No I didn't but this is not a requirement for participating in tech threads.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: F1 2015 Preliminary Performance Analysis
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
No I didn't but this is not a requirement for participating in tech threads.
Change that to 900p is sharp enough for me. Again, taking about if objective data interfers with what one notices or cares about or feels or ignores or whatever is not really a good point to argue like at all.
Terbinator
Member
Oh god, hahah, my eyes.
Correct me about what exactly? The fact that i'm playing the PS4 version which is stable enough for me? Or am i not infact enjoying and someone is about to tell me otherwise?
Dat persecution.
I understand what your saying sure. Yes it's not a rock solid unwavering 60fps. But it's also by no means bad which you said in your innitial comment. Which is partly why i asked if you'd played it. But anyway.....
Any idea what i'm been corrected about? Or is this some console warrior bull twoddle?
It is totally ok to say you don't feel it or see it or whatever but that doesn't mean it is locked or people don't care.
It would be interesting to talk about if they were using a new technique that somehow tries to compensate a few frames because not being locked but this doesn't apply here.
If dropped frames are bad to you in general or just in that game or any other game is subjective. That the game drops frames is a fact.
Do I think a racing game should not drop any frames? Yes
It is totally ok to say you don't feel it or see it or whatever but that doesn't mean it is locked or people don't care.
It would be interesting to talk about if they were using a new technique that somehow tries to compensate a few frames because not being locked but this doesn't apply here.
If dropped frames are bad to you in general or just in that game or any other game is subjective. That the game drops frames is a fact.
Do I think a racing game should not drop any frames? Yes
Oh i see it, don't get me wrong, same as i see differing screen resolutions. The drops and tearing are in my "i can still play that no problem" threshold 8). It would be nice to get 60fps locked racers that don't sacrafice to many graphical effects etc etc but ......I'm happy enough with what Codies have done here at least. 8)
That's about equal to telling a calm person to calm down. When are you guys going to learn, lol.
FranXico
Member
That's not a quote from the article. I phrased it like that. Both have the same vertical resolution, but one is native 1080p, while the other is not.
Still waiting for my answer.............
Never mind, PM'ed.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Biggest difference (in the stills) seems to be lighting/shadows. Did the sun explode on the Xbone version?
Because you're a bastion of console objectivity.
Pot, meet kettle.
Because you're a bastion of console objectivity.
Pot, meet kettle.
Insane Metal
Member
Goddamn at the tearing, it's basically there 90% of the time on the XBone and 70% on the PS4. This sucks big time.
Sort of, at least some of c0des and ettas posts. Basically it's the fact that you disagreed with the "not a stable framerate" comment. You clearly were saying that the fluctuations were not an issue for you but c0de is saying that not being an issue for you doesn't make a framerate stable. He's right but it's essentially semantics about your opinion of what is acceptable or unacceptable or considered stable.
The reason why you've got silly questions like this
being directed at you by c0de even though you've never played the XB1 version of this game that has the lower framerate and made no comment on it, instead of the more pertinent question:
is probably console warrior bull twoddle. It's essentially c0de and etta trying to drag console warrior bull like that and resolution debates in here in a bid to ridicule those who may find the lower XB1 framerates or resolution as noticeable, and to say that the XB1 is being unfairly treated by some unnamed group of people even though you've said you notice slowdown/dropped frames and tearing.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Because they release the preliminary analysis. Wait for GAF to spot all the stuff they missed and add it in the final version. Simples.
So when one says "Meh, the drops on the PS4 version don't affect me" is perfectly fine, but when another says "Meh, the drops on the Xbox One version don't affect me" is not fine and they should take their opinion out of tech thread? Why the inconsistency?
Heh. I do think the AO missing is weird, though.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
It really depends on where the tear is. If it is confined to the top or bottom where most people are not looking, it won't be distracting.
It's also only on the screen for 16ms in a 60fps game, so its easier to miss and less stuff will move in that time windows (which is why you notice tearing).
The softness of the image helps quite a bit in sort of masking it....hard to fully describe, you'd need to see it firsthand. PS4 version.
Torn frames are there, but you only notice it when the camera has some larger lateral movement. For instance in hairpins. It's definitely a negative, but it is not apparent all the time.
Yea, camera motion blur masks tear too. Thank DICE that BF4 has a truckload of motion blur available, I would need to V-Sync it otherwise.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I'm really sensitive to screen tearing, so it's a major no-no for me.
I personally don't have a problem with either but Putty never said they don't affect him. he even specifically said that's not what he's saying here.
He disagreed with this: "better hardware has more frames but also can't reach a stable framerate."
Which I infer as him saying the higher framerates on the PS4 are stable/acceptable. You would have to be arguing about what is a stable framerate not the importance of framerate. Nobody argued with anyone who said "I think 1080p is fine" though they are perfectly entitled to disagree with them. They argued with those who said people are exaggerating and shouldn't notice a difference or those who were essentially saying "who cares about this technical stuff it's about fun/friends etc" in a technical thread.
