OhKay wrote:
thanks and HAPPY NEW YEAR guys...
F@#$ my head is still spinning... just woke up and tweaking for a little while!
some normal stuff as usual
3AMtdon't know if it supposed to turn out like this but here's my couple of shots
You can definitely see the reflections of the local static objects. Interesting...I wonder if the "enter map" requirement will be eliminated at some point.
OhKay wrote:
Here's Downsampling of 5120x2880. SizeScale and SourceTexturesScale at 0.3, <5 fps...
...
same as above but both Scales at 1.5... <1-2 fps...
LOL. 5k really does kick the crap out of a system, doesn't it!
Here is a tip...I've been messing with this myself to see if I can improve performance at that resolution: Reduce SSAO/SSIL SamplingQuality and SamplingPrecision to 1 and 2 respectively, with SamplingRange at 0.3. (Personally, I kind of like a slightly lower sampling range, rather than a massive one like 1.0, as it kind of heightens the effect, rather than blurring it across a wide area...but using 0.3 specifically is part of the trick here.) With SamplingRange at 0.3, the difference between SamplingQuality at -1, 0, and 1 is practically negligible. If you SCRUTINIZE, you can see the difference, but when you are downsampling, the differences are moot (i.e. once you scale 5120x2880 down to 1920x1080, you plain and simply cannot tell the difference.) SamplingQuality 1 is MUCH faster than SamplingQuality -1, and still measurably faster than 0. SamplingPrecision has a minimal impact on IQ, but a very considerable impact on performance, as it is ramped up to higher quality. Again, if you scrutinize with a static scene when switching between -1 and 2, you can see the slight difference with SamplingPrecision, but once you downsample, the difference becomes negligible.
Overall, you can gain a considerably greater performance benefit by dropping SamplingQuality and SamplingPrecision, one that can far outpace reducing SizeScale/SourceTexturesScale to pitifully low levels like 0.3. I would offer that reducing quality & precision @ sampling range 0.3 offers enough of a performance benefit that you could keep SizeScale at 0.8, maybe even 1.0, and still have around the same performance as SizeScale 0.3. I would also offer that the difference in final quality is LESS when dropping quality and precision than it is when dropping SizeScale by such a considerable amount, with a greater performance benefit. There are indeed differences (and I don't recommend using SamplingQuality 2...you can tell the difference when its that low), but they are very small. Here is a quick (and very dirty) example of the technique applied: 5120x2880 @ 10.5fps:
Downsampled to 1920x1080p:
http://i.imgur.com/7q8tGnb.jpgClick it for the original full size (warning, 3.3MB image, its really huge).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Yes, some of those were just with the right lighting at the right moment. I wish they would happen more often 
This Ass...
have to try what you recommend, anything can lift above 5fps... i can live with. maybe try tonight.
