Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Nvidia Is Lying To You..." video.

  1.  @Conraf  No, it's because nothing's optimized anymore.
    23
  2. Frames virtually generated "happened" inside the game engine. Frames "faked" through interpolation is the computer's guess without having to sample a new render from the engine.
    4
  3. ​ @9MIND9  If the difference is not discernable why do you need to see the frame? You're interacting with a game, which is an interactive medium. A generated frame is not interactive. It's a guess. So at best you're just adding filler between frames which don't matter for the gameplay. At worst, you're running at a low enough FPS that you need frame gen to make it smooth. At that point your screen is showing a frame that can't be interacted with. The motion will appear smooth but the game isn't due to the lack of response. The game will not react to your input until the next real frame. So why do you need to see the frame? Play at 100 fps instead of generating 240. Lower your settings to play at 60 fps instead of 30. Frame gen is bad at low fps, and useless at high fps.
    3
  4.  @TheHPMP  How is it wisdom to be dropping hundreds of dollars into cards that can't handle games natively?
    2
  5. Yes, that was the previous frame generator. Now they're advertising taking frame 1, generating 1.2 1.5 and 1.8 before 2 is ready. Three frames ahead of time.
    2
  6. Wrong. Fighter pilots were flashed with single frames of enemy fighter aircraft and they could identify the aircraft type up to 240 fps.
    2
  7. Because two GPUs have issues with parallelization of the load. You're essentially doubling the power consumption and heat inside the PC but either you have to divide the screen between GPUs (which can lead to tearing as they render slightly different images) or juggle the frames between GPU cores so they take turns (which can lead to jitter).
    2
  8. Because the frames do not represent what's happening in the game engine. You're taking a print screen and re-painting the pixels to make things look like they're moving in the direction the game wants so it can later pull a frame from the game engine and show the true position of objects.
    2
  9. Playing slideshows like it's 2007 Crysis lmao
    2
  10. No, it isn't. Digital can sample anything that's audible. Frame generation is taking a guess of what a frame would look like without sampling a render from the game engine. Digital will pick up any sound wave that's relevant for human hearing. So what goes on inside the recording studio, you're getting.
    2
  11. You should try DLSS in your flight sim to know if you can see the text on MFDs/dials. Upscaling tech can cause text to be blurry which influences small text like cockpit instruments.
    2
  12. "It's just a question of what data is used to generate them" - yeah okay and the data comes from already existing frames rather than asking the game engine what's actually happening on screen.
    1
  13. How's the experience better? Would you repeat frames to get higher FPS even if changes nothing? So why ask AI to dream frames between gameplay to trick you?
    1
  14. Because they are "fake" frames. You're effectively just playing with a form of smoothing, like those TVs that have an option to run at 60 fps instead of 30 and make movies look like soap operas. Alright. I'll take frame smoothing if it enhances the experience. But don't like to me and tell me I'm playing at 200 FPS. It's not real. It's smoothing.
    1
  15. Games look like crap but need 4x the power to run. And people say there's no alternative.
    1
  16. Then we could just have smoothing interpolators like TVs on our PC monitors. If you truly didn't care you'd have asked for those a decade ago.
    1
  17. Games are stagnant. In part thanks to UE5.
    1
  18. Semantics. The dollars they're asking for are real.
    1
  19. Okay but nvidia doesn't charge me 500 bucks every 3-4 years so I can continue to see with my eyes.
    1
  20. Games have barely improved in years. But the raw horsepower to run them quadrupled. We have the brute force to do this, but it's being wasted.
    1
  21. Whatever. Many of us won't play AI slop.
    1
  22. It will also kill optimization so you'll keep needing larger GPU dies and higher costs just to keep up. You'll need more raw power to get acceptable "real" frames to generate decent frames out of.
    1
  23. Then why not repeat frames? By repeating frames you can turn 30 fps into 60. No nvidia tech needed.
    1
  24. Not true, but cope.
    1
  25. You do understand that there's a difference between captured frames and interpolated frames, right? Your TV's motion smoothing feature creates frames which were never captured by the camera.