So saying framerate drops are acceptable is an uncontestable opinion, but saying the difference between the two versions' resolution is also acceptable is a contestable opinion?
Did the developers acknowledge the AO glitch yet?
Altered Juice
Member
just choked on my drink. holy shit lmao
Please can you drop the xbox persecution talk? I've discussed why it's not even a good analogy.
The PS4 has a higher framerate, correct? He said he thinks the near 60 framerate on PS4 is good/acceptable/stable. That is an opinion. An opinion that is not an inflammatory opinion in any way.
He did not say "wow there is barely any difference between 41fps and 60fps, people really exaggerate the 44% hardware difference of those PCs, those who say that's a big difference are a fool". He did not say "Who cares about this framerate difference, games aren't about that stuff. I've got trophies on PS4 and friends to play with".
Unless I'm mistaken nobody had a problem with an opinion like "I think 900p is acceptable" (or a more direct comparison "I think 1080p is acceptable") though they are perfectly entitled to disagree with it, much like how anybody is entitled to disagree with Putty's opinion here. Even if they did have a problem I don't see the relevance to Puttys post so I don't understand how this persecution complex is relevant here when it's just you calling out some unnamed people who you're waiting for because you think the Xbox has been treated unfairly.
The lack of ambient occlusion is so painfully obvious in screenshots, but I don't think it would make much of a difference in motion, especially in a fast paced racing game. You're unlikely to even notice it. Shame about the frame rate though. Not sure if the 1080pr was worth it. Might've been wise to drop the res down to 900p while maintaining AO and keeping the frame rate up to par with its PS4 counterpart.
That's the most important thing at least: you like the game and you have a lot of fun with it
again I hope next year's release will be better in terms of framerate.
Caayn
Member
It's a preliminary article, it's not the full analysis, it's nothing more than a quick look.
It's almost like you want to denigrate DF in favor of nxgamer
So how easy you can make someone look bad, it take literally no effort at all.
Haha, maybe. Same thing for their GTA 5 preliminary analysis. No mention of the reduced grass on XB1 until it spread like wildfire on the Internet.
Yeah, sure, keep believing that. In no way am I trying to make NXGamer look good by saying DF was careless in this thread. They originally said the AF was 16× and the XB1 resolution was 900p. Should we ignore their mistakes and put them on a pedestal? But I guess some people see something that's not there to make the person look biased. Also, like I said many times in this thread, I am fully aware this is a preliminary analysis, but DF mentioned AF. And after their update, they corrected the info on AF with more accurate info. Yet somehow for some reason AO is not mentioned at all. But yeah, keep ignoring my explanations.
Caayn
Member
That's not what I'm saying at all. You come to strange conclusions. Pointing out flaws is perfectly fine, and comparing them to another doing a similar thing is perfectly fine as well. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't expect perfection, especially in a preliminary article. If you're indeed fully aware of that it only makes your posting behavior in this thread comes across as more fanboyish.
Even if it's preliminary, writers of DF shouldn't even need to pixel count to realise that the game was only upscaled horizontally. I'm not a pixel counting expert but it was immediately obvious to me.
Instead, they just took the words from the devs at face value and ran with it.
Instead, they just took the words from the devs at face value and ran with it.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
But it has unstable framerate and tearing too.
In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Even if it were a preliminary analysis, I expect DF to point out the lack of AO in the XB1 version. I wouldn't expect this from this article had they only mentioned performance. Instead, they also mentioned resolution and AF (both of which they got wrong, may I add). So, is it too much to mention the missing AO as well? Especially since it is quite noticeable.
And look at what stryke said. I myself could tell it wasn't quite 900p and I'm no pixel counting expert. Face it, DF was careless with this article. No one expects perfection from them, but I do want them to be more careful. You and Seanspeed are constantly making excuses for DF in this thread.
Amazing.
And you are constantly finding things in df threads to show what they miss, to find things making them looking biased and post more than often how good nx gamer is.
Perhaps there should be a general thread about the topic, so the actual threads don't get so much posts about what df should do or forgot or whatever.
I also think it's interesting why nobody makes threads about nxgamer videos.
LOL, wow. I think you're referring to someone else here. If anything, I check DF more often than I check NXGamer. And I don't exactly "find things" to make DF look biased. The things I've stated are utterly ridiculous. Again, how else would anyone interpret "better network" as? And keep in mind most other people weren't encountering this issue in Evolve. Also, I trust DF's very own John (a.k.a darkx10) more than NXGamer. Too bad the other journalists aren't nearly as good and objective as him. However, I do think NXGamer deserves more credit than he is given despite his obvious mistakes. There aren't many reliable sources to make face-off's and tech analysis (two, in fact, but I consider Red Gaming Tech decent), so unless you can find others, I'm gonna rely on both for info.
Remember lens of truth? What happened to them?
I'm pretty sure the website got shut down or something right before this generation began. IIRC, they weren't the most reliable source, but at least it's nice to have one more. Too bad they're gone.
ethomaz
Banned
They updated the article... the resolution is 1440x1080p.
Image quality will be discussed in the next Face Off article.