sips root beer i dont really give a care 
Well, Iām pretty sure that the article is still updated. This test was using Vsync, and Iām pretty sure it still happens if you donāt cap your framerate while using Gsync + Vsync. If you REALLY use high framerate above the Gsync range then just use Fastsync + Gsync: ht tps://blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/blur-busters-gsync-101-gsync-vs-fastsync-60Hz.png
In the ideal world, we would have 0 input lag and max graphical fidelity. But of course, things are not perfect.
I would say in a fast paced scenario, input lag would be a more āpreciseā or more āimportantā aspect in the sense that would approximate you to the most āupdatedā information. In other words, a more āpreciseā information in that moment.
Imagine two scenarios. Youāre capped at 100 FPS. In the first case youāre using every config at maxium, 200% render scale, ultra on everything, your GPU is hitting 99% usage.
In the second, youāre playing at medium graphics at 100% render scale, your GPU usage is about 93%.
Youāre not using Reflex.
Which scenario would be more āpreciseā? At 99% GPU usage, you would had a good chunk of additional input lag. Pristine image looking but at the cost of less āupdatedā scenario.
Iād never enforce more graphical fidelity at the cost of a huge chunk of input lag. The graphical rendering of the image doesnāt matter that much in an action game, so in that case, I would say that less input lag is indeed a more āpreciseā translation of the information you need to hit that shot.
Iāll use another analogy. Imagine youāre playing at ludicrous resolutions. Imagine something like 8k and 16k. Both at 24 inch monitor. EVEN if the 16k image is more āpreciseā in the render sense, you wouldnāt even notice a single difference at both images. So how much that precision actually helps?
Also, does a higher resolution means more precise hitbox?
Always, itās a shame we have things like law of physics getting in the way.
Iām pretty sure that the sub frame input itself only happens at the mouseclick event. As soon as you keep holding the trigger, it works like before (Zarya tracking for example). Iām pretty sure that this info is in that official topic but I canāt see right now, GTG.
Itās OK! It is a fun conversation and you donāt need to answer everything or even give fast replies. Iām not sure if I really know more then you. Regarding all this discussion, my best source is Blur Busters and some separated articles out there (specially regarding psychophysics of vision).
To summarize. All I want is a possible solution to fix strobing effects. The technology itself already exists. It is FAR from perfect and it can be very badly implemented.
And mostly important, Iām trying to demystify this effect. We have a LOT of anti-aliasing options, but people donāt mind or donāt understand how any of then works. Motion blur suffers from the same exact phenomenon, but it have an āstigmaā behind it.
For everyone who feels motion sickness. Please, see this gameplay I recorded: [Prey - Motion Blur Experiment - YouTube](htt ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHQecwef22A) and tell me if the effect on this video cause motion sickness. Because Iām PRETTY sure that only camera motion blur can cause motion sickness. But since I never feel motion sickness myself, I need this people who HATE the effect to judge.
I think thereās no absolute answer for that. Itās a fun mental exercise trying to figure out if itās possible.
I just hope that Bliz implement and Iāll could at least have some anecdotal data to say about my perspective.
Care to explain WTH are you even saying?
It was indeed quite a journey. I hope it can have some utility for people that are curious enough to read the whole thing. I just hope this have enough attention so Bliz can implement the OPTION. It isnāt that GPU intensive as most people think. In Doom 2016, it barely eats 3 FPS.
Please Blizzard per-object motion blur and camera motion blur as completely separated options and sliders to adjust the āshutter speedā or āintensity of the effectā.
Uh
Getting dizzy is not pure ignorance
As I explained a LOT already. Like seriously, I have a lot of sources on this topic. It isnāt that simple.
We have a lot of possible implementations. Camera motion blur is what probably make you feel ādizzyā.
But Iām not advocating for you to use the option, just to understand how it works, why it exists and how is the various possible implementations and adjustments it could have.
I can arguee that anti-aliasing as a whole sucks because my only experience with it is with FXAA. But this would be ignorance, would you rather make and ignorant statement about an bigger subjective (anti-aliasing in this example), or only use your anecdotal evidence?
I donāt know why so many people get triggered by this word honestly.
Ignorance is not a bad word. Everyone is ignorant to a degree about a lot of things, thatās why we help each other, listen and have specializations. Or you REALLY think you know everything?
I donāt act like I know to do a brain surgery because I just donāt know. Motion blur is just stigmatized by the gaming community. I can say the same about Motion Controls regarding Gyro Aiming.
Itās ok. Not every gamer need to know a lot of this stuff. But āgetting dizzyā is not a good argument about the topic.
