NVIDIA: Rainbow Six Siege Players Test NVIDIA Reflex and Two new DLSS Titles

It has DOF and Motion Blur, but turning them off doesn't fix this -> it's a "trail effect", and as far as I can see it happens only with the spear when carried on my back and rotating the characters Point-of-view.

 

In theory DLSS isn't trained with individual titles anymore, I was just wondering if it was misinterpreting this object as something that is out of the focal plane.

 

It's not. I don't know how many times we have to tell you this on these forums, but you clearly have no idea how these neural networks work.

Regarding the juicy "information theory" bomb you dropped, I'll leave you a hint that these neural networks store, in their weights and biases, this information that you think has been "irreversibly lost".

Don't bother replying, this reply is for others to not be mislead by your statements. Not you, you're hopeless.

 

If you do not want technical reply, fine. I'll not tell you which technical part of your statement is wrong.

But do not ever expect that when throwing dirt and asking for no reply, it will happen.
And we both know why you have problem with me. Why your interaction always gets this way. And that it is not for real world reasons.
I evade your posts as much as I can. And limit my interaction to occasional like when I agree, if possible.

 

You're delusional, and the reason you think I have a problem with you has nothing to do with the actual reason.

The actual reason is that you insist on your own faulty understandings and you berate others for not agreeing with them. Others that have a formal education in this field constantly attempt to correct you but you behave exactly as a brick wall does. You do not have the required knowledge to discuss some of these topics that you attempt to barge into, and it's cringe-worthy for those of us who have spent the last few years of our lives literally working with these technologies, doing academic-level research on them or working in the industry with them.

You have wrong intuition, and this is easily due to the fact that you often have no idea the sort of garbage you spew on these forums. You're basically at the bottom of the knowledge pyramid in these topics, and you need to pass from wrong intuition to wrong analysis, then right analysis, then right intuition so that you get to rely on intuition as much as you think you should.

The sort of confusion you create here is that you sprinkle your posts with technical words and irrelevant mathematical analogies that someone who doesn't actually know much about the subject ends up believing you and the misinformation you present. Then they see you doubling down on your statements.

You derail threads, insult people who do not agree with you, act like you know better than everyone (you're not even close), and once cornered, expect others to put up with your refusal to actually provide any meaningful statements to back up your argument.

That and you have an obvious axe to grind with Nvidia. Literally, no matter what they do, you're always complaining and acting as if their engineers are morons and you know much better than they do about their *own* technologies (which is cringe-worthy and only demonstrates that you have a narcissistic personality, which is unhealthy for everyone). I'm not even sure if anyone in these forums likes Nvidia as a company - most people frequently complain about many of their obnoxious practices. Mostly people here who like Nvidia products like them because they deliver what they're looking for, not because they have some love relationship with a company that, like any other company, seeks its own bottom line to appease its investors.

You evade my posts as much as you can because I'm one of the only people here who constantly expose you when you're being fraudulent, and I'm not going to stop until you either change, get banned, or I get banned. I fight ignorant statements, and therefore ignorant people, in a battle to the death.

So, either you actually start learning from others here when they correct you, or you would do everyone a service to just leave these forums and take your haughty, narcissistic, know-it-all toxicity with you.

 

And we are back at your mile long personal posts. Just stop it before someone stops it again for us.

 

Case in point.

 

Like the time you fought the Nyquist Law and lost. And then instead of simply saying "sry i had a brainfart" you doubled-down by linking a video from the guy who later admitted he was wrong?

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/forza-horizon-4-demo-available.422968/page-2

That kind of technical reply? Because there is rarely anything technical about your replies. Instead whole lot of hand waving and pretending like you gonna drop some technical bomb, but always stopping short of.
See - now I feel dirty for mentioning this. As well as because of whole tone of the exchange. Is why bro you often get away with your 'mistakes': ppl dont want to get down, because if they do - they get dirty.
But then when left unchallenged you take it as an approval and run with it to the other end of galaxy.

Which is not a big deal - not a big deal at all - LOL i've seen Nobel laureates talking nonsense on twitter. ppl talk nonsense all the time.
BUT... WHY NOT RESIST the temptation to make any big statement that you are not sure you can back up? How about that dog?

 

2121: Forum member FUA: "DLSS SXSP is trash, it only upscales from one quadrillion pixels to 4 quadrillion pixels. True 4 quadrillion pixels looks so much better."
Rest of the world: ZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.......

 

That paper did 2 things.
1st, It took 1kHz, 2kHz and 3kHz repetitive stable sine-like signals in 22.05kHz space. Which demonstrates what you wanted to demonstrate, except it did not touch bandwidth problem with non-sine (random) sound samples and sampling rate. With simple sine signals, you can get away with frequencies up to 1/2 of sampling rate. And from samples obtained nearly under or at 1/2 of, you need to know that original was sine wave.

Do you know why? Because Triangle wave would have in such situation practically same sampled values.

Then on page #9 of your document, they told you:

That's saw signal, not white noise, not speech, no multiple sine-like frequency effects changing frequency over time. (What text says is that to get perfect saw, you need infinite sampling frequency.)

Then study goes into aliasing, where they kind of go with:
"Removal of any frequency that's above 1/2 of sampling rate to prevent aliasing."
And that's was my entire point. Shown on taking 2 identical signals and shifting them by smaller amount of time that takes one period.
If signals already have frequency equal 1/2 of sampling rate, you are no longer capable to capture them properly because signal is no longer one sine wave, but has multiple peaks and its actual frequency of peaks doubled within one period.
= = = =
And article is about capturing audio, not mixing multiple audio sampled digital sounds.

