this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
118 points (94.7% liked)

Gaming

19940 readers
162 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Krotiuz@kbin.social 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm one of those people that uses DLSS, because I've got a large fancy 4k monitor that is big enough that is looks like shit at lower resolutions.

DLSS is better than nothing but it's no replacement for native rendering, it introduces a heap of visual anomalies and inconsistencies, especially in games with a consistent motion (racing games look like shit with DLSS), so I tend to be having lows of 50fps on medium before I'll even think about DLSS.
I'm also pretty sure Nvidia is paying devs to have it on by default, because everytime it's patched into a game they clear all the current graphics settings to turn on DLSS, at least in my experience.

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I hate how AI upscaling looks and I really don't get why everyone seems to be gaga over it. In addition to the artifacts and other weirdness it can introduce, it just looks generally like someone smeared vaseline over the picture to me.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not inherent to "AI upscaling" as a process. ESRGAN for example is pretty good at upscaling pictures while keeping the quality.

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've tried upscaling with ESRGAN as well and it has similar problems. It messes with the original textures too much. For example, it made carpet look like a solid surface. Skin looks too smooth and shiny. That kind of thing.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It depends a lot on the source picture, but it's definitely not a general problem inherent to AI upscaling. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many positive examples of ESRGAN.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just play in 640x360 and squint your eyes like we used to in the CRT days.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or 1600x1200 when most LCDs were 1024x768.

CRTs really have gotten a bad rep, although they were great for a while still, after LCDs came on the market

[–] timo_timboo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they were great for a while still, after LCDs came on the market

and they are still great, if not better. I'd take a high-end CRT over a modern LCD any day.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I really wish there was still a market for new modern CRTs I'd have loved to have seen how that technology would've matured further

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If you were gaming at 1600x1200 you either had a supercomputer, or you were gaming on a machine built after 2000.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CGA used to be good enough, you kids with your fancy pixels are just spoiled.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Look at fancy-pants here rendering four colors at a time!

In my day we had green and black. And we were greatful for it!

[–] MrBungle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

*Cries in 320x200

[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is a big part of why I'm sticking to 1440p for as long as it's a viable option. Not like my imperfect vision with glasses on would benefit from more PPI anyway.