-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Outer Worlds Xbox One X versus PC (This is disappointing)
- Thread starter DynamiteCop!
- Start date
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I don't think it's a bug, I think it's a rendering concession.
This kind of reminds me of what happened with Borderlands 3 where the Pro was an upres'd PS4 version and the X version was an upres'd Xbox One version. Basically the base PS4 had some higher settings than the base Xbox One which translated to its Pro build, and those lower settings on the base Xbox One translated to the X build.
Last edited:
Bogroll
Likes moldy games
Not when you have a cock as big as mineDo you have some kind of inferiority complex buddy?
Not a good look.
Bogroll
Likes moldy games
Was just taking the piss actually
BTW: It may be a good thing to bring the X issue up in the Obsidian forums. They're currently investigating and compiling reports:
forums.obsidian.net
The Outer Worlds: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
Having a problem with The Outer Worlds? This forum is for players to assist each other with technical questions.
forums.obsidian.net
Jigsaah
Gold Member
I had to do a fresh install of windows 10 to get the stupid xbox beta app to work for pc gamepass. Somehow I got so pissed at the Microsoft Store I inadvertently deleted it.
Looking at those pics it seems like it's worth it. I'm downloading it now. Work is gonna suck in the morning, but screw this noise.
Looking at those pics it seems like it's worth it. I'm downloading it now. Work is gonna suck in the morning, but screw this noise.
Airbus Jr
Banned
Can we please talk about this, I own both platforms and this amount of cutbacks especially at 30 FPS seems kind of ridiculous. Where are these "4K Textures", the ground looks horrible. Where is all the foliage? Is a native resolution really culling this much environmental detail from the scene in such an average looking game? This doesn't seem right, something is coming off as wrong here. I mean if resolution is really the cause here they made the wrong choice, they should have scaled back to 1800p or something.
Xbox One X
PC
bottom pict are prob from GTX 2080 TI
Xbox One X cant fight that bruh
Wait for Xbox Pocahontas
Gavin Stevens
Formerly 'o'dium'
It could be one of a few things. It all depends on how the engine is created, and I have to be honest I haven’t even looked at what engine it’s using.
Anyway, foliage is a very heavy effect for rendering and will pummel fillrate. Do you know what else hurts fillrate? Resolution and effects. So, usually when a game increases on resolution, effects are rendered lower res in a virtual screen space to save on fillrate, and guess what else gets the chop? Foliage. So it’s possible foliage was foaled back to hit a native 4k.
Now on a personal level I would rather it was dropped in resolution some what, but that’s just me.
However that’s not the only possibility. Their foliage is created using alpha masking, not alpha blending. Alpha masking is very dependant on your screen resolution, as it’s mask is created based on how many pixels it has to work with. Alpha masking is usually uglier than alpha blending, as it has a hard edge rather than a faded one (unless using alpha to coverage which is another thing entirely but then that needs good AA). But alpha masking is a lot quicker, even more so with regard to lighting rendering.
Anyway, alpha to coverage works based on resolution. But the higher you go in resolution, the closer to the overall foliage texture mask will render. Think of it like a circle, and if you run in a low res screen that circle will get thicker (because it has less pixels to work with), but if you use a larger resolution, that circle will get sharper and closer to its original form, and will look like it’s shrinking.
So what’s happening is, as you can see, the foliage IS being rendered... it’s there. Look again at the pics above and you can see little stumps of grass where it should be, it’s just not full and thick.
Now this is a stupid mistake to make because you can actually increase your mask threshold with distance and resolution to compensate for this. So that your foliage looks thick and wonderful over large distances but never different over resolutions. This is something we did 15 years ago... it’s not a new tricks.
Anyway...
The only other differences I can see are the usual “console cutbacks”, like reduced shadow res, penumbra differences, AF and AO etc. All you would expect on a late 2019 game.
So yeah... can this be fixed? He’s, because essentially it’s not a bug, it’s an over sight. Does this mean the X is doomed? No. It’s an oversight. Is the Pro using magicsouce to render all this grass? Read my post again, and look at the resolution difference.
In short, until somebody posts a native 4k shot from PC with the same Xbox settings, I can’t say for sure. But the above is a technical run down on who’s happening and why it happens, and yes, with a few minutes it can be fixed easily with no performance drain (might be a slight drop due to fillrate once the masks render in again however the foliage entities are already generated so that won’t hurt).
EDIT: Looking again, I can see some parts where the foliage isn't being rendered at all, so they are using a lower foliage density setting for sure in combination with the above. But you would expect that at high resolutions. Still, I see no reason why this can't be achieved on 4k, and until then will see it as a mistake on their part.
Anyway, foliage is a very heavy effect for rendering and will pummel fillrate. Do you know what else hurts fillrate? Resolution and effects. So, usually when a game increases on resolution, effects are rendered lower res in a virtual screen space to save on fillrate, and guess what else gets the chop? Foliage. So it’s possible foliage was foaled back to hit a native 4k.
Now on a personal level I would rather it was dropped in resolution some what, but that’s just me.
