I would really love to see something like that in action.
I would really love to see something like that in action.
The difference in framerate is a lot smaller comparatively than the resolution, so the X is offering the best visual/performance ratio even if not as big as with other games... Whats's wrong with people wanting that?
I'm not too sure about that for a few reasons, to be honest. To quote what I've said in the past...
- The RE Engine seems to excel with scanning in real-life models for the characters. That likely won't be easy to do with a ton of characters (especially when you factor in DLC).
- As of now, only Division 1 has been using the RE Engine. While that could change in the near future, the guys at Division 2 seem currently content with Unreal Engine 4 & MT Framework.
If you value performance as a priority why did you go for the Pro version of RE2 Remake?Maybe people find performance more important than resolution? I don't even think you will even notice much difference in resolution with this fast action game. Do people only need to purchase the X version because of the "hallelujah true 4K" stuff? I don't know if i going to purchase this game but i will go also go Pro because i did the same with RE2: Remake.
I'm only ever going to play this game on PC, but once a game drops under 60 you generally lose the ability to discern a 5 frame gap. You just know you're not at a locked 60 anymore.Average frame-rate doesn't tell the whole picture. Pro is substantially smoother in gameplay if we look at percentile frame-rate stats.
A difference of 5 fps in both 5th Percentile Frame Rate (46 / 51) and 1st Percentile Frame Rate (44 / 49) should be noticeable during gameplay (respectively XBX / Pro). Also minimum framerate tells the same thing: XBX drops 5 fps lower than Pro.
It means that when the game drops, it drops much lower on XBX.
The difference in framerate is a lot smaller comparatively than the resolution, so the X is offering the best visual/performance ratio even if not as big as with other games... Whats's wrong with people wanting that?
Looks great to me, sorry that it's "utterly dreadful" to you. I'm usually pretty sensitive to post FX filters like chromatic aberration and sharpening but I can't see anything wrong on my TV.People bitching about the Pro versus X difference in resolution when it's using both FXAA and TAS on X and thus having a blurry image, haven't actually had the chance to ply them both side by side.
The issue with the RE engine is that it ovwrsharpwns your image, and as such some things sre VERY overblown. Imagine a black wire on a bright blue sky. Now imagine one screen has AA, and you see no hard edges, and one screen has a sharpening filter, and looks utterly terrible.
Now apply that to alpha tested surfaces (hair, foliage) and anything where brightness contrasts dark (specular highlights etc).
So, yes the X produces a slightly more blurry image, but the pro is so visually noisy that it's actually really difficult on the eyes to play. Imagine a 4k video running at 1080p, with no downsampling at all applied. That's the sort of visua noise you're dealing with.
So while pro users keep going on about their sharper image, it's avtually ruined, because in motion it's utterly dreadful.
People bitching about the Pro versus X difference in resolution when it's using both FXAA and TAS on X and thus having a blurry image, haven't actually had the chance to ply them both side by side.
The issue with the RE engine is that it ovwrsharpwns your image, and as such some things sre VERY overblown. Imagine a black wire on a bright blue sky. Now imagine one screen has AA, and you see no hard edges, and one screen has a sharpening filter, and looks utterly terrible.
Now apply that to alpha tested surfaces (hair, foliage) and anything where brightness contrasts dark (specular highlights etc).
So, yes the X produces a slightly more blurry image, but the pro is so visually noisy that it's actually really difficult on the eyes to play. Imagine a 4k video running at 1080p, with no downsampling at all applied. That's the sort of visua noise you're dealing with.
So while pro users keep going on about their sharper image, it's avtually ruined, because in motion it's utterly dreadful.
If you value performance as a priority why did you go for the Pro version of RE2 Remake?
You sound like you have your sharpening on your TV at 100. I haven't experienced any of that noise.
I have both my gaming monitor and OLED calibrated professionally, but thanks. The game uses a sharpening filter when no AA is deployed, so when you only use a lower quality AA, it has less of an effect on removing it.
