Friday, September 9th 2022
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 Unveiled with Several Upscaler Changes to Improve Realism
AMD late Thursday unveiled the FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 (FSR 2.1) performance enhancement, which builds on the performance-quality gains of FSR 2.0, while improving the visual fidelity and correcting several kinds of upscaling artifacts visible to the keen eye. To begin with, it corrected ghosting issues with geometry carrying motion vectors not matching the underlying pixel colors, which were causing a "shimmering" effect. There are also changes to the disocclusion logic that let it detect disocclusions in areas with little depth separating objects, which again should address some ghosting issues.
Upscaled output quality has been improved by turning some upscaler computations from FP16 to FP32 (full-precision), which should improve color range and temporal stability of the upscaled image. Ghosting issues on transparent geometry has also been improved by updates to the reactive mask. Ghosting issues on geometry with motion vectors not matching underlying pixel colors have been addressed with improvements to the composition and transparency mask. AMD detailed FSR 2.1 in its GPUOpen page, and has made the software available to game developers. Any game currently implementing FSR 2.0 can release FSR 2.1 support through patches. The latest version 1.7.1 patch of Farming Simulator 2022 implements FSR 2.1.
AMD also put together a video presentation with Farming Simulator 2022, highlighting the improvements made with FSR 2.1.
Upscaled output quality has been improved by turning some upscaler computations from FP16 to FP32 (full-precision), which should improve color range and temporal stability of the upscaled image. Ghosting issues on transparent geometry has also been improved by updates to the reactive mask. Ghosting issues on geometry with motion vectors not matching underlying pixel colors have been addressed with improvements to the composition and transparency mask. AMD detailed FSR 2.1 in its GPUOpen page, and has made the software available to game developers. Any game currently implementing FSR 2.0 can release FSR 2.1 support through patches. The latest version 1.7.1 patch of Farming Simulator 2022 implements FSR 2.1.
27 Comments on AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 Unveiled with Several Upscaler Changes to Improve Realism
For directX 11 it is not unfortunately.
if the game has DLSS you can often use the nvgnx.dll mod to fsr2 too as well, and where it worked you can just add a new compiled 2.1 version in place :)
Here is comparison and downloads :
imgsli.com/MTI0NTg4/4/1
twitter.com/CapFrameX/status/1567968973509242881
The things is if you read the releases notes of FSR 2.1, there are some stuff that need to be adjusted by de devs to make full use of it if i understand correctly. (Making sure you send the good input data to it). So we could say in this case, this is FSR 2.1 with FSR 2.0 data. It's a bit like the FSR 2.0 Mod that replace DLSS. DLSS is not sending all the data that FSR need so some artefact can be seen.
Still I didn't expect to be that quick before they updated it. They are really putting the effort. Now what it need is more game with official support.
weird ass crashes always happen, you can't prevent all of them because there are millions of possible combinations for mobo + cpu + gpu + ram + drivers - if there's a fault at any point, you get crashes, you'd know this IF you'd just bothered to consider that. :rolleyes:
as an example, my last game I released would fail to start at all for some people - DDU + driver reinstall fixed that. is my game considered abandoned because someone had fucked up driver installation, and a fix for this particular issue is completely out of my hands? I don't think so, but if I'm operating on a "false assumption" and a "keyboard warrior" then yes, looks like my game really is abandoned :confused:
as for metro exodus crashing, I played that game back in 2019 and while I didn't like it, I didn't run into any crashes either, so sounds like you just used crashes reported on steam as a goalpost move that you pulled out of your a... a-a-a-a... a-ass...
Regardless it shows the achilles heel of these technologies, its not automagic like real AA.
nah I'd say it's way past it's "goodwill" period of post-launch update period - anything more is a cherry on top on behalf of the publisher... especially considering it's a singleplayer game with no in-app purchase BS
and I wouldn't say I moved goalposts either - my question stands as it stood in my initial message: what constitutes a game being considered "abandoned"? barring expecting more updates for a 3+ year old game, I still haven't received an answer to my question
if by "abandoned" you mean "past it's post-release update period" and "crashes that are more likely due to the user's setup rather than the game code", then idk what you expect lol, sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing
does them being "abandoned" carry a negative sentiment?
You started the argument on this, not the guy you responded to; somehow 'abandoned' hit the wrong nerve or something, I don't know. So indeed arguing for the sake of arguing, just not the way you think it was going.We can debate whether or not more FSR updates are supposed to happen, but the deserted forums tell a big story: the game obviously didn't make the money it should have, apparently.
Otherwise, they would still see sales potential, and they would still add features like this to keep the game current.
@spnidel refer to the first quote here. I think people are being very sane here... The fact is, they last released this game just over a year ago and it still being sold by the publisher. Agile development should not just work in favor of the dev/publisher... the principle is that features get added post release to begin with. You release games you say... so you know what it is? If not, refer below, and then reflect on what you've been saying just now. And its for that very same reason that I consider 'the last official released version' the definitive feature complete one. Damn right it should have a bug fix aftermath - until that point the devs were still developing the game! It stands to reason the team is still somehow intact or it has some extended support going on. Very logical, even for single player, the game doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even a new Windows update can kill its stability.
docs.microsoft.com/en-us/devops/plan/what-is-agile-development
The next fundamental question is one of principle and ethics. Is it right for a company to abandon a title just because sales didn't quite meet expectations? Let's not forget the tiny detail this had to release exclusively on Epic, too, and the backlash that followed. We have some very valuable developer quotes from those days, too. If a company cannot provide support for its games, how trustworthy is it? If a dev doesn't provide TLC post release, how respectful a dev is it and/or how dedicated can it be considered? These things matter. As indie dev you should know first hand. Whether you like that or not, is really not relevant. You develop for a customer base and it really is king, in the end.
Your view on what constitutes a proper support period differs wildly from what customers seem to expect. I'm not saying you don't release updates for your games, I'm saying you seem to be wearing the wrong glasses and that's why you got your panties in a bunch because someone typed 'abandoned'. And then when the explanation comes, again, you act like you're being attacked. It shows also in the wording you're using, as if some battle must be fought here, its even close to insulting - people 'talk out of their ass' and other nice things. Nice way to have a discussion.
You're not being attacked, people are offering a perspective that doesn't match yours and somehow clearly is an issue to you. That's a you problem and it echoes from every post your made here. You're saying you know it all, but it doesn't match what you're posting. Its also up to you whether you want to see that or not. You do you ;)Solid companies are capable of extending support beyond their profit line, because there is more profitable business in the company. One thing can pay for another, its how many companies work. And then the company name can grow out to become a brand you 'trust' because things always work out. Blizzard is a good example of that, up until some years back. They just kept patching and as a result have built incredibly strong franchises.
Continued support is also relevant for communities to stay alive, which, ultimately, leads to continued support for sequels.
you could get cheeky and call it a "trigger" and you'd be rightno thanks to patching for the most partthanks to marketing lol, no one gives a shit about patching unless there's strong marketing behind it to let everyone know how big of a good boy the developer isthey have incredibly strong franchises thanks to marketing, not patching. patching is mainly relevant in the initial period of when you have to "prove" that you're a good developer.
comparing metro exodus, a single player game where people sperged out because they couldn't get a game on their favorite digital game distribution platform (which is an infantile and stupid reason btw), to something like blizzard, a company that produces multiplayer titles only in the last 10+ years, is a bad comparison...are we talking about singleplayer games? sounds like a goalpost move againgood marketing ultimately leads to sequels, continued support is at the behest of the company leads if they determine it's a worthwhile investment