I have seen people point out that the downside of DLSS and Frame Gen is companies being even more lazy about optimization.It looks really good, but still not quite "I'm now convinced to spend $1600 on a video card" good.
Also, it's amusing how they're showing off sub-30 framerates being boosted to 130 via frame generation when most PC gamers would consider the still sub-30fps input lag to be completely unacceptable.
Frame generation will double the frame rate at most so I would assume DLSS 2 performance mode is being used there. The game is running at an internal resolution of 1080p at around 65 fps, then doubled via frame generation to 130.It looks really good, but still not quite "I'm now convinced to spend $1600 on a video card" good.
Also, it's amusing how they're showing off sub-30 framerates being boosted to 130 via frame generation when most PC gamers would consider the still sub-30fps input lag to be completely unacceptable.
Good point. So, the input lag is equivalent to about 65fps. That's a lot better than sub-30fps, but reinforces that we may need a 4090 for it to be considered playable (since any other card would feel like a lot less than 60fps), which I'm sure would suit Nvidia just fine.
I think dlss3 actually adds input lag on top, so it would have more input lag than 60 fps. But don’t quote me on that. A couple of those shots in the trailer did look like a genuine graphical leap, however I hate to say it no matter what raytracing they add, daytime just doesn’t look good in this game.
That's my understanding. Frame generation has to add some input lag because it delays each real frame in order to insert a generated frame before it. I'm just not sure if it's a noticeable amount or not, since I haven't used the feature and hardly anyone measures input lag because it's tricky.
I'm sure it will be playable on cards other than the 4090, just not at 4K and what are likely the max settings. Portal RTX had settings relating to the number of light bounces which affected performance significantly, I'm sure this will be the same.
CP should have probably skipped paying for Keanu and focused that money more into the game.
Money would not have mattered since that wasn't the problem. It was the troubled development, the rushed release of the game in a broken state and without many of the promised and promoted features.
I don’t know I would have to think an extra 30 million dollars could have helped with some of that at along the way.
It would have had to be budgeted way earlier. The game ran into a nightmare of issues because they re-worked a game engine while in actual development. By the time they had the hype on the game to justify brining in Keanu it was likely too late. Although, maybe it's addition by subtration since they apparently had to re-work a ton of stuff to put him in it which further hindered development.I don’t know I would have to think an extra 30 million dollars could have helped with some of that at along the way.
Yeah I guess I'm just more of a casual gamer but to me and my untrained eye, some of the frames showing the difference between the game with and without ray tracing, the frames without it would sometimes look better or maybe more aesthetically pleasing for a video game.
Did you watch the video I posted above? In a lot of scenes the difference between rasterization (AKA what you see on consoles) vs. the new path tracing mode is quite obvious, especially in areas that aren't directly lit.
Some people need to justify the fact that they paid through the nose for their GPUs. They need that sweet validation.
This isn't a case of caring too much about performance, though. It's rather the opposite: giving up performance in exchange for improved visuals.
