METRO EXODUS PC Enhanced Edition Announced Gets DLSS and Advanced Ray Traced Reflections

Yes, and no it doesn't fix it.

 

This is great news! I haven't played the vanilla version due to DX12 crashes, not sure if they're still there but I hope it will be a crash-free experience once this new version is released. Please let it be sooner than later.

 

Just finished Metro Exodus on Steam in DX12, all good nowadays. Don't understand 'the game is boring comment', perhaps poster's expectations unrealisically high?

 

There was no crashes. Pretty much flaswless experience using dx12.

 

Cool, maybe I'll finally finish it. Assuming I can still run it at 60fps.

 

Did I mention that the game is boring? I don't think so, I love this franchise.

Good to heart that the game works fine. I'll install it just to check but will definitely wait for the enhanced version and start a new save from the beginning. Think I played 1hr so I still have the majority of the game left to play.

 

What's the point of this only miners will be able to play it?

 

Are your eyes the same as mine? Is everyone's eyes the same? Not everyone sees the same dude.

I'm not on any high horse I am stating what I can see with my own eyes. I've used sweetFX and reshade *SPAM* back as far as Oblivion and Skyrim and avoided all the sharpening filters as I really didn't like them at all. Same with the new methods of AA such as SMAA, FXAA, and now TAA. I don't like the smearing they give on the image and no amount of sharpening fixes it (FOR ME).

The same goes with certain other graphical effects like motion blur, lens flare, and chromatic aberration. I can't stand any of them, the only motion blur I actually thought was well done was in Doom and Doom Eternal.

And I am only going by the screen shots they have shown of the new Metro version. If they can clean the image before release then great, but any current form of DLSS (again TO ME) looks terrible. I'm just stating an opinion there is no need to get offended when someone has a different one to that of your own.

And you have to see the irony in the fact that PC gamers years ago laughed at consoles for using upscaling to achieve better performance, only to now be salivating over an upscaling tech of their own.

 

I never said I didn't like reshade or sweetfx just that I avoided the sharpening filters within them, I used a lot of the other options within these tools though as they don't just offer sharpening. You seem to be getting worked up over this issue, over someone's opinion and tastes. Strange.

Personally I liked the introduction of DX12/Vulkun with low level API access, Variable rate shading, mesh shaders, gpu culling, global illumination, ambient occlusion, variable refresh rates, the list could go on and on. I just personally don't like filters or blurring such as SMAA, FXAA, motion blur, CA, lens flare. I see the monitor as my viewport, my eyes so to speak. My eyes shouldn't do this, they are not lenses on a camera. But again personal preference.

Also, If you can't see the hypocrisy in DLSS then more fool you.

Sure, DLSS and the other techs are ON/OFF functions but what I see with DLSS is that its more and more becoming the norm. I would prefer for nvidia and amd and intel and whoever else gets into the market to actually push the hardware further. GPU's that have no problem running games at 4K or beyond. Go back 5 years and the vast majority of pc gamers would of threw up if you told them they have to run their games at anything under their native resolutions. Now come to present day and suddenly most people don't mind. High end PC gaming and enthusiasts used to be about "go big or go home", now it seems 2 steps forward 5 steps back. Sure we have access to cool awesome looking real time ray tracing effects, but you have to run the game at 1080p and have filters and A.I do the hard work for you to achieve a 4K image that (to me) looks washed out and blurred.

Personally I blame the introduction of RT, it was far too soon for it and the performance loss really showed this. It is my belief that nvidia brought DLSS with it to try and lessen that performance impact. Knowing full well the hardware wasn't ready for it and still isn't with the 3000 series. Rather than pushing their GPU's to the brink of performance and allowing everyone to push for higher native resolutions and frame rates (4K and beyond).

It is at these higher resolutions where any form of AA is basically not required, meaning we would not need the smear the screen with Vaseline and we wouldn't need filters to sharpen the images.

Respond if you like but I've made my point. End of discussion... apparently.

 

I was wondering when AMD would start supporting RT

 

I find it funny you state this while also wondering what "happened to PC gamers" and constantly bashing DLSS and anyone who doesn't agree with you.

We get it, you don't like DLSS, or AMDs version, whatever, get on with your life and let others who do, do.

 

Problem with what @CPC_RedDawn wrote is simple. Take 4K screen. And have objectively measured amount of information you can see in game.
All those techniques reduce meaningful information or all information.

