already in development DLSS is now free

[twistking]

56 minutes ago, Tenebrae Aeternae said:

Yeah talking about 2d, but thinking it logically, it will downscale it and upscale it in proportion.. so also the downscaled resolution in VR is much higher than in 2d. Otherwise it would look horrible.

i would find it plausible that DLSS VR can get away with higher upscaling ratios, because it could use two images (stereoscpic rendering) to reconstruct details from. this is just an educated guess though. i could not find any hard evidence for that.

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

i would find it plausible that DLSS VR can get away with higher upscaling ratios, because it could use two images (stereoscpic rendering) to reconstruct details from. this is just an educated guess though. i could not find any hard evidence for that.

Got interested enough to find some benchmarks, and indeed at least with MFS, DLSS in Quality mode, flat screen 4k was around 13% performance boost and in VR 25% performance boost. Having used DLSS quite a bit, i doubt many people would want to steer away from the "quality" mode, especially in VR. I use sometimes "Balanced", but it gets quite noticeable at that point, no doubt doubly annoying in VR.

[SkateZilla]

These reviewers obviously ran the benches for numbers and didnt look at the image, as I've already talked to a few people with a 4090 and they have motion artifacts. using DLSS3

[twistking]

16 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

These reviewers obviously ran the benches for numbers and didnt look at the image, as I've already talked to a few people with a 4090 and they have motion artifacts. using DLSS3

We were talkin about DLSS 2.0. not 3.0.
I've not seen a single truly positive review of DLSS 3.0. It seems to be more of a gimmick at best. But that does not take anything away from the benefits that DLSS 2.0 brings.
Nvidia would probably been better of calling DLSS 3.0 something else honestly...

Edited October 18, 2022 by twistking

[SkateZilla]

18 minutes ago, twistking said:

We were talkin about DLSS 2.0. not 3.0.
I've not seen a single truly positive review of DLSS 3.0. It seems to be more of a gimmick at best. But that does not take anything away from the benefits that DLSS 2.0 brings.
Nvidia would probably been better of calling DLSS 3.0 something else honestly...

 

FSR 2.0 is about par with DLSS2.0 and works on AMD, Intel or nVidia, and is easily added to Vulkan, as is any GPUOpen function.

Edited October 18, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Mr_sukebe]

Just to add, I already use FSR via OpenXR in VR.  Works really well.

 

I’m with Skate on this, ie use the “effort” that it would take to implement DLSS on something of a higher priority.  

[tomcat_driver]

5 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Just to add, I already use FSR via OpenXR in VR.  Works really well.

 

I’m with Skate on this, ie use the “effort” that it would take to implement DLSS on something of a higher priority.  

I have a great performance improvements in VR with DLSS on in MSFS2020

[Mr_sukebe]

Me too, but I find FSR just as easy and prefer the visuals.

[twistking]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Me too, but I find FSR just as easy and prefer the visuals.

Have you used both FSR and DLSS in titles that are similar to DCS in that they require god detail reconstruction (spotting targets, reading isntruments etc.)?
I could only compare the two in youtube videos, which is bad in itself, but it was with some generic action titles, where micro detail is less important and it's more about a temporarly stable and clean image. My biggest concern with FSR is that it might be worse than DLSS when it comes to those fine details...
I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this. Or anyone's opinion who has already compared the two technologies in preferably sim-type-titles...

[VirusAM]

Just to add, I already use FSR via OpenXR in VR.  Works really well.
 
I’m with Skate on this, ie use the “effort” that it would take to implement DLSS on something of a higher priority.  

And that is not true fsr (and is 1.0 also).
A proper 2.0 implementation from ED would be the night and day

[Morat]

FSR yes

DLSS no

and I say that as an NVidia owner. One who is looking at the leaks around the rasterisation scores for the 7000 series GPUs and thinking that it could be time to switch to AMD. If we're locked into one vendor by one specific tech then we're not going to be able to choose the price/performance that suits us. This is a very bad thing for DCS as a whole which is limited in market share to people who have a ton of spare money, or those who are prepared to put up with poor to marginal performance. In VR, those two markets overlap

If DCS wishes to grow, it needs to be accessible to people who have average gaming PCs. The barriers are already high in hardware costs when you look at monitors, joysticks, pedals. To add a requirement for a MONSTER gaming PC does _not_ help the future of DCS no matter how much the current user base likes to imagine themselves elite because they have £5k invested in hardware which still doesn't run great.

