• Quantum Break PC port might be bad... very bad...
    85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lamarr;50075728]He doesn't seem to realize the difference between our eyes perceiving actual moving objects and a series of images creating the illusion of movement.[/QUOTE] Yep lol imagine someone being like "they should turn off the motion blur for film" Motion blur should exist and be exactly reciprocal to the amount of time a frame takes, just like real cameras.
For your eyes to blur the images together you'd need insane framerates. Think 240+fps. Otherwise you'd perceive the frames and there'd be no blur.
[QUOTE=Humin;50076465]For your eyes to blur the images together you'd need insane framerates. Think 240+fps. Otherwise you'd perceive the frames and there'd be no blur.[/QUOTE] This is also not how motion blur works [editline]5th April 2016[/editline] or eyes [editline]5th April 2016[/editline] As if anyone really cares tho, framerate is not a thing for eyes and neither is motion blur. What matters is the entire visual system and its responses to a stupidly big dynamic range of light. We perceive certain things depending on what they are as well as the viewing conditions we're in at the time. Perception is constant. We can see a bright light that flashes for 1/5000 of a second. That doesn't mean we see at 5000 fps. Here's another example. An object is moving extremely slowly (lets say 1cm a second) across two 4k screens. One at 30fps and the other at 120fps. You would be completely unable to discern which one is the 30fps screen. Why? Cause there isn't enough change over time for you to tell the difference.
I expected the game wouldn't run well when they released those ridiculous system requirements
No, framerate has everything to do with it. In order for a monitor to make motion blur over a significantly big enough change in your vision, it first needs to exceed that frame perception threshold rate of ~240fps, which would be enough to create that ghosted image, but that's only for the ghosted image. The second part of motion blur is the trailing. Now, let's say a virtual object is moving across the screen, let's say the screen is 16k, 500hz, and it's an HMD. Exceeding both the pixel and framerate thresholds. The virtual object is moving so fast that it only takes up three of the 500 frames in one second, going from the left, to the middle, and finally to the right before leaving the view. You are also looking straight and focusing on the background. When the image is on the right or left it's in your periphery making it both ghosted and smudgy. When the object's in the middle it's also ghosted but not smudged which is a problem since you were focusing on the background and to also be focusing on an object an object which is suddenly in front of your face for only 2ms doesn't feel real, so you implement something does different kinds of blurring for how far away an object is. Ok, that problem is fixed, but now you've still got two problems. 1. The three ghosted images are too opaque. Each of those three images of the object show up for 2ms, far more than it would persist in that area if it was an object in the real world where framerates don't exist. 2. There are no trails between the three images! Your brain might even misinterpret it as three separate objects flashing across the screen or miss it entirely. There are two solutions to these: increase the framerate high enough so that there are so many separate images of the object that they blend into one continuous motion trail or introduce artificial motion blur. The former method requires framerates high enough to fill in enough gaps to create that trail. This isn't very viable as the faster an object is, the more frames you'd need until you'd reach a threshold where the object is moving so fast that you'd never see it in real life to begin with. This could require framerates in excess of 2000 which leads me to the latter option. Motion blur. Now, like many people here, I don't like motion blur as it is right now. It's is applying calculated blurring to a series of images that your brain can still perceive individually. When you go above the frame perception threshold you get the perception of motion but without the blur. When you introduce artificial motion blur you then get motion that should theoretically be indistinguishable from reality. Bright flashes of light are perceptible because of image persistence. When high energy photons hit a receptor, it ramps up to a high energy state quickly and sends signals to the brain. When the input stops, it slowly stops sending the signals of the bright light to the brain. Usually around 500ms to 1s. This is why you can see the light, because the aftereffects last for so long. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the last example other than pointing out the obvious, like yeah. If you keep increasing the speed you'd also have to increase the framerate and when you get to the point where there's perceptible trailing, you also hit the framerate perception threshold, after which you could just apply motion blur and you wouldn't have to increase the framerate to make its perceived motion indistinguishable from that of reality. TL;DR - Motion blur IMO will look great once monitors that go beyond the framerate perception threshold exist. Also framerates above that shouldn't need to exist, again IMO.
