adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry: Sonic Frontiers - The DF Tech Review - Every Version Tested - PlayStation, Xbox, PC, Switch!
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Text article:
www.eurogamer.net
-
- PS5|SX: Default mode is 4K/30 FPS with native 4K
- PS5|SX: Performance mode is dynamic 1800p/60 FPS and has good TAA. DF are baffled why this wasn't the default mode.
- 30 FPS mode has bad frame pacing.
- 60 FPS mode is mostly good with minor drops, VRR screen owners will benefit here.
- The only difference between the two is controller preference. Otherwise these are the best console versions at 60 FPS.
- One X and Series S both only offer 30 FPS modes.
- One X runs at dynamic 1800p, Series S targets 1440p.
- One X has higher resolution but Series S has enhanced visual features and much faster loading
- PS4 and PS4 Pro run at native 1080p. Base PS4 has worse performance than Pro, otherwise they're the same
- One S runs at 900p with some settings reduced further still over PS4 (trees etc)
- Curiously, PS4 / Pro also have some higher settings over One X like SSR and geometry but there is a massive gulf in resolution (1800p vs 1080p)
- Switch runs at 720p docked and 480p portable.
- Switch version is exceptionally blurry, missing a GI pass as well.
- Load times are also long. Generally it's .. bad.
- All 30 FPS versions have bad frame pacing.
- They briefly looked at PC version and the frame rate is max capped at 60 FPS.
Sonic Frontiers: nine versions tested - and only three deliver 60fps
The Digital Foundry verdict: a reasonable cross-gen effort, but the Switch version simply isn't good enough.
www.eurogamer.net
-
- PS5|SX: Default mode is 4K/30 FPS with native 4K
- PS5|SX: Performance mode is dynamic 1800p/60 FPS and has good TAA. DF are baffled why this wasn't the default mode.
- 30 FPS mode has bad frame pacing.
- 60 FPS mode is mostly good with minor drops, VRR screen owners will benefit here.
- The only difference between the two is controller preference. Otherwise these are the best console versions at 60 FPS.
- One X and Series S both only offer 30 FPS modes.
- One X runs at dynamic 1800p, Series S targets 1440p.
- One X has higher resolution but Series S has enhanced visual features and much faster loading
- PS4 and PS4 Pro run at native 1080p. Base PS4 has worse performance than Pro, otherwise they're the same
- One S runs at 900p with some settings reduced further still over PS4 (trees etc)
- Curiously, PS4 / Pro also have some higher settings over One X like SSR and geometry but there is a massive gulf in resolution (1800p vs 1080p)
- Switch runs at 720p docked and 480p portable.
- Switch version is exceptionally blurry, missing a GI pass as well.
- Load times are also long. Generally it's .. bad.
- All 30 FPS versions have bad frame pacing.
- They briefly looked at PC version and the frame rate is max capped at 60 FPS.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
Text article:
Sonic Frontiers: nine versions tested - and only three deliver 60fps
The Digital Foundry verdict: a reasonable cross-gen effort, but the Switch version simply isn't good enough.
-
- PS5|SX: Default mode is 4K/30 FPS with native 4K
- PS5|SX: Performance mode is dynamic 1800p/60 FPS and has good TAA. DF are baffled why this wasn't the default mode.
- 30 FPS mode has bad frame pacing.
- 60 FPS mode is mostly good with minor drops, VRR screen owners will benefit here.
- The only difference between the two is controller preference. Otherwise these are the best console versions at 60 FPS.
- One X and Series S both only offer 30 FPS modes.
- One X runs at dynamic 1800p, Series S targets 1440p.
- One X has higher resolution but Series S has enhanced visual features and much faster loading
- PS4 and PS4 Pro run at native 1080p. Base PS4 has worse performance than Pro, otherwise they're the same
- One S runs at 900p with some settings reduced further still over PS4 (trees etc)
- Switch runs at 720p docked and 480p portable.
- Switch version is exceptionally blurry, missing a GI pass as well.
