By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Face-Off: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

Scientificreason said:
walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

I think dynamic resolution is something we should see more often instead of fluctuating framerates, to be honest. And given they implemented it now means they can use this in coming games, too. It's a nice technique for me.

I don't like... it is noticiable like in Wolfenstein but AW seems to change less than Wolfenstein.


I know you don't agree with me and I know you have no problem with a fluctuating framerate but framerate issues I "feel" more than a changing resolution when actually playing.

It's only in one chapter a few times in the campaign.... Perfectly fine in single player.  The game runs rock solid 99 percent of the time. 


I am talking in general, not specifically about this game. I know ethomaz' general attitude that's why I replied to him the way I did.



Around the Network
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

I know you don't agree with me and I know you have no problem with a fluctuating framerate but framerate issues I "feel" more than a changing resolution when actually playing.

I shadown edited my comment a bit and added...

"At least from what I see it is possible to work in the PS4 framerate without use dynamic resolution... and I think the screen tearing in Xbone is due the implementation of dynamic resolution because it is happening evey with more solid framerate."

I do have issue with framerate drops but I prefer a game running over 30fps variable than locked 30fps due gameplay perspective... I think a game avg. 40 plays better than a game locked at 30fps... the best of course will be locked at 60fps... the dream.

And in terms of issues screen tearing is really the worst for me.


Agreed, screen tearing is horrible but we don't know exactly if it is because of dynamic resolution. Other games do that, too, and there is close to no screen tearing. Either way, in my opinon sacrifice the res in heavy situations than let fps drop.



walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:
Seems like the Dynamic resolution was more marketing when achievable... they could have locked in 1360x1080 or 1600x900 but I understand the PR mess they are facing right now.

The framerate dips in PS4 campaign and screen tearing in Xbone campaign are really bad even if it is sporadic... they could have a bit of more polish because seems like the overall performance is great.


I think dynamic resolution is something we should see more often instead of fluctuating framerates, to be honest. And given they implemented it now means they can use this in coming games, too. It's a nice technique for me.

The problem with dynamic resolution is that it introduces extra lag. You need to buffer extra frames to make up for time lost on a frame that went over budget. It's not simple to calculate how long a frame render will take with different resolutions. That's probably why the 1360x1080 is fixed in multiplayer and 1920x1080 is only used in some places in the campaign. Probably hard coded to avoid lag from just in time adjustments.
Wipeout HD dynamically reduces resolution but drops frames first and then goes back to 60fps while lowering resolution. GT4 had a different approach, first rendering the even lines then the odd lines. In busy scenes in GT4 the resolution basically halves as only half the lines are updated for a small time. KZ:SF multiplayer does that with columns, except every other frame and tries to interpolate the missing pixels.

All approaches have disadvantages and introduce extra overhead.

Another approach could be to render the scene at half resolution first. Then fill in full resolution blocks starting from the center or where the action is at. That would work especially well for racing games as you're always looking down the road and the edges of the screen are usually smeared in motion blur anyway. Of course it's still more efficient to render 1 optimized pass. Or do what it seems AW did, lock the reolution based on where you are.



SvennoJ said:
walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:
Seems like the Dynamic resolution was more marketing when achievable... they could have locked in 1360x1080 or 1600x900 but I understand the PR mess they are facing right now.

The framerate dips in PS4 campaign and screen tearing in Xbone campaign are really bad even if it is sporadic... they could have a bit of more polish because seems like the overall performance is great.


I think dynamic resolution is something we should see more often instead of fluctuating framerates, to be honest. And given they implemented it now means they can use this in coming games, too. It's a nice technique for me.

The problem with dynamic resolution is that it introduces extra lag. You need to buffer extra frames to make up for time lost on a frame that went over budget. It's not simple to calculate how long a frame render will take with different resolutions. That's probably why the 1360x1080 is fixed in multiplayer and 1920x1080 is only used in some places in the campaign. Probably hard coded to avoid lag from just in time adjustments.
Wipeout HD dynamically reduces resolution but drops frames first and then goes back to 60fps while lowering resolution. GT4 had a different approach, first rendering the even lines then the odd lines. In busy scenes in GT4 the resolution basically halves as only half the lines are updated for a small time. KZ:SF multiplayer does that with columns, except every other frame and tries to interpolate the missing pixels.

