• MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Can we please stop with this shit?

    The ideal framerate booster was already invented, it’s called asynchronous space warp.

    Frames are generated by the GPU at whatever rate it can do, and then the latest frame is “updated” using reprojection at the framerate of the display, based on input.

    Here is LTT demoing it two years ago.

    It blows my mind that were wasting time with fucking frame generation, when a better way to acheive the same result has been used for VR (where adding latency is a GIANT no-no) for nearly a decade.

    • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      This is a hilariously bad take for anything not VR. async warping causes frame smearing on detail that is really noticable when the screens aren’t so close your peripheral blind spots make up for it.

      Its an excellent tool in the toolbox but to pretend that async reprojection “solved” this kind of means you don’t understand the problem itself…

      Edit: also the LTT video is very cool as a proof of concept, but absolutely demonstrates my point regarding smearing. There are also many, MANY cases where a clean frame with legible information would be preferable to a less latent smeared frame.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Thank you for being rude.

        I’m not pretending it solves anything other than the job of increasing the perceived responsiveness of a game.

        There are a variety of potential ways to fill in the missing peripheral data, or even occluded data, other than simply stretching the edge of the image. Some of which very much overlap with what DLSS and frame generation are doing.

        My core argument is simply that it is superior to frame generation. If you’re gonna throw in fake frames, reprojection beats interpolation.

        Frame generation is completely unfit for purpose, because while it may spit out more frames, it makes games feel LESS responsive, not more.

        ASW does the opposite. Both are “hacky” and “fake” but one is clearly superior in terms of the perceived experience.

        One lets me feel like the game is running faster, the other makes the game look like it runs faster, while making it feel slower.

        This solution by intel is better, essentially because it works more like ASW than other implementations of frame generation.

        • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Frame reprojection lacks motion data. It is in the title. It is reprojecting the last frame. Frame generation uses the interval between real frames, feeds in vector data, and estimates movement.

          If I am trying to follow a ball going across the screen, not moving my mouse, reprojection is flat out worse. Because it is reprojecting the last frame, where nothing moved. Frame 1, Frame 1RP , then Frame 2. 1 and 1RP would have the ball in the exact same place. If I move my viewpoint, then the perspective will feel correct, viewport edges will blur and the reprojection will map to perspective which feels better for head tracking in VR. But for information delivery it is no new data, not even a guess. It’s still the same frame, just in a different point in space. Not till the next real frame comes in.

          With frame generation, if I am watching this ball again, now it looks more like Frame 1 (Real), Frame 1G (estimate), Frame 2 (real) Now frame 1 and frame 1G have different data, and 1G is built on vector data between frames. Not 100% but it’s a educated guess where the ball is going between frame 1 and frame 2. If I move my viewpoint, it is not as responsive feeling as reprojection, but it the gained fake middle frame helps with motion tracking in action.

          The real answer is to use frame generation with low-latency configurations, and also enable reprojection in the game engine if possible. Then you have the best of both worlds. For VR, the headset is the viewport, so it’s handled at a driver level. But for games, the viewport is a detached virtual camera, so the gamedev has to expose this and setup reprojection, or Nvidia and AMD need to build some kind of DLSS/FSR like hook for devs to utilize.

          But if you could do both at once, that would be very cool. You would get the most responsive feel in terms of lag between input and action on screen, while also getting motion updates faster than a full render pass. So yes, Intel’s solution is a set in that direction. But ASW is not in itself a solution, especially for high motion scenes with lost of graphics. There is a reason the demo engine in the LTT video was extremely basic. If you overloaded that with particle effects and heavy rendering like you see in high end titles, then the smearing from reprojection would look awful without rules and bounding on it.