To me the vibration on mimic made me a bit sick and some of the flickerings and hits because of the camera balance. The issue of the game trying to get things on ānon natural motionā to make more imersive while Iām not in motion causes me to be nauseated. Thatās why often on car I often need to keep checking the road lines if Iām not driving. Having the visual feedback to my brain (going foward/backwards) and while ear already knows that Iām in movement makes me avoid the sickness. When my ear says Iām on move and my brain says iām not I got nauseated, same happens when my brain thinks Iām on move but my ear says iām not(the witcher 3 example with vibrant colors and this game camera shaking). same problem happened when they made the shaking effect too aparent on soldier 76 and later addressed because the motion sickness triggers.
Anything that can mess with brain and ears feedbacks often causes motion sickness. Either by colors, by blur, by movement or just some mismatch of information that can make them interpret your overall body feedback in different ways.
Interesting. I was moving my camera quite fast to trigger the stroboscopic effect on the background (to show the difference between the object (mimic)) and the background.
Then you probably get sickness about head bob though. Unfortunately, you canāt just turn it off.
But honestly, getting motion sickness in car because youāre not āseeingā the movement seems quite exaggerated to me. Still, Iām not advocating to people to turn on the option, just for the game to actually HAVE the option for those who want.
Itās really annoying to have it. I suffer a lot headaches when I need to travel by plane and if Iām not the driver on longer car trips makes me feel really bad, reading while driving? I canāt read like 3-5minutes and some folks canāt sleep while they travel because it becomes way worst. Iām a bit lucky in that aspect because I can sleep a bit in most of my travels but not the entire travel, sadly. I often awake and need to keep checking and notifying my brain that Iām moving about each 5-30minutes really depends on how fast and how much shaking involved. Weirdly enough I donāt had problems with subways, maybe their impact and often visual feedback of things moving. Also I have some problems with pressure, if Iām traveling by car by regions with certain variance of height or certain types of planes that makes my ears hurt a lot and causes severe headaches but itās more about of the difference of pressure. There are some tricks that helps but most of the time canāt solve all the symptoms.
I sympatize with most of folks who have bad time trying to do certain things, I donāt know their pain but I know that some mundane stuff can be really hard for some folks.
Iāve never heard of them, but I do know that every time a game implements motion blur I have to disable it.
Yep, your case is quite extreme!
Then itās a good reason to see the video and learn something. You donāt need to use if you donāt want itā¦ Just let people who want to have the option.
You know whatās weird is how angry you are about this. About people not agreeing with you. I donāt even really care one way or the other but your attitude makes me side against you.
While I agree he came off as a bitā¦ arrogant, in his first post ā
I too would also be upset/frustrated if nearly every person replying to the thread completely ignores what I was actually talking about, and very clearly didnāt read the thread at all.
1 Like
I donāt know what the op expects though. If they (Blizzard) didnāt do a good job with anti aliasing implementation to begin with then whatās to make them (the op) expect that they (Blizzard again) will do a good job with their motion blur implementation?
I would assume the minimum request would be asking them to make something better to help address the specific issue he has. I kind of see his issue as one of accessibility - he claims he is sensitive to the effect he is referring to. To me it it would kind of be like Blizzard adding the colorblind options and then having someone say āhey can you improve this part even further?ā It would be understood that the initial implementation did not meet specific goals, and therefore the request and expectation would be to come up with something better to fill in the missing gaps.
By not having met specific goals in the first place, it doesnt necessarily mean theyāre incapable of solving the request.
1 Like
And you know how weird is to enter this forum just to see about 5 topics addressing the same subject? Like the last week was the 5 v 5 thing that we doesnāt even have yet. Then every week we have some war about heroes gender or representation which always get a lot of spam, useless discussions and are finally flagged or locked. Why we just donāt have one fixed topic about those things? I think that this discussions is extremely important, but how the community discuss those subjects is no better then every spam in social media.
Everyday we always have the X hero is OP thread. But not only about ONE hero, almost all of then. Seriously, I looked for 10 secs and I saw Zarya, Mcree and Hammond threads already. Usually threads without any data or valid arguments for those claims.
People here are NEVER happy about anything to be honest. I created this thread to discuss something that people here usually never discuss, and, mostly important, about an subject there are very divisive and who actually bothers visually some people (like the topics I linked here).
Ignorance is not a BAD word, I donāt get why so many people get triggered by that. Iām completely ignorant about a LOT of things. Thatās the reason why we learn things we donāt know. And most people doesnāt understand how motion blur in gaming works, what it does and why it exists, thatās just a fact. And the reason why is explained in the video from Digital Foundry I talked on the OP.
