News Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Gets Surprising DLSS 3 Update and Game Optimizations

[Admin]

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor has received a new performance-enhancing patch for both console and PC that provides a plethora of optimizations for the game to help boost frame rates. The PC version also gains official support for Nvidia's DLSS 2 upscaling and DLSS 3 frame generation.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Gets Surprising DLSS 3 Update and Game Optimizations : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

Well, no matter what modders do, you can never ever equate development from Companies to small "guerrilla" coders pushing out something (at times) that just works for very specific hardware configs with very quirky behaviours.

Generally speaking, mods are most welcome (hello Beat Saber!), but also understood they're not something you can expect to work flawlessly and without quirks. Simplest thing to say is UI integration and the more complex would be alignment to the artists vision of the game (mods that increase light conditions or gamma, for instance). When building any new tech into a game, you not just have to take into account the time it takes to, say, "slap it into the engine", but also the time it takes to re-work the menu, the interactions and, more importantly, the validation/testing. PC, fortunately, can get away with shorter cycles, possibly, unlike consoles and in the particular case of DLSS, maybe even less, but you still have a sizable overhead modders do not have, including expectations.

All in all, people want these new techs to be included in the "vanilla" experience first and that just takes time.

Regards.

 

[Makaveli]

I don't think this has anything to do with modders pushing them. On the sponsored title there looks to be a delay on purpose and once that is up the other tech will get implemented. The same with happen for Starfield.

 

[pf100]

Well, no matter what modders do, you can never ever equate development from Companies to small "guerrilla" coders pushing out something (at times) that just works for very specific hardware configs with very quirky behaviours.

Generally speaking, mods are most welcome (hello Beat Saber!), but also understood they're not something you can expect to work flawlessly and without quirks. Simplest thing to say is UI integration and the more complex would be alignment to the artists vision of the game (mods that increase light conditions or gamma, for instance). When building any new tech into a game, you not just have to take into account the time it takes to, say, "slap it into the engine", but also the time it takes to re-work the menu, the interactions and, more importantly, the validation/testing. PC, fortunately, can get away with shorter cycles, possibly, unlike consoles and in the particular case of DLSS, maybe even less, but you still have a sizable overhead modders do not have, including expectations.

All in all, people want these new techs to be included in the "vanilla" experience first and that just takes time.

Regards.

PureDark has proven over and over that if the game already has fsr2 it takes one person one day to add dlss3. Stop defending lazy devs.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

I’m still amazed as to how we are now turning our backs on tech that works on as many devices as possible and instead demand a lock-in tech that limits us to whichever excuses are used to justify the already short list of devices that can support it.

If intel can pull a dlss tech, AMD should simply close shop, because they wont have a chance in hell of getting anything that’s open and opposite to it that will be acceptable by todays dumb consumers.

 

[willis9829]

dang, I feel like fool having purchased Pure Dark's DLSS mod yesterday seeing today news Respawn released update with official support.

 

[KyaraM]

I don't think this has anything to do with modders pushing them. On the sponsored title there looks to be a delay on purpose and once that is up the other tech will get implemented. The same with happen for Starfield.

Which Nvidia game this year didn't launch with at least FSR implemented next to DLSS? If they can do it, then holy AMD surely can as well? Why wouldn't their devs do it if they had a choice?

I’m still amazed as to how we are now turning our backs on tech that works on as many devices as possible and instead demand a lock-in tech that limits us to whichever excuses are used to justify the already short list of devices that can support it.

If intel can pull a dlss tech, AMD should simply close shop, because they wont have a chance in hell of getting anything that’s open and opposite to it that will be acceptable by todays dumb consumers.

I'm still amazed at how we are now turning our backs on choice and get complacent with only having a single piece of tech implemented instead of all three, so that people can actually choose the one that works best with their system. The only dumb people are the one who support this anti-consumer practice. You gys are literally the only ones not demanding to have a choice. Now what does that tell us, huh.

 

[-Fran-]

PureDark has proven over and over that if the game already has fsr2 it takes one person one day to add dlss3. Stop defending lazy devs.

You completely missed the point, but that's ok.

