Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   Other Graphics Cards and 3D Technologies (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   Nvidia RTX DLSS/Ray Tracing Discussion (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34049038)

LordHawkwind Sep 6, 2019 03:13 PM

Would have posted this on another thread but unfortunately that got closed down for some reason :lol:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1903...estyle-vs-ris/

Mangler Sep 6, 2019 03:29 PM

More option are a good thing, especially when you consider that freestyle works with older cards too.

Exposed Sep 13, 2019 04:22 PM

Don't know how I missed this but Watch Dogs Legion will have RTX and it looks good. :drool:




I thoroughly enjoyed Watch Dogs 2 (Watch Dogs 1 was meh) and it's one of the best games I played. I still go on hacking sprees every now ****ing up everyone's game, usually bothering them at first before initiating the hack. Mwuahahahha.

logical Sep 15, 2019 07:06 PM

Reflections look good

bill dennison Sep 26, 2019 08:09 PM

NVidia is bananas


https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/0...-crop-disease/

Exposed Sep 27, 2019 08:27 AM

So that's why DLSS updates for games have been slow to roll out.

Seyiji Oct 13, 2019 06:39 PM

This seems fancy...



Always irked me about emissive textures and lights in games this just cements my pickle and confirms my bias :D

Exposed Oct 14, 2019 07:57 AM

Looks nice...was that added to the whole game or just that DLC?

Seyiji Feb 16, 2020 02:19 PM


SIrPauly Feb 18, 2020 03:41 PM

Glad the site mentioned Dlss in conjunction with the sharpening filter; also the difference between shader and tensor Dlss; tried to discuss subjective iq. Good to see Dlss mature.

jimjobob Feb 19, 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seyiji (Post 1338176615)

That explains a lot. I haven’t been a fan of DLSS but it was enabled by default on Young blood and when I turned it off it actually looked softer with more shimmering so I spent some time swapping back and forth and wound op turning it back on with the general impression that it was more detailed and had less shimmering with it on. If this is what we can expect going forward, that’s huge!

And yes, I meant more detailed than native 4K

demo Feb 19, 2020 08:58 AM

I've only tried DLSS in Metro and TBH I think it looked absolutely terrible, even with latest drivers, updates, and sharpening filter. Image is incredibly soft while also displaying over sharpening artifacts, ughh.. It's like the worst of both ends of the spectrum.

Good to hear new revisions are much better as I had pretty much dismissed it for the moment.

jimjobob Feb 19, 2020 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1338177026)
I've only tried DLSS in Metro and TBH I think it looked absolutely terrible, even with latest drivers, updates, and sharpening filter. Image is incredibly soft while also displaying over sharpening artifacts, ughh.. It's like the worst of both ends of the spectrum.

Good to hear new revisions are much better as I had pretty much dismissed it for the moment.

It looks terrible on metro and last I tried, HDR didnít work with DLSS. (Initially, it wouldnít work at all and later when using DLSS, the image was the same with and without HDR enabled). Battlefield looked even worse. Metro at least looked like it was just lower res but Battlefield was just a blurry mess. I didnít even consider it for Control so no idea how that looked.

demo Feb 19, 2020 09:14 AM

Oh yeh, you reminded me that I tried BFV too and that was another pile of turd. Yes, I noticed HDR wasn't playing nice either, and thought I'd rather have HDR.

SIrPauly Feb 23, 2020 05:10 PM

Personally had high expectations of the potential of Dlss for gpu limited titles but definitely needed maturity and time.

Exposed Feb 25, 2020 01:42 PM

According to that video Wolfenstein Youngblood DLSS is indistinguishable from native 4k.

While that's good news, you still have to play the game itself. :down:


Good to know upcoming games will have the new DLSS 2.0 implementation. Like Watch Dogs Legion, Cyberpunk, etc..

the_sextein Feb 25, 2020 07:13 PM

When I first took a look at DLSS and RTX it immediately reminded me of Nvidia's SM3.0 implementation that would allow HDR lighting. Back when the Geforce 6 launched maybe 6 games supported it that year and the implementations left most people feeling like it was a little nicer than SM2.0b but not a huge deal. Fast forward a couple years and gamers couldn't imagine not having the accurate lighting with god rays ect.