[QUOTE=Megalan;50075370]I'm not sure about that. So it costs 60-70$ and comes [B]without[/B] xbox one key. Wow, Microsoft, you need to learn so much about PC games market. Especially about the regional prices and why they are good for you and your customers.[/QUOTE] Game isn't even in the store for me, only the soundtrack is.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;50074333]Agree. Motion blur - my eyes already automatically blur stuff that is moving, what's the point ? Plus it can lower the framerate on low end PCs. DOF - the most basic example; you hide behind an object and want to sneak around, but the game blurs everything behind because it focuses on the object. It doesn't improve the game, it breaks it.[/QUOTE] At least with something like Doom 3's Sikkmod, you can control DOF to be specific to certain things. I generally have Bokeh DOF for when i'm right up close and in someone's face, never any other time.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;50074231]Pretty sure the port was super rushed because Microsoft was looking for a good exclusivity to promote Windows 10 and went to the dev team quite late. Well, that didn't work out so well.[/QUOTE] They should have just optimized the shit out of the PC port and went "Look at how well games can run on Windows 10!". Guess they wanted to shit out a port instead of making money in the long term.
[QUOTE=Humin;50077644]No, framerate has everything to do with it. In order for a monitor to make motion blur over a significantly big enough change in your vision, it first needs to exceed that frame perception threshold rate of ~240fps, which would be enough to create that ghosted image, but that's only for the ghosted image. The second part of motion blur is the trailing. Now, let's say a virtual object is moving across the screen, let's say the screen is 16k, 500hz, and it's an HMD. Exceeding both the pixel and framerate thresholds. The virtual object is moving so fast that it only takes up three of the 500 frames in one second, going from the left, to the middle, and finally to the right before leaving the view. You are also looking straight and focusing on the background. When the image is on the right or left it's in your periphery making it both ghosted and smudgy. When the object's in the middle it's also ghosted but not smudged which is a problem since you were focusing on the background and to also be focusing on an object an object which is suddenly in front of your face for only 2ms doesn't feel real, so you implement something does different kinds of blurring for how far away an object is. Ok, that problem is fixed, but now you've still got two problems. 1. The three ghosted images are too opaque. Each of those three images of the object show up for 2ms, far more than it would persist in that area if it was an object in the real world where framerates don't exist. 2. There are no trails between the three images! Your brain might even misinterpret it as three separate objects flashing across the screen or miss it entirely. There are two solutions to these: increase the framerate high enough so that there are so many separate images of the object that they blend into one continuous motion trail or introduce artificial motion blur. The former method requires framerates high enough to fill in enough gaps to create that trail. This isn't very viable as the faster an object is, the more frames you'd need until you'd reach a threshold where the object is moving so fast that you'd never see it in real life to begin with. This could require framerates in excess of 2000 which leads me to the latter option. Motion blur. Now, like many people here, I don't like motion blur as it is right now. It's is applying calculated blurring to a series of images that your brain can still perceive individually. When you go above the frame perception threshold you get the perception of motion but without the blur. When you introduce artificial motion blur you then get motion that should theoretically be indistinguishable from reality. Bright flashes of light are perceptible because of image persistence. When high energy photons hit a receptor, it ramps up to a high energy state quickly and sends signals to the brain. When the input stops, it slowly stops sending the signals of the bright light to the brain. Usually around 500ms to 1s. This is why you can see the light, because the aftereffects last for so long. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the last example other than pointing out the obvious, like yeah. If you keep increasing the speed you'd also have to increase the framerate and when you get to the point where there's perceptible trailing, you also hit the framerate perception threshold, after which you could just apply motion blur and you wouldn't have to increase the framerate to make its perceived motion indistinguishable from that of reality. TL;DR - Motion blur IMO will look great once monitors that go beyond the framerate perception threshold exist. Also framerates above that shouldn't need to exist, again IMO.[/QUOTE] where do you derive a number of 240fps? that number alone is wrong bc of the fact that human perception can distinguish individual things much faster, just like i described. Your "aftereffects" thing is not correct. unless you mean visual fatigue which isn't really related to perception, so it's a moot point. I'm talking about how contrast ratios are the important thing for us. individual flashes of light in a very dark room can be discerned much faster than you'd think, beyond what screens would reasonably get up to in the future. The answer to this problem that I hinted at is rendering like a path tracer does. It works exacly like a camera, which is what you want because cameras are a direct analogue to eyes. They converge an image over a given time from all the photons collected, so motion blur is directly tied to photon count on the detector and [I]exposure time[/I]. If a renderer is integrating its photons for each frame's time it will naturally follow this and produce the best possible picture at any framerate. No magic number needed. It works at any reasonable fps. Getting beyond the actual human perceptual threshold which you have to derive like i mentioned, in a dark room and testing contrast sensitivity, is not so feasible for monitors to do. Especially because they can't even output the dynamic range necessary to fully utilize our visual system. It's much more complex than you give it credit for. This is my point: doing a path traced just in time realtime render would make perceptible framerate tied to human contrast ratio, so then the main future is improving both of those qualities on the monitor end. But the realtime renderer is automatically going to produce a correct image no matter the frametime because it's a path tracer. Rendering is an integral. So the frametime needed to be perceived as smooth time for a human is completely dependent on the amount change in light over time and local and global contrast (implying a far wider dynamic range than is currently possible right now for worst case scenarios like i described). Your smudging is only a subset of the problem that the dynamic range just isn't there. Smudging primarily happens because you're looking at a tonemapped picture on a low dynamic range screen, not a framerate issue like you're saying. How to improve monitors to make better images is not my real concern though. My concern is how to produce correct images in realtime. There's not really an opinion or number to be had about it and there's a lot of research into this field since the 70s (im not overstating by saying i've read most of the major rendering literature up to the current day). It's just that what we could do (again think of the 1/5000 seconds example) is way beyond what the tech can do at this point. Taking an integral over photons hitting the camera detector over the time, AND displaying that result at its correct dynamic range will produce a correct image. That's how the math works out.