Regards.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

I'm still amazed at how we are now turning our backs on choice and get complacent with only having a single piece of tech implemented instead of all three, so that people can actually choose the one that works best with their system. The only dumb people are the one who support this anti-consumer practice. You gys are literally the only ones not demanding to have a choice. Now what does that tell us, huh.

Some people have an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics that defy logic.

 

[KyaraM]

Some people have an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics that defy logic.

Tell me where I'm wrong. You are the one clamoring for having only FSR in a game, not me. I want to have a choice. What is your justification against said choice?

 

[-Fran-]

Tell me where I'm wrong. You are the one clamoring for having only FSR in a game, not me. I want to have a choice. What is your justification against said choice?

You're not wrong in the sentiment, but your portrayal is a tad flawed, I'd say.

Think about it from this perspective: why do games only release on Windows and not on all major OS'es (PC-wise; let's ignore consoles for now)? Have you ever got angry at* Developers for not releasing on Linux (a flavour of it), MacOS and Windows consistently and all the time? Have you ever questioned why most developers use the Intel Compiler instead of other alternatives like LLVM or GCC? Why some software uses DirectX exclusively instead of also using Vulkan, OpenGL and Metal? And there's so many more examples of this where the answer is often simple: time and money.

I wholeheartedly agree AMD imposing exclusivity is crap and must not be, but they have come out and said they don't and only use "priority". They're taking a book form how "exclusives" work in the gaming industry which, like it or not, seems to be accepted practice and I don't see any outrages against the EPIC store*, Sony or Nintendo about it? Or at least, there may be a sentiment of discomfort and annoyance, but it doesn't get coverage in the tech media or consumer backing to have enough momentum to generate noise and/or impact. This has told all major Corps "it's ok to by scummy to this level" and they're running with it.

As I said, it's a different ball game if AMD was confirmed to exclude DLSS (or any other tech) from any given title, but they have cleared the waters (late, yes; annoying as it is) so now it's a matter of accepting it as the trend unless there's backlash of some kind. As stated before: there won't be as it's an "accepted" practice.

Regards.

 

[KyaraM]

You're not wrong in the sentiment, but your portrayal is a tad flawed, I'd say.

Think about it from this perspective: why do games only release on Windows and not on all major OS'es (PC-wise; let's ignore consoles for now)? Have you ever got angry at* Developers for not releasing on Linux (a flavour of it), MacOS and Windows consistently and all the time? Have you ever questioned why most developers use the Intel Compiler instead of other alternatives like LLVM or GCC? Why some software uses DirectX exclusively instead of also using Vulkan, OpenGL and Metal? And there's so many more examples of this where the answer is often simple: time and money.

I wholeheartedly agree AMD imposing exclusivity is crap and must not be, but they have come out and said they don't and only use "priority". They're taking a book form how "exclusives" work in the gaming industry which, like it or not, seems to be accepted practice and I don't see any outrages against the EPIC store*, Sony or Nintendo about it? Or at least, there may be a sentiment of discomfort and annoyance, but it doesn't get coverage in the tech media or consumer backing to have enough momentum to generate noise and/or impact. This has told all major Corps "it's ok to by scummy to this level" and they're running with it.

As I said, it's a different ball game if AMD was confirmed to exclude DLSS (or any other tech) from any given title, but they have cleared the waters (late, yes; annoying as it is) so now it's a matter of accepting it as the trend unless there's backlash of some kind. As stated before: there won't be as it's an "accepted" practice.

Regards.

Yes, I am indeed very annoyed and actually also vocal that games and other programs are only released to specific OSes - not just Microsoft, certain arts software is only released for Mac OS as well, and Linux goes nearly empty in this regard. I'm just vocal about them in other parts of the internet, usually, not here on TH. That's why I like what Valve does with their Linux emulator in Steam, though I wished it wasn't necessary. It is still a great example for how it can be done. I'm also annoyed about games being exclusively made for one platform and not for others; forcing consumers to have to own every single console and a computer just to make sure they can play whatever game they want is anti-consumerism, plain and simple. Every single one of these instances is the same garbage to me, and I'm not letting "that's just how it is" count as an answer. Every option should be supported as much as possible. As I stated a couple times before, I support having a choice, and that choice includes being able to choose what device to play on.