I have both my gaming monitor and OLED calibrated professionally, but thanks. The game uses a sharpening filter when no AA is deployed, so when you only use a lower quality AA, it has less of an effect on removing it.
Calibrated professionally well damn excuse me. It must be amazing then.
Must be why the game looks utterly terrible to you because the PS4 Pro version is beneath your professional TV calibrations.
Ok mate. Ok. It's not like I work with gaming tech every day, I mean, it's not like I know what I'm looking for. As for my tv calibration, I didn't spend over ÂŁ3k on a tv just to have it set up by some settings on google. It cost barely anything to do, and it means the whole thing is set up correctly. Why wouldn't I, when development is my bread and butter?
Here I am, giving actual reasons to why the engine works in a certain way, but all you're doing is throwing out shade in the style of an 11 year old kid. Come on man. It's nothing personal. But seeing as I write glsl shaders/fragment/vertex programs in my sleep, you would think I would notice something as blatant as chromatic abberation coupled with over sharpen filter mixed in with a heavy use of vignette.
dude .. we get it .. you develop games.
Still doesn't change the fact that your earlier comments about RE games being "difficult to the eyes" and "utterly destroyed" on PS4 Pro are entirely hyperbolic.
Ok mate. Ok. It's not like I work with gaming tech every day, I mean, it's not like I know what I'm looking for. As for my tv calibration, I didn't spend over ÂŁ3k on a tv just to have it set up by some settings on google. It cost barely anything to do, and it means the whole thing is set up correctly. Why wouldn't I, when development is my bread and butter?
Here I am, giving actual reasons to why the engine works in a certain way, but all you're doing is throwing out shade in the style of an 11 year old kid. Come on man. It's nothing personal. But seeing as I write glsl shaders/fragment/vertex programs in my sleep, you would think I would notice something as blatant as chromatic abberation coupled with over sharpen filter mixed in with a heavy use of vignette.
Ok mate. Ok. It's not like I work with gaming tech every day, I mean, it's not like I know what I'm looking for. As for my tv calibration, I didn't spend over ÂŁ3k on a tv just to have it set up by some settings on google. It cost barely anything to do, and it means the whole thing is set up correctly. Why wouldn't I, when development is my bread and butter?
Here I am, giving actual reasons to why the engine works in a certain way, but all you're doing is throwing out shade in the style of an 11 year old kid. Come on man. It's nothing personal. But seeing as I write glsl shaders/fragment/vertex programs in my sleep, you would think I would notice something as blatant as chromatic abberation coupled with over sharpen filter mixed in with a heavy use of vignette.
That's absolutely false. IQ on the X is far from ideal and Pro version at least is not that soft. About the artifacts on the pro, CBR is not too far off to dithering artifact or similar but suddenly such issue has became fucking noisy ando dreadful because people physiologically knows is less pixels natively. But lets take RDR2 on the X: has far more dithering artifacts and low buffer effects caused to higher res but no one here would say the IQ it's better on Pro because seems it's cleaner. Seems more a mind attitude to me.People bitching about the Pro versus X difference in resolution when it's using both FXAA and TAS on X and thus having a blurry image, haven't actually had the chance to ply them both side by side.
The issue with the RE engine is that it ovwrsharpwns your image, and as such some things sre VERY overblown. Imagine a black wire on a bright blue sky. Now imagine one screen has AA, and you see no hard edges, and one screen has a sharpening filter, and looks utterly terrible.
Now apply that to alpha tested surfaces (hair, foliage) and anything where brightness contrasts dark (specular highlights etc).
So, yes the X produces a slightly more blurry image, but the pro is so visually noisy that it's actually really difficult on the eyes to play. Imagine a 4k video running at 1080p, with no downsampling at all applied. That's the sort of visua noise you're dealing with.