- Load times are also long. Generally it's .. bad.
- All 30 FPS versions have bad frame pacing.
- They briefly looked at PC version and the frame rate is max capped at 60 FPS.
Grass gate.
May give it a spin, it looks nice on the SX and fun to boot.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I read the first bullet and said to myself WTF???
Then I read the next line, and no doubt DF (and I think just about everyone) would agree it should be 60 fps default.
I’d be careful to check if removing the framerate cap doesn’t mess up the physics, that was the case with Forces and Generations at least we’re going above 60 had an impact on them.
That doesn’t do anything, you don’t have any option for 60 on Series S even messing with System Settings.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It was promised as having a 60 fps mode if I recall, should get fixed in a future patch hopefully.
AetherZX
Member
So far I haven't noticed anything amiss, tbqh.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
ahaaaa I was correct! the aggressive TAA couldn't defeat me!
ok that is IMO clearly 1800p
the antialiasing is VERY strong here, but I found an edge to pixelcount and my count comes out to 1800p in that image. here
I counted 25 distinct steps with a 30 pixel ruler in a 3840x2160p output resolution
25 ÷ 30 = 0.8333333333333333
0.8333333333333333 × 2160 = 1800
so yeah, maybe it's dynamic tho of course but way higher than 1080p indeed
edit: just to make sure I made a horizontal res count too
again 25 steps on a 30 pixel ruler
25 ÷ 30 = 0,8333333333333333
0,8333333333333333 × 3840 = 3.200
so 3200x1800 is the resolution in that image, a normal 1800p no weird horizontal res scaling like some games do nowadays like the newer CoD games
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
playsaves3
Member
Kind of wish we could uncap the 4k 30 mode I’d imagine it could be over 40 uncapped if the performance mode averages that high and would future proof the game for the ps5 pro and series x eliteText article:
Sonic Frontiers: nine versions tested - and only three deliver 60fps
The Digital Foundry verdict: a reasonable cross-gen effort, but the Switch version simply isn't good enough.
-
- PS5|SX: Default mode is 4K/30 FPS with native 4K
- PS5|SX: Performance mode is dynamic 1800p/60 FPS and has good TAA. DF are baffled why this wasn't the default mode.
- 30 FPS mode has bad frame pacing.
- 60 FPS mode is mostly good with minor drops, VRR screen owners will benefit here.
- The only difference between the two is controller preference. Otherwise these are the best console versions at 60 FPS.
- One X and Series S both only offer 30 FPS modes.
- One X runs at dynamic 1800p, Series S targets 1440p.
- One X has higher resolution but Series S has enhanced visual features and much faster loading
- PS4 and PS4 Pro run at native 1080p. Base PS4 has worse performance than Pro, otherwise they're the same
- One S runs at 900p with some settings reduced further still over PS4 (trees etc)
- Switch runs at 720p docked and 480p portable.
- Switch version is exceptionally blurry, missing a GI pass as well.
- Load times are also long. Generally it's .. bad.
- All 30 FPS versions have bad frame pacing.
- They briefly looked at PC version and the frame rate is max capped at 60 FPS.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
I don't think any version of this game looks particularly good (not really seeing what John seems so impressed with), but that Switch port is absolutely atrocious. Looks like the game running on a high-end PC, sure... Lol.
Last edited:
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Why are you planning on buying Sonic Frontiers?
It's a pretty barebones port. Would've been nice if you could adjust the lod to minimize pop-in. At least there's 120fps (with mods)
Last edited:
playsaves3
Member
Why not just go above 4k instead of chasing 140fps ID imagine the 4090 can do 8k if not higher
playsaves3
Member
Yeah on ps. Haven’t been a sonic fan in a while (outside of fan creations like battle of the sprites by spacepea) but I can get this game on a military discount to see if it’s good or bad
AetherZX
Member
Huh? I haven't even bought a 4090 yet lmao, probably going with the 7900 XTX. I'm just playing this on a 3070 for now.