DLSS sucked bad based on the screenshot comparisons that I was seeing. It's great that Nvidia knew they could achieve their goals and pushed forward with a totally new implementation. I think developers will simply want to support DLSS if it gives their games a free performance gain. The more customers that can get satisfying levels of performance at quality levels they can live with, the less complaining at launch which will allow the devs to key in on real problems and deal with them quicker.

My goal is to push native 4K and I think Nvidia's 3080TI could do that but as games progress and the 3080 series starts to get long in the tooth it will be nice to have a feature like DLSS that could keep things rolling towards the end of the card's lifetime.

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD is developing their own versions of this with the main focus being on their new consoles to help fake 4K resolution. It seems like it would be very useful on those systems that are almost always FPS limited.

Trunks0 Feb 29, 2020 10:49 PM

Well you gotta laugh as just how close AMD got by basically just releasing a sharpening filter :lol:

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 08:21 AM

Not really, a sharpening filter just does something different. Nvidia also released their own sharpening filter which ended up being better than Radeon image sharpening, if you believe Hardware Unboxed videos.

Also, the point is that DLSS implemented now is now working so well that any sharpening filter doesn't even come close. When 1440p DLSS provides indistinguishable image quality from native 4k, it's done it's job.

This is what DLSS should have been in the first place and not rushed. The other drawback is we'll see this new DLSS "2.0" only in newer games, so that stain from Battlefield 5 will remain.

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 10:28 AM

DLSS 1.0 is crap and useless. Even if 2.0 is better, until it is widely implemented, it won't amount to anything.

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 10:36 AM

DLSS 2.0 doesn't require per game training anymore, provides native 4k image quality, and is implemented in quite a bit of upcoming AAA games. DLSS 1.0 has been abandoned, rightfully so, although I still think it really excelled in Metro Exodus even though it gave an 1800p equivalent.

For me Watch Dogs 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Vampire Masquerade, Dying Light 2 are the games I'm looking forward to.

I believe Doom Eternal will have DLSS 2.0 also but I think that will be playable in native 4k anyways on a 2080Ti, might be useful for lesser cards though.

OverclockN' Mar 2, 2020 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179006)
DLSS 1.0 is crap and useless. Even if 2.0 is better, until it is widely implemented, it won't amount to anything.

What makes you say it won't amount to anything?

It seems absolutely amazing to me. 4k image quality with 1440P performance? Yes please. Games actually have to support it, so I worry about that part and hope it becomes widely accepted.

bill dennison Mar 2, 2020 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179008)
DLSS 2.0 doesn't require per game training anymore, provides native 4k image quality, and is implemented in quite a bit of upcoming AAA games. DLSS 1.0 has been abandoned, rightfully so, although I still think it really excelled in Metro Exodus even though it gave an 1800p equivalent.

For me Watch Dogs 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Vampire Masquerade, Dying Light 2 are the games I'm looking forward to.

I believe Doom Eternal will have DLSS 2.0 also but I think that will be playable in native 4k anyways on a 2080Ti, might be useful for lesser cards though.

i will believe it when i see it

if it is speeding things up at 4k it is degrading IQ somewhere .

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dennison (Post 1338179039)
i will believe it when i see it

if it is speeding things up at 4k it is degrading IQ somewhere .

It's rebuilding the 1440p image into a 4k image, that's where the speed comes from. The IQ comes from how well it recreates the 4k image, and looks like DLSS 2.0 does a good enough job it's indistinguishable from a native 4k image in the two games DLSS 2.0 is implemented. Something that image sharpening can't match.

Of course, feel free to offer your own in depth analysis alongside Hardware Unboxed findings.

:bleh:

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverclockN' (Post 1338179011)
What makes you say it won't amount to anything?

It seems absolutely amazing to me. 4k image quality with 1440P performance? Yes please. Games actually have to support it, so I worry about that part and hope it becomes widely accepted.

Exactly why it won't amount to much if it doesn't get implemented into a large catalog of games. If it is only a handful, it isn't going anywhere.





Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179047)
It's rebuilding the 1440p image into a 4k image, that's where the speed comes from. The IQ comes from how well it recreates the 4k image, and looks like DLSS 2.0 does a good enough job it's indistinguishable from a native 4k image in the two games DLSS 2.0 is implemented. Something that image sharpening can't match.

Of course, feel free to offer your own in depth analysis alongside Hardware Unboxed findings.

:bleh:

Is this called Defense 2.0 of the same argument that was used with the DLSS 1.0? :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I hope it turns out to be as great as demonstrated, but I am with Bill, I will believe it when I see it. I'm pretty sure the same thing was said about DLSS 1.0 when it first was introduced, which ended up being not so great.

Cynicalking Mar 2, 2020 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179100)
Exactly why it won't amount to much if it doesn't get implemented into a large catalog of games. If it is only a handful, it isn't going anywhere.







Is this called Defense 2.0 of the same argument that was used with the DLSS 1.0? :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I hope it turns out to be as great as demonstrated, but I am with Bill, I will believe it when I see it. I'm pretty sure the same thing was said about DLSS 1.0 when it first was introduced, which ended up being not so great.

You can see it with a supported card and game. I among others are seeing it.

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynicalking (Post 1338179106)
You can see it with a supported card and game. I among others are seeing it.

Is history repeating itself? Because this is exactly what happened when DLSS was originally introduced. But then as time went on and more comparisons came out, and a closer look was taken, people started seeing that it wasn't so great.. We will just have to wait and see if this time is different. But right now, I am taking it all with a grain of salt.

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 05:32 PM

The only thing repeating itself is your tireless agenda NWR, and everyone sees it (yet again).

It's quite obvious you didn't watch the latest video from Hardware Unboxed, all of your claims are dismissed and debunked within those minutes. HU was one of the most vocal sites showcasing just how bad DLSS was, and they wound up being thoroughly impressed with DLSS 2.0, no matter how hard they scrutinized. Not even image sharpening (either from AMD or Nvidia itself) can match DLSS 2.0, the image quality is literally on par, and sometimes even BETTER than native 4k. Not bad for a little AI training, eh?

Of course, I really don't expect you to give Nvidia a single ounce of credit for whatever they've done, so you can just drop the charade right now because it's utterly transparent.

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179130)
The only thing repeating itself is your tireless agenda NWR, and everyone sees it (yet again).

It's quite obvious you didn't watch the latest video from Hardware Unboxed, all of your claims are dismissed and debunked within those minutes. HU was one of the most vocal sites showcasing just how bad DLSS was, and they wound up being thoroughly impressed with DLSS 2.0, no matter how hard they scrutinized. Not even image sharpening (either from AMD or Nvidia itself) can match DLSS 2.0, the image quality is literally on par, and sometimes even BETTER than native 4k. Not bad for a little AI training, eh?

Of course, I really don't expect you to give Nvidia a single ounce of credit for whatever they've done, so you can just drop the charade right now because it's utterly transparent.

What agenda is that?

I watched it, and to me, it is still blurry (very noticeably). He was stating HIS opinion, or their take on it, which he specifically said. He stated multiple times that DLSS may or may not give better results than other solutions (paraphrasing of course), but he never said it looked better than native 4K. Sorry, I don't put my faith in hardware unboxed opinion or anyone's else's opinion on what hey believe looks better, nor do I base my opinion on someone else's opinion. Why I said we will have to wait and see.

If your only purpose is to attack me and accuse me of having some mythical agenda (yet again) for stating my view on hearing the same talking points now as we heard last year, then move on, and don't reply to me. Because I am not going to argue with you, nor am I going to NOT be a part of the DLSS or any other NVIDIA discussion because you don't agree with me. Thanks.

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179163)
I watched it, and it is still blurry. It even appeared he didn't fully support DLSS as he stated multiple times that DLSS may or may not give better results (paraphrasing of course). If your only purpose is to attack me for stating my view on hearing the same talking points last year, then move on, and don't reply to me. Because I am not going to argue with you, nor am I going to NOT be a part of the discussion because you don't agree with my opinion. Thanks.


Which part was still blurry? What time stamp? Where did he state DLSS "1.9 & 2.0" didn't give better results? Better results than what?

