Major frame-rate drops on Switch when docked...oh dear
The fact that it only has framedrops when docked shows that something definitely went wrong there, the only differences between portable and docked is the texture filtering, which is really light on hardware in general, and resolution. If their theories are correct (not a issue of rendering, but a issue of content streaming), it's possible that we're going to see a patch fixing that soon, unless there are more differences between docked and portable outside GPU clock speed.
Resolution makes a huge difference. If you play on low end hardware, lowering the resolution can give you the biggest fps boost.
This sounds like the frame-rate drop on docked has to do with the game's settings for docked mode. Hopefully, they can release a patch to fix it.
Or make it an option to have the game still run on 720p while docked.
[QUOTE=KnightRider25;51906823]Or make it an option to have the game still run on 720p while docked.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that already an option in the menus?
[QUOTE=kisaraji;51906299]the only differences between portable and docked is the texture filtering[/QUOTE]
er, no
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;51906828]Isn't that already an option in the menus?[/QUOTE]
It Probably still renders at 900p
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51906836]er, no[/QUOTE]
Care to enlighten me? DF tends to really search for small details, and they only spotted the texture filtering and the obvious resolution change. What else changed? And I'm talking about the software, I know about the clock speed being reduced for portable.
[QUOTE=kisaraji;51906857]Care to enlighten me? DF tends to really search for small details, and they only spotted the texture filtering and the obvious resolution change. What else changed? And I'm talking about the software, I know about the clock speed being reduced for portable.[/QUOTE]
If you look at the video you can see differences in LOD, shadow resolution, and atmospherics. They mentioned them as well. Look at 3:20
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51906930]If you look at the video you can see differences in LOD, shadow resolution, and atmospherics. They mentioned them as well. Look at 3:20[/QUOTE]
Did you listen what they were saying afterwards? The difference in atmospherics is due to the dynamic weather. The shadow quality is essentially the same the differences being, once again, due to dynamic weather and time of day, but they say, and I quote, "but I do notice there's a slight notice in filtering quality". After that, they even say that the reason distant things look slightly different is due to the change in resolution, that makes objects have crisper edges, and if you look at the the comparison you pointed out it's even more clear the same rocks and trees are present in the portable version, since the fog that was obstructing them in the docked version moved to the side.
[QUOTE=kisaraji;51907036]Did you listen what they were saying afterwards? The difference in atmospherics is due to the dynamic weather. The shadow quality is essentially the same the differences being, once again, due to dynamic weather and time of day, but they say, and I quote, "but I do notice there's a slight notice in filtering quality". After that, they even say that the reason distant things look slightly different is due to the change in resolution, that makes objects have crisper edges, and if you look at the the comparison you pointed out it's even more clear the same rocks and trees are present in the portable version, since the fog that was obstructing them in the docked version moved to the side.[/QUOTE]
Nah. They say the shadow quality is the same up close but you can tell the difference due to cascades. You can also see the difference at that 3:20 mark where some objects are dropped into a lower LOD sooner. You can see this when the silhouette of a non-landscape object changes too much for resolution to be the only contributor. Notice how at 3:21 vs 3:23 the spire loses mass, and some of the rocks change form.
On second glance I can't see too much difference between atmospherics quality but I'd be shocked if there wasn't. It does look to me like there is some subtle difference in shading here. Most notably that atmospheric fog appears slightly thicker.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51907116]Nah. They say the shadow quality is the same up close but you can tell the difference due to cascades. [/QUOTE]
I'm not sure were you're seeing that, none of the static views show any difference in shadow other than it being a bit more to the side, and the moving ones not only are on different times of day, but also the portable version is off-screen, so it's hard to see details like that.
[QUOTE]You can also see the difference at that 3:20 mark where some objects are dropped into a lower LOD sooner. You can see this when the silhouette of a non-landscape object changes too much for resolution to be the only contributor. Notice how at 3:21 vs 3:23 the spire loses mass, and some of the rocks change form.[/QUOTE]
I took [URL="http://i.imgur.com/ElVZcaN.jpg"]two[/URL] [URL="http://i.imgur.com/o0uRDe0.jpg"]screenshots[/URL] of the comparison, and other than the thing in the middle (that btw, doens't look like a rock, but a [URL="http://i.imgur.com/cBFmguF.png"]banner thingy[/URL] that flaps with the wind like the one to the left of Link) and some time passed, I see nothing that catches my eye. The areas that have more differences are the edges of objects, that almost seem to merge together due to the lack of pixels to represent the space between them (you can see that happening on the rock right of the structure on the middle).
[QUOTE]It does look to me like there is some subtle difference in shading here. Most notably that atmospheric fog appears slightly thicker.[/QUOTE]
Once again, you gotta remember that thickness can also be controled by the weather, and to me it looks like there's less fog in the portable screenshot.