Now, I do realise that this might not always be easily possible and some devices/OSes might be harder to implement than others. However, supporting at least one other option should theoretically always be possible, and there is always the option to simply include things like Vine and similar programs in the development of the software on a developer level; I have seen something like this done before. Especially since every modern console I can think off uses parts from companies developing PC components as well. Costs are also not really am argument seeing how much games cost nowadays, especially AAA games like the ones we are discussing here the past couple days and right now. A small indy company might struggle with this (though they are usually the ones who actually try to do support as much as possible, ironically), but huge companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Square Enix, etc? No. Not giving them a pass.

And on the topic of AMD, if intentionally blocking DLSS/XeSS or not, denying this so late does throw a lot of shade on them, and their competition apparently not delaying other upscalers even more. I don't closely follow every game release, but at least as far as I know, every game featuring DLSS that came out this year also featured at least FSR, and sometimes also XeSS. That's how it should be, not the trash AMD pulls here. And it annoys me that people try to defend it, act as if that's fine. If it were the other way round, there would be an insane uproar, and you wouldn't ever hear me argue against that uproar. I would join right in. Yet I'm the one performing "mental gymnastics" here. Yeah, right...

 

[darkchazz]

If you check the full size images we posted, the FSR 2 photo is arguably the best-looking image while the camera is not moving. Textures and objects are sharper than DLSS or native resolution.

Let's disagree here.
FSR2 has a forced sharpening filter applied to it that DLSS and native TAA do not have, at least in this particular game.
I'd argue it actually looks oversharpened while DLSS gives off a pristine image. If oversharpened image is your thing, you can manually add it while using DLSS, in more than one way i.e. NVCP, Reshade, NV Freestyle.
Granted the developers should've added an adjustable sharpness slider to the options menu in the first place.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I wholeheartedly agree AMD imposing exclusivity is crap and must not be, but they have come out and said they don't and only use "priority". They're taking a book form how "exclusives" work in the gaming industry which, like it or not, seems to be accepted practice and I don't see any outrages against the EPIC store*, Sony or Nintendo about it? Or at least, there may be a sentiment of discomfort and annoyance, but it doesn't get coverage in the tech media or consumer backing to have enough momentum to generate noise and/or impact. This has told all major Corps "it's ok to by scummy to this level" and they're running with it.

As I said, it's a different ball game if AMD was confirmed to exclude DLSS (or any other tech) from any given title, but they have cleared the waters (late, yes; annoying as it is) so now it's a matter of accepting it as the trend unless there's backlash of some kind. As stated before: there won't be as it's an "accepted" practice.

Regards.

But since AMD isn't excluding DLSS or anybody elses Up-Scalers / Up-Samplers, if the Dev's "Delay" the release of DLSS or other (Up-Scalers / Up-Samplers) due to priority list of things to implement; does it really matter?

Most games that are launched at day one are buggy as eff, why not wait until things settle down before you play?

It's not like you don't have a giant backlog of games to play as is.

Why the rush for a new game, just wait for a while until you get what you want, then go play it.

By that time, DLSS should be implemented, it should be cheaper, so buy the game then.

 

[pf100]

You completely missed the point, but that's ok.

Regards.

I do that occasionally.

 

[Makaveli]

Which Nvidia game this year didn't launch with at least FSR implemented next to DLSS? If they can do it, then holy AMD surely can as well? Why wouldn't their devs do it if they had a choice?

That is a good question for the dev's.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

Tell me where I'm wrong. You are the one clamoring for having only FSR in a game, not me. I want to have a choice. What is your justification against said choice?

Im going to assume good faith in your question, even though the answer its already in your post.

That said, how its dlss a good option when it only works on one brand and in that brand, depending on the version, it will work in even less devices ?

Nvidia decided to screw their own customers and here we are fighting on their behalf.

I dont care how good dlss is, if the price to pay its to be at their mercy. Just look at the bs with dlss 3 and how they are abusing the market with their prices.