Itās exactly the same thing as motion controls. A lot of people turn off gyro aiming in games that support it without even trying it. Gyro aiming can be almost as good at aiming as a mouse. But try to arguee that in some gaming communities and see what happens.
Itās like those people doesnāt even try to understand something they āhateā.
Why do you think Iām angry? Maybe the way I write gives that impression, maybe the word āignoranceā doesnāt have the stigma in my language that it have in english (Iām sorry for my english, itās not my primary language and I never learned in a āformalā way, so Iām pretty sure that my writing sucks).
Discussing gaming tech is not something we āagreeā or not, itās an entirely objective thing. The subjective discussion part about it is IF the option would be good or not for some people. You can discuss if some technology sucks or not for your eyes, a lot of people dislike how DLSS looks, thatās entirely subjective. But discussing how it works and what it does, thatās entirely objective.
Thanks! I really appreciate your kind words and the time you took to discuss like a proper polite human being. It would be awesome if there are more people like you in this forum but wellā¦ My hope is for the topic to get enough attention for Blizzard to notice. Itās their decision after allā¦
I donāt get why people have so much hate towards Blizzard. Look, I honestly hate a lot of their decisions about gaming design (specially how they transformed WoW since Legion). But Iām sure that if I had the power to make those decisions, it would be probably worse. A lot of creativity freedom from most of the staff seems to be locked down by how their bosses manage the business. Blizzard have much more profit nowadays, but I would arguee that the quality of the games was getting worse over time. Like a LOT of other gaming companies.
Seeing how vocal the WoW community was about the design choices and seeing that WoW is probably damaged beyond repair, I just dropped the game. Donāt need to āhateā Blizzard, just donāt invest your time and money in their games if you think that it doesnāt worth it.
I donāt think that about Overwatch, for me it is still an incredible game with a lot of value for the money. Thatās why I invest my time playing it. Everytime I got bored for some reason, I try to master some other hero, or play some new thing on the workshop (which was one of the most awesome things that Blizz did to OW).
I do think that OW have some issues, but NOT EVEN CLOSE of how this community seems to think. The majority of the problems raises for the same reasons that happened to WoW. OW is a very intensive COOP game, and that are almost zero reason to play with actual friends. This transforms the PVP experience in something else, raises the toxicity beyond everything and locks proper communication. This is the price we pay to have faster queues and (in theory) a good matchmaker.
Quick play doesnāt seem to create enough commitment to be a fun and fair experience. So people starts to use alt accounts just to play with their friends. I honestly donāt get why OW still doesnāt have something like a Guild System at this point.
Still, Iām pretty sure that are a LOT of VERY COMPETENT people in Blizzard. You know how many games have sub frame input? Almost none. The OW engine is quite good in my opinion, the art team was always awesome.
We donāt know exactly how they manage their design decisions, but it seems that the āold waysā is not very lucrative anymore. It seems that only indie games and Nintendo launch games who actually have soul at this point. But Overwatch still is one of the āgoodā modern games in my view, hence the reason why I play it.
None of those things is an argument if theyāre āincompetentā or not, Iām pretty sure they can implement a good motion blur option, and I think they can make a better anti-aliasing. If in the place of all the spam we have in this forum, people actually ask to address those things in a polite and constructive way, then Iām sure theyāll look at.
Iām always happy to see how clearly you see things.
1 Like
Hereās the comment from the video on motion blur ( Tech Focus - Motion Blur: Is It Good For Gaming Graphics?) youāve posted:
OttersGonnaOtt
You forgot one entire type of motion blur, which almost all games since 2010 have implemented due to low resource requirements and I think might be the source of the hate. This is linear blur post-filter (framebuffer) motion blurāwhere a game takes the current frame and applies a simple Photoshop style linear blur having the angle and intensity determined by the position of the right stick (or the acceleration values of the mouse, even is not using acceleration for gameplay). The entire Crisis series is notorious for introducing this technique, which is easily seen in the tritium sights of guns trailing behind and yet also proceeding forward the actual frame. This was particularly bad in Crysis 2, due to the game having a bad framerate on console and needing blur to hide it. Turn with a stick and laugh as apparently the motion blur can predict the future! As bad as it sounds though, the most annoying part is that the blur shifts as you change the motion angle without leaving previous blur in place, so you can spin the stick and make your own blurred helicopter blade out of your gun.
This effect is barebones but also has been optimized to use close to no resourcesāmaking it very attractive to console developers that can barely push 30 FPS. The general rule is that if stage demos show careful, deliberate, and slow camera motion on a console controller, that game likely uses post-filter motion blur. The point is to hide the ugly steps in angular rotation of the camera, which looks great externally but feels horrible to the player.