However that’s not the only possibility. Their foliage is created using alpha masking, not alpha blending. Alpha masking is very dependant on your screen resolution, as it’s mask is created based on how many pixels it has to work with. Alpha masking is usually uglier than alpha blending, as it has a hard edge rather than a faded one (unless using alpha to coverage which is another thing entirely but then that needs good AA). But alpha masking is a lot quicker, even more so with regard to lighting rendering.
Anyway, alpha to coverage works based on resolution. But the higher you go in resolution, the closer to the overall foliage texture mask will render. Think of it like a circle, and if you run in a low res screen that circle will get thicker (because it has less pixels to work with), but if you use a larger resolution, that circle will get sharper and closer to its original form, and will look like it’s shrinking.
So what’s happening is, as you can see, the foliage IS being rendered... it’s there. Look again at the pics above and you can see little stumps of grass where it should be, it’s just not full and thick.
Now this is a stupid mistake to make because you can actually increase your mask threshold with distance and resolution to compensate for this. So that your foliage looks thick and wonderful over large distances but never different over resolutions. This is something we did 15 years ago... it’s not a new tricks.
Anyway...
The only other differences I can see are the usual “console cutbacks”, like reduced shadow res, penumbra differences, AF and AO etc. All you would expect on a late 2019 game.
So yeah... can this be fixed? He’s, because essentially it’s not a bug, it’s an over sight. Does this mean the X is doomed? No. It’s an oversight. Is the Pro using magicsouce to render all this grass? Read my post again, and look at the resolution difference.
In short, until somebody posts a native 4k shot from PC with the same Xbox settings, I can’t say for sure. But the above is a technical run down on who’s happening and why it happens, and yes, with a few minutes it can be fixed easily with no performance drain (might be a slight drop due to fillrate once the masks render in again however the foliage entities are already generated so that won’t hurt).
EDIT: Looking again, I can see some parts where the foliage isn't being rendered at all, so they are using a lower foliage density setting for sure in combination with the above. But you would expect that at high resolutions. Still, I see no reason why this can't be achieved on 4k, and until then will see it as a mistake on their part.
Last edited:
ookami
Member
Well, nothing really surprising there. They had to choose where to have cutbacks. Trees keep the same kind of foliage, geometry complexity and field of view seems to be very close.
I guess it more a subjective matter, they could have gone better texture quality which cost on asset streaming and reduce the above parameters.
Edit: Or basically what
Gavin Stevens
said.
I guess it more a subjective matter, they could have gone better texture quality which cost on asset streaming and reduce the above parameters.
Edit: Or basically what
Gavin Stevens
said.
Last edited:
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
That's what I'm thinking as well, which quite frankly I find to be just utterly lazy on the developer side of things.
Last edited:
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Huge if true.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
I was curious, so I booted up the game on Xbox to see if there are visual options to disable Chromatic Aberration...nope. Lol. Enjoy your bad acid trip, boys.
FranXico
Member
Outer Worlds
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Mushroomgate
pawel86ck
Banned
Maybe CPU was a bottleneck, not GPU. Otherwise they would use something like 1440p and increase world level of details.Can we please talk about this, I own both platforms and this amount of cutbacks especially at 30 FPS seems kind of ridiculous. Where are these "4K Textures", the ground looks horrible. Where is all the foliage? Is a native resolution really culling this much environmental detail from the scene in such an average looking game? This doesn't seem right, something is coming off as wrong here. I mean if resolution is really the cause here they made the wrong choice, they should have scaled back to 1800p or something.
Xbox One X
PC
Last edited:
Kharnivore2099
Member
Has anyone with a higher frequency or g-sync monitor put any time into the game? I'd like to know how well the game plays at higher framerates.
Bethesda are notorious for attaching game logic to framerate, i just want to be sure that won't happen with Odsidian and their Outer Worlds.
Bethesda are notorious for attaching game logic to framerate, i just want to be sure that won't happen with Odsidian and their Outer Worlds.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
I highly doubt the CPU plays any part.
It's Unreal Engine 4, Gears of War 4 for example has far more going on visually and AI wise and it's running at native 4K with graphics that put this to bed.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Damn, until you see hand-tuned PC settings running on RX 480 compared to a similar GPU in Xbox One X, you can't really appreciate true freedom of being able to turn off CA.
Holy fuck! Forget acid. Somebody at Obsidian is on bath salts. Is this running 60fps on Xbox One X?
Holy fuck! Forget acid. Somebody at Obsidian is on bath salts. Is this running 60fps on Xbox One X?
DynamiteCop!
Banned
No it's at 30 which makes this crap even more puzzling.Damn, until you see hand-tuned PC settings running on RX 480 compared to a similar GPU in Xbox One X, you can't really appreciate true freedom of being able to turn off CA.
Holy fuck! Forget acid. Somebody at Obsidian is on bath salts. Is this running 60fps on Xbox One X?
DoctorEkkoUK
Member
It's a shame. I def would prefer a high quality 1080p version. 4k is nice but I def wouldn't want to sacrafice that much graphics quality for it.
Kharnivore2099
Member
1080p/60fps over 4k/30fps any day of the week
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Wtf? Honestly, I think something is broken right now. Looks like the both the ground texture and it's detail textures are missing.
