HORRORSHØW
Member
the bone port is shoddy.Hopefully we will see this trend continue, XB1 ports have been pretty shoddy in comparison to the PS4 so far.
the bone port is shoddy.Hopefully we will see this trend continue, XB1 ports have been pretty shoddy in comparison to the PS4 so far.
What kind of logic is that? Being closer to acceptable performance is obviously very preferable.No its a fine conclusion. The frame rate is garbage on both consoles so that's basically a wash. High 20 FPS vs low 20 FPS is barely anything but the image quality on the PS4 is actually worse.
In Crysis it does not. Needed a shader mod to fix it.AF and parallax don't play nice together?
AF and parallax don't play nice together?
Why would you hope for this trend to continue? I don't want no lazy ports on PS4.
But yeah, I know what you mean. I cant wait for an all next-gen timeframe.
So PS4:
- Full 1080p
- Trilinear filtering
- Steadier framerate (>24 FPS)
Xbox One:
- 900p
- 16x anisotropic filtering
- drops to 20's
Yet the Xbox One > PS4, huh?
That's what these screenshots show. They are taken within the very first frames of a new scene.I'm playing the PS4 version, put about 6 hours in now and I literally NEVER have encountered these texture issues aside from the Unreal Engine trademark load-in at the start of a level.
Something is wrong on DF's end.
AF and parallax don't play nice together?
No I meant I hope that X1 ports will be achieving near visual/performance parity and it wont as big of a difference as we have been seeing in the launch in window titles.
It will make my purchasing decision easier.if multiplat visuals are a wash.
Eidos Montreal found the dGPU.
This. Makes no sense.I wonder why Eidos used a Ttilinear texture filter on PS4 oppposed to anisotropic on the other platforms.
That's what these screenshots show. They are taken within the very first frames of a new scene.
The Xbox One version doesn't have that issue in the cutscenes chosen for the comparison.
jokes aside
Hopefully we will see this trend continue, XB1 ports have been pretty shoddy in comparison to the PS4 so far.
Maybe Microsoft/epic rectified the problem due to there close relationship and expirence on the 360.
What kind of logic is that? Being closer to acceptable performance is obviously very preferable.
The resolution is kind of irrelevant, it's one of many factors that determine the game's visual presentation, which should also include things like image balance (which look much closer here than the IGN comparison oddly, I assume IGN fucked it up). On that side, I think the XBO certainly comes out on top, but the performance is paramount, it's what determines the playability of the title.
It's really unacceptable that either of them fail to maintain perfect 30fps, but one is at least a little closer to that than the other.
That's what these screenshots show. They are taken within the very first frames of a new scene.
The Xbox One version doesn't have that issue in the cutscenes chosen for the comparison.
dat PS4
Neither console comes close to maintaining a stable frame rate and both have huge drops to 20 FPS. Both are awful in terms of frame rate, its like saying that because piss is better than faeces, you prefer having piss on your doorstop every morning. The real answer is that they're both equally bad and you don't really care that they're any different because they're both just as bad as each other.
The game isn't a looker but trilinear filtering just kills the image quality of the PS4 version. Perhaps the poor gamma curve is enough to ruin aspects of the Xbone version, I haven't played it, but I can definitely say that the image quality of one version is probably objectively worse than the other in a noticeable way if DF isn't cherry picking the results.
Okay, but how does a texture load-in that is literally resolved within 2 seconds trump 1080p and steadier framerate? I don't get it.
This game is quite a mess overall though, that's for sure. I don't understand how a studio can work on a game for 5 years and still not master an engine.
Because its not only texture streaming that's an issue, but texture filtering as well. And all they said is that it slightly edges out the PS4 version in the visuals department. Its not like they declared the One version to be massively superior and the only one worth purchasing, despite a bunch of people acting as if they said exactly that.Okay, but how does a texture load-in that is literally resolved within 2 seconds trump 1080p and steadier framerate? I don't get it.
This game is quite a mess overall though, that's for sure. I don't understand how a studio can work on a game for 5 years and still not master an engine.
They didn't say this. Read the damn article.Don't usually knock digital foundry but how they can say the Xbox One version is the one to go for when it has lower resolution and a lower frame rate is beyond me.
