It's little over a month away from the release of The Last of Us Remastered on PS4, and the team currently hard at work to improve performance and squash the last performance bugs affecting the game.
Past 60fps now, 120fps OMG! So they confirmed locking onto 60 frames, and pushing past 60fps like 90fps or something.
Just a locked frame rate of 60 fps, thats the point of pushing it past 60.
What he said. To keep a game locked at 60, you need to be constantly *above* 60. If you just touch 60, it'll bit below it when there's a lot going on on screen.
If you can run 60fps synched, it's sweet. And seriously i would have to see Uncharted 4 @ 60fps, but i would be more then happy with 30fps as with previous games.
A locked 60fps would be nice.
Yep, in order to maintain a steady 60fps the actual framerate has to average much higher. This is because rendering loads are never the same from moment to moment and the framerate will always fluctuate up and down. *Edit: Nevermind, I didn't read the other responses. It looks like other people already covered it.
Hm...not really. The minimum frame time needs to be beyond 16.6ms (or 33.3 for 30fps). It doesn't really matter if the fastest frame can be 10ms or below. A bell curve is reality, but useless in this context. Locked means locked. Means, the 'refresh rate' is always 16.6ms - but from a 'load balancing' standpoint, basically what that means is, you shift resources where you have them somewhere where you need them to achieve those 16.6. It's quite 'tough' to borrow 4ms from a 10ms frame to get those back on the next which runs at 20ms. So, to make this short, to make the slowest frame 16ms, you got to target much higher to fulfill the worst case scenario (and in that reality, your bell curve is quite accurate), but the average is pretty useless.
120fps would be nice IF THERE WAS A TV CAPABLE OF HANDLING IT.
There are lots of TVs capable of handling 120 Hz actually.
I guess your TV is like 10 years old?
Some TVs are 240 Hz.
Refresh Rate =/= Frame Rate. Granted, the higher the frame rate your console/pc outputs, the better it is to have the most refresh rate, it shows more smoothness of gameplay and video. A higher refresh rate is good for gaming to make the gameplay look smoother, if the game gives the TV consistent frame rate. I.E; if your console is outputting 30fps, then lower refresh rate will make it look not as bad and you'll barely see a difference between 60fps and 30fps. Meaning, 60fps don't look that good on lower refresh rate and there's hardly a noticeable difference. If you have an old TV with very low refresh rate "120hz or lower" and are playing it in 60fps; you're doing it wrong. Upgrade your TV.
My vizio that I bought 5 years ago is 120Hz.
Was this supposed to be sarcastic? I guess a lot of people have no idea what the frequency on their TV does. 60hz - TV will display a max framrate of 60fps 120hz - TV will display a max framrate of 120fps 240hz - TV will display a max framrate of 240fps The higher the frequency you have on a TV, the more frames it can support. I don't know how anyone who hasn't used a computer for the last 20 years doesn't know this, computer monitors work just the same except you can usually adjust the frequency manually. I remember I had this old ass Diamond NEC CRT monitor that had HD long before HD TV's ever existed or HD gaming consoles. The highest resolution it had was 2048 x 1536 and it could run at 120hz. That monitor was sick for its time, so old but most TV's are finally catching up to that. You can buy 120hz HDTV fairly cheap these days, you may even find a 240hz for a decent price albeit it probably will be some generic brand. @UltimateMaster "If you have an old TV with very low refresh rate "120hz or lower" and are playing it in 60fps; you're doing it wrong. Upgrade your TV." What? That makes no sense, if the game you are playing is only outputting 60fps, there wouldn't be a need to have a TV with higher than 60Hz unless you have something that actually outputs more than 60 frames, then it would be wise to take advantage of that by buying a TV that can support a higher frequency refresh rate than just 60hz.
My TV is 240hz soooo...... Yeah what they said.
There are no TVs that are true 120HZ for that you would need a 120/144Hz PC monitor. Anyway no game on the PS4/XB1 will be 120Hz/FPS the best we can ever hope for is a locked 60fps and I applaud ND for pushing for a locked 60fps. I've sold my copy of TLoU ready for the remaster, can't wait.
the tvs are "true" 120hz but because of the frame rates of tv it doesnt actually show 120 picture frames. Different tvs use different techniques but a lot show black frames in between or some guess what the frames in between would look like which gives that weird effect people complain about. Im not sure how they would handle a real 120hz video input since tvs and videos are 24-60. Im sure it could be tested with a pc though.
You're obviously getting a bunch of disagrees because no one even understands how current 120Hz and 240Hz TVs work. They only accept a refresh rate of 60Hz or 24Hz via HDMI and then use the internal processor to generate extra frames via a process known as motion interpolation. These added interpolated frames make the image appear to be more smooth, but the actual content the TV is receiving is not in 120Hz or 240Hz. When watching a Blu-ray in 24Hz mode it will usually display each frame 5 or 10x in succession (120Hz and 240Hz). If you don't believe me, try hooking up a new PC with HDMI to your 120Hz or 240Hz LED TV and attempt to enable 120Hz, you can't. I own 120Hz and 240Hz LED TVs from different manufacturers, one of which supports 3D and neither will accept a refresh rate of more than 60Hz. They display 3D images using a method known as frame packing where the TV is essentially accepting a large frame buffer that is two 720p or 1080p frames in a vertical arrangement, and then the TV decides that the top image is the left eye, and the bottom the right.
