All graphics are fake, not just DLSS/RTX/AI.

[Jayhova]

This forum has an Anti-AI graphics obsession and I'm here to educate you. The argument is that AI graphics are fake, but I argue ALL graphics are fake. That's the point of them. They are simulations.

Pixels are not real, they are fake constructs used to simulate 3D environments. The real world is made up of sub-atomic particles, not pixels. Pixels were invented by humans. Frames are not real, we don't see the real world in 2D frames being processed quickly to create the illusion of motion.

HDR and Raytracing are not real, they simulate light. LIGHT in the physical world is the real thing. HDR and Raytracing are simulations, fake by definition.

Tess-elation and mip-mapping are fake. They are techniques to apply 2D textures on to 3D geometries. In the real world, they don't exist. They are just simulation techniques.

Anti-Aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering, an any other raster technology you've been using your ENTIRE LIFE are all fake.

So now all of a sudden, just because you can't afford RTX cards, you have a problem with graphics being fake? THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN FAKE.

Just tell the truth - you're broke and can't afford these RTX cards. And you're bitter about it and start making up weird arguments.

[Betrayal]

Nonsense arguments. We are paying mostly for new software (DLSS) now, not an increase in raw computation power.
And there is a clear difference between AI generated garbage (all the visual artefacts, lag) and traditionally rendered computer graphics.
>t. a graphics programmer.

[Coldhands]

Feel free to give me the clowns the OP is farming for.

[ReeDeR]

You have known the Matrix, the Zone and the whole world. Congratulations.
But no one will believe you.

[Jayhova]

Originally posted by Betrayal:

Nonsense arguments. We are paying mostly for new software (DLSS) now, not an increase in raw computation power.
And there is a clear difference between AI generated garbage (all the visual artefacts, lag) and traditionally rendered computer graphics.
>t. a graphics programmer.

Dead wrong. Hardware cores are required to implement AI.

Take out all the tensor cores in a 4090 and see if DLSS, RTX AI, or FG still work. Hint: they won't.

You're literally paying for ML hardware, some of the most advanced technology ever built. You should be proud of humanity's achievements instead of trying to drag us back to the stone age of raster.

[Slate]

I think his definition of real isn't real.

[Jayhova]

Originally posted by Slate:

I think his definition of real isn't real.

How can any simulation be real?

If you draw a dog in your notebook you think the dog is real? No, your drawing is a simulation of a dog. Only nature can create a real, breathing, living dog.

[Slate]

Originally posted by Jayhova:

Originally posted by Slate:

I think his definition of real isn't real.

How can any simulation be real?

If you draw a dog in your notebook you think the dog is real? No, your drawing is a simulation of a dog. Only nature can create a real, breathing, living dog.

did you just wake up? You sound new. You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.

[Jayhova]

Originally posted by Slate:

Originally posted by Jayhova:

How can any simulation be real?

If you draw a dog in your notebook you think the dog is real? No, your drawing is a simulation of a dog. Only nature can create a real, breathing, living dog.

did you just wake up? You sound new. You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.

People in here literally think raster graphics are real and AI are not. LMAO.

Like a dog rendered with raster is equivalent to a real dog, but a dog rendered with AI is a fake dog? SO STUPID.

They are BOTH fake. A computer cannot make a real dog.

[Slate]

Originally posted by Jayhova:

Originally posted by Slate:

did you just wake up? You sound new. You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.

People in here literally think raster graphics are real and AI are not. LMAO.

Like a dog rendered with raster is equivalent to a real dog, but a dog rendered with AI is a fake dog? SO STUPID.

They are BOTH fake. A computer cannot make a real dog.

I understand what you're saying completely, I think maybe what they mean is a "person" made one and algorithm software made another. Maybe that is what they mean by "real". Not sure if you're trolling but either way I'm entertaining myself.

[2ugly]

Funny stuff...

Now Nvidia is using generated frames as a marketing tactic to claim the 5070 has the same performance as a 4090 for 1/3 the price.

[Marius]

I believe the thing is on Native rendering in Stalker 2. It's all pixalated, blocky and lots of shimmering.
Adding TAA it's all get blurry and such. Increasing sharpness helps a bit. Downside is a little less FPS
Adding DLSS helps getting it a bit sharper, although it's less blurry than TAA, but increased sharpness it can look really good. Adds more FPS too.
Adding TAA, Sharpness and Frame Gen / DLLS Gen is nice too. Specially if you're already above 60fps and then add another more 30-40 fps with framegen. Bit of inputdelay, though. It can be countered a tad by enabling a bit of Reflex

That said without TAA, DLSS, etc and on native render Stalker 2 looks really bad, like almost the game/unreal engine 5 is designed to use AI upscaling. I don't think it's a good idea, maybe it's some cartelstuff to sell newest Nvidia cards or so. No idea. I only know native render looks bad in Stalker 2.

[gRim_Reaper II]

Things nobody said: "DLSS is fake".
Things people actually said: "DLSS looks sh*t compared to properly made native resolution and developers rely so much on it that they don't make the latter enymore".

I have an RTX 4080 in my laptop, still sucks. Trees in the distance look like a swarm of flies, everything blurrs in motion, frame gen creates input lag (while FSR 3.1 is basically useless to get any better framerate), if I turn around quickly, everything's black for a moment and often parts of the environment will just flicker between different shades constantly.

[HiggsLP]

Originally posted by gRim_Reaper II:

Things nobody said: "DLSS is fake".
Things people actually said: "DLSS looks sh*t compared to properly made native resolution and developers rely so much on it that they don't make the latter enymore".

I have an RTX 4080 in my laptop, still sucks. Trees in the distance look like a swarm of flies, everything blurrs in motion, frame gen creates input lag (while FSR 3.1 is basically useless to get any better framerate), if I turn around quickly, everything's black for a moment and often parts of the environment will just flicker between different shades constantly.

Yep that. In this game TSR 100% NATIVE res is best looking.

[gRim_Reaper II]

Originally posted by HiggsLP:

Yep that. In this game TSR 100% NATIVE res is best looking.

TSR only goes up to 'ultra quality' setting for me. That makes the immediate surroundings look a bit better on my system (1440p screen) though a bit pixelly on closer look, but at the cost of revealing the dithered mess undeneath. Distant trees are just a coarse airbrush anymore and trees behind trees create an ugly smear effect passing behind one another.