 

IF I were running ED I'd charge $50 for a six month openbeta early access multithread/vulkan package. It's PEANUTS to people who boast of buying a 3090Ti/4090/12900k and a top end HMD. Everyone who cares about DCS would buy it if they could afford it and wait if they can't. Call it a tax on poor impulse control. I bet there are people reading this who have spent more on their mousemat. Let alone their mouse. After six months, the early access folds (with lots of test data/revisions) and is available to everyone. BUT I'd charge $30 a year for a DCS license which could then be invested back into the core features of the game. Face it: the current business plan of paying for modules only  is broken - which is why we're in such a mess. If you hate the idea of paying $80 in one year to access software you already own, think of the performance increase and compare that with the cost of buying a latest gen GPU/CPU or even a motherboard. If you can get another year out of your Gaming PC - and even improve performance with what you've got - then it's a bargain. The only downside is you won't have a reason to "Justify" splooging a normal person's mortgage payment on a piece of shiny hardware which will be obsolete in 24 months.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Morat

[draconus]

On 10/22/2022 at 1:08 PM, Morat said:

IF I were running ED I'd charge $50 for a six month openbeta early access multithread/vulkan package.

[Topo]

 

On 10/22/2022 at 1:08 PM, Morat said:

BUT I'd charge $30 a year for a DCS license which could then be invested back into the core features of the game.

Agree; in my opinion, a reasonable annual payment to keep the engine updated quickly wouldn't be a bad idea.

[okopanja]

On 10/22/2022 at 1:08 PM, Morat said:

IF I were running ED I'd charge $50 for a six month openbeta early access multithread/vulkan package. It's PEANUTS to people who boast of buying a 3090Ti/4090/12900k and a top end HMD. Everyone who cares about DCS would buy it if they could afford it and wait if they can't. Call it a tax on poor impulse control. I bet there are people reading this who have spent more on their mousemat. Let alone their mouse. After six months, the early access folds (with lots of test data/revisions) and is available to everyone. BUT I'd charge $30 a year for a DCS license which could then be invested back into the core features of the game. Face it: the current business plan of paying for modules only  is broken - which is why we're in such a mess. If you hate the idea of paying $80 in one year to access software you already own, think of the performance increase and compare that with the cost of buying a latest gen GPU/CPU or even a motherboard. If you can get another year out of your Gaming PC - and even improve performance with what you've got - then it's a bargain. The only downside is you won't have a reason to "Justify" splooging a normal person's mortgage payment on a piece of shiny hardware which will be obsolete in 24 months.

I think no additional "tax" should be imposed. Clearly: majority does not intend to spend money on 3090/4090 in order to play this game. If ED wants to have the future, it should focus on optimizations that will make the mid-range PCs work well with DCS. Its time to stop thinking the customers will pay for software requiring users to follow Moore's Law cutting edge.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

Clearly: majority does not intend to spend money on 3090/4090 in order to play this game.

Welcome to PC gaming. For better or worse hardware like this is exactly what is required in order to run any current game at it’s ultra settings and high frame rates. DCS is actually easier to run than many other games, in fact it’s the only one my aging PC handles really well anymore. 

[Morat]

On 10/25/2022 at 8:24 AM, okopanja said:

I think no additional "tax" should be imposed. Clearly: majority does not intend to spend money on 3090/4090 in order to play this game. If ED wants to have the future, it should focus on optimizations that will make the mid-range PCs work well with DCS. Its time to stop thinking the customers will pay for software requiring users to follow Moore's Law cutting edge.