Spoiler: Their conclusion is not bad. Or good. It tells you this:

"The danger here is that people who hear something they like may associate better sound with faster sampling, wider bandwidth, and higher accuracy. This indirectly implies that lower rates are inferior. Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system, and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower sampling. "

It does not tell you that because you can't hear frequencies above 22kHz, sampling is fine at 44kHz. It tells you that use of 96kHz sampling is better than use of 192kHz, because 192kHz sampling devices introduce their own errors to sampled data. (Mind, state of available sampling devices in 2004.)
- - - -

What does it really says? That with given technology state, optimal sampling rate would be somewhere around 64kHz. But it is not saying anywhere that it is due to no need (or usefulness of) for more. It says such thing due to fact that devices themselves did not deal with such signals properly in their analog to digital converters.

 

A better title would be "NVIDIA: Rainbow Six Siege Players Test futuristic technologies expected to be available for common folks within the next 20 years".

 

how ?
you thought dlss works better on 2080ti than 2070 cause it has more tensor cores,which is simply not true
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-12...nchmarks_mit_raytracing_und_dlss_sowie_reflex

now with another theory no one has heard of

 

DLSS 2.0 is awesome but honestly that TAA implementation in Control is awful and should not be called native.

 

Aaaaand off you go... into any direction you felt like, following any random thought that popped up in your head.

Course: unknown. Goal: none. Nothing.

Not even a hint of what you're arguing against. Zero discipline. Just a sheer will to persevere.

 

Not because it has more tensor cores. But because there is smaller temporal change in between frames. (Due to higher performance, card gives higher fps with same settings which means lower time in between frames.)

Imagine simple 3d tunnel to infinity. Or 2D projection plane into which you zoom. (Like fractal.)
You move/zoom towards it at constant speed in way that central area covering 1/4 of total pixels of screen will cover entire screen in 0.5 seconds.

Now imagine that you have:
2fps = 500ms frame time => complete new frame has 4 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 25% of frame.)
at 4 fps = 250ms frame time => complete new frame has 1.78 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 56.25% of frame.)
With very high fps, frame time is very small. And so is amount of missing information in previous frame required to enhance new frame.
Opposite to that extreme would be fps so small (or speed so high), that nothing on next frame is based on previous frame.

Simply put, when one HW puts out 200fps and HW next to it puts out only 50fps, slower HW has proportionally higher change in data per frame missing. (In motion situations. When scene in view is static, there is practically no change over time and therefore no loss.)

 

No kind of post-processing is native. It is just post processing.
One could as well render native 4K, run over it 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter and state: "Native 4K is worse than TAA 1080p."

Sure, 4K with use of 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter would look worse than 1080p with any TAA. Yet, statement would be wrong as it does not compare native resolution rendering, but post-processing methods.

And as can be seen, I stated that DLSS 2.0 is often better than TAA run at native resolution. (But not better than native resolution rendering itself. There is simply too big loss of information for both TAA and DLSS.)
And as I wrote many times before. nVidia should have enabled use of DLSS for processing of native resolution images. Its frametime impact is not high and would justify its results.

 

wow...
therefore with non periodic signals you can't? WTH dude? You still haven't read the Nyquist theorem.

Did it occur to you that any signal (periodic or non-periodic, sine or otherwise), as long as its finite can be represented as a superposition of sines/coss??

THERFORE

IF THIS

IS TRUE

than its equally true for any other signal, and NOT just sine.

Because what else would be "the highest frequency" of non-periodic signal? lf not that of highest harmonic in its Fourier series?


This is such a basic stuff that its pissing me off that you dont know it, but are still willing to go back and forth. Arguing against a MATHEMATICAL theorem. Who does that

 

Are you really that pissed? Because there is difference between sine and triangular wave? And because when both have frequency equal 1/2 of sampling rate, their captured values are exactly same?
Have you by chance ever saw frequency spectrum of saw tooth or triangular wave? Let's say 8kHz symmetric triangular wave. Captured with something that has sampling rate of 96kHz or more. (To prevent cut off.)
Can you, yourself by chance post image?

 

"what if mouse farts" , "lets say Santa is a rapist", "imagine that a reindeer explodes"

read the Nyquest theorem

bye


https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/forza-horizon-4-demo-available.422968/page-2

 

I get you and I feel for you. That thing you do not want to put here is:
8kHz triangle wave has odd harmonics which are at following frequencies:
24kHz, 40kHz, 56kHz, 72kHz, 88kHz, ...

When you look at 8kHz triangle wave through Nyquist Theorem, you'll know that having sample rate of:
44kHz will capture properly only 1st Harmonics at 8kHz, rest will be trashed depending on AD pre-processing.
96kHz will capture properly 1st Harmonics at 8kHz, and 24kHz + 40kHz harmonics.
192kHz will capture properly 1st Harmonics at 8kHz, and 24kHz + 40kHz + 56kHz + 72kHz + 88kHz harmonics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_wave
In link above, there is lovely example of effect of harmonics on resulting sound. (Right side, named: Additive Triangle wave sound sample. )
Sound itself starts at 220Hz, its added harmonics are 660Hz, 1100Hz, 1540Hz, 1980Hz, 2420Hz, 2860Hz, ... and so on.
What can be heard at 1st when only 220Hz sound plays is pure sine wave. Adding additional harmonics (which are sine waves too) slowly in steps turns it closer and closer to true triangle wave.

Everyone can hear for themselves that without harmonics, there is no triangular wave.
Sampling and replaying 8kHz triangular wave at 44kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz will result in very different outputs.

And there is even image of harmonics of triangle wave on same wiki.
- - - -

As of your examples in quotation marks. I'll give you alternative: "What if you actually look at what I told you to look at years ago."