Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Removal of Custom resolution from GSdx
#31
(07-21-2015, 08:05 PM)gregory Wrote: It doesn't work like you said. Custom resolution doesn't change the apsect ratio, if the game use 4:3 it will remains 4:3, others game use 16:7, others 1:1. Custom resolution set the maximum size of the RT. For example in native resolution, the buffer is set to 1280x1024. Game will likely uses only 1/4 of the pixels remaining will be useless.

Except snowblind game native is around 640x480, serious it is a VGA resolution. It is the resolution of computer in 1990! Maybe we can add an userhack to only create a RT of 640x512 instead of 1280x1024. It would reduce memory size requirement, I don't think a GPU can't render into a 640x480.

Just one question though.

Using "F8" to take a screenshot takes the screenshot at whatever the 'custom resolution' is set to. This allows us to make screenshots of 2560x1440 resolution, or even 4K HD screenshots while not having the monitor to support this yet. This way we can create awesome screenshots of PS2 games basically.

If you set it to scaling, you get a completely distorted screenshot at that size. (If you use 4x, 5x, or 6x, you get an awful screenshot. I think it's because it ignores any widescreen hack/patch that's applied when upscaling the native res)

This is one of the reasons why I like using the custom resolution to be honest. Will it be possible to still use this feature in the future then? (Maybe allow us to set the output size for the screenshots possibly?)

Personally not a fan of removing it, because I've always used it. But if this the decision of the devs then there's not much to be done about it.
Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.40GHz | 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3-1866 G.SKILL Sniper Series
AMD Radeon R9 280 @ 3 GB | 120GB SSD | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (SP1)
Reply

Sponsored links

#32
(07-21-2015, 11:46 PM)Ryudo Wrote: Just one question though.

Using "F8" to take a screenshot takes the screenshot at whatever the 'custom resolution' is set to. This allows us to make screenshots of 2560x1440 resolution, or even 4K HD screenshots while not having the monitor to support this yet. This way we can create awesome screenshots of PS2 games basically.

If you set it to scaling, you get a completely distorted screenshot at that size. (If you use 4x, 5x, or 6x, you get an awful screenshot. I think it's because it ignores any widescreen hack/patch that's applied when upscaling the native res)

This is one of the reasons why I like using the custom resolution to be honest. Will it be possible to still use this feature in the future then? (Maybe allow us to set the output size for the screenshots possibly?)

Personally not a fan of removing it, because I've always used it. But if this the decision of the devs then there's not much to be done about it.

This is because widescreen is a kinda hack job. What you're essentially doing is distorting the "camera" so the image is actually squashed, so when you set GSDX to "widescreen" mode, you are just making the output look widescreen, but it's actually just stretching out the image it's generating. Same with custom resolution, it's just scaling a 4:3 image to whatever you set the horizontal width to.

In this scenario, it would be better to be able to save widescreen screenshots (stretch the image like your display if you set 16:9 on PCSX2) rather than mess with upscaling anymore, adding widescreen in to the mix is only going to cause more problems.
[Image: ref_sig_anim.gif]
Like our Facebook Page and visit our Facebook Group!
Reply
#33
(07-21-2015, 08:30 PM)avih Wrote: Why don't we just add a big red warning when someone chooses a custom resolution? PCSX2 has options all over the place which can break compatibility for some gain or another, we can keep the custom res as well, and we don't have to try too hard to fix issues which only happen with custom resolution.
The real question is "are the gain real?". I'm sure nobody understand the behavior of this option. Even myself, I have some doubts. The real issue is the word resolution, the thing is an AA filter that range from 1x to 6x (or any value with custom resolution). Nobody will try to match the anisotropic level with their screen resolutions, won't it.

So I will post a couple of screen-shot to see the impact of the custom resolution and the real internal resolution.
Potentially the 0.5x case can be replaced with an userhack to reduce the size of the native RT from 1280x1024 to 640x512 (or 640x640). Maybe it accelerate a bit the copy in texture cache (maybe it would be better to limit the copy to valid pixels). And reduce memory requirement. However I don't think it has a real GPU impact (quality will be awful otherwise).

