i'm still buying dl2, just not now. let'em fix it,wait for a price drop,then buy. my usual routine with any game,good or bad.
The Following is rather good, although its ending... isn't. It's mitigated, kinda, with the second game being a thing, but still.
I'm really on the fence about getting this. My friends and I (total of 3 of us) are thinking about getting it for the coop. Do you think it's worth it for that? It's either this or ready or not for us to play together.
Former Ubisoft dev says that Techland intentionally made AMD FSR look worse in Dying Light 2 A bit of a scummy move, if true.
AFAIK FSR looks worse than DLSS anyway, at least according to Digital Foundry (and what I saw in FarCry6). On the other hand nVidia has a pretty hefty head start so I guess FSR will only get better with time.
FSR is an inferior solution to DLSS. Have no doubt about it. It's best advantage over DLSS is that it can run on all GPUs. But of course, if you have an RTX card, and the game supports DLSS, there is no reason to use FSR. Alex makes it look like it's the worst thing ever, because he is the biggest nVidia fanboy ever. Most reviews were positive on FSR. Showing the positives and negatives of the tech. But Alex only showed the negatives. So much so he outright lied during his review. From using different settings in game to make FSR look worse. To calling it a mere bicubic upscaler.
Maybe, I've not watched that many videos where comparisons between DLSS and FSR were highlighted so I'll take your word for it. But I can say that using FSR in FC6 was really bad even through it was an AMD sponsored game. Overall I feel like overall presentation wasn't especially sharp and rather grainy. I ended up running native since it looked the "best".
FSR is a spatial upscaler. So it has more limitations than DLSS or TAAU. For example, FSR is highly dependent on the game's AA solution. If a game has a blurry TAA solution, or if that TAA produces lots of ghosting, then FSR will have the same issues. In fact, it might make them more noticeable. Also, if a game has an AA solution that has poor coverage and has shimmering, then FSR will also upscale the shimmering. The other thing to consider is that it's result is very dependent on resolution. At 4K, FSR UQ can look very close to native. But at 1440p you can notice the image being a bit blurrier. But at 1080p it gets significantly blurrier. But if a game has a good AA solution, then FSR will look good. For example, I did a comparison in the game Chernobylite, at 1440p. It has support for FSR and DLSS. But it also has support for Epic's TAA gen5, meaning the AA solution was very good. In this game, FSR Ultra Quality had very similar performance to DLSS Quality, but wasn't very distant in image quality. The advantages of FSR is that it can run on almost all GPUs. And it can be implemented quickly and cheaply. At a time when GPUs are so expensive and doing upgrades, FSR can be a decent solution to claw back some performance. But once again, it does have it's limitations.
Shady practices if true. Doesn't hurt AMD only, but gamers who bought your product and own AMD. Between the downgrade, adding Denuvo last minute and now this...techland is really looking rather scummy.
So you guys thought that FSR UQ was disabled by mistake, and HBAO/SSAO is missing by mistake? This is not the first time. And not the last.
Any of you guys tested the fsr ultra quality? I only tried it at 1080p it still doesn't look that good compared to native but fps is close to 60fps compared to low 40's with the 580 high settings. Default 45 sharpen is far too much if your using amd ris and fsr on top of that.
