AbsolutSurgen

Looks like 1080p/60 is the way to go for Xbots:

Pay to win?  It's just being true to the real game.

Racing games really benefit from high frame rate -- due to the lower control latency it brings.  I recognize it's more important for Motorsports than Horizon -- but still....

Given the GOTY is just a few weeks away, just thought I would create a place to post all things FH4.

Edition Comparison -- Note these are different than FH3

Base Game ($59.99) -- FH 4 Formula Drift Car Pack

Deluxe Edition ($79.99) --Base + Car Pass

Ultimate Edition ($99.99) -- Deluxe + VIP + Expansion 1 + Expansion 2 + Day One Car Pack + Play 4 days early

That's right -- the Deluxe edition does not contain VIP this year, but has the car pack instead. 

HOWEVER, the Ultimate Edition seems to have tremendous value -- all of the content from the FH3 UE -- plus both expansions included!  This cost $35 extra on FH3.

2080Ti "general availabiility" has been delayed a week to the 27th. 2080 still coming out on the 20th.

I buy digital because it’s generally cheaper and gets you the best version of the game. 

1 hour ago, eggydoo said:

I started the download yesterday on PC at 4PM and it was at 6mbps....came back 2 hours later and only 6gb completed and speed went down to 10kbps.

I canceled my download after that...seems like everyone and their mom was downloading this game so I will probably just wait to give it a try.

My download didn't come in that slow.  It probably took somewhere around 2.5 hours for me to DL the entire demo last night on PC.

Giants -- $800

1) Giants FG

2) 2-3

3) 4

4) Rams highest, Bills lowest

5) Minnesota, NY Jets, New England

6) Brees

7) Hopkins

8) Gurley, Julio Jones

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 12:58 PM, Kal-El814 said:

That game goes places. Enjoy.

 

Fired up Zero Horizon. Haven’t gotten to the Proving yet, but so far, so good.

No kidding.

Was that what you were thinking of?  Or does it get more insane from here?

3 hours ago, The def star said:

Can anyone confirm if the game is able to run at 60fps in the demo? That is my most anticipated update to the game. 

I am getting 60+ with mostly extreme options at 1440p with a 1070.  Some dips into the high 50s.

17 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Obviously there are different levels of snobbery, but dude, most people in Canada/USA drink drip coffee because they don't know the difference.  Most people outside of USA/Canada (and thus most people) don't drink drip coffee, because they know it sucks.

Fixed.

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Okay, see, this is why I asked the question to start. You're misunderstanding what's going on and that's probably why you're having trouble understanding the answers I'm giving you. No, the information is not there. What the DLSS is doing is taking a low resolution image and upscaling it to a higher resolution. The information is *not* there in the image because no where in the active rendering pipeline did the system render the scene at a higher resolution. It's rendered at a low resolution and the DLSS estimates from that low resolution what a higher resolution image would look like.

 

There is a fairly large body of work in deep learning looking at how to make reasonable "guesses" and what Nvidia is doing is applying that tech in a way custom tailored for games.

 

Do you have a link to what Nvidia is doing?  Because I have only seen the generic/marketing bullshit from their launch -- which basically says nothing.

1 minute ago, darkness35 said:

1) Add Maxwell too

2) Agreed.  Fuck those hotel coffee

3) Depends.  I make drip coffee via pour over carafes.  French press is annoying to clean up after though.

4) I'm sorry for your shitty mornings.

1) Agreed

2) Agreed

3)  15 bar is required to make decent coffee

4)  So am I.

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Here's a snob, @Nokra

A snob argues with his barista on how hard she tamps the grounds, or that they want coffee beans from Ethipoia rather than Ecuador.

A rational fucking person (like most of the world) recognizes that weak-ass drip coffe sucks -- particularly if it comes pre-ground in a foil bag or in "instant form".

1)  Folgers barely counts as coffee

2)  Coffee typically doesn't come ground in foil packs

3)  If you're drinking "drip" coffee, you're getting a sub-par experience

4)  I drink the coffee at work from the "syrup" because it's free.  But I recognize that it sucks

How big is this friggin' demo?  It told me it was 28GB -- now the "total" is counting up with the "amount downloaded".

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

From the answers what we've revealed two things.

1. From Q2 we conclude that to do better superscaling, we need to some how have access to more knowledge about what would actually be in the higher scale image.

 

1.  Super-scaling does not require more knowledge.  By definition, you have the knowledge already with super-scaling

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

2. From Q1 we know that if there is only one game we're trying to work with, the total information it defines is *FAR* less than the total information covered by all games.

 

How does this help?

