPU (so long as it has enough grunt). Similar to what they did with FreeSync vs NVidia's proprietary (and expensive) GSYNC technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuorTek
It was quite interesting seeing their comments on 1080p vs 4k about which tech they would rather be utilising at those resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by KultiVator
Hopefully, this will lead to more objective comparisons between the two because although both are wildly different in execution, they are both attempting to serve the same purpose which is to get more out of your system without drastically degrading quality.
Agreed and interesting times for sure. I like the results I get with DLSS at 4K... but sort of loath the NVidia closed approach to everything. So as you might expect, I'm rooting for AMD to disrupt this, despite having my feet in the green camp. Competition is good - especially when it brings about openness and maybe the inclusion of FSR as an integral part of Direct X eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Small means they've got to stay on side with both teams if they want support, so they were only really going to say nice things about both. I suspect the primary reason they are implementing both is someone worked out it was a great way to get some free publicity - becoming the fsr/dlss comparison game is a great way to get noticed without a huge marketing budget (see ashes of the singularity).Quote:
Originally Posted by KultiVator
Well I did test FSR on my GTX1080,and does work OK. Got a 20% to 30% uplift which wasn't too bad. Might see how TAAU does too.Quote:
Originally Posted by KultiVator
If I've read this correctly (every chance I haven't!), you get better results on lower res with the high end RTX products that the nVidia have locked their tech to.
But better results at 4K with the AMD solution that is available across a broad range of GPUs including the nVidia's older / lower end products.
Am I confused or is this ironic? :-)
Lego Builder's Journey is a Unity game and support DLSS natively.Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodyspecial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtbqJXb1UDw
The developer very carefully avoids being clear - preferring to use something is not the same thing as saying it has better results.Quote:
Originally Posted by scunc
Let's wait for independent reviewers to have a look - I would expect DLSS to give far better quality results - but it comes with massive caveats about needing a fair bit of developer work and vendor specific hardware.
As DLSS can add more detail, I can see it performing better with lower render resolutions. There's a limit to detail the human eye can perceive (and detail in typical game textures and render distances - likely optimised for 4k on modern games, rather than the 16k DLSS learns from IIRC), so it wouldn't surprise me if adding more detail was less useful once you're rendering a larger fraction of 4kQuote:
Originally Posted by kalniel