See, everyone knows your game here NWR, you're not fooling anybody. Your "paraphrasing" is a distort of facts as it's always been, you can never give specific examples because none exist. You only state and twist what fits your bias even when the evidence is contrary (the video and reviewer in this case).

I'm going to continue calling you on these tactics. Just because you have a severe bias against Nvidia, and don't even own an RTX card to see how it looks first hand, doesn't entitle you to an opinion that has no genuine intention of merit in the first place. That by definition is trolling and how you managed to ruin countless other threads when it comes to anything Nvidia related.

The funny thing is, EVERYONE sees it and you have a tendency to argue with them as well.

So let me recap, you're only posting here because of your vitriol for Nvidia, and none of your opinions have base because they aren't with genuine merit in the first place. I and others have seen that video start to finish and it's very clear you can't even present a proper counter argument using the material in hand because none exist. Let alone, you've completely ignored other gamers (not talking about myself) with first hand experience of the new DLSS implementation in new games like Youngblood.

Also..

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179163)
He was stating HIS opinion, or their take on it, which he specifically said. He stated multiple times that DLSS may or may not give better results than other solutions (paraphrasing of course), but he never said it looked better than native 4K.


https://youtu.be/ScAQ5Of1LfE?t=837


He CLEARLY states that DLSS at 1440p provides EQUAVELENT quality to native 4k, and is some cases, BETTER than native 4k quality.

Very easy to call your spade a spade.

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179169)
Which part was still blurry? What time stamp? Where did he state DLSS "1.9 & 2.0" didn't give better results? Better results than what?

See, everyone knows your game here NWR, you're not fooling anybody. Your "paraphrasing" is a distort of facts as it's always been, you can never give specific examples because none exist. You only state and twist what fits your bias even when the evidence is contrary (the video and reviewer in this case).

I'm going to continue calling you on these tactics. Just because you have a severe bias against Nvidia, and don't even own an RTX card to see how it looks first hand, doesn't entitle you to an opinion that has no genuine intention of merit in the first place. That by definition is trolling and how you managed to ruin countless other threads when it comes to anything Nvidia related.

The funny thing is, EVERYONE sees it and you have a tendency to argue with them as well.

So let me recap, you're only posting here because of your vitriol for Nvidia, and none of your opinions have base because they aren't with genuine merit in the first place. I and others have seen that video start to finish and it's very clear you can't even present a proper counter argument using the material in hand because none exist. Let alone, you've completely ignored other gamers (not talking about myself) with first hand experience of the new DLSS implementation in new games like Youngblood.

Was that clear enough?

How does it feel to be wrong?

I suggest you take a long hard look at my system specs.. then grab a towel and wipe the egg off your face. . Then understand, I don't have to validate my opinion to you, but, you can go look at the video and find the time stamp of where it compares the still picture of the white board in with the animal faces in the game control. YOU CAN INSTANTLY see the blurriness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179169)
He CLEARLY states that DLSS at 1440p provides EQUAVELENT quality to native 4k, and is some cases, BETTER than native 4k quality.

Very easy to call your spade a spade.

Oh, I missed that one liner. Sorry. But that is his opinion, as well as his opinion stating you may or may not get better results, he also goes on to say that different areas deliver different results, some not as good.. I see blurriness, specially in the still picture comparisons.. sorry..

Exposed Mar 2, 2020 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179170)
How does it feel to be wrong?\
I suggest you take a long hard look at my system specs.. then grab a towel and wipe the egg off your face. . Then understand, I don't have to validate my opinion to you, but, you can go look at the video and find the time stamp of where it compares the still picture of the white board with the red smiley face. YOU CAN INSTANTLY see the blurriness.

Oh, so now you've become a Bill? :lol:

Now, is that your gaming system or is that your son's?


--------

White board? You mean Control where DLSS 2.0 wasn't even implemented but a work in progress from 1.0 to 2.0? The game where this method of DLSS will never be used again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179170)

Oh, I missed that one liner. Sorry. But that is his opinion, as well as his opinion stating you may or may not get better results, he also goes on to say that different areas deliver different results, some not as good.. I see blurriness, specially in the still picture comparisons.. sorry..