If it's a flag, my bad. Still:
[img]http://i.picpar.com/pCoc.gif[/img]
These are quite clearly different LODs.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
This too
[img]http://i.picpar.com/qCoc.gif[/img]
So, this game doesn't have any anti-aliasing and it doesn't even seem to use high quality anisotropic filtering (4:25) ?
Man, if team Cemu manages to get the Wii U version working in their emulator, run it at 4K and force 8x or 16x anisotropic filtering, it would turn the Wii U version into a "definitive edition" of the game. Heck, it may even fix the unstable framerate with a powerful enough PC.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;51907482]So, this game doesn't have any anti-aliasing and it doesn't even seem to use high quality anisotropic filtering (4:25) ?
Man, if team Cemu manages to get the Wii U version working in their emulator, run it at 4K and force 8x or 16x anisotropic filtering, it would turn the Wii U version into a "definitive edition" of the game. Heck, it may even fix the unstable framerate with a powerful enough PC.[/QUOTE]
[URL="facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1553462&p=51850291&viewfull=1"]Why do you care about this game when horizon exists[/URL]
I think the game will get better as it's optimized with updates, but it's a disappointment. That's why I planned on waiting till potentially the holidays, once everything is polished.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51907624][URL="facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1553462&p=51850291&viewfull=1"]Why do you care about this game when horizon exists[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow, I guess I really hurt your feelings if you remember a random post from a total stranger from over a week ago. I apologize for that, but you should really take video game criticism more lightly.
As someone who studied computer science emulation simply fascinates me. What people manage to do by not knowing the internals of the system is just mind blowing. I also think it would be great if people would have this option to play the game, since it is obvious the game is held back by the hardware and can look a ton better with no updates needed by Nintendo. I'm no PS4 fanboy or a Nintendo hater, I play games and wish the best experience for both me and others.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51907342]If it's a flag, my bad. Still:
These are quite clearly different LODs.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
This too[/quote]
That just looks like JPEG artifacting ruining the image to me
I wonder why always Nintendo games have shit AF
Even most console games go for 4x AF
[QUOTE=subenji99;51908019]That just looks like JPEG artifacting ruining the image to me[/QUOTE]
Those aren't JPEGs, it's video compression. Also artifacts don't cause trees to produce random bends.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
My examples are pulled from the video itself not his screenshots
[QUOTE=AntonioR;51907827]Wow, I guess I really hurt your feelings if you remember a random post from a total stranger from over a week ago. I apologize for that, but you should really take video game criticism more lightly.
As someone who studied computer science emulation simply fascinates me. What people manage to do by not knowing the internals of the system is just mind blowing. I also think it would be great if people would have this option to play the game, since it is obvious the game is held back by the hardware and can look a ton better with no updates needed by Nintendo. I'm no PS4 fanboy or a Nintendo hater, I play games and wish the best experience for both me and others.[/QUOTE]
Hilariously stupid posts do tend to stand out, i.e. wicked player.
But nice backpedal there.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51908287]Hilariously stupid posts do tend to stand out, i.e. wicked player.
But nice backpedal there.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you doing, all he pointed out was how this game would easily benefit from running at a higher resolution on an emulator instead of 720p / 900p
[QUOTE=FpShepard;51908417]What the hell are you doing, all he pointed out was how this game would easily benefit from running at a higher resolution on an emulator instead of 720p / 900p[/QUOTE]
My post was a hyperlink for a reason. I suggest you read it.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51907342]If it's a flag, my bad. Still:
[img]http://i.picpar.com/pCoc.gif[/img]
These are quite clearly different LODs.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
This too
[img]http://i.picpar.com/qCoc.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
I feel like most of those jiggles are just a result of the resolution going down plus a lack of antialiasing getting in the way. I can't believe stuff that far away is using anything but the lowest in the first place
Perhaps.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
There's still a definite change in handling of shadow cascades, which makes sense alongside their lowering of AF.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51908068]Those aren't JPEGs, it's video compression. Also artifacts don't cause trees to produce random bends.
[editline]3rd March 2017[/editline]
My examples are pulled from the video itself not his screenshots[/QUOTE]
They outright state in the video that these comparisons are based on screenshots taken on the system as they have no way to capture from the switch in portable mode.
And have you seen how JPEG compression works?
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2aEzeMDHMA[/media]
If a warped bent pixel shape is JPEG's closest guess, then yes this absolutely will warp a tree trunk
[editline]e[/editline]
you can even clearly see the JPEG checkerboard dithering all over the place
Yeah I realized after that the source image is a [I]high quality[/I] JPEG. Still we'd see worse happening due to video compression.
So, then why do we not see equal warping anywhere else in the images? Why is docked mode not affected at points of contrast just as thin? There are so many problems with this theory. Dai is right in saying that at least the tree could appear warped due to rasterization. This is rational. JPEG does not cause degrees of change this significant in only one area without causing them in others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
