FSR vs DLSS

[UKflyer 630]

adjusting the shadow cam size in the settings.txt file has really helped with shadow jaggies especially in the cockpit

Edited January 8, 2023 by UKflyer

[fluffyflops 1,858]

1 hour ago, UKflyer said:

adjusting the shadow cam size in the settings.txt file has really helped with shadow jaggies especially in the cockpit

thank you very much.  i give it a go

[turbomax 3,287]

23 hours ago, GoranM said:

if I get 30-40+ fps in XP, I'm happy.  I see some people get excited about 100+fps

that is pure demagogic to defend the fact that x-plane does not support Nvidia's FrameGeneration which doubles fps with no image degradation only to downplay a new exciting feature that x-plane is missing. I see "some (incl. myself) people get very excited" about Nvidias FrameGeneration that came with DLSS 3.0

If I get 60 fps I am happier than with 30. the alternative is not either 30+ or 100+. no one says you need 100+ in a flight simulator. the typical "x-plane doesn't have it, so why should we need it" syndrome.

[mSparks 2,086]

23 minutes ago, turbomax said:

with no image degradation

not true, the goal is no noticeable image degradation, you only need to spend a few minutes on reddit to see they are all a long long way from achieving that goal.

23 minutes ago, turbomax said:

no one says you need 100+ in a flight simulator

Sony does, they require 120fps, that's why AC7 PSVR only had 3 missions and a very simple free flight mode, because tracking down and optimising the bottlenecks in the rest of AC7 was far too time consuming.

Edited January 8, 2023 by mSparks

[GoranM 3,772]

16 minutes ago, turbomax said:

that is pure demagogic to defend the fact that x-plane does not support Nvidia's FrameGeneration which doubles fps with no image degradation only to downplay a new exciting feature that x-plane is missing. I see "some (incl. myself) people get very excited" about Nvidias FrameGeneration that came with DLSS 3.0

If I get 60 fps I am happier than with 30. the alternative is not either 30+ or 100+. no one says you need 100+ in a flight simulator.

I find it amazing how some people don't understand that everyone has different opinions and different preferences.  Truly mind blowing.  I just choose not to get worked up over something like framerates.  I'm certainly not holding you back from your choices.  

If you're happier with 60fps than you are with 30, great!  

22 minutes ago, turbomax said:

the typical "x-plane doesn't have it, so why should we need it" syndrome.

Just...WOW!  Do we NEED 60fps?  I certainly don't.  So if X-Plane doesn't have it (even though I get a constant 60fps on my MBP, with vsync turned on, and 110+ with vsync off), I don't need it.  I'm happy with 30+.  Why you have a problem with that, I have no idea.  

[GoranM 3,772]

38 minutes ago, turbomax said:

that is pure demagogic to defend the fact that x-plane does not support Nvidia's FrameGeneration which doubles fps with no image degradation only to downplay a new exciting feature that x-plane is missing.

Do you even know what DLSS and FSR does?

I posted an article describing exactly what it does in the top post.  Please read it.  Image degradation is the very first step in the upscaling process.

Do some of you just enjoy arguing??

Edited January 8, 2023 by GoranM

[mSparks 2,086]

5 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

then as i went through the rain i looked like flown through radioactive waste.

There is a reason they say its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

And its not because piloting into clouds and rain is a fun experience for all the family

 

5 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

look at the clouds  and the jaggys on the wing

I did that, now what?

Are you arguing

would be better? 

Cos, gotta say, I'm a long way from sold on the idea any of the alternatives would a productive use of Laminars time.

Edited January 8, 2023 by mSparks

[Baber20 1,438]

36 minutes ago, GoranM said:

I find it amazing how some people don't understand that everyone has different opinions and different preferences.

Ironic isn't it ?

26 minutes ago, GoranM said:

 Image degradation is the very first step in the upscaling process.

Not if it is properly implemented. DLSS Quality setting has proven to be equally good if not better than native resolution while providing almost double fps. Take a look at this video 

DLSS 1080p vs Native 4k: Can you spot the difference? - YouTube

There are tons of videos out there where you can literally spot zero difference. AND even if there is a bit of image degradation, I will take that over much, much better performance. 