People often state that DLSS works best on 4K. That's false statement. It works same way on all resolutions given same settings. If it upscales from 0.5x to 1080p, with same settings it upscales from 0.5x on 4k.
Difference is in amount of information per inch of screen. (pixel density)
Usual 1080p gaming screen has ~24''. Usual 1440p screen has 27~32'' (including ultrawide). Usual 4K gaming screen has up to 32''. (There is even screen vacuum above 32'' till 42'' where speciality screens and TVs start.)

Degradation in image quality which can be clearly seen on larger screen with lower resolution is not as noticeable on higher resolution screens that have smaller pixels.
- - - -
Over years, I have seen very good implementations of FXAA that used contrast based pre-pass to tell where it will be applied and where not. That saved FXAA a lot of work and prevented it from occasional geometry deformation.

If I was to rate those mentioned methods based on Improving or worsening Information in image as it is done in 95% of games (ignoring best and worst implementations):
FXAA: 1.02x
SMAA 0.98x
Chromatic Aberration: 0.93x
Lens Flares: 0.92x
DLSS 2.0: 0.88x (best settings)
TAA: 0.8x
DLSS 1.x: 0.75x (best settings)
Motion Blur: 0.7x

So yeah, if you have retina screen or denser, then by all means, feel free to degrade IQ as you may not notice it with not so good AA. But you'll notice unnatural effects like CA, Lens Flares, Motion Blur.

To me with 24'' 1080p screen, per pixel quality of information is much more important than it is to someone with 24'' 1440p screen.
- - - -
There is easy comparison thanks to 27'' screens.
Take 3x same PC and accompany them with three 27'' screens. 1080p/1440p/4K.
Max out visually beneficial effects on 1080p. (Including DX-R, excluding BS like Motion Blur/CA/Lens Flares.)
Take PC with 1440p screen and max out what you can while maintaining same fps as PC with 1080p screen.
Repeat above procedure on PC with 4K screen.

You'll have 3 times screen of same size driven by PCs that have same computational power. And you can objectively and subjectively say what you like more.
Which effects are worth computational power. And which just take away so much information that one can't even distinct different resolutions from image itself and has to look for physical pixel size.

 

Every time i think about replaying a game something like this is announced and it makes me put things off until i have new hardware.

As for the discussions about dynamic resolution or DLSS, every PC game should have it as an option and using snobby PCMR stuff as an excuse to have LESS choice in a PC game is stupid, and i find it strange this is even up for discussion.

How many movies with near unlimited budgets render the CG at 4k? Last i checked, with most it was half that and then upscaled for the cinema/UHD release and that is at 24fps.

 

I have no idea why, but people have been writing essays (often provoking equal response) about DLSS and why they won't use it. While more often than not, they actually can't use it.
You don't like it, you move on. Assuming you even have DLSS under Settings.

RT is too expensive? You prefer rendering from the 19. century? Fine - use that instead.
If you want to complain, complain about something that AFFECTS YOU. How's that for reasonable

 

Spoiler: Yes, I prefer ART over RT :D

So 19th century is OK for me.

 

Why would you even take opinions of people who've never tried DLSS seriously anyway? Just ignore the BS because that's all it is and all it can be, no matter how well written it is it's still BS. It's important to differentiate between opinions and actual experience.

Would you take advice about sex from a virgin? No you wouldn't lol, and that's exactly how you need to look at this whole thing.

I'm only interested in user experiences of it, and there's plenty of those kinds of people with both positive and negative experiences to take in.

 

Agreed.
The best negative critique has been from DLSS users themselves like @Dragam1337 who posted from the position of their actual experience, as you put it. And from Digital Foundry, and their guy who is an Image Inspector Extraordinaire.
Would I prefer not to use DLSS in Cyberpunk 2077? Hell yes.
At the expense of turning off Ray Tracing (Lighnting, Shadows, Reflections)? Fuk no, you crazy?

 

I must say that cyberpunk is the one exception where i do use dlss, cause even with the drawbacks of dlss, raytracing in that game does take it to another level (when the raytracing isn't buggy), and dlss is needed to get acceptable performance with raytracing enabled, even with a 3090.

Might end up being the same case in this game, but i dont think raytracing will make as good a showcase here, as in cyberpunk.

 

Can you point out where this "awesome sheen of Vaseline" is in any of these shots?

Spoiler

 

Dlss in cyberpunk is considerably more blurry than native res.