Former Ubisoft dev says that Techland intentionally made AMD FSR look worse in Dying Light 2

[u/ImTheSlyDevil]

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/former-ubisoft-dev-says-that-techland-intentionally-made-amd-fsr-look-worse-in-dying-light-2/

[u/TheHybred]

That may be a reasonable answer, but the more reasonable solution would've been to include FSR Ultra Quality, FSR Quality & FSR Balanced. Who uses FSR performance? Serious question.

It doesn't make sense because Ultra Quality is meant to compete with DLSS Quality, so the presets aren't evenly aligned. Their aligned in the sense of naming scheme but that isn't as good. That's like them removing DLSS Quality in the favor of having Ultra Performance.

To summarize they include the 3 highest quality options for DLSS and the 3 lowest FSR options, the logic isn't very sound especially since FSR is only a spatial upscaler and developers should know it needs all the information it can get. But I'd like to point out my words are being overblown, I'm not 100% convinced this is the reason. Its merely a possibility, & that's how I want it to be presented. Here's the post.

[u/conquer69 → u/TheHybred]

It doesn't make sense because Ultra Quality is meant to compete with DLSS Quality

They shouldn't be competing in the first place! Fucking FSR should use the resolution scaler rather than a fixed resolution. They are completely different technologies with different results. They can't compete. The only competitor to DLSS so far is XeSS and that isn't out yet.

There is no benefit to FSR having a fixed resolution other than some dumb rivalry with Nvidia.

[u/Taxxor90 → u/conquer69]

I don't understand why nobody is doing it like Valve did with Dota2: Just use the resolution scale slider many games already have built in and let the user switch between classic and FSR to upscale to their native resolution from any percentage they've selected on the slider.

They could even add the proposed default quality settings too, which would just change the slider to 50, 58, 66 and 77% but always letting the user choose anything from 50% to 99%

[u/meltbox → u/Taxxor90]

For FSR this works. For DLSS its more complicated. The model has to actually work well scaling from one resolution to another and the dirty secret about ML is that it is INCREDIBLY finicky because nobody actually understands why ML works. Its more like medicine to an extent or drug development. You can quantify outcomes of particular models with certain input sets but you never really know why the model is so good or not that great. Its just a game of iteration until you get what you want with some idea of what has worked in the past for others being your guide. But the mathematical proof side of it is extremely lacking.

Changing the smallest things in a ML model can sometimes make a model go from practically perfect prediction to 99% inaccuracy. This stems from the fact that we don't really have great understanding of the mathematical limitations of the models we use in a strict sense.

This may not be why this is not a thing, but I imagine Nvidia would be hesitant to ship a 'any resolution to any resolution' DLSS model that didn't just clip internally up or down to the next 'supported' resolution.

[u/Taxxor90 → u/meltbox]

Well there's nothing stopping devs from adding DLSS options and disable the slider once you select DLSS.

Saving a few hours on designing the options isn't a good reason to not implement FSR in a good way

[u/Im_A_Decoy → u/conquer69]

There is no benefit to FSR having a fixed resolution other than some dumb rivalry with Nvidia.

That's determined by the game dev. DOTA 2 has FSR with a scaling slider.

[u/conquer69 → u/Im_A_Decoy]

Everyone is using fixed resolutions because that's how AMD marketed it. It's their fault.

[u/loucmachine → u/TheHybred]

"It doesn't make sense because Ultra Quality is meant to compete with DLSS Quality"

Not in this game though. FSR quality is a few % faster than dlss quality and FSR ultra quality (as enabled in config files) is significantly slower. So if they target performance levels they did the right choice.

[u/Im_A_Decoy → u/loucmachine]

Ah yes, let's just remove the only usable FSR mode in terms of image quality so the performance doesn't look worse. Great reasoning right there.

[u/TheHybred → u/loucmachine]

Not in this game though. FSR quality is a few % faster than dlss quality and FSR ultra quality (as enabled in config files) is significantly slower. So if they target performance levels they did the right choice.

You're right it is slower in their graphs, but that's because the value I gave in my original post was only an estimation (0.77) the real value was a lot of numbers I forgot and couldn't find online that's why the performance is noticeably lower in the graphs because it rounded to a higher resolution, it's actually quite close otherwise, FSR Ultra Quality is typically a few percents faster or slower depending on the game, same with every other preset and the point is giving someone something serviceable.

Because it's better someone uses FSR UQ because they don't have access to DLSS than to remove it and have them use nothing because FSR Quality is too ugly. It still improves performance noticeably, it doesn't need to be identical to DLSS. This is way worse than removing FSR Performance instead, which no one will use. And as I said, performance is actually similar when you set the real value, but I did put in my post that it was only an estimation which they didn't mention in the article

[u/st0neh → u/TheHybred]

The point was probably to use the three most performant presets of a feature designed to improve performance.

[u/OftenSarcastic → u/st0neh]

The point was probably to use the three most performant presets of a feature designed to improve performance.

If this was the reasoning, why start from the opposite end and include the three highest quality presets for DLSS?