nowifenolife
Member
Menus in multi player are now lagging again but not as bad as ps4
Because an actual test is so much better than what people "feel". If you want to talk about proof, you should then expect proof for the negative outcome as well, otherwise you are likely let your preconceptions cloud judgement.Yet, some people are pretending nothing has changed across the board........
There's no way PC is affected so much, so many console gamers are feeling and noticing a change in fluidity/visuals or otherwise, yet everything is just as it were prior to this patch, it does not make sense....
Okay, I can captures pre patch and now I've done some post patch on PS4, and done FPS counts by duplicate frames. It's a nightmare to do as you have to aim for similar weather conditions, as some of them impact performance.
And: there's no performance hit. The forest level was a heavy hitter before and after patch, but I see no decline in performance.
IQ is slightly softer due to TAA change, but at 4K it's barely noticeable.
This was done on a PS4 Pro only, for reference.
It's fairly clear that the tests he has done were from the SP campaign which had no issues outputting at a smooth framerate anyways. There is no way to do Proper Tests anymore, since all the servers run the newer version.Because an actual test is so much better than what people "feel". If you want to talk about proof, you should then expect proof for the negative outcome as well, otherwise you are likely let your preconceptions cloud judgement.
Ah, that slipped by me. That's a fair point though, but I imagine at least some outlets would have some material to refer to for a test.It's fairly clear that the tests he has done were from the SP campaign which had no issues outputting at a smooth framerate anyways. There is no way to do Proper Tests anymore, since all the servers run the newer version.
There would be this many people "feel"ing something if there was no change.
Do you guys think that maybe, Dice took out the pro fps boost in multiplayer to put every player on equal ground? Theres been talk that the fps boost give pro players an advantage.
No, because not every map has issues.
Most maps still run way better than on original PS4.
I have no problem with either outcome, but if you want to prove something, you need to have some evidence.Because an actual test is so much better than what people "feel". If you want to talk about proof, you should then expect proof for the negative outcome as well, otherwise you are likely let your preconceptions cloud judgement.
Lets use a small example, certain members from DF said that BF1 had no changes on PRO's launch, when other persons who played everyday noticed better rez and smoother framerates on the PS4.PRO....It was later proven that these players were right.....Ah, that slipped by me. That's a fair point though, but I imagine at least some outlets would have some material to refer to for a test.
However, on the second point. Oh boy, there definitely could be. Speaking as a developer, placebo effect is absolutely humongous in games; I can't really mention any details other than, every patch I've shipped on for example the current game (with a massive userbase) I am working on has gotten ridiculous amounts of tickets about things that absolutely did not change; from performance to weapon balance to crashes. Everything that is statistically not corect, will still always yield a ton of feedback that is only based on preconceptions and placebo.
So this has been debunked by DF?
So this has been debunked by DF?
We're gonna get people who don't know what they're talking about saying that every time a game has a patch on Pro aren't we?
A big drama over every pro patch on every game?
Okay, I can captures pre patch and now I've done some post patch on PS4, and done FPS counts by duplicate frames. It's a nightmare to do as you have to aim for similar weather conditions, as some of them impact performance.
And: there's no performance hit. The forest level was a heavy hitter before and after patch, but I see no decline in performance.
IQ is slightly softer due to TAA change, but at 4K it's barely noticeable.
This was done on a PS4 Pro only, for reference.
Yes.
"UPDATE 16/11/16 10:02am: We've seen reports and discussion of reduced performance on PlayStation 4 Pro since the introduction of patch 1.04 yesterday, leading to speculation that the Pro features are disabled in the new update. Temporal anti-aliasing has been been tweaked, but we can rule out the disabling of Pro enhancements as our data is taken from the game running the 1.04 update. We've also just re-ran a small section of campaign tests and see no obvious impact to performance."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...eld-1-smoother-and-more-responsive-on-ps4-pro
The amount of drive-by posts in this thread trying to make this a non-issue is weird.
DF has only tested the patched version. How exactly does this debunk an earlier version running better?