@Sy_Wolf, @CryofSilence: A lot of so-called "120Hz" and "240Hz" TVs aren't actually what they claim. http://www.cnet.com/news/fa... "240Hz" claims in particular are generally a bunch of BS.
120 Hz TVs do exist, they just tend to be more expensive. Mine is a buggery 60 Hz 720p screen. :/
@OpenGL I was beginning to wonder how long this thread would go before someone would bring up the misleading labeling of "120Hz" and "240Hz" TVs and how they actually work. "They only accept a refresh rate of 60Hz or 24Hz via HDMI and then use the internal processor to generate extra frames via a process known as motion interpolation. These added interpolated frames make the image appear to be more smooth, but the actual content the TV is receiving is not in 120Hz or 240Hz." The effect just doesn't agree with me. Something about the way it moves always seems a bit off to me. I'm much happier with my primitive 60Hz Panasonic plasma. And the incredible picture quality, deep blacks, and other advantages. LOL. I'm hoping my TV lasts until we get affordable OLEDs, although who knows when that could be. We don't even have affordable genuine LEDs (rather, we have LED-backlit LCDs; more mislabeling) yet.
omg ... is there really people thinking that 120mhz = 120fps ... sheesh 2 completely different things people. My computer monitor is 1920x1080 at 60 refresh rate resolution and you can still get 120 fps steady on most many games.
@Aks ya thats called the soap opera effect and pretty much everyone hates it. the better refresh rates werent really added to show more fps but to eliminate the blur caused by the lcd pixles being slow. @memotes Its 120hz not mhz because that would be insanely fast. And of coarse the game can run at whatever it wants but your monitor is only showing 60 individual frames each second. HZ means per second. Yes refresh rates are different than frame rates but only because lcds dont flicker frames but its the same thing.
he'll believe anything <_<
Hate to break it to you folks, but the HDMI version the PS4 uses is incapable of going over 60hz (60fps). In fact if it does go over 60fps, any frames that are above that are completely lost and you get what is called judder, which has the same appearance of a very very low frame-rate. In fact Killzone:SF had this issue in a few parts of the game which it went above 60fps and it felt like the frames came to a crawl. And apparently it happened in COD Ghosts as well See here: http://www.videogamer.com/p... So while a locked 60fps would look nice, if they are aiming to go above 60fps, then there is going to be a lot of problems with judder and I doubt they would allow that.
I think they're goal isn't to make it run at 90 or 100 fps, the game will be caped at 60 but aiming for a frame rate above that assures that it won't have any drops
As some have already suggested, maybe their reason for pushing performance past 60fps is so they can lock the game in at a steady 60fps so that there will be no slow down regardless of what is happening on-screen.
Oh I got it, in development if it always runs above 60fps, then when they lock it @60fps for the final game it will theoretically never drop below it. I understand now :-)
can you please show me where that is clarified? because I can't find anything about that the PS4 HDMI can only output 60 fps thanks
@Ultr Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... Scroll down to where it breaks down the different versions of HDMI and you will see frame rate capability. In short, only 60fps is supported, except with HDMI 1.4b which allows for a 3D mode of 120fps with 60fps for each eye. Bottom line is that ALL TVs ONLY SUPPORT 60fps for an INPUT. The "120hz" and "240hz" TVs will still only accept a 60hz (60fps) signal, then they will either repeat each frame twice (120hz) or four times (240hz) or try to interpolate the "missing" information (which is your "Mexican Soap Opera" mode...also called "Natural Motion" or "Smooth Motion"). The main reason for these modes is to compensate for LCD panels (and LED backlit LCD panels, marketed in the US as just "LED") latency. Typically, it takes up to 15ms for an LCD pixel to return to it's "rest" position after it's engaged. This latency causes a blurring of the image, especially with fast motion. By increasing the number of times the image is refreshed, they can minimize the blurring. It should be noted that PLASMA TVs are never rated at 120hz or 240hz...why? Because plasma cells don't suffer from the same latency issues as LCD pixels! Hope this helps!
LMAO! How? The PS4 has ZERO next generation games running at 60fps! If so, link me please!
Yes, because NBA 2K14, Outlast, and Warframe don't count as next (current, actually) gen games, right?
Metal Gear Solid V: GRound Zeroes Metal Gear Solid V: Phantom Pain NBA 2K14 Outlast Warframe Blacklight Retribution Tomb Raider Definitive Editon Wolfenstein The New Order Plants Vs Zombies: Garden Warfare Call Of Duty Ghost Diablo 3: Ultimate Evil Edition There is alot more but those are the ones of the top of my head.
Stop trolling dumbass.
Damn, I haven't seen this otherZinc troll in a while. Classic N4G troll behavior.
I think he meant games that are only on PS4. All the games you listed also came out on last gen consoles if I'm not wrong.