It will be nice if some peoples can make some test on their intel iGPU. Perf @ 2x, native, half-custom.
Reply
#34
(07-22-2015, 11:14 AM)gregory Wrote: The real question is "are the gain real?". I'm sure nobody understand the behavior of this option. Even myself, I have some doubts. The real issue is the word resolution, the thing is an AA filter that range from 1x to 6x (or any value with custom resolution). Nobody will try to match the anisotropic level with their screen resolutions, won't it.

So I will post a couple of screen-shot to see the impact of the custom resolution and the real internal resolution.
Potentially the 0.5x case can be replaced with an userhack to reduce the size of the native RT from 1280x1024 to 640x512 (or 640x640). Maybe it accelerate a bit the copy in texture cache (maybe it would be better to limit the copy to valid pixels). And reduce memory requirement. However I don't think it has a real GPU impact (quality will be awful otherwise).

It will be nice if some peoples can make some test on their intel iGPU. Perf @ 2x, native, half-custom.

I tested a handful of games a while back on my g3258 iGPU which has the slowest haswell gpu and it handled every game at least at native res. Even sotc and DQ8 were fine at native.

I think the most popular intel GPUs are the HD 4000 and 4400, both of which are considerably faster(~ 295 and 360 GFLOPS respectively vs 184).
Reply
#35
What about disabling framelimiter? Are you always EE botlenecked?
Reply
#36
(07-22-2015, 11:14 AM)gregory Wrote: The real question is "are the gain real?". I'm sure nobody understand the behavior of this option. Even myself, I have some doubts. The real issue is the word resolution, the thing is an AA filter that range from 1x to 6x (or any value with custom resolution). Nobody will try to match the anisotropic level with their screen resolutions, won't it.

The main gain IMO is that people can set it to their native monitor resolution while the GS window is full screen.

Upscaling and downscaling (to the native monitor resolution) is never as good as native resolution.

If the "internal" resolution is more than twice the native resolution, then downscaling (to native res) makes some sense as it's effectively AA, but not all systems can support such high internal res.

So if using only the x2-x6 scalings, most users would have to end up with an internal resolution which is not an integer multiplier (or divider) of their monitor native resolution, and typically it just looks worse than in native resolution.

While personally I typically use x2-x3 and it's enough for me, I still see the value in supporting custom resolution simply because it usually ends up looking better than xN which is then scaled to the monitor resolution.

That being said, obviously non integer multipliers could have more issues than int multipliers, but like we do in many other places in PCSX2 - we give users the choice to use less compatible stuff which can hopefully improve things for some games.

A warning is still due though IMO to let people know what the tradeoff could be.
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply
#37
I used to use it when I was using an iGPU. So I can set the multiplier as 1.5, 1.75, etc.
Reply
#38
I am all for removing it from GUI (for general users) but letting the option to choose custom resolution remain in ini (for advance users).
Reply
#39
Gregory aren't you thinking of completely removing the Custom resolution so that you can clean the code up? Which of course is not possible if the option stays in ini form since the code would have to stay put for the ini to function. So that is not really an option prafull. At least that is why this thread was created. At least that is the way I understand it right now.
Reply
#40
(07-23-2015, 01:43 AM)Topken Wrote: Gregory aren't you thinking of completely removing the Custom resolution so that you can clean the code up? Which of course is not possible if the option stays in ini form since the code would have to say put for the ini to function. So that is not really an option prafull. At least that is why this thread was created. At least that is the way I understand it right now.

Thats exactly what gregory is suggesting.

We have discussed it on IRC before bringing it to the forums for public debate and so far, the only legitimate reason for it I've seen is the taking of widescreen screenshots, which I think can be fixed to work with the native scaling dependant on the aspect ratio set inside PCSX2.

Downscaling can possibly be achieved with the Native x# methods (i believe 0.5 and possibly 0.75 were suggested) if it proves useful for anybody, which so far it hasn't really.

The only other reason I've really seen is for people obsessed with having exactly 1080p, which isn't really something you have to have exactly, considering the level of detail on the textures, but it will be close a few pixels either way with the scaling options.
[Image: ref_sig_anim.gif]
Like our Facebook Page and visit our Facebook Group!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)