I understand your sentiment that software should be purchased once but saying "Tax" is over-emotional. A license fee is not a tax and Moore's Law doesn't have anything to do with the ridiculous prices charged by NVidia this time round. (Please God, let AMD see sense and undercut them significantly with the RX7000s!)

ED do indeed need to concentrate on the game engine, it is horribly out of date and is holding back the whole experience. However, from what I can see, the revenue comes from module sales. It may well be that module devs pay ED for the privilege of running on the DCS ecosystem but even if that is true, funding the essential core updates will still come second to module sales.

We both, essentially, want the same thing: Multithread and Vulkan ASAP. I'm prepared to pay a little money for it. I do agree that if you buy software you should have the right to run it forever. BUT you don't have a right to expect it to be updated indefinitely free of charge. DCS is a game that has ended up with the longevity of commercial software. While I might expect a patch or two from a game before I get bored/stop playing it, commercial software is nearly always available on a purchase + annual support basis or has transitioned to a pure annual sub. Why? because commercial software is constantly developed - just like DCS. Of course, skilled developers are expensive.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Morat

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

11 minutes ago, Morat said:

While I might expect a patch or two from a game before I get bored/stop playing it, commercial software is nearly always available on a purchase + annual support basis or has transitioned to a pure annual sub. Why? because commercial software is constantly developed - just like DCS. Of course, skilled developers are expensive.

I'd imagine that the over 1000€ i have put in this game would justify expecting a few "free" updates, especially since some of the modules aren't in finished state years after release. DCS seems to be doing something right though, looks to be running strong and it's propably the second biggest sim out there. 

[Morat]

4 minutes ago, Tenebrae Aeternae said:

I'd imagine that the over 1000€ i have put in this game would justify expecting a few "free" updates, especially since some of the modules aren't in finished state years after release. DCS seems to be doing something right though, looks to be running strong and it's propably the second biggest sim out there. 

Wellll that's not really how it works. You pay EU1000 you get the software you bought, according to the terms and conditions. I haven't read the TnCs but I bet they don't include free updates for life.

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

22 minutes ago, Morat said:

Wellll that's not really how it works.

That's literally how it works currently though, obviously quite succesfully aswell. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Morat said:

I do agree that if you buy software you should have the right to run it forever.

This isn’t exactly true. If you failed to keep your machine up to date at some point you’d no longer be able to run it or in the case of a game, run it well enough. For example at one point DCS started to require a 32-bit OS. I’m sure this is covered in the EULA 

Edited October 27, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Yeti42]

I really don't understand why anybody would say no to DLSS... DLSS is available on all RTX nvidia cards which have become the norm nowadays obviously excluding AMD.  The performance uplift can be substantial as demonstrated by MSFS 2020's latest release.  It's the biggest increase in performance I've seen in any game without having to drop thousands on a new graphics card.

[Germane]

Yeah we really need DLSS. It is a game changer.

[Morat]

23 hours ago, Yeti42 said:

I really don't understand why anybody would say no to DLSS... DLSS is available on all RTX nvidia cards which have become the norm nowadays obviously excluding AMD.  The performance uplift can be substantial as demonstrated by MSFS 2020's latest release.  It's the biggest increase in performance I've seen in any game without having to drop thousands on a new graphics card.

We don't need vendor lock-in. You may be happy to commit to NVidia forever but we should be able to choose another supplier in the future if their product is superior/better value/prettier/whatever.

 

[Myrsnipe]

Vendor lock-in is bad and should be avoided like the plague

[MadKreator]

I use Nvidia, always have, probably always will.. but I agree vendor locking something like that shouldn’t be in dcs, for the community’s sake as a whole. I use diss on every game it’s available on but if FSR will give performance boosts across the board and across brands, that seems like the logical choice I know nothing about the technologies, but is it something a dev has to choose, one or the other? Or can both be implemented based on what system you have?( not at the same time obviously, like selecting one or the other). Do I want DLSS, of course… but is it the right choice over FSR thats compatible all around? Probably not.

Edited October 31, 2022 by MadKreator