@Wizard: You are wrong. Many of those games come from PC, but they're not all available in last gen. Besides, if they WERE on last gen, that makes the game more likely to be hampered by being cross gen.
And yet when we read your comments history, you praise everything on xbo ... Hows that next gen going ?
its not easy being a game developer especially when it comes time for crunch time. But atleast many studios are treated with hot meals instead of just Pizzas when working overnight most of sony's studios have their own chefs so when a studio is down to crunch time, the last thing they have to worry about is hot meal
just a regular gamer boner here.
Ideally a game needs to be synced at 1 frame below the refresh rate of a monitor. So technically the way to do this is locked 59 FPS. That's on a monitor with 60 hz.
I remember when Sony said Watch Dogs would be 1080p 60fps on PS4. Look at how that turned out... I remain skeptical about developer's claims too, even Guerilla lied about Shadowfall's res being 1080p in MP. Crytek stated Ryse would be 1080p and a locked 30fps before XB1's launch, and that ended up 900p and regularly dipping into the low 20's. I'm just not buying it anymore..
This is an inhouse engine, with an inhouse developer...30 fps was attainable at 720p on a 10 year old console, I'ms ure 1080p 60 fps for a remake is possible.
A locked 60 frames would be very nice.
It would be very nice indeed.
it would indeed be very nice indeed
Higher framerate always a welcome treat in my eyes.
v-sync for the win !
Is this game that demanding??? I played it on ps3 and the graphics were amazing but it wasn't really long or the areas weren't wide open. Why do you guys think this game is giving Naughty Dog some hassle to get it at 60fps?
Actually there are areas with huge vistas. I think they may be working to improve the texture quality overall. I
But the vistas were mostly during cut scenes , Ima have to guess and say they want the MP running at 60fps. That's were it really gets crowded @Abrail- yeah true was forgetting it was 720p on ps3 with how amazing it looked
You gotta keep in mind that TLOU ran originally at 720p, 30 fps. This means that they have to render twice as many pixels, twice as fast. That's not exactly child's play. And that doesn't even count all the improvements with textures, lighting and more, which also costs hardware resources.
Not to mention it was made using the Cell architecture on the PS3...So I doubt it's easy to port it over to an X86 architecture on the PS4.
twice pixel and twice framerate shouldnt be a problem for 6x power compared to the PS3. PS4 Fanboys care so much about Xone's resolution and FPS for next gen titels so this game should be 2160p and 60 FPS since the PS4 is the strongest peasce of hardware on earth /s
@pornflakes...if you gave them a normal dev team and cycle then sure...this is a small group doing the porting in a little over one year. Uncharted has been In development since uncharted 3 came out... Outstanding considering the porting required for naughty dogs highly optimized for ps3 version of tlou
Yeah but keep in mind the gap between the PS3 and the PS4 is more like the difference between a GeForce GTX 580 and a GeForce GTX 780. It's a huge gap... but not enough to be play highly demanding PS3 games at 1080/60 easily. It's gonna take some finangingly to make sure Last of Us is locked at 60 if played at 1080p
@Fireseed Naughty Dog explained, it's not to do with power, it's all to do with how the original engine was built for the PS3, the way it was optimized means it's not just a straight port. Game engines are built around the hardware, like Uncharted a next gen Last Of Us will only truly look next gen when they have the chance to optimize from the start. Your comment holds no weight when you look at the first Uncharted 4 footage using the game engine which is apparently 60FPS, there is a big gap in quality between that and the Last Of Us on PS3, so a 1080p 60fps would easily be achievable, if they had had the time to rewrite the engine code.
"What fans think about software decelopment" If only
It's not that the PS4 is weaksauce, it's just the PS3 architecture was so different from just about any pc out there. It's almost impossible to port stuff to and from it with good performance.
Your right, the reason your right is because Naughty Dog have already said it's do with the game being specificity built for PS3 architecture but there seems to be a lot of top devs (people who think they know better)on here who know something Naughty Dog don't.
Not a difficult concept to grasp at all. I really don't see how anyone could make this out to be a power issue.
Because it wasn't' built from the ground up for PS4. Their just porting the game over which means they have to try and get an engine built up for the PS3 running on the PS4. Unlike Uncharted 4 in which they adapted the engine from the start. There was a video in which they explained it's not simple just to port across due to the different architecture types, the only way to make it look true next gen would be to start from the ground up.
Adding lots of AA and more graphic features might be a lot cooler than more FPS , don't remember having a problem with 30 FPS on the ps3 version but I did remember the lack of AA and some graphic features that bugged me a bit ( pc gamer as well as console ) either way should be good game tho, hope the big fixing goes smoothly.
I have to disagree...I'd rather have 60 FPS for a shooter. It just feels so right.
I'd definately take a clearer image quality (resolution, framerate, textures, lighting,..) over 60fps especially for a fairly slow paced game like The Last of Us. I'd actually appreciate a 30fps option even though that's very unlikely.
Yeah I'm an AA nazi reason why I only touched my ps3 version of gta 5 once and decided to wait for the pc version. My motto is Death to jaggies and lightning bolt power lines.
TLOU had Post Processing AA actually.