    1
  26. Turbocharging does put physical horsepower into the engine, though. This is more like knocking you out for 5 minutes and putting the car on self-driving mode so that the manufacturer can tell you they cut your commute by 5 minutes.
    1
  27. Actually they tested this on fighter pilots. They could see a frame with an enemy fighter aircaft among >200 blank frames.
    1
  28. If you don't care then we could just run a program to repeat frames. No need to buy a video card.
    1
  29. Nvidia literally makes the hardware to do AI computing. They put the AI hardware on video cards. This is AI. Watch Nvidia's conference, they said "AI" like 30 times. Algorithms is stuff like checkerboard rendering. This isn't it.
    1
  30. They're advertising the capability to do 4x multiplier. It's misleading.
    1
  31. At that point, you're running the game so well you can just do it natively.
    1
  32. BRO HOW IS THE PICTURE ANY SMOOTHER? By that logic we could just repeat frames 3 times. Bam 80 FPS out of 20. You still have the input lag but hey you got 80 fps.
    1
  33.  @lukasralys6096  " the reality is that all these game dev's are not optimizing their games " - and this is the perfect excuse to keep ignoring optimization
    1
  34. But output will be disconnected from input. The input lag you feel is based on the game's input polling, simulating the scene, rendering the camera's view and then presenting that image on the screen. If the game is taking your input but the output is "faked" that means you'll only get feedback from your input when you're presented with a "real" frame.
    1
  35. Because games will become less optimized. If you can just fake the framerate they'll keep pushing games harder to run. And you'll be paying very real dollars to upgrade cards.
    1
  36. It's not a new way of computing or rendering. It's essentially interpolation smoothing.
    1
  37. ​ @Nasser-bp6qf  Cap. There's tons of programmers on youtube showing how optimization has not peaked. Software got worse as computers got better.
    1
  38. Not sure if bait
    1
  39. It isn't, but cope.
    1
  40. But this allows them to get worse. You're paying real money for the computer to guess how the frames work. If the GPUs got better they'd calculate the frames for real with no guessing.
    1
  41. If frame rate increases without a fluid response you're essentially just increasing the FPS counter number.
    1
  42. It's not working smart lol it's interpolation. Working smart is all the optimizations to avoid rendering stuff that doesn't need to. This is taking a print screen and moving things around to look like it's a new frame.
    1
  43. You do understand that you're comparing a virtual world where you take sequential screenshots to render on screen to us giving our hard earned cash for performance increase and the performance is achieved by interpolating, right? When you take a movie recorded at 24 fps and run it through one of those TVs that has smoothing enabled to run at 60 fps, you're not going back to the movie set and recording extra frames to gain more visual information. The TV's chip simply runs interpolation to create "in between" frames, essentially creating frames that never existed. Is a movie watched through 60 fps worth more? No, if anything people dislike that because it gives it a soap opera look.
    1
  44. The performance will never be amazing because you're asking the computer to imagine the frames. How the frames are rendered absolutely matters.
    1
  45. If nvidia didn't give devs a crutch they'd fix the games.
    1
  46. It works by sacrificing fluid response, but okay
    1
  47. Is this some kind of gotcha? A "fake frame" is generated by interpolation rather than being drawn from what's happening in the game engine.
    1
  48. This was said when the 2080 was announced. Years later we're still waiting for the next tech to save gaming. System requirements will continue to increase.
    1
  49. Wrong. Buddy take a tv with motion smoothing on and play a movie. People will complain it looks like a soap opera. That's because movies are shot at 24 frames and soap operas at 60 because TVs run on 60hz. 24 is the number used for FILM because more frames requires longer reels and more time editing.
    1
  50. The issue is that games are not getting easier to run and this tech will just lead to games getting less and less optimized. We're just paying more cash to run games that don't look that good.
    1