3 ms·

> higher resolutions that require lower native rendering resolutions, which thus run at higher frame rates. Nvidia and AMD needed two generations of their respe

> higher resolutions that require lower native rendering resolutions, which thus run at higher frame rates. Nvidia and AMD needed two generations of their respective technologies to accurately upscale lower pixel counts; in particular, fine details like particles are now mostly preserved by DLSS and FSR. Often, the final resolved image can look better than the picture produced by native resolution and treated with temporal anti-aliasing. Am I correct in understanding that DLSS fundamentally modifies the original rendered picture/game ? Do designers/artists compensate for that ? Do they still have a "final product" in mind ?

paulmd 4y ago
Original DLSS 1.0 worked by "hallucinating" a full-res image from a lower-res source image. This didn't work all that great and seems to be abandoned at this point. DLSS 2.x is a fundamentally different approach, it is standard TAA where the sample weights are set by a ML model based on previous frames and motion vectors. DLSS3 takes this further and actually does interpolation (or, extrapolation?) of additional frame(s) based on the previous "concrete" frame and the motion vectors for objects inside the game.
- ideamotor 4y ago
  I am shocked at how much motion blur is added by DLSS; I suppose by turning on AA. Is this something that will possibly be addressed?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  DLSS3 is an absolute game changer for games that are incredibly CPU-bound, like MS Flight Simulator.
mywittyname 4y ago
DLSS doesn't alter the results that much, but there is a noticeable "sharpness" to DLSS-upscaled content when you look at screenshots side-by-side with native res. That's probably what they are eluding to by claiming "the final resolved image can look better" with DLSS. I doubt artists thought about this with the current generation of games. The tech is so new that it was shoe horned into a lot of games, and it has evolved a lot in just a few hardware generations. Going forward, I'm certain artists will give it more consideration, since it is clear now that this is the future of gaming.
izacus 4y ago
Yes, using approaches like upscaling, checkerboard rendering and trickery to improve performance is normal since games exist. Artist always compensated to make games look and run better, even in NES era.

paulmd 4y ago

Original DLSS 1.0 worked by "hallucinating" a full-res image from a lower-res source image. This didn't work all that great and seems to be abandoned at this point. DLSS 2.x is a fundamentally different approach, it is standard TAA where the sample weights are set by a ML model based on previous frames and motion vectors. DLSS3 takes this further and actually does interpolation (or, extrapolation?) of additional frame(s) based on the previous "concrete" frame and the motion vectors for objects inside the game.

ideamotor 4y ago
I am shocked at how much motion blur is added by DLSS; I suppose by turning on AA. Is this something that will possibly be addressed?
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
DLSS3 is an absolute game changer for games that are incredibly CPU-bound, like MS Flight Simulator.

mywittyname 4y ago

DLSS doesn't alter the results that much, but there is a noticeable "sharpness" to DLSS-upscaled content when you look at screenshots side-by-side with native res. That's probably what they are eluding to by claiming "the final resolved image can look better" with DLSS. I doubt artists thought about this with the current generation of games. The tech is so new that it was shoe horned into a lot of games, and it has evolved a lot in just a few hardware generations. Going forward, I'm certain artists will give it more consideration, since it is clear now that this is the future of gaming.

izacus 4y ago

Yes, using approaches like upscaling, checkerboard rendering and trickery to improve performance is normal since games exist. Artist always compensated to make games look and run better, even in NES era.