I've heard that rumor but I have a hard time believing it considering they started engine development before then, and what they showed was running on an XSX equivalent PC, so whatever they made doesn't seem to be scaling well yet.
I don't think that's the case.
The XSX does not Support 3x3 - I know from direct sources. So I am not sure what to say.Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
Didn't they build Splispace for this game? This Unreal rumor doesn't make sense .
Yep, I went from initially understanding it to despising it.
I have no knowledge of this stuff but those images don't inspire much confidence. Infinite is looking real rough.Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
Do they have to build hype 1-2 years before release? Couldn't they hype it up 6 months before release? Or 3?
It seems like they don't have any sort of filtering on the VRS portions leading to a very obvious looking low resolution image.Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
Do you have links to better sources? I've been trying to follow this, but all the threads keep moving too fast for me to keep up with on my phone.
Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
There are a ton of games waiting for a cut from that.
The Xbox One. DF said as much.
I actually think DF was pretty lenient with the graphics criticism, bu then I guess Alex objective was to explain the lighting issues with great detail and he managed to achieve that.
The trailer was for the slipspace engine...? I mean that's some very blatant deception if the slipspace engine trailer was made in UE.
I just don't think there's any excuse for a game in dev for 5 years and 100s of millions of dollars on a new engine.
We arent going to look for vrs in compressed Video (compression makes false negative Identifikation), nor are we going to look for 3x3 Pixel modes that no PC gpu supports nor XSX supports. There is no 3x3 Pixel Mode like that post mention on any GPU out there, not a Single one.
Maybe his comment wasn't in the best light to be appreciated?
No PC GPU supports 3x3 Pixel modes either, so, yeah.
It could be anything as you cannot source the actual quality of pixels in shots or what happened between their Release. Consider Ing the subjective quality of shots MS released for this game, and that they have not even provided uncrompressed Video to the press, I am not comfortable with making VRS claims for anything. The quality is just not there to make a verifiable claim.
This is the worst comment I have read in this thread perhaps - if you honestly think this video is damage control, going easy, or excusing something than you are probably delusional. This is one of the most sobering aand hardcore technical Videos I have ever made that pretty much only said negative things. We have never produced a video like this where we look at a game Trailer and say all the things wrong with it. If you think that explaining why something looks flat and bad is damage control, then you have no idea how academic critque works.
I do have hope that the story, writing and characters will be infinitely better than 5. And the gameplay I agree looks like a blast. I just was expecting more of a revolution on a new engine. Like Halo physics in a next generation... idk.
Looks like slow level of detail the texture hasn't fully loaded in. As Alex said 3x3 isn't supported by Series X.Digital Foundry is not talking about an element that is quite obvious:
Many elements in the image are in low-res. These are not mipmap differences. We can clearly see that it's low-res in the screen space at the shader level.
It looks a lot like VRS 3x3.
This raises a lot of questions. Microsoft is the only one to speak intently of native 4K to market these games. They are the only ones to put this notion of "native" forward, whereas this notion no longer has any meaning as the image compositions are so complex and composite.
It would be pretty comical if Microsoft were overselling native 4K on these games when they heavily use VRS.
The VRS is the same approach as the dynamic resolution, one is temporal, the other is spatial, but it is the same objective in the end: to reduce the resolution to distribute the load (the VRS offering just more freedom).
Except that dynamic 4K is not used to inject 720p behind.
It would be absurd that a game that injects 720p everywhere in the image via the VRS could be labeled "native 4K" while a dynamic resolution game that goes down to 1440p cannot.
As long as you use VRS, the "native 4K" label shouldn't have its place (a label that doesn't make sense anyway).
Today, the most relevant is to see the overall quality of the result on the screen.
The question that remains is: is this really VRS 3x3 or some other technique? Or a mixture of several things?
Source : Quaz51 / Upsilandre
Your mistake was thinking Console warriors care about academic critique. But rest assured that it was very good work Alex. Don't let all the warring get to you, keep it up.
Are you implying the demo was faked? Or are you asking if those screens were fake?
Honest to god I don't know how you and your coworkers still have the patience to post here, sometimes. If you don't call a game "The best piece of art created in human history" or "The biggest atrocity ever created by human hands" then to some posters you're just shills trying to bring down or protect a company that poster doesn't like.
I thought it was a brilliant analysis and went into a lot of detail, so thank you kindly.