29 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Do some of you just enjoy arguing??

Do you ?

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Not if it is properly implemented.

yes, always.

IF you are on 4K or 8K you probably won't notice it, because the artefacts are so small you can't see them. In which case you are going to have to be at a good quality 2K image with no noticeable artefacts, and all it really has to do is not introduce new ones.

But the whole point and function of all of this is that upscaling a low resolution image is a less compute intensive task than creating a high quality high resolution image.

[GoranM 3,772]

13 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Ironic isn't it ?

Absolutely.  

13 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Not if it is properly implemented. DLSS Quality setting has proven to be equally good if not better than native resolution while providing almost double fps. Take a look at this video 

No.  DLSS and FSR lowers the resolution of the sim/game.  That is absolutely step 1.  In MSFS, I have watched streams of people using DLSS, and there were some very obvious issues.  In particular, EFB's with "streaking" text.  The streamer said that was a DLSS problem.  I'll take his word for it.  As for image quality.  Yes, I can absolutely see the difference when looking close enough.  But, my original point was that turbomax said there is NO image degradation.  My point is, image degradation is the very first step.  

13 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

AND even if there is a bit of image degradation, I will take that over much, much better performance. 

Your choice, which you are entitled to.

13 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Do you ?

You tell me.  Go through my content and have a look for yourself.  I'm certainly not going down the "...But he started it" road.

Edited January 8, 2023 by GoranM

[turbomax 3,287]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

1) no noticeable image degradation,

2) you only need to spend a few minutes on reddit

1) isn't that what counts? I don't use binoculars/microscopes in the cockpit.

2) no thanks, I use my own eyes.

besides, DLSS 3.0 will be upgraded and improved further very soon. not for x-plane though, since x-plane is not a game but an FAA approved procedure trainer. 😊

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-fps-increasing-dlss-3-tech-is-about-to-get-even-better-major-improvements-image-quality-in-games/

[turbomax 3,287]

54 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Do you even know what DLSS and FSR does?

yes but ...

don't use nor need it, I run 4K with frame doubling in supported "games", am quite happy with graphics and 80 fps. when/if x-plane supports it, even better.

[mSparks 2,086]

9 minutes ago, GoranM said:

In particular, EFB's with "streaking" text.

text is where the issues stands out the most, because it never gets the shapes quite perfect, and "we" are really tuned in to malformed text.

A mountain peak being slightly warped or a street sign not being a perfect circle can very easily go unnoticed.

1 minute ago, turbomax said:

1) isn't that what counts?

For people on 4K and 8K displays absolutely, for everyone else the "not noticeable" part is not true.

[turbomax 3,287]

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

I'm happy with 30+.  Why you have a problem with that, I have no idea.  

once/if x-plane supports frame doubling, you will be the only one left happy and running it at 30+. everyone else will be happier with higher frame rate. many people in this forum and elsewhere have complained about 24 fps in an airbus in x-plane 12, they didn't sound too happy. why they have a problem with that, I have no idea.

[GoranM 3,772]

3 minutes ago, turbomax said:

once/if x-plane supports frame doubling, you will be the only one left happy and running it at 30+. everyone else will be happier with higher frame rate. many people in this forum and elsewhere have complained about 24 fps in an airbus in x-plane 12, they didn't sound too happy. why they have a problem with that, I have no idea.

Did you not read my reply?  You quoted a portion of it.  Here's the whole thing.

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

Just...WOW!  Do we NEED 60fps?  I certainly don't.  So if X-Plane doesn't have it (even though I get a constant 60fps on my MBP, with vsync turned on, and 110+ with vsync off), I don't need it.  I'm happy with 30+.  Why you have a problem with that, I have no idea.  

If X-Plane squeezes out more performance, GREAT!  It's the same with my bank account.  I have money in my bank account that I am happy with.  Would I be happier with more money?  OF COURSE!

Maybe I just accept what's out there, and I'm waiting patiently for updates, without getting all worked up and complaining on forums that LR don't come to.  Instead, if I have a problem, I follow the correct procedure.  I file bug reports.