Yes I can see whats happening there, although it seems a few things are being (wrongly) combined. Is it possible for you to send me a repo of that specific scene, or a test version that replicates it with DLSS, so I can test if it works for our FSR implementation?
Does this implementation work in URP 's XR? The current FSR implementation in URP doesn’t work correctly in XR which prevented us from implementing and shipping with the feature.
Will this also work for VR applications using Built-in (BIRP)? Or is it for desktop only?
Considering the pace of Unity’s development on URP, I’d think that $50 would be a fair price.
Just wondering, is it possible to have a “bad” implementation of FSR? Like, can it be implemented in a way that would negate it’s performance boost and if so, how can prospective buyers of your asset be sure that your implementation is a “good” one? I mean no disrespect at all, just wondering
I’ll have to test that once we have the URP version stable.
It should be no issue, but I’ll have to try it out.
Well, the way FSR works is as follows, it downscales the whole rendering by 1.5 to 3 times. Meaning you can run your game on 360p which gets upscaled to 1080p and look smooth, albeit a bit blurrier(which can partly be fixed by the sharpening).
This does cost a bit of GPU performance, but in theoretically almost all cases. The cost is way lower than the gains.
That said, if a game is highly CPU bound, and the GPU is mostly idling, there will be no to very little performance gain.
There is one way to deffinitely wronly implement it, which is like this:
Accidentily downscale the rendering after the camera has rendered the whole scene instead of making the camera render at a lower resolution and then upscale it with FSR. This will be absolutely pointless:eyes:!
In some quick tests, the “quality” (1.5 scaling) setting gave factor 1.15 to 1.30 boosts and the “performance” (3.0 scaling) 2.0 to 2.5. (Which is insane).
But this was done in “non real game” environments. But a good indicator would be:
Set your resolution at a 1.5 to 3.0 scale of the target resolution, check the gpu ms frame times and add 1.0 ms to it (AMD states that FSR costs something between 0.6 to 1.2 ms gpu rending time).
An image speaks a thousand words:
-
Unity TAA + No FSR ~260 FPS:
-
FSR 2.1 “Quality” ~340 FPS:
-
FSR 2.1 “Balanced” ~375 FPS:
4: FSR 2.1 “Performance” ~340 FPS
5: FSR 2.1 “Ultra Performance” ~ 435 FPS
Native resolution was 1920x1080 for all images, FSR “Quality” is basically rendering at 1280x720, “Performance” at 960x540 and “Ultra Performance” at 640x360.
Personally, the thing I notice most, is the loss in texture resolution. However, considering that the fourth image is basically rendering at 640x360…
Btw, these images are taken in 2021.3 BIRP.
Interesting. Did you implement a mipmap bias adjustment to counteract the screen scaling?
Unfortunately, we have not yet found a way to do this. I have seen that HDRP has this feature, but it seems URP and Built-in do not. We have looked into MipMap Streaming, which has a mipmap bias override per camera, but it does not seem to produce any desired results. So this is still “in progress”.
I wonder, what’s your specs, considering this is BiRP
Any chance showcasing same tests but with HDRP?
This has been captured on a i9 with a 3080ti, hence the high fps. But the performance gain should be similar with lower end gpu’s, percentage wise.
I’ll post HDRP and URP shots when we have implemented all FSR features and made it stable enough.
The leap from FSR1 to FSR2 is huge. Looking great so far!
Do you plan to keep updating the asset with future FSR versions (3.0 for instance) or will that be a different asset purchase? I know it’s probably too early to answer that question but I figured I’d ask anyway.
The difference between FSR1 and 2 is even bigger, we’ve just had a small test when also adding Mipmap Bias
This is FSR Ultra Performance, rendered at 640x360, upscaled to 1080p. Its insane.
We’re definitely willing to keep upgrading to new FSR versions. Depending on the amount of extra work, we’ll have to see how to roll out the updates. But generally I don’t think later FSR upgrades will need a lot of extra work, unlike FSR 1 → FSR 2.
It looks amazing.
$15 for this would be awesome and really cheap. I wonder how expensive for the CPU it is.
CPU is using basically 0.0ms!
We did a test in one of our current BIRP projects, without FSR it has ~15 fps on a i5 with an 1050ti, and with FSR on “Ultra Performance” it went to ~35fps, which is a total hail mary for our team. Paired with other optimalisations I bet we’ll be able to hit 60fps on an old low end gaming pc!
ok, so I have one question - when will we have access to this?
I would really like to test it. After cyberpunk switched to FSR I am convinced that this is what I need in our project.
Can’t say for sure yet. We’ll want BIRP, URP & HDRP supported in the first release, so it might take a bit more. Targetting for december this year though.
Hi, my studio is very interested in FSR 2 but we need DX11 support. DX 12 has terrible performance in Unity so far and Vulkan just straight up crashes on start in a large scene and Unity isn’t fixing it in LTS.
DX 11 continues to be the only reliable API.
I feel your pain! I’m hoping for Unity 2022.1 which will have DX12 out of experimental.
We’re looking into it though, but it seems its only possible with help from AMD.
Hello. FSR is very powerful stuff and it’s cool that you decided to help people “speed up” their products. Definitely $15+. I personally have a question - you wrote that you want to make it as simple as possible (respect for that, by the way) - just a component on the camera - the question - if I use two cameras for two different displays (two monitors or a monitor and a projector) will it be the benefit of FSR if these two cameras will reproduce different images at the same time - one, for example, to the monitor, the other to the projector.
Thank you
$15