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

When we train a neural network we're compressing information from the source dataset down into a more compact form. In this setting, what that means is the neural net encodes information from the whole set of images from the game that you showed it. As a result, using a neural net we evade the missing information problem faced by anti-aliasing: the structure and weights of the neural net actually give us access to information that isn't in the single current frame we're looking at!

 

And if there are a lot of regularities in the training data, that is, the total information in the target task is small, then we can do a lot of compression and we also do not need a lot of examples. If outputs smoothly interpolate between two examples, we don't need to see what the outputs are inbetween values.

I don't believe this is how neural networks work.  My understanding is that neural networks "learn" by testing algorithms (generally at random), evaluating the results, and reinforcing those algorithms that provide better results.  By providing more data (rather than less), the algorithms get better and more efficient. 

Unless of course, there needed to be different algorithms for different games -- because there was some fundamental difference in what worked in different games.

1 hour ago, legend said:

It's *possible* that Nvidia does have enough data from existing games to make a single one-size-fits-all neural network for superscaling. But it will always be computaitonally cheaper and require less data if you only have to worry about a narrower distribution (that is, on a game-to-game basis). Consequently, if Nvidia is requiring per-game support, it's probably because trying to make a monolithic single network fits all is either too computationally expensive or they simply don't have enough data to do it with the same level of quality as doing a per-game network (or maybe not as good as tuning the net on a per-game basis with game-specific data).

I would guess that DLSS uses a method of machine learning to intelligently use super-sampling on a small % of the pixels -- i.e. the neural network learns where super-sampling provides an IQ benefit, and does super-sampling there, and avoids supersampling on image elements where it doesn't believe it will provide benefit.

While it is certainly possible that it is too computationally difficult to have a "generic algorithm" -- my initial supposition was that games had to "turn-on" DLSS in order for them to be benchmarked.

4 hours ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

Ah. Maybe it covers both since it's a Play Anywhere title?

It is.  Apparently the "get" button doesn't work on the website to get the Xbox One version.  Once I loaded up the store, pressed the "get" button, it started to DL on my PC, and told me it would push it to the Xbox as well.

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

The numbers are absolutely not infinity in either case. They're finite in both cases and one is vastly smaller than the other.

 

Tell me, if you play doom, will you ever see in the game an image of my office?

 

 

Answer me this: why are current anti-aliasing techniques that don't render in a higher resolution and down scale inferior to actually rendering in that higher resolution?

I am not asking about whether super-scaling or anti-aliasing is better.  I am wondering why super-scaling needs to tailored on a game-specific level?

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Which is bigger, the space of all images that a game can generate from playing it, or the space of images of all possible games ever made?

Yes.  Infinity is bigger than almost infinity.

I still don't understand why scaling an image would materially differ from game to game.  On a 3D rendered image, I don't understand what about a specific engine/game would make the "guessing" any different on a sub-pixel basis.  I'm not challenging you -- just trying to understand your POV to increase my own knowledge.

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Installing on my Xbox now. Will try it when I get home... this will be on the rental service,  right?

The base game, yes.

I'm assuming you would have to pay for VIP, the car packs and expansions.

Just now, legend said:

 

It's not anti-aliasing. It's a machine-learned neural net that does super scaling. It's "guessing" about what data is missing in the low res image from only the low res image.

 

Machine learning of this sort says "Find a function F, such that F(x) = y for a  number of examples of x and y"

 

For illustration, lets not worry about images. Suppose we were finding a function of two inputs to one output. We give to the machine learning algorithm the following tow pieces of data:

 

F(3, 2) = 7

F(1, 4) = 7.1

 

If I then ask you want the value is for F(2, 3), you can probably give a guess that's not bad, because those inputs are pretty close to the examples we saw. For example, a guess of around 7.2 might not be unreasonable. 

 

But what if I asked you about F(203, -6.3)? Well, you can maybe extrapolate pretty far, but you're going to be less confident about the answer here. Especially if the function ends up being really complex even around the examples you've seen. If we wanted to be able to make predictions about those numbers too, we really ought to have provided more data that covered that space.

 

If you want a single general purpose neural net that works for every game without new training, you're going to have to provide huge amounts of data that will well cover the space of all conceivable game images. But if you know you only have to learn the function for a narrow range of images--those generated by a specific game, then you can just grab the data for it and custom tailor the learned function for it.

What makes that function simpler if it's game specific?  Any game can still make a near-infinite number of individual frames -- so the function is still using "rules".  Why would the "rules" on BFV be any different than CoD?

2 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

TV mang! 

I keep forgetting.

5 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I barely used the online when it was free, I sure don't see myself playing it regardless of price unless they get some killer fucking online titles.

But you get Ice Climber included in that price!

12 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

This game looks amazing maxed out in 4K/60FPS! very nice treat!

You're only getting 60FPS?