So the answer is FSR, since as explained above, nobody targets all platforms, options, techs, etc. yet FSR supports a bigger amount of gpus plus its open sourced.

That said, if i had the choice, i simply wished that none of these techs were used, since they rely in cheating (upsampling instead of native) to straight up lying (fake frames to inflate fps).

Personally, i don’t understand what happened to us as consumers, because instead of demanding more for us, in the form of a proper open version of dlss that works with everything, here we are, making excuses on behalf of poor nvidia.

Or using the same excuses, why are everyone upset with AMD for a limited exclusivity yet nobody had a problem with all the times that nvidia has done way worse?

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, I am indeed very annoyed and actually also vocal that games and other programs are only released to specific OSes - not just Microsoft, certain arts software is only released for Mac OS as well, and Linux goes nearly empty in this regard. I'm just vocal about them in other parts of the internet, usually, not here on TH. That's why I like what Valve does with their Linux emulator in Steam, though I wished it wasn't necessary. It is still a great example for how it can be done. I'm also annoyed about games being exclusively made for one platform and not for others; forcing consumers to have to own every single console and a computer just to make sure they can play whatever game they want is anti-consumerism, plain and simple. Every single one of these instances is the same garbage to me, and I'm not letting "that's just how it is" count as an answer. Every option should be supported as much as possible. As I stated a couple times before, I support having a choice, and that choice includes being able to choose what device to play on.

Now, I do realise that this might not always be easily possible and some devices/OSes might be harder to implement than others. However, supporting at least one other option should theoretically always be possible, and there is always the option to simply include things like Vine and similar programs in the development of the software on a developer level; I have seen something like this done before. Especially since every modern console I can think off uses parts from companies developing PC components as well. Costs are also not really am argument seeing how much games cost nowadays, especially AAA games like the ones we are discussing here the past couple days and right now. A small indy company might struggle with this (though they are usually the ones who actually try to do support as much as possible, ironically), but huge companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Square Enix, etc? No. Not giving them a pass.

And on the topic of AMD, if intentionally blocking DLSS/XeSS or not, denying this so late does throw a lot of shade on them, and their competition apparently not delaying other upscalers even more. I don't closely follow every game release, but at least as far as I know, every game featuring DLSS that came out this year also featured at least FSR, and sometimes also XeSS. That's how it should be, not the trash AMD pulls here. And it annoys me that people try to defend it, act as if that's fine. If it were the other way round, there would be an insane uproar, and you wouldn't ever hear me argue against that uproar. I would join right in. Yet I'm the one performing "mental gymnastics" here. Yeah, right...

Keep fighting the good fight, then. More people needs to join though.

But since AMD isn't excluding DLSS or anybody elses Up-Scalers / Up-Samplers, if the Dev's "Delay" the release of DLSS or other (Up-Scalers / Up-Samplers) due to priority list of things to implement; does it really matter?

Most games that are launched at day one are buggy as eff, why not wait until things settle down before you play?

It's not like you don't have a giant backlog of games to play as is.

Why the rush for a new game, just wait for a while until you get what you want, then go play it.

By that time, DLSS should be implemented, it should be cheaper, so buy the game then.

It does matter more because of semantics than actual tangible effects. A delay is not the same as a ban/exclusivity. Plus, most games are shipping in such a piss poor fashion (as you say and I agree) as of late that even having that "advantage" (to call it something), it's something you really have to ponder about: "is it really an advantage?". AMD needs to realize it's stupid and they'll stop. Like I said, it's an "industry-wide" thing to do, so they're probably thinking that it just works, but we can argue it does not. Specially with the backlash they would get. Money wise, it's more of an expense with no return than anything else IMO.

So, in short, we can agree this "priority" thing is stupid, but I personally do not care as much because in reality, the actual tangible benefit to AMD seems to be really non-existent. Dev Studios may actually be leaving DLSS integration "for later" and then realize "oh, it wasn't that easy as we thought" and taking longer. Don't assume malice when it can be explained via stupidity or incompetence, as harsh as it sounds

Regards.