Will DCS support nvidia frame generation and dlss 4?

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Instead of putting in tech that increased the actual performance, so you aren't running RT titles at 15 fps, they sacrificed that real estate on the card for their new toy and conning you into believing the card performs better

You've already been conned. The entire reason why they put RT-hardware on these cards, at the expense of either adding extra rasterization cores or reducing the size of the die and thus price, is because those RT-cores are useful for the cards aimed at business.

So asking for better RT just means that that you buy into the BS that Nvidia has been peddling. In fact, what they market as raytracing is actually rasterization with a sprinkle of raytracing. That's why RT in games is generally so underwhelming. 

[warmachine79]

On 1/11/2025 at 2:28 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi,

DLSS 4 is something we will look at once we have vulkan implemented in public release version. 

thank you 

When will that be, by the way? 

[Notarobot]

7 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

instead of a real woman, you'd rather watch an OF vid?

 

Instead of putting in tech that increased the actual performance, so you aren't running RT titles at 15 fps, they sacrificed that real estate on the card for their new toy and conning you into believing the card performs better

 

 

Ok first that analogy makes 0 sense. Also it really depends on the woman i guess 
If the real woman is 85 years old and extremely unattractive, (15 fps), then yeah i'd rather look at the onlyfans page (120 fps) 

But seriously, we're all disappointed by the non FG performance of the 50 series card. 

However, just tossing every new technology away saying it's 'fake' boohoo is a bit short sighted. 
You realize that DLSS is filling in frames as well right? 
You understand that VR is full of 'fake frames' right, like all the time? 
Or do you  turn off smoothing out of principle because you'd rather look at a 'real woman' ? :d I doubt it. 

Frame generation and DLSS are here to stay. And i turn all of them on when playing whatever single player game i'm playing for a much, MUCH smoother and more enjoyable experience. 
Maybe if i'm playing counter strike and i actually need those few milliseconds of less latency i'd turn it off but DCS is not one of those games. DCS is slow as hell and a few milliseconds of latency don't do anything to the gameplay. 

A smooth experience without hickups and nauseating low framerates does. 

nvidia fcked up with their "5080 = 4090 performance for 500 dollars" but that doesn't mean these new technologies have no place at all, especially moving forward 

 

Edited February 3 by Notarobot

[MAXsenna]

8 hours ago, Nightdare said:

instead of a real woman, you'd rather watch an OF vid?

The analogy has flaws. I assume OF girls are still real and not AI yet. Sexbot on the other hand... Username checks out, sort of.

[Tazer83]

On 1/31/2025 at 1:51 PM, Nightdare said:

Why would someone want frame generation?

Because not everyone has High Performance Systems.

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Notarobot said:

If the real woman is 85 years old and extremely unattractive, (15 fps), then yeah i'd rather look at the onlyfans page (120 fps) 

There are a ton of problems with your example:

- Even with 4x Frame gen, you will get at most 60 FPS not 120. And in reality it tends to be lower

- Frame gen merely makes things more smooth on screen. The latency will actually become worse than with 15 FPS native.

- Since the latency of 15 FPS is unplayable, the game is still unplayable with frame gen in your scenario

A better analogy in your case is that you don't like the mediocre looks of the ladies at your local bar, so you go online to hire a cheap escort from a dodgy website that shows you that you can have Rihanna come over. But then the person who actually shows up is a big sweaty dude who steals your money.

Edited February 3 by Aapje

[Notarobot]

the 15 fps is just an example. You mention this however as if it's nothing:  "Frame gen merely makes things more smooth on screen" ... < but this is actually a game changer. 
The difference in smoothness between 60 fps or 120 fps is ENORMOUS. 