The issue with trying to make perfect motion blur with the bruteforce method that is high framerates is that the faster something moves, the higher you need to push the framerate to get it to an ideal sampling rate.
[QUOTE=helifreak;50077908]Game isn't even in the store for me, only the soundtrack is.[/QUOTE] you wouldn't have this problem if you weren't such a :weeb: [t]https://jii.moe/Eytp_2pAg.jpg[/t] Pricing in comparison to other games isn't anything out of the ordinary [t]https://jii.moe/NJ_mth6Ax.png[/t]
We're extremely close actually. A hybrid renderer can make that much easier and is probably what we'll see in production first. In fact I'd argue UE4 is already a hybrid raytraced renderer if you set it up right. In the future those sampling rates will be attainable for path traced scenes, with extremely optimized GPU raytracers being worked on right now. In fact it was one of the bigger topics at GDC this year. They have dedicated raytracing hardware in development too. The flip side of the problem is attaining the best samples possible. Nvidia has shown off methods this year of getting the equivalent of ~1024 samples in a single shader pass, so there's obvious room for improvement. You don't need to do an absolute bruteforce motion blur when you can have a better geometric understanding of scene geo and path traversal.
[QUOTE=Scratch.;50079276]you wouldn't have this problem if you weren't such a :weeb: [t]https://jii.moe/Eytp_2pAg.jpg[/t] Pricing in comparison to other games isn't anything out of the ordinary [t]https://jii.moe/NJ_mth6Ax.png[/t][/QUOTE] It's ok though because the soundtrack is ¥1337. Cortana is racist and only works if the country matches the language, what if someday I feel like waiting for Microsoft's servers to figure out what I said instead of typing a couple of letters.
the people complaining about the motion blur obviously haven't seen the ridiculous use of temporal coherence (reverse reprojection caching) in this game
I can't even buy the game, despite having windows 10. [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/2519b1ded419177659b3e7c80f5b56d5.png[/IMG] The link just sends me to a webpage that autodownloads a windows 10 downloader exe gg microsoft
So not much different from the xbone version? Didnt the game get like 6/10's across the board?
[QUOTE=dark soul;50083643]So not much different from the xbone version? Didnt the game get like 6/10's across the board?[/QUOTE] Nah, it's been well received. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;50082251]I can't even buy the game, despite having windows 10. [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/2519b1ded419177659b3e7c80f5b56d5.png[/IMG] The link just sends me to a webpage that autodownloads a windows 10 downloader exe gg microsoft[/QUOTE] I have this same problem with Killer Instinct. I am up to date completely, but still... [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] So, are there actual issues with this port? Since the original post no one has said anything about the port.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;50082251]I can't even buy the game, despite having windows 10. [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/2519b1ded419177659b3e7c80f5b56d5.png[/IMG] The link just sends me to a webpage that autodownloads a windows 10 downloader exe gg microsoft[/QUOTE] Did you update Windows to at least 1511? Show me your winver.exe output.
[QUOTE=Natrox;50086388]Did you update Windows to at least 1511? Show me your winver.exe output.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/4f291bd1631063d531709961317024cf.png[/IMG] [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] I see it now in my updates. Either way by now I may hold off judging from what people are saying
What are people saying?!?!
1511 is better than 10240 in every way.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50087167]What are people saying?!?![/QUOTE] I think the general consensus is that the PC port isn't that great. but there are also some people that say they have flawless performance on the port
[URL]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-what-went-wrong-with-quantum-break-pc[/URL] Here's a link to the Digital Foundry rundown on the port. Pretty much all the issues people were guessing at turned out to be true, and then some. What the fuck. Please update op with this link, everyone should see this from a confirmed technical perspective. Complete and utter garbage. EDIT: Thanks Megalan
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.