Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The game has great UW support like the first game did. The UI is 16:9 but the rest of the game is perfect.
The complaint here is that the game looks like 1080p on your nice 1440p monitor or what-have-you because EA decided to partner with AMD to make console ports easier and gave everyone else the shaft. AMD forces FSR always on in this game (the Disabled setting just sets it to 'perfect' quality. AMD also requires TAA (or any other post-process AA) to handle the edge smoothing because FSR has no hardware cleanup methods for the artifacting it introduces. Ditto the raytracing if you use it, where there's no dithering cleanup on AMD hardware so they demand it be disabled... even if it's a literal flip of a switch to let Nvidia cards clean up the raytracing with tensor cores. Want DLSS 2.0? Also basically a flip of a switch basically, with the exact same effort FSR requires to let the UI render at native resolution. But no, AMD strikes again.
In other words, for all their gloating that they are the open-source saviors of the PC Master Race, AMD is actually super strict and enforces walled gardens for features — strictly because they own the hardware in both consoles (and the Steam Deck) that AAA publishers need to support. It's strong arm tactics similar to Nintendo in the 90s, which was found to be anti-trust in Nintendo's case. We need to demand games be agnostic, especially on PC. No feature locking, and more options—including disabling things we don't want like FSR and TAA.
Developers choose what to implement and what not to, not AMD. The claims fall flat on their face when there's other games with both enabled.
The difference might be because the game was already buggy and unoptimized, so why add support for a feature that all GPUs cannot use (DLSS)?
From a development standpoint it makes zero sense to add features that require more testing when the core product already has issues, esp. to appease a few people on PC that care.
Nope, your claim is the broken one. FSR is extremely easy to add to any game and does NOT require permission from AMD to do so. HOWEVER, if AMD is helping by sending engineers to help with the implementation of features, especially on AMD powered consoles, they may do so under the conditions that certain features from competitors not be enabled. This is NOT a developer decision, but a publisher one regarding support and funding—turning down the AMD offer means more time and effort and salaries paid to do the same work themselves. While there's nothing wrong with such deals if a developers has a say in the decision due to artistic or technical concerns (*ahem*), if it's the publisher alone making the decision it's typically to the detriment of the game on less restrictive hardware like PC.
Because DLSS 2.0 is literally the same amount of effort to implement as FSR. Nvidia supports it in their driver already. It's a few flipped switches and a menu option away from being implemented, and it would solve many, many issues people have with the game including the horrible TAA requirement. My issue here isn't one of optimization, but of how simple the implementation is yet they have their hands tied by an AMD deal EA made.
Again, the decision isn't a development one, it's a publishing top-down decision. I'm 100% certain DLSS would have been implemented on day one otherwise. Therefore, I posit a reflective question—if DLSS was implemented on day one and there were still performance issues and CPU utilization bugs and the like, and almost no extra effort went into DLSS being there, would your argument still stand? No, I say. The optimization is not at all related to the feature sets implemented. You would still have performance issues, but you'd have more options to play the game how you want.
Another thing to think about: The game was developed on PC and the Unreal Engine exporter (the baking system) requires close to zero effort to build the PC variant when doing so. By default, Unreal Engine games are PC-first games at a technical level. Waving off PC users is a laughable thought in light of this. Even more so, waving off a feature over 60% of your audience uses is the opposite of appeasing a minority group of users. DLSS is a no-brainer here... But I don't even like focusing on just that one feature—Many options are not accessible without some heavy-handed modding, when they CAN be toggled in the engine. This points to either lazy design or to restrictive design, and as EA has announced the game was partnered with AMD the latter is our Occam's razor answer.
games that have both is typically NVIDIA partnered or not partnered with any GPU manufacturer.
i have never heard of a AMD partnered game that has DLSS.
this is because the AMD one is open source and is not needed to work with NVIDIA to add.
where the nvidia one you need to work with nvidia to add as its proprietary and requires hardware to work.
so AMD probably is the blame for not having DLSS by the fact they partnered with the game of what AMD probably payed for and also prob flexed them having hardware in the consoles to get that partnership because its a massive advertisement for amd tech.
Eh... not so much, anymore. DLSS 2.0 was switched over to a general neural model and you only need to work with Nvidia if you want to make a game-specific model. Even then, you can still do it yourself but you'd have to have some beefy hardware to train that model, and Nvidia literally makes servers that are designed only to train that type of neural network. It's just easier and cheaper to get Nvidia to help... But by their own admission 2.0 out the box should work with 85% of all games without tweaks.
Also consider that if you're training a neural network for you game with Nvidia, you'd probably train a DLSS 3.0 model instead. If your goal was to implement 2.0, which is currently free to implement and requires no license, you'd likely do so without help from Nvidia unless you wanted that sweet, sweet 3.0 support. Then again, DLSS 3.0 is more complex and would not play as nice with odd shaders, so that upgrade would also eat up more debugging time and the costs that incurs... so it's less appealing in some ways too.
"Free and no license" but not modifiable, it's not FOSS. It only works on certain GPUs, and it costs development time. Again, this game is obviously not finished ...why would a dev team implement something that benefits a few instead of everyone? Because fanboys think its better?
Also, considering FSR supposedly doesn't work, DLSS integration would have been a bust and a total waste of time.
UE4 essentially has drop in plugins for both DLSS and XeSS
There is no excuse to have ONLY FSR2 and a poor implementation of it
Also NVIDIA owns like 85% of the discrete GPU market so your argument about 'few' is really not the case
It's just a bad PC port that AMD sponsored so we don't get more upscaling options at launch - there is nothing to defend here
Edit:: Also DLSS is better than FSR2/TAAU the majority of the time.
But call all those GPUs use DLSS? Nope.
DLSS also has a restrictive license, it is NOT FOSS despite what any of you claim. That means when a problem occurs you cannot decompile it and examine it IF you accepted the license.
You can't fix it either. That's why there are many games that refuse to put DLSS in it or RTX -- both remove control of a dev team from fixing their own products.
Want a read? Here's the license for DLSS -- anyone could have read it. READ "4. "
https://github.com/NVIDIA/DLSS/blob/main/LICENSE.txt
I'm guessing you aren't a developer but if there is a problem with DLSS and a title being developed you contact NVIDIA and they will work with you to find the problem and get it fixed. NVIDIA for all their faults and issues (and terrible business practices) really is hands on to help devs.
It being closed has no bearing on not spending the less than 1 day to add it to the game.
Same with adding XeSS.
It doesn't matter if it's open or closed software. It's either AMD preventing it from being added or bad management.
here you go my man, enjoy https://www.nexusmods.com/starwarsjedisurvivor/mods/9?tab=files
You still pretending like that won't add development time? It's not flipping a switch.
And why do that when you can simply not add it and not give out your source code to anyone else + enter a restrictive licensing agreement? When FSR exists?
The majority of developers won't put DLSS or RTX that's reality. That someone wants it because they dropped money on a GPU isn't a concern for developers.
Also, I would never add any proprietary or restrictive code to any project that removes control from me, the project creator, manager, dev or whatever, to anyone else.