All approaches have disadvantages and introduce extra overhead.

Another approach could be to render the scene at half resolution first. Then fill in full resolution blocks starting from the center or where the action is at. That would work especially well for racing games as you're always looking down the road and the edges of the screen are usually smeared in motion blur anyway. Of course it's still more efficient to render 1 optimized pass. Or do what it seems AW did, lock the reolution based on where you are.


If we didn't have all the repeated talk about how important resolution is, devs probably wouldn't look for solutions like this. I think in general this is a nice approach and some research will be spent into this this gen. Again, I am more ok with this than dropping frames. How difficult it is for devs to make good predictions and other stuff I am glad to read when they release ppts of their stuff :)



SvennoJ said:

The problem with dynamic resolution is that it introduces extra lag. You need to buffer extra frames to make up for time lost on a frame that went over budget. It's not simple to calculate how long a frame render will take with different resolutions. That's probably why the 1360x1080 is fixed in multiplayer and 1920x1080 is only used in some places in the campaign. Probably hard coded to avoid lag from just in time adjustments.
Wipeout HD dynamically reduces resolution but drops frames first and then goes back to 60fps while lowering resolution. GT4 had a different approach, first rendering the even lines then the odd lines. In busy scenes in GT4 the resolution basically halves as only half the lines are updated for a small time. KZ:SF multiplayer does that with columns, except every other frame and tries to interpolate the missing pixels.

All approaches have disadvantages and introduce extra overhead.

Another approach could be to render the scene at half resolution first. Then fill in full resolution blocks starting from the center or where the action is at. That would work especially well for racing games as you're always looking down the road and the edges of the screen are usually smeared in motion blur anyway. Of course it's still more efficient to render 1 optimized pass. Or do what it seems AW did, lock the reolution based on where you are.

All bad solutions

WipEout really feels weird (I love the game) at super high speeds due the change in resolutions and framerate.

Killzone MP is a blurry mess that need to be avoided at any cost.

AW is early to call yet but I guess the screen tearing happens when the resolution have big changes.



Around the Network
walsufnir said:
SvennoJ said:

The problem with dynamic resolution is that it introduces extra lag. You need to buffer extra frames to make up for time lost on a frame that went over budget. It's not simple to calculate how long a frame render will take with different resolutions. That's probably why the 1360x1080 is fixed in multiplayer and 1920x1080 is only used in some places in the campaign. Probably hard coded to avoid lag from just in time adjustments.
Wipeout HD dynamically reduces resolution but drops frames first and then goes back to 60fps while lowering resolution. GT4 had a different approach, first rendering the even lines then the odd lines. In busy scenes in GT4 the resolution basically halves as only half the lines are updated for a small time. KZ:SF multiplayer does that with columns, except every other frame and tries to interpolate the missing pixels.

All approaches have disadvantages and introduce extra overhead.

Another approach could be to render the scene at half resolution first. Then fill in full resolution blocks starting from the center or where the action is at. That would work especially well for racing games as you're always looking down the road and the edges of the screen are usually smeared in motion blur anyway. Of course it's still more efficient to render 1 optimized pass. Or do what it seems AW did, lock the reolution based on where you are.


If we didn't have all the repeated talk about how important resolution is, devs probably wouldn't look for solutions like this. I think in general this is a nice approach and some research will be spent into this this gen. Again, I am more ok with this than dropping frames. How difficult it is for devs to make good predictions and other stuff I am glad to read when they release ppts of their stuff :)

Blame LCD screens for the resolution debate. Native resolution simply looks better than scaling. I would be fine with dropping effects to maintain frame rate instead of resolution. Ofcourse smoke, particles or distant shadows / detail suddenly disappearing would be ugly too.

It's a paradox, the more time you spend on accurately calculating and predicting how much time the next frame render will take, the more time you take away from actually rendering the scene. Last gen the problem was tackled by removing geometry and details beforehand while profiling the game. That got just as much repeated talk, ps3 missing extra grass, less items in the background, less alpha effects etc. Now it's more focussed on resolution.

Lowering the resolution affects the whole scene, rendering a few things less is only noticeable if you look at them side by side. Ofcourse the gap is a lot bigger this time around and simply removing a few objects might not be enough. And a less busy scene would not look next gen enough on screenshots :/