As far as Rihanna ... Bring on the sweaty dude please (is a joke, please don't be offended

Edited February 3 by Notarobot

[Notarobot]

Framegen IS awesome and it will become much more awesome in the future. 
Without framegeneration and DLSS this (5100x2100 resolution) with all bells and whistles on at 120 fps and SMOOTH would be impossible for the next 15 years: (not to mention you'd need a dieselmotor powering your computer)
edit* ok it looks terrible in this picture but the original is 5 MB and i shrunk it down with copy past to 400 kb    (but it looks AMAZING in full glory trust me) 
Here is original

 

 

Stalker 2.bmp

Edited February 3 by Notarobot

[Nightdare]

8 hours ago, Tazer83 said:

Because not everyone has High Performance Systems.

 

But frame gen won't make low performance systems better

It's already been stated, that you need reasonable quality to have an 'improvement'

You can't polish a turd with MFG, you'll just get 3 AI added turds

 

6 hours ago, Notarobot said:

Without framegeneration and DLSS this (5100x2100 resolution) with all bells and whistles on at 120 fps and SMOOTH would be impossible for the next 15 years: (not to mention you'd need a dieselmotor powering your computer)

 

But you're not getting 120 FPS with Frame gen, you're getting 50% AI mutated copies of the actual FPS

And may I remind you that DLSS isn't supersampling but DOWNsampling? so that 5100x2100 won't even be the real possible resolution

So you're basically gimping your bragging rights, you bought a Pro monitor that isn't running at it's max res, and a pro card that isn't giving you even actual FPS

"Yeah I'm running at 5100x2100 actually 3150x 1570 and 120 FPS actually 50"

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

And may I remind you that DLSS isn't supersampling but DOWNsampling? so that 5100x2100 won't even be the real possible resolution

Right. Technically it’s “upscaling” but DLUS doesn’t sound sexy

10 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

It's already been stated, that you need reasonable quality to have an 'improvement'

My limited use of this seems to reveal that it’s probably better at turning 40 FPS into 80 than it might be at turning 20 into 80. But like I mentioned earlier it does work very nice in FS2024 and Cyberpunk. Those are the only two I’ve tried it in. 

Edited February 3 by SharpeXB

[Notarobot]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

But frame gen won't make low performance systems better

It's already been stated, that you need reasonable quality to have an 'improvement'

You can't polish a turd with MFG, you'll just get 3 AI added turds

 

 

But you're not getting 120 FPS with Frame gen, you're getting 50% AI mutated copies of the actual FPS

And may I remind you that DLSS isn't supersampling but DOWNsampling? so that 5100x2100 won't even be the real possible resolution

So you're basically gimping your bragging rights, you bought a Pro monitor that isn't running at it's max res, and a pro card that isn't giving you even actual FPS

"Yeah I'm running at 5100x2100 actually 3150x 1570 and 120 FPS actually 50"

It's a 1440P monitor , ultrawide. 
Render resolution is 3440x1440. 
DLSS makes that into 5100x2000
And then, that huge picture gets downscaled into my 32 inch ultrawide. 
And you won't believe your eyes it looks so good. 

All this with every single option to maxed @ 120 fps. 

Now, i could also just render at native resolution and leave frame gen and DLSS off.
You know, out of "principle", or maybe just because i'm being a stubborn narrow minded parrot who can't get off the 'fake frames' bandwagon, but i would be shooting myself in the foot and missing out big time. 

Because like i said, it looks like absolute dog**** compared to enabling DLSS + DSR. 

You talk about 'real' and 'fake' ... you know you're staring at a screen right? It's just pixels man. If the 'fake' thing runs and looks literally twice as good ... who gives a crap  

Stop hating man, get on board you're not stopping this progress. You're just missing out. 

 

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, Notarobot said:

Render resolution is 3440x1440. 
DLSS makes that into 5100x2000
And then, that huge picture gets downscaled into my 32 inch ultrawide. 

Are you using DSR to downsample and then DLSS to upscale? Seems counterproductive. 

[Notarobot]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Are you using DSR to downsample and then DLSS to upscale? Seems counterproductive. 

Exactly, and it works wonders. 
Without dlss, even my 4090 can't just render new games at 5100x2000 resolution with ray tracing and all the bells and whistles. 

The thing that makes the picture so good is actually the DSR. (downscaling from 5100x2000 to 3440x1440)
DLSS and framegen just make it possible. 