Wow! You really have to fuck up to make the superior hardware look worse.
What if microsecond different? LolSays slower normal map streaming compared to PC. They both pop in properly.
Meanwhile the asset streaming is more apparent on PS4 on occasion, which is what the other picture that keeps being quoted is.
It's not just 1080p, steadier framerate. Based on my viewing of the comparison footage this is what I got:Okay, but how does a texture load-in that is literally resolved within 2 seconds trump 1080p and steadier framerate? I don't get it.
This game is quite a mess overall though, that's for sure. I don't understand how a studio can work on a game for 5 years and still not master an engine.
1080p compared to 900p is a big enough reason to go Ps4. This is a streaming problem, textures load after about 2-3 secs of leaving a load screen.
I watched my friend play for a couple of hours yesterday, literally not a problem.
It's not just 1080p, steadier framerate. Based on my viewing of the comparison footage this is what I got:
So PS4:
- 1080p
- Parallax occlusion mapping
- Trilinear filtering
- Holds 30 FPS more consistent
- More noticeable Unreal Engine texture load-in
- No tearing
Xbox One:
- 900p
- no Parallax occlusion mapping
- 16x anisotropic filtering
- less consistent 30 FPS (high intensity scenes mostly)
- Tearing (lower third)
No I meant I hope that X1 ports will be achieving near visual/performance parity and it wont as big of a difference as we have been seeing in the launch in window titles.
It will make my purchasing decision easier.if multiplat visuals are a wash.
Don't usually knock digital foundry but how they can say the Xbox One version is the one to go for when it has lower resolution and a lower frame rate is beyond me. The filtering isn't great no - but all versions also include the texture loading issue that seems to come hand in hand with any Unreal Engine 3 title.
I'm lucky enough to have Xbox One, PS4 and a very good PC, but still wouldn't recommend the Xbox version.
Holy shit, that is a big one.Something isn't right...
Holy shit, that is a big one.
That ground! Even Xbox don't have face texture.
To be fair, you're watching a YouTube hosted comparison. The way those videos are encoded means you're not going to get a perfectly accurate picture of how something would look on your HDTV.900p vs 1080p is meaningless to me I can barley notice the difference, watching the the DF comparisons, they are at parity in my eyes.
Something isn't right...
Xbox One so edges out the PS4 version, lolSo PS4:
- 1080p
- Parallax occlusion mapping
- Trilinear filtering
- Holds 30 FPS more consistent (never below 24)
- More noticeable Unreal Engine texture load-in
- No tearing
Xbox One:
- 900p
- no Parallax occlusion mapping
- 16x anisotropic filtering
- less consistent 30 FPS (high intensity scenes mostly) (down to 20)
- In cutscenes no noticeable Unreal Engine texture load-in
- Tearing (lower third)
Exactly.So we have to deal with the kneejerk "DF is biased" garbage every time they favor an Xbox One game? I suppose the people parroting that haven't read the last dozen DF comparisons, especially since they obviously didn't read this article.
It seems those people want a comparison of "which console is more powerful" as if their personal choice needs to be affirmed nonstop. Nobody would ever deny that the PS4 is more powerful, that shouldn't need to constantly be reiterated as that's not what is being compared. It's not hard to understand that running a game at a higher resolution and framerate can lead to other things being bumped down, sometimes things that matter quite a bit.
It's not really some earth shattering result and calling any criticism of the PS4 version of a game bias means you pretty much don't want actual graphical analysis and instead want the console you own to be praised at every opportunity with anything else being heresy. No matter how valid it is.
Good lordy just noticed this. Could this be the reason for not using full whack AF ? Didn't the original Crysis lack AF because of something similar (although surely modern graphics API's allow this ....).
Are you saying that given you choice, you would not prefer piss to feces on your doorstep?Neither console comes close to maintaining a stable frame rate and both have huge drops to 20 FPS. Both are awful in terms of frame rate, its like saying that because piss is better than faeces, you prefer having piss on your doorstop every morning.
This manifests more aggressively on Microsoft's platform, where drops down to 20fps are possible, as compared to 25fps on PS4
the game is running at a full 1920x1080 on PS4, while the Microsoft next-gen release runs at 1600x900