One one hand you say well that's his opinion and you don't agree with it, the other hand you try to cherry pick his words to support your own opinion. You can't have it both ways, though it still shows the lengths you will go to try and get your point across. Which by the way, your statements are coming off as entitled since you're essentially declaring no one else's opinions matter but your own, even if it goes against what others think.

I don't care what you think of DLSS 2.0. It is clear to me you'll go to great lengths to discredit it because you've already decided on your opinion, because you need to have that keep Nvidia in check sentiment regardless if you own the card or not (much like Bill). People with opinions like yourself are hard to take seriously, sorry if that offends but that's the truth. You can't even give a specific example to go straight to, all you're doing is stating "well in my opinion it still looks blurry". Great analysis.

Bash on Hardware Unboxed all you want, but they were the biggest critics of DLSS when DLSS launched. They stated Radeon Image Sharpening was simply better. Now they've changed their tune after seeing DLSS 2.0 first hand. They consider it "at worst equivalent to native 4k" (their words in the video, not mine). So DLSS 2.0 is promising and a great improvement over DLSS 1.0, which they and almost everyone else considered to be trash (with the exception for Metro Exodus, which provided great DLSS image quality at the time for those playing at 4k).

NWR_Midnight Mar 2, 2020 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179171)
Oh, so now you've become a Bill? :lol:

Now, is that your gaming system or is that your son's?


--------

White board? You mean Control where DLSS 2.0 wasn't even implemented but a work in progress from 1.0 to 2.0? The game where this method of DLSS will never be used again?

I have no issues being compared to Bil. But if you must know, my son has a RTX 2070 super.

Control is using 1.9, so no, not 2, but nothing drastic is going to change from 1.9 to 2.0. But you can go to 15:58, listen closely to what he says about the images not being the same, and some areas looking better, and some areas looking worse. there is blurriness in those still pictures using 2.0 as well (of course I'm using my eyes - with brand spanking new glasses) I also notice blurriness in the live action clips, but that could be caused from motion blur in the game itself.

edit: I just saw your edit. You want me to validate my opinion because you don't agree, where you wanted evidence with time stamps. I decided to comply, even though I said I don't have to validate my opinion. The only way I can do that is using his words, and his video, to show you, because there is NO other way to do so. How else is a person supposed to respond to your interrogation because my opinion and eyes see something different? So, lets just agree to disagree, because it seems that is all we do.

SIrPauly Mar 3, 2020 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179006)
DLSS 1.0 is crap and useless. Even if 2.0 is better, until it is widely implemented, it won't amount to anything.

I don't think it will be widely implemented in the short term because many titles are not gpu or raytraced limited. This is where the potential of Dlss shines for titles that have trouble with the 60 fps threshold. However, with more maturity wouldn't rule out a global setting in the future.

Exposed Mar 3, 2020 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179174)
I have no issues being compared to Bil. But if you must know, my son has a RTX 2070 super.

Control is using 1.9, so no, not 2, but nothing drastic is going to change from 1.9 to 2.0. But you can go to 15:58, listen closely to what he says about the images not being the same, and some areas looking better, and some areas looking worse. there is blurriness in those still pictures using 2.0 as well (of course I'm using my eyes - with brand spanking new glasses) I also notice blurriness in the live action clips, but that could be caused from motion blur in the game itself.

Actually, there's some pretty significant differences going from "1.9" to "2.0" The first half of the video was spent on this in preparation for the 2.0 presentation.

Also, at that timestamp, he's saying the 1440p DLSS image sometimes looks slightly different than native 4k, because the image is being reconstructed up to 4k and that won't always be reconstructed natively (which is to be expected, no upscaling method will give a pixel perfect 100% reference image). He didn't say it looked inferior to native 4k either. In fact from that timestamp he immediately goes to say "it's no a longer a situation where DLSS is noticeably worse than native 4k, the two are equivalent with neither being better than the other".

Also, I couldn't see where DLSS was "blurrier" in that timestamp. In fact, it looked sharper/better to me (a case where DLSS gives better than native 4k quality).

Just look at timestamp 16:10, the neon "Ultra video" sign. It looks sharper/better with DLSS than native 4k in those 2x zoom shots.

NWR_Midnight Mar 3, 2020 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179183)
Actually, there's some pretty significant differences going from "1.9" to "2.0" The first half of the video was spent on this in preparation for the 2.0 presentation.