For those wondering, this motion blur method works on the same principle as FXAA, which also developed at the same time. You can render the frame, then apply a blanket filter to it afterward in the framebuffer prior to display. FXAA essentially performs a gaussian blur to the image, where newer implementations have used a mask generated from the depth buffer to control the amount of blur in different areas (and ideally only blurring jaggies on silhouette edges). Linear post-filter motion blur has seen a few improvements as well, but at the cost of more performance and as such it usually isnāt implemented using newer iterations. As such, it looks jarring and can lead to motion sickness since it inserts additional, non-existent motion (the leading blur). The first complaint I hear when people turn it off is it makes them sick.
Motion blur is good, but you canāt cut corners. Per-object motion blur is great in general, but usually the most costly. Full frame / per pixel motion blur can also be good, but to look natural it needs to sample previous frames further back than most hardware and engines comfortably allow. Linear post-frame motion blur however is just cheap with close to no benefit, only designed to smooth camera rotation at the destruction of realistic motion.
So it sounds like per-object motion blur will look the best visually but also the most costly. And it sounds like there are many way to apply this motion blur effect and the techniques have been incrementally gotten better over the years. Maybe once thereās a way to apply this motion blur effect at a lesser cost, it will get picked up by more games.
Oddly enough, that comment also talks about how FXAA uses techniques thatās similar to motion blur. I wonder if that could be why I prefer using FXAA in both Valorant and Overwatch? One of the biggest gripe I have with MSAA is that it makes highlighted enemies appear more jagged which becomes more pronounced the further away they are.
Nah. Even with proper implementation, it would screw your gameplay up big time.
TL/DR: It isnāt very costly, for Doom for example it would be 2%~3% impact, mostly GPU bound (which you probably already have a lot of headroom already).
I isnāt very ācostlyāā¦ Im doom for example, it cuts about 2 to 3 frames in an test with an average of 115 FPS.
Also, Iām 99% that this is 100% bound to GPU performance. Youāll NEVER want to be in any GPU scenario anyway because this DOES raises input lag by a large margin. Except if youāre using Reflex (which solves the lag added for GPU bound scenario).
Also, you should play at an point where you can reach an stable framerate anyway, this is most likely not happening at GPU bound scenarios.
GPU and CPU are both important for āhigh FPSā but CPU/RAM are more important. The GPU will just raise the headrom for high graphical filters AND high FPS. But you just canāt have high FPS even playing at 50% render scale/low graphics with an high end GPU with an low end CPU/RAM. So if you already play at LOW graphic settings (and Iām pretty sure you are since youāre playing at 240Hz). It wouldnāt matter much anyway.
Iām not sure. What heās probably saying is that Motion Blur and FXAA are both āpostfilteringā graphical settings. Which means theyāre applied after the frame was already rendered. But theyāre vastly different of how they work and what they try to accomplish.
FXAA is VERY efficient but might āblurā the fine detail of the game, and it isnāt the same type of āblurā that Iām saying. The thing isā¦ Fine details for an fast paced game doesnāt matter muchā¦ Even if characters in this game was just solid colors (like we seen in Widow Ult) and the environment was less complex. Youāll could play just fine.
Some people are very sensitive about changes in resolution and fine detail. As the same way that I canāt stand stroboscopic effect.
Antialiasing in Overwatch is HORRIBLE (there are tons of topics about it), and this seems to be the case for almost every Blizzard game., thatās why the game seems ājaggedā all the time. Iām not sure about Valorant though. The only thing that does help in OW with aliasing is 200% render scale, which is incredible GPU intensive.
I meanā¦ At this point Iām pretty sure youāre just a kid trolling. As your posts on the other topic that weāre discussing suggests.
1- Why it would screw your gameplay? Whats the argument exactly? Because I already discussed a LOT on this thread and gave some sources to point my argument. Itās pointless to discuss this with someone ignorant about the subject.
You can have your opinion about something and thatās ok. But this is an objective discussion, Iām not arguing that you SHOULD play with motion blur because it WILL be better for you, because I donāt play the game using YOUR eyes.
Can you understand the difference?
2 - Why it would matter anyway if an option was added? Being an toggle option like every other graphical setting, you could just turn it off and play with whatever graphical settings you might like. I donāt use colorblind options but I donāt arguee that theyāre pointless because most people arenāt colorblind. This is just stupid.
I donāt need to explain WHY stroboscopic effect is a problem because I already DID in dozens of posts here.