So while pro users keep going on about their sharper image, it's avtually ruined, because in motion it's utterly dreadful.
Actually when it comes to the hdr implementation of RDR2 and W3, one was released earlier than any HDR standard coming out, and this hdr authoring wasn't even a thing. It was early days. As for RDR2, I have no idea why t was the way it was, but when setup correctly, the HDR wasn't as bad as most people said it was, it was just different. I do feel however that the way they handled HDR in RDR2, more so the complete lack of communication on the problem, was awful.
I'm not saying I'm special. I am however saying that when you view these things with a technical eye, rather than a gamer with a 30" 1080p tv in his bedroom, you appreciate details on a different way.
I think RE Engine is the best Japanese Engine this generation. It keeps well balance between high resolution and high framerates.(Also visual performance is absolutely stunning.)
Take RDR2 on the X: has far more dithering artifact and low buffer effects cause higher res but no one here has the courage to say the IQ it's better on the Pro because is cleaner
I can understand that, I just feel you were a bit hyperbolic in your original post.
Maybe I was, and can admit to that. Maybe it was too strong a way of saying it. But to my eye, it totally destroys the visual side of things, like when you actually DO have your sharpness set to 100 lol.
Now, the Pro uses FXAA only(opposes to the X which uses FXAA+TAA, or just TAA, I can't tell for sure), however it uses such a low sample amount it's basicaly the same image as using none..
I absure you dithering is far more visible on the X than the Pro. And the blurriness of low buffer is more visible on the X. Now back to RE engine though you are a developer you even misunderstood FXAA to TAA because the X versions has just FXAA added to the final IQ compared the Pro. TAA is the same on both. But chats aside, I'm not sure how it's remotely preferable a blurred IQ at higher res to a sharper IQ because there are some noisy artifacts. Lot of graphic effects on console have similar problematic.The pro version of RDR2 from what I recall still uses a wonky resolution and as such renders rectangular pixels for upscaling. It can't have a better dithering effect than the X, simply because dithering is 1,0,1,0 by very definition and is basedly solely on resolution. The higher the resolution, the better the dithering.
The dithering is easier to see maybe because the pro version of RDR2 is blurred?I absure you dithering is far more visible on the X than the Pro. And the blurriness of low buffer is more visible on the X. Now back to RE engune though you are a developer you even misunderstood FXAA to TAA because the X versions has just FXAA added to the final IQ compared the Pro. TAA is the same on both.
Wow one mistake while detailing several others, where I got acronyms the wrong way around. I'll just get my coat, eh? See you all at the job centre folks.
Or probably their CBR combined with TAA minimise dithering. If I'm not wrong Pro hardware has more efficient algorithm to improve the TAA effect with the CBR uses.The dithering is easier to see maybe because the pro version of RDR2 is blurred?
You call the RE engine a dreadful show on Pro just for some artifacts and the X IQ preferable which is even more blurried at higher res. Like the fuck. Never seen a game more blurried on the X until RE engine and now find it preferable...Wow one mistake while detailing several others, where I got acronyms the wrong way around. I'll just get my coat, eh? See you all at the job centre folks.
There's nothing wrong with that either, but I never implied there wasBut what's wrong with people's choices about PS4 Pro over X1X?
Obviously you barely care to understand the true point of the conversation just for the sake of the console war.Well now's your chance dude, be courageous and tell us that the Pro version of RDR2 has better IQ than the X because I could seriously do with the chuckles
Movies I'm actually easier to please with. Except for Dolby vision on Star Trek Netflix. That can go eat a bag of dicks. I swear the noise on that is actual Lego pieces, it's so bad.
That's weird I assumed Dolby were authoring the Dolby Vision content themselves like IMAX do. Haven't really looked into it, but DV is supposed to be reference material.
Obviously you barely care to understand the true point of the conversation just for the sake of the console war.
Obviously you barely care to understand the true point of the conversation just for the sake of the console war.