There's nothing I want less than multi-frame generation. I guess some people want to feel like they're getting their money's worth from their 240 Hz monitors.
If you have a high frame rate to start with it’s pretty nice and feels smoother. But a low frame rate turned into a high one looks good but feels laggy.
So arguably you never need frame gen for a game, since it only really works when it’s already pretty nice.
It's a great option to have. Once you reach the 2-7ms frame time territory, you're approaching the CPU bottleneck for many game engines even on the fastest hardware. For newer titles like GTA VI, framegen might be the only reliable path to 120+ FPS without pinning all of your cores.
Framegen is also a good fit for low-end hardware like the Steam Deck, which can hit 30 or 45 FPS in stuff like Elden Ring but is far from the max 90hz of the OLED model's panel. For a handheld, trading a bit of 720p visual clarity for locked 90hz gameplay is a solid trade if you can get it working.
Would you say a game is running at 90fps if, 45 times per socond, two frames are produced, the second of which is a linear interpolation of the frame before and after it?
How about if the two frames are 100% identical?
Does either of these situations differ substantially from what is being discussed, wherein the render pipeline can only produce a new render 45 times per second?
I can't believe that some people are enjoying MFG, however small that group is. me personally? I hate that cognitive dissonance of "it looks like 120 FPS yet input lag is more like 40-60 FPS". plus, FG itself has performance tax, which in my case means input lag tax.
it's input lag that defines experience, not frame time. I am comfortable with 30 FPS (sometimes less frames even fits the style of the game, e.g. Dishonored 2, Clair Obscur) as long as the game responds instantaneously.
If you have never heard of it, the basic idea is that you make low FPS feel responsive in first person games by having the mouse motion warp the existing frame independently of when a new frame is actually rendered.
This could be combined with some AI techniques to help sort out the edge artifacts you get from this.
So arguably you never need frame gen for a game, since it only really works when it’s already pretty nice.
Framegen is also a good fit for low-end hardware like the Steam Deck, which can hit 30 or 45 FPS in stuff like Elden Ring but is far from the max 90hz of the OLED model's panel. For a handheld, trading a bit of 720p visual clarity for locked 90hz gameplay is a solid trade if you can get it working.
How about if the two frames are 100% identical?
Does either of these situations differ substantially from what is being discussed, wherein the render pipeline can only produce a new render 45 times per second?
it's input lag that defines experience, not frame time. I am comfortable with 30 FPS (sometimes less frames even fits the style of the game, e.g. Dishonored 2, Clair Obscur) as long as the game responds instantaneously.
https://youtu.be/f8piCZz0p-Y?si=OLq9iZUjuRMYKPDo
If you have never heard of it, the basic idea is that you make low FPS feel responsive in first person games by having the mouse motion warp the existing frame independently of when a new frame is actually rendered.
This could be combined with some AI techniques to help sort out the edge artifacts you get from this.