Also, at that timestamp, he's saying the 1440p DLSS image sometimes looks slightly different than native 4k, because the image is being reconstructed up to 4k and that won't always be reconstructed natively (which is to be expected, no upscaling method will give a pixel perfect 100% reference image). He didn't say it looked inferior to native 4k either. In fact from that timestamp he immediately goes to say "it's no a longer a situation where DLSS is noticeably worse than native 4k, the two are equivalent with neither being better than the other".

Also, I couldn't see where DLSS was "blurrier" in that timestamp. In fact, it looked sharper/better to me (a case where DLSS gives better than native 4k quality).

Just look at timestamp 16:10, the neon "Ultra video" sign. It looks sharper/better with DLSS than native 4k in those 2x zoom shots.

he specifically said some areas may have a slight increase in detail, and other's may have a decrease in detail at time stamp 16:07. And did you miss where he said TO MY EYES in that quote of being equivalent? That is the professional way to let everyone know that other's may have different results and/or opinion based on what they see. I am one of those people. You see what he see's, and that's okay.

As for the neon, yes and no. DLSS takes away the "neon glow" of the neon and dulls it which makes it appear sharper. But the neon glow is gone and doesn't look neon anymore. So, is it sharper, yes, does it look better, in my opinion, NO because it looks like someone is turning off the neon. Now, if they can get the sharper image without removing the neon glow, that would be great. Then you have next still picture with the car. The end of the fence, right above the bike rack. not only does it get blurry, it loses it's shadow, as well as the top of the poll right in front of it. There is a lot of this going on in both still images. I don't expect you to see it, and again, that's ok. My eyes just see something different, and that is ok too.

Exposed Mar 3, 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179185)
he specifically said some areas may have a slight increase in detail, and other's may have a decrease in detail at time stamp 16:07. And did you miss where he said TO MY EYES in that quote of being equivalent? That is the professional way to let everyone know that other's may have different results and/or opinion based on what they see. I am one of those people. You see what he see's, and that's okay.

Yes, you do see only what you want to see. :bleh:

Quote:


As for the neon, yes and no. DLSS takes away the "neon glow" of the neon and dulls it which makes it appear sharper. But the neon glow is gone and doesn't look neon anymore. So, is it sharper, yes, does it look better, in my opinion, NO because it looks like someone is turning off the neon. Now, if they can get the sharper image without removing the neon glow, that would be great. Then you have next still picture with the car. The end of the fence, right above the bike rack. not only does it get blurry, it loses it's shadow, as well as the top of the poll right in front of it. There is a lot of this going on in both still images. I don't expect you to see it, and again, that's ok. My eyes just see something different, and that is ok too.
No, DLSS doesn't take away the neon glow. It cleans it up rather nicely so it's not that shimmery, jagged mess it was before.






Even in this compressed snapshot, you can see DLSS cleaning up the sign rather well. Of course feel free to see what you want to see, just as anyone can claim their opinion 2x AA looks better than 4x AA.

As far as the shadow, that appears to be grasping at straws as it's a slightly different angle shown from as you said, "all the other stuff going on". It doesn't "lose it's shadow" as DLSS has nothing to do with lighting, if you wanna nitpick between slight angle/lighting differences be my guest, you're not actually addressing the topic at hand.

Higgy10 Mar 3, 2020 08:21 AM

does dlss work with 21:9 yet?

Exposed Mar 3, 2020 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgy10 (Post 1338179200)
does dlss work with 21:9 yet?

The new DLSS implementation does work with 21:9

However, so far only Wolfenstein Youngblood and Deliver Us to the Moon has the new DLSS implementation. Doom Eternal will have it as well, though I don't think that game will have problems with framerates to begin with.

Higgy10 Mar 3, 2020 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179219)
The new DLSS implementation does work with 21:9

However, so far only Wolfenstein Youngblood and Deliver Us to the Moon has the new DLSS implementation. Doom Eternal will have it as well, though I don't think that game will have problems with framerates to begin with.

im quite disappointed with that, i could really use use the boost of dlss. RTX is largely unplayable for me at 3440x1440 without making large quality sacrifices or console like frame rates


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com