I had to fuck around a bit before settling on 1440p with mixed settings with RiS enabled in the control panel(19.10.2 driver), and it bounces around at 45-55fps. I originally tried for a 60fps hard cap but I was getting jitter no matter the settings I tried. Then I tried to cap at 30fps with 1800p and mixed settings, but got screen tearing, especially with v-sync enabled. Strangely enough, it was best to just go 1440p with 'Very High' view distance and 'Very High' textures and just let it float unlocked. I get hardly any jitter, and almost no tearing this way. Looks fucking awesome, too.
Even 1440p, 'High' view distance, 85% resolution scaling looks better than that screen from the X1X and runs ~60fps(Ryzen 1600 game mode 3.8GHz, RX 480 OC 1310MHz core, 8050MHz mem).
Does it look like that everywhere all the time? If so, that's broken.
Last edited:
There's a bug on certain PC configurations that fucks with colors on near objects. I don't know if these issues are related.
That one already got reported and submitted to Obsidian.
As I said before, someone with an X should report this. Even if it isn't broken and is a technical choice, people should speak up for a change to make it at least closer to Pro. (Also FOV slider for consoles and chromatic abberration, but there are already threads for that)
Last edited:
cormack12
Gold Member
I enjoyed reading that, thanks for taking the time to explain it.
Journey
Banned
From what I've seen while it's lower resolution it appears to have additional foliage which is missing from the X.
Grassgate!!
Dibils2k
Member
i thought so, but not anymore, especially when on a 4K TV
for example, i use the 4k/30 mode in Horizon 4 over the 1080p/60
if its a solid 30fps you get used to it very quickly, if you are switching between them back to back then ofcourse the difference is huge and 30fps feels atrocious, but as i said, you get used to it, where as getting used to a blurry picture is not really possible
Last edited:
PumpkinPie
Banned
Sorry OP, I think you've accidentally used screenshots of the N64 version instead of X1X.
Gavin Stevens
Formerly 'o'dium'
Erm... playing it on X now and my console looks nothing like the picture posted in the first post. Yeah not exactly incredible, the foliage is still missing (see above) but the lighting in my game is totally different to what I’m seeing in the first post. It essentially looks the same as the pc version.
Eh?
(Taken from Xbox one X)
Now I’m playing the game native on an X, my above points still stand about foliage, but it looks as well like they are simply using base Xbox one S settings in 4k. That’s likely why the foliage is so poor. So pick an explanation. Regardless of which one you pick, it’s still wrong, and still fixable.
I just hope they bother to do it...
Eh?
(Taken from Xbox one X)
Now I’m playing the game native on an X, my above points still stand about foliage, but it looks as well like they are simply using base Xbox one S settings in 4k. That’s likely why the foliage is so poor. So pick an explanation. Regardless of which one you pick, it’s still wrong, and still fixable.
I just hope they bother to do it...
Last edited:
Yupp. So happy I didn’t put more time into it on the X.
kingwingin
Member
diffusionx
Gold Member
That One X screenshot looks like the placeholder textures in UE3 games before everything gets done loading.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
It's a shame they haven't given a 1080p graphics option, something like the Tomb Raider games.
ethomaz
Banned
Looks like a texture bug maybe because X is the version patched with 4k textures and that could be bugged.
He is definitely in Xbox defense force side.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
I really hope next gen consoles continue to offer more options. Not fully customizable graphical settings but maybe 2 or 3 presets.
Personally I'll always prefer performance or other graphical options to raw resolution. I'd rather have a game run at 1800p or 1440p with better foliage, textures, draw distances, etc than native 4K
Personally I'll always prefer performance or other graphical options to raw resolution. I'd rather have a game run at 1800p or 1440p with better foliage, textures, draw distances, etc than native 4K
MaximusPayne
Member
Curious OP... Are you comparing these due to having the gamepass, which is awesome by the way?
Also, what are your specs on the pc shots compared to the gfx card in the x? I mean we all knew PC would look better.
Also, what are your specs on the pc shots compared to the gfx card in the x? I mean we all knew PC would look better.
Kharnivore2099
Member
I use 30fps on xbox quite often and frequently jump around between 60-240fps on PC, depending on if a game supports it. I'd definitely take the 1080p over 4k/30, especially in fast paced games like racing or FPS titles, but even in turn based titles it can be quite jarring. 30fps just is not something i'd want in any modern title whatsoever
MilkyJoe
Member
2019 and people are still on grassgate...
Dontspeakforme
Banned
Looks fine on XB1X, get a life.
DarkestHour
Banned
Achieving "4K" at the expense of fidelity is hilarious to me. Stay dumb, consoles. Instead of targeting frame rates at 1080p you continue to try to do a high resolution that even modern PCs sometimes struggle with when graphics options are set high.
Tell me about it. As a console gamer with a 1080p TV set (don't MOST people still rock this native res?) it frustrates me that the Pro and the X both push for 4k ahead of a solid, stable 60fps. Speaking honestly, it's one of the biggest attractions of Stadia.