Try it man. Enable DSR factors in nvidia control panel. I would only choose the "DL" ones. 
Compare DSR 5100x2000 (or whatever "higher than native" options you have with your specific monitor) .... with native. 

You'll be shocked. 

null

Edited February 3 by Notarobot

[MAXsenna]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. Technically it’s “upscaling” but DLUS doesn’t sound sexy

Should have called it LUSD. 

[Aapje]

14 hours ago, Nightdare said:

And may I remind you that DLSS isn't supersampling but DOWNsampling?

Downsampling is part of supersampling, so this is a bit of a nonsensical statement.

Note that to understand DLSS, you have to think in 4D, since the DLSS doesn't look at a single frame, but supersamples across frames.

[Blackhawk163]

17 hours ago, Aapje said:

Downsampling is part of supersampling, so this is a bit of a nonsensical statement.

Note that to understand DLSS, you have to think in 4D, since the DLSS doesn't look at a single frame, but supersamples across frames.

Is this even correct though? My understanding is that DLSS is upscaling whereas Super sampling takes (for example) a 4k image and then upscales this to say, 8k, down samples this back to a native 4k resolution to improve the image quality rendering the scene a crisper, sharper, less aliased one.

DlSS, never produces a higher image then what you have initially, so no super sampling is taking place. It's disingenuous to call DLSS as traditional super sampling.

 

One of the YouTube channels even touched on this recently, it was either HUB, or GN.

 

 

Edit: source

It was GN

Edited February 5 by Blackhawk163

[Aapje]

7 hours ago, Blackhawk163 said:

Is this even correct though? My understanding is that DLSS is upscaling whereas Super sampling takes (for example) a 4k image and then upscales this to say, 8k, down samples this back to a native 4k resolution to improve the image quality rendering the scene a crisper, sharper, less aliased one.

DlSS, never produces a higher image then what you have initially, so no super sampling is taking place. It's disingenuous to call DLSS as traditional super sampling.

You are still thinking in 3D, not 4D. DLSS 1 and FSR 1 are not temporal and do what you say. They take a single frame and upscale that to a higher resolution. But ever since DLSS 2 and FSR 2, the upscalers use previous frames as well.

If you run DLSS Quality in 4K, then the real render resolution is 1440p. But temporal upscaling uses multiple frames. So if it uses 2 frames, the actual number of pixels used by the upscaling is 1440p x 2. If the upscaler uses 5 frames, then the number of pixels is 1440p x 5, which is more than 4k.

But it's actually more complicated, because with temporal upscaling the same pixel in the source material is sampled multiple times, so the actual number of samples is even higher. So when you use DLSS/FSR to generate a 4K image, the algorithm will create more than 4K samples internally and then downsamples that to 4K. This is key to making DLSS/FSR look as good as it does, rather than merely looking like a scaled up image.

PS. Key to temporal upscaling is jitter, where they shift the rendered image for each frame a little bit. This means that they can notice the effect of small features that are not visible on screen, by how it changes the rendered image when that feature moves to a different pixel. For example, let's say that there is a light in the distance that is so small that it is smaller than one pixel. In frame A, the light falls entirely within pixel 1 (at the right side of the pixel), so that pixel overall brightness is increased due to the light. But in frame B, where the frame is moved a bit to the left, that light falls partially or entirely in pixel 2. The result is then that pixel 1 is less bright and pixel 2 is more bright. Then the DLSS/FSR algorithm can conclude based on both frames that there must be small bright thing at the edge region of these two pixels. And when it upscales and thus has way more pixels to create, so those two pixels turn into 8 pixels, it can show a bright pixel and thus show a light that was never visible in each individual frame.

Note that this is a bit similar to how astronomers detect planets, where they notice that the brightness of a star changes over time when a planet moves in front of it. So even though they cannot see the planet itself, they can still conclude that it is there. In principle, astronomers could use a DLSS-like algorithm to create video of the planet moving in front of the star.

Edited February 5 by Aapje