4 ms·

> They are not only simpler and faster, but look better too I disagree. It's not even close how much better DLSS looks than traditional upscaling. I've run int

> They are not only simpler and faster, but look better too I disagree. It's not even close how much better DLSS looks than traditional upscaling. I've run into very few noticeable artifacts from DLSS that are distracting, and this seems to be the general consensus among most consumers. > DLSS is something that needs to be supported by games themselves: why? It requires motion vectors and depth buffers in addition to the low res aliased images.

SirMaster 3y ago
I wish I shared the same sentiment as most consumers. DLSS looks poor to me and I have yet to actually keep it enabled.
Retric 3y ago
The issue is generally looking better isn’t enough. The goal is immersion and even relatively rare artifacts destroy that feeling so DLSS is simply worse than playing at a lower resolution that I’m going to get used to in a few minutes. This is the same reason 60FPS in modern games isn’t “enough” while it felt buttery smooth on old console fighting games. Consistent FPS is vastly more important than average FPS.
- tomnipotent 3y ago
  > The goal is immersion Here I was thinking the goal was entertainment. The reality is that we're dealing with trade-offs, and one of them is reducing resolution to improve FPS. If I can't play at native resolution with adequate FPS, the options are to reduce quality or resolution. I personally prefer to keep quality as high as possible, even if that means a lower resolution. If you reduce resolution, the first thing you'll notice is that the result looks blurry, or otherwise just less sharp thanks to whatever is doing the default upscaling. DLSS lets me reduce resolution while retaining a sharp image that looks like native resolution. That's a win-win if you don't enjoy 4k@30fps. > This is the same reason 60FPS in modern games isn’t “enough” There are hundreds of millions of console users that disagree. It's great to get a billion FPS, but the reality is that outside of a few people most gamers just don't notice the difference after a certain point.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > entertainment Entertainment doesn’t need to be responsive. I can watch a movie at 24 FPS and it’s fine hell most YouTube videos are fine at 360p. First person games however need to be immersive to be entertaining rather than annoying. > It’s great to get a billion FPS, but the reality is that outside of a few people most gamers just don’t notice the difference after a certain point. You’re talking about something different. I’m saying a monitor set to 60 FPS is fine as long as the game is rock solid at 60 FPS. However, frame rates vary so wildly a game can easily average 120 FPS and suddenly then drop 4 frames which people notice.
    - tomnipotent 3y ago
      > need to be immersive It's such a subjective evaluation. I was plenty immersed in Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, despite constantly falling through the floor. I was plenty immersed with Cyberpunk 2077, despite minor car accidents rocketing me to the moon. > frame rates vary so wildly a game Which is a problem that DLSS helps solve, by improving FPS while minimizing the sacrifice to quality. I'm not sure what's the problem? If a few wonky shadows or other minor graphical glitches ruin the immersion for you, it sounds like you've set the bar too high and have unrealistic expectations.
      - Retric 3y ago
        > it sounds like you've set the bar too high and have unrealistic expectations. I much prefer turning shadows off than have them do something crazy. Graphics don’t need to be awesome just consistent. Minecraft is in many ways worse than Daggerfall, but you quickly get used to the world. Skyrim is fine for a more realistic world even without mods, until a texture messes up and looks crazy. That’s the moment when you go from playing at game to looking at a screen. IMO Cyberpunk would be strictly better off with fewer effects and worst textures in exchange for fewer glitches. Voluntarily selecting more glitches please aka DLSS is just a terrible trade off from my perspective.

SirMaster 3y ago

I wish I shared the same sentiment as most consumers. DLSS looks poor to me and I have yet to actually keep it enabled.

Retric 3y ago

The issue is generally looking better isn’t enough. The goal is immersion and even relatively rare artifacts destroy that feeling so DLSS is simply worse than playing at a lower resolution that I’m going to get used to in a few minutes. This is the same reason 60FPS in modern games isn’t “enough” while it felt buttery smooth on old console fighting games. Consistent FPS is vastly more important than average FPS.

tomnipotent 3y ago
> The goal is immersion Here I was thinking the goal was entertainment. The reality is that we're dealing with trade-offs, and one of them is reducing resolution to improve FPS. If I can't play at native resolution with adequate FPS, the options are to reduce quality or resolution. I personally prefer to keep quality as high as possible, even if that means a lower resolution. If you reduce resolution, the first thing you'll notice is that the result looks blurry, or otherwise just less sharp thanks to whatever is doing the default upscaling. DLSS lets me reduce resolution while retaining a sharp image that looks like native resolution. That's a win-win if you don't enjoy 4k@30fps. > This is the same reason 60FPS in modern games isn’t “enough” There are hundreds of millions of console users that disagree. It's great to get a billion FPS, but the reality is that outside of a few people most gamers just don't notice the difference after a certain point.
- Retric 3y ago
  > entertainment Entertainment doesn’t need to be responsive. I can watch a movie at 24 FPS and it’s fine hell most YouTube videos are fine at 360p. First person games however need to be immersive to be entertaining rather than annoying. > It’s great to get a billion FPS, but the reality is that outside of a few people most gamers just don’t notice the difference after a certain point. You’re talking about something different. I’m saying a monitor set to 60 FPS is fine as long as the game is rock solid at 60 FPS. However, frame rates vary so wildly a game can easily average 120 FPS and suddenly then drop 4 frames which people notice.
  - tomnipotent 3y ago
    > need to be immersive It's such a subjective evaluation. I was plenty immersed in Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, despite constantly falling through the floor. I was plenty immersed with Cyberpunk 2077, despite minor car accidents rocketing me to the moon. > frame rates vary so wildly a game Which is a problem that DLSS helps solve, by improving FPS while minimizing the sacrifice to quality. I'm not sure what's the problem? If a few wonky shadows or other minor graphical glitches ruin the immersion for you, it sounds like you've set the bar too high and have unrealistic expectations.
    - Retric 3y ago
      > it sounds like you've set the bar too high and have unrealistic expectations. I much prefer turning shadows off than have them do something crazy. Graphics don’t need to be awesome just consistent. Minecraft is in many ways worse than Daggerfall, but you quickly get used to the world. Skyrim is fine for a more realistic world even without mods, until a texture messes up and looks crazy. That’s the moment when you go from playing at game to looking at a screen. IMO Cyberpunk would be strictly better off with fewer effects and worst textures in exchange for fewer glitches. Voluntarily selecting more glitches please aka DLSS is just a terrible trade off from my perspective.