-
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.
Titanfall 2: PS4 Multiplayer 'Tech Test' Frame-Rate Analysis
- Thread starter Nachtfalke
- Start date
Pankratous
Member
Can they improve it to 1080p, or is that the target rendering resolution?
SmartWaffles
Member
I think 1080p should be feasible on PS4.
Dictator93
Member
1600X900. Hrmmm.
I guess all of the alpha effects are the reason for that, as the game only seems to drop frames when there is a lot of that.
Rendering-wise it is radically different from it at this point. Probably in most if not all other areas as well.
I guess all of the alpha effects are the reason for that, as the game only seems to drop frames when there is a lot of that.
Rendering-wise it is radically different from it at this point. Probably in most if not all other areas as well.
MaKTaiL
Member
That's Frostbite Engine Target for all their games. Frostbite Engine is clearly not made for consoles. 900p and struggling to maintain FPS? Really EA? Ever since Battlefield 4...
EDIT
Just... Ignore what I said. I'm an idiot. Hahaha. I thought they said they would be moving to Frostbite a few months back. When I saw 900p written I immediately thought it was it. My bad.
Leks
Member
Yes, mentioned in the video.
It's not frostbite
Jose92
[Membe
Well if you watched the video, you going to know that the game is using a modified source engine.
Watch the video
Uhhhh
MaKTaiL
Member
I thought they Said they would be moving to Frostbite a few months back. When I saw 900p written I immediately thought it was it. My bad.
Why?
uncleniccius
Member
I hope they do go for the 60FPS at the expense of tearing if they need to.
That helped a lot in the original on XO. It will be interesting to see this on Neo, it would be great if that can hit 1080P/60FPS locked/near locked.
That helped a lot in the original on XO. It will be interesting to see this on Neo, it would be great if that can hit 1080P/60FPS locked/near locked.
guitarguy316
Member
Thanks now just waiting to hear about XBO.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
Wasn't the first game 792p on Xbox one?
FalsettoVibe
Member
Hoping for 1080p....or a NEO version.
The Last Wizard
Member
Just push it back to 2017 ea. It's a good decision all around.
Sum-Mischief
Member
This may be one of those games that will see the Neo shine. I expect they clean up the tearing and frame drops on the based model PS4.
But its all the extras effects and visual fidelity be supercharged on the Neo.
Hope for the best!
But its all the extras effects and visual fidelity be supercharged on the Neo.
Hope for the best!
I would't read too much into how this version of the game performs, they made a point of emphasising that this isn't what "beta" tests have become to get people to pre-order games, this is going to be a rough build that is there to test the online stuff in the way that traditional betas used to.
That could well be a build from June or earlier and there's a lot of time to optimise what's being shown in that video.
That could well be a build from June or earlier and there's a lot of time to optimise what's being shown in that video.
thelastword
Banned
Cut down on the effects and go for 1080P, and please remove C.A completely. Can't believe DF suggests tearing to boost framerate. tearing is much more jarring than drops to the 40's. Even if they implement adaptive vsync, the game will still drop frames. Titanfall on the XB1 was not a 60fps lock by any means. So by DF's suggestion you have framerate drops mixed with tearing just plain awful. Lower some effects to boost framerate, optimize, but keep vsync.
Liamario
Banned
Totally agree. Tearing is an abomination and a deal breaker for me. I can't and won't tolerate it.
It's not the drops, but it's the controller response.
Adaptive V sync where the tearing is limited to top quarter of screen is the way to go because the situation in which the frame drops (screen full of alpha) you are more likely to notice the change in controller response than you are to notice torn frames, especially if it's in top quarter since people focus on the centre of screen. The alpha is most likely already lower resolution, lowering it more will cause noticeable issues with visuals.
Titanfall on XB1 is irrelevant because it never ran at 60FPS, this one seems to run at 60 most of the time atleast on PS4. Plus if Titanfall XB1 had V synch like this, it'd have horrible controller response.
Zombie James
Banned
Looking way, way better than the first Titanfall.
Completely agree. Screen tearing - especially if we're talking about at the level that it was in the first game - should never be acceptable.
Completely agree. Screen tearing - especially if we're talking about at the level that it was in the first game - should never be acceptable.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Sounds good for this early on. Really which they would've upgraded to Frostbite, but for source I am impressed they managed to enhance the lighting.
Hoping the game gets a bump to 1080p, rock solid 60 on NEO.
Hoping the game gets a bump to 1080p, rock solid 60 on NEO.
funkystudent
Member
Wait... I thought they switched to Unreal Engine 4?
Or is that for the Star Wars game?
Or is that for the Star Wars game?
Titanfall got a resolution bump between the Beta and retail on Xbox One.
They may be able to use the data from the beta to be able to identify areas of high load and optimise the game better for retail.
Bluepoint did this with a server farm of 360's for the 360 port, so they could pre-calculate a bunch of stuff without needing to scale back on assets and maintain performance.
They may be able to use the data from the beta to be able to identify areas of high load and optimise the game better for retail.
Bluepoint did this with a server farm of 360's for the 360 port, so they could pre-calculate a bunch of stuff without needing to scale back on assets and maintain performance.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Most all EA games are using Frostbite now, with the exeption of this game that uses Modified Source.
Hopefully Titanfall 3 launches on Frostbite and takes full advantage of Neo and Scorpio.
With the PS4 version running at 900p I wonder how the Xbox one will hold up. Just as with the first one? That would be disappointing tbh.
Respawn is not an EA owned company. They will not use Frostbite.
Respawn is not an EA owned company. They will not use Frostbite.
That's the Star Wars game
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
It's insane that this thing is running on source. At this point, they've ripped out its innards in totality.
It's at least running a lot better than the first game.
Does it? I see swings from 40 to 60 here as well.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
The gameplay that's been shown thus far looks great and graphically sound, I'm not really worried about it.
Nah. I like all the pretty lights. I agree with the tearing though, screw that.
Nah. I like all the pretty lights. I agree with the tearing though, screw that.
Throw it in the bin if they do this - rather have dynamic resolution than that...
Tearing should never be a choice
ps3ud0 8)
PeskyToaster
Member
Even almost 30 at one point.
It looks a lot better than TF1, I'm just not sure this modified source engine is the right one to go with when you have such easy access to Frostbite which puts out some of the best looking games of all time and has great performance too looking at Star Wars Battlefront as the most recent example.
EA doesn't own Respawn and Frosbite is only for EA's internal teams so no, they don't have easy access to Frostbite engine. One could say that maybe they should look at UE4 for future titles, but there must have been reasons to pick Source in first place.
DF was just remarking how TF2's 900p looks sharper than other Frostbite 60fps games. Plus alpha BF1 also had rought spots.
For the first game probably because UE4 wasn't quite there yet. You can tell that it took some time for more UE4 games to arrive. They probably also didn't want to switch because it's tech they already had running.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Looks to be running better to me. TF on Xbox One was fun and one of my favorite shooters of that time but shit was it a tear-fest and rarely ran at 60.
Even then there was UE3, CryEngine and.. well.. Unity *krhm*. Something drove them to use Source. At the time I saw some speculation that Source was cheapest engine to license so they took it for only that reason. That said I'm kinda amazed how long legs Source 1 has under it, still pushing very acceptable IQ and performance when dev pushes engine and gives it some tweaks.