The amount of drive-by posts in this thread trying to make this a non-issue is weird.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=224634159&postcount=112I have briefly tested this 1.04 patch and it all seems to contain the same res, asset upgrade and fps gains I covered in my first video.
The forest stage is always one of the worse due to large sections of geometry. Overdraw and destruction so I think this did and will stand out till more patches are made.
Baseline is Pro version still looks and runs better than base PS4 by a sizable margin.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1315077&page=1DF said:Huge upgrade in performance
Image quality has improved with supersampling for 1080p owners
50% frame-rate increase in worst-case scenario (30fps on base - 45fps on Pro)
If base model is in the 40s, the Pro is usually locked at 60fps
The amount of drive-by posts in this thread trying to make this a non-issue is weird.
I can see the game performing worse on my console. Noticeably jerkier than the smooth output pre-patch in Argonne Forest. I'd have to see a gameplay comparison on that map pre and post patch to believe that I'm seeing things that aren't there.You just ignoring this?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=224634159&postcount=112
You also think pre-patch was better than this?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1315077&page=1
The amount of posts continually trying to reaffirm a barely appreciable downgrade instead of just having fun playing the game is weird. The pro framerate didn't suddenly become "bad".
Yup. https://mobile.twitter.com/_FancySquirrel_/status/798984783023972352DICE dev has just tweeted that they are aware of the issue and looking into it
DICE dev has just tweeted that they are aware of the issue and looking into it
DICE dev has just tweeted that they are aware of the issue and looking into it
Fair point, my test was just sp and 2 games from previous tests. I will be covering the game in more depth again this weekend so I will ensure I cover as in-depth and close as I can to see if we have any bigger changes.The only way to prove anything is to show screens and do framerate tests. DF or NX saying that there is no issue or no changes means nothing unless they prove it......
It's the same way DF said there was no changes/pro upgrades to battlefield-1 at the launch, and the fact-detector proved that was not so....So unless we get the proof, I'm inclined to believe persons who have the game and have been playing day in and day out....
Fair point, my test was just sp and 2 games from previous tests. I will be covering the game in more depth again this weekend so I will ensure I cover as in-depth and close as I can to see if we have any bigger changes.
Ha! I knew it.DICE dev has just tweeted that they are aware of the issue and looking into it
Ha! I knew it.
As someone on the outside looking in, every step of the PS4 Pro launch has seemed like a mess.
Ha! I knew it.
He seems to be a director so even better.Man I hope they fix it soon.
I hope they'll just revert to 1.03 TAA, it looked much sharper and with supersampling on the Pro I didn't notice any jaggies anyways.
I'm no developer, but that doesn't seem like a viable option with the hundreds(I think) of changes they introduced with this latest patch.
I'm no developer, but that doesn't seem like a viable option with the hundreds(I think) of changes they introduced with this latest patch.
??!!??Played again yesterday and it looks the same to me... On a 1080p screen.
Then again, I'm not NXgamer.
Please call me Michael ;-) and I Sure will.Hi NXGamer, would it be possible for you to test the argonne forest map on TDM and Domination. Those two modes were flawsless before patch 1.04.
Wasn't it 1.02? Think we skipped 1.03 and went to 1.04 with this "Fall Update"I hope they'll just revert to 1.03
HVA_HEADBUSTA wrote:
I think I know what the problem is.
I usually run the Render.DrawScreenInfo command in my user config file, and today I noticed something I've never seen before. Right after the DirectX version label and screen resolution, there is now (HDR_disabled), in parentheses just like that. I've never seen that before, in BF1 or any other Frostbite game.
Without HDR enabled (we're talking about HDR mechanics in game that render the subtle differences in the way light is reflected, not some monitor or tv technology) the image would look more flat or bland, almost like it has a grayish tinted filter, and other elements such as colors and textures wouldn't pop as much.
After seeing some of the comparison screen caps showing pre-patch vs post, it's pretty obvious the lighting is what had a downgrade. So I'm pretty sure this (HDR_disabled) thing is what's causing the perceived graphics downgrade.