SkylineRKR
Member
John seems to really like it and I agree with him a lot.
Beer Baelly
Al Pachinko, Konami President
Cant believe we finally have a good 3D Sonic and still no new Banjo or DK. Hell where's a new 3D Mario?!
Doctor Hades
Member
If the game doesn't support it with the VRR option enabled then just force it for unsupported games and then it should work.
Make sure you are playing the native PS5 version though and not the PS4 version in backcompat mode on PS5 as VRR is not supported for PS4 and older games on the PS5.
CamHostage
Member
Sort of, but... I really think that's mostly old-school thinking, that you would have dedicated teams working on versions to master each console.
Realistically these days, you design an engine (or pick an engine from what's available), it's built around the APIs and capabilities/priorities of the design target, and that's your game. It's more problem-solving than advanced to-the-metal software for each machine. If the tech works on Switch early on in checking that it conforms appropriately to the hardware's expectations, then you just make the game, every now and again re-checking a build to ensure you don't have a problem but otherwise it's mostly a last-sprint concern to get whatever extra percentage of maximized performance out of the machine; PS4 and Xbox One, probably you check or optimize even less. PC is actually probably the most troublesome format to deal with, as you've got so many things to check or build into the release.
Sonic Frontiers likely always had pop-in, from the time they agreed that their engine and the vertical slice were ready to greenlight for full production, to the final game available in stores, and it's not the PS4 or Xbox One or even Switch's fault that this happens.
Last edited:
Belthazar
Member
Well, it would need a Switch version anyway so... Developing for PS4/X1 was definitely not that big of a deal.
playsaves3
Member
Are you getting a locked 60 or 50-60?
93xfan
Banned
Can’t see any difference in those images. DF obviously biased and you’d need a 500% zoom to notice any difference..
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
I'm sure a 60fps mode will get patched in. They've tweeted some things basically saying that they thought it was already 60 on a 1080p set. LOL
Not that the Switch version is great, but those are different times of day in that comparison.
How you can't see it? One is just a regular game, and other is an impossible port.Can’t see any difference in those images. DF obviously biased and you’d need a 500% zoom to notice any difference.
Last edited:
93xfan
Banned
maybe, if you turn up the brightness all the way on your monitor…. and do a 500% zoom
Mister Wolf
Member
Locked to 60fps on PC is a travesty.
You just knew that comment wouldn’t age well.What are you talking about? Looks the same as a high-end PC to me
01011001
Banned
the worst thing about that is that most of the things that pop in and out of existence are basically floating squares... you can't make it any easier than that to 1: render and 2: make super low detail LODs for that that look fine at a distance...
it's like 12 polygons per platform... that's all you need to make them look good from a distance... 12 polygons... that's nothing on a modern GPU
while they have more detail up-close they could easily be replaced by simple squares for far away LODs
let's say you need to render 300 of these square platforms at once at a distance, that would still only be 3600 polygons, which is less than the left pinky finger of some modern character models
Noctis in FFXV has about 100,000 polygons alone
Last edited:
AetherZX
Member
With the cap yes. I bumped it up to 4K, so now I get about 90-110 fps since that helped clean up the jaggies (TAA and FXAA look awful).
Last edited:
the worst thing about that is that most of the things that pop in and out of existence are basically floating squares... you can't make it any easier than that to 1: render and 2: make super low detail LODs for that that look fine at a distance...
it's like 12 polygons per platform... that's all you need to make them look good from a distance... 12 polygons... that's nothing on a modern GPU
while they have more detail up-close they could easily be replaced by simple squares for far away LODs
let's say you need to render 300 of these square platforms at once at a distance, that would still only be 3600 polygons, which is less than the left pinky finger of some modern character models
The game popup is very selective plenty of objects are drawn fine in the distance, it's probably either an engine issue with the way it loads these chunks or a design choice to keep the horizon declutered. They could have still did it better, just poping out of nowhere looks awful.
Last edited:
playsaves3
Member
Interesting what’s your cpu?