Digital Foundry: Metal Gear Solid Delta PC - The Best Way To Play - DF Tech Review + Optimised Settings
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I rememeber playing Haze and being impressed with it's jungle environment
. Now this game looks funny to me 
.
MGS4 graphics on the PS3. Even when I squint my eyes, vegetation doesn't look as realistic as in MGSD.
Last edited:
roosnam1980
Member
nice foliage in that first screen , surprised it tanks performance on modern engines with the latest GPUs after all these years as seen in mgs deltaHaze
btw haze was not a terrible looking game at the time , just generic.
Last edited:
MikeM
Member
I don't get the allergy by console devs in putting in settings like that and VRR uncapped modes in option menus. Its 2025- let people have some choice.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Haze was supposed to demonstrate the PS3's mythical power, and some people believed it would look as good as Crysis
.
Last edited:
roosnam1980
Member
it did get a release for ps3/360 in the form of a heavily compromised versionHaze was supposed to showcase the power of the PS3, and soke people believed it will look as good as Crysis
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
It was like 10-15FPS in final boss fight arena on PS3. I platinumed it, haha.
xellos2099alpha
Member
I wonder how well can my old 5600x and 3080 will do. Chance i can get to 60 fps with dlss?
Bojji
Member
With the right settings, probably.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
xellos2099alpha
Member
Probably dlss4 with balance, 1080p upscale to 4k?
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I think the PS3 version of Crysis was actually surprisingly good
. People were convinced that crysis couldn't even run on PS3 hardware, yet the PS3 version still resembled the PC version and also looked A LOT BETTER than "Haze" (that supposed to be crysis killer). Crysis 1 on the PS3 also looks better than the PC version running at low settings (at low settings the lighting is completely turned off) and it even has details like POM on the textures (that required to run very high settings on PC if I remember correctly). If people hadn't played the PC version, the PS3 version might still have blown them away back then.I played Crysis on day one on my PC with an 8800 Ultra, running modded DX9 at very high settings and 1680x1050 30 fps. I loved this game as much as Alex Battaglia from DF
. I also played the PS3 version and still enjoyed it. The framerate wasn't good, but I managed to complete the game without thinking too much about it. Back then, I didn't mind 30 fps and even 20fps, because PS2 / PS3 gamepads werent as precise and responsive, so aiming at lower framerate was easier. Small CRTs and plasma TVs also helped with that because even 30fps looked sharp during motion. Many games ran at 20–30 fps in the 2000s, especially MGS3 on the PS2.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
The Xbox video is out but I am on the road right now, if someone else wants to make this.
looks like Xbox is ahead of PS5 barring one or two exceptional areas, and The wider vrr window is also acknowledged.
Kacho we safe bro!
Revenge of the Phil:
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Looking at this:
I think 1440p with dlss quality and high/optimized settings = 60fps on 3080. 4k with DLSS performance may be a stretch but you can try.
50-55FPS:
Last edited:
Diego Brasil
Neo Member
A vingança do Phil:
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Traduzindo para isto:
Acho que 1440p com qualidade DLSS e configurações altas/otimizadas = 60 fps em 3080. 4K com desempenho DLSS pode ser um exagero, mas você pode tentar.
50-55 FPS:
[MÍDIA=youtube]KXpeeE6vkaM:88[/MÍDIA]
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Xbox has higher FPS on average. But yes, there are sections where PS5 performs better or even ones where PS5 Pro leads in fps.
Looking at this video in 4k, man... image quality in UE5 is horrible without DLSS.
Last edited:
roosnam1980
Member
can drop to 23 fps and there is traversal stutter as well , on both consoles
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Revenge of the Phil:
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Looking at this:
I think 1440p with dlss quality and high/optimized settings = 60fps on 3080. 4k with DLSS performance may be a stretch but you can try.
50-55FPS:
This one's just a poor showing for Pro, no other way to put it.
Diego Brasil
Neo Member
Digital Foundry itself reports that this may be the cause of the performance difference.
In comparisons, it seems that the PS5 has a greater advantage in lighting (in the images, there are more scenes where the PS5 has this advantage).
This may be linked to this performance difference, according to Digital Foundry.
In comparisons, it seems that the PS5 has a greater advantage in lighting (in the images, there are more scenes where the PS5 has this advantage).
This may be linked to this performance difference, according to Digital Foundry.
Bojji
Member
Digital Foundry itself reports that this may be the cause of the performance difference.
In comparisons, it seems that the PS5 has a greater advantage in lighting (in the images, there are more scenes where the PS5 has this advantage).
This may be linked to this performance difference, according to Digital Foundry.
They say it's variable, here SX has more AO:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They say it's variable, here SX has more AO:
PS5 and Pro drop out of VRR enough that I wouldn't recommend it to folks who own both an Xbox and PS, these visual differences are so minor and inconsequential.
kevboard
Member
so the Series X version seems to be the only ok-ish console version for now.
the higher average framerate, higher resolution, and the ability to force 120hz, and thereby having a practically infinite VRR range, should mean it should feel at least somewhat smooth...
unless you go under water
the higher average framerate, higher resolution, and the ability to force 120hz, and thereby having a practically infinite VRR range, should mean it should feel at least somewhat smooth...
unless you go under water
Liopleurodon
Member
Hollup! Let him cook!!!
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Not bad! 60 fps at 1440p with DLSS Ultra Quality. With standard DLSS (67% resolution scaling), the game would run at 10fps higher and look identical.
Diego Brasil
Neo Member
They say it's variable, here SX has more AO:
It varies...But if you watch the video... there are more scenes where the PS5 is better at reflighting the vegetation.
That's why there's this performance difference... there are times when even the PS5 is better than the Series X...
Diego Brasil
Neo Member
"Series X version seems to be the only ok-ish console version for now"
33 FPS ( PERF MODE)
What it has to do ps5 pro with what he said about the pc gpu? You are literally obsessed to blame this hardware Jeez.1000$ for 1080p stable resolution and locked 60fps?
Not a bad deal compared to 750$ PS5 Pro:
756p - 47FPS
Last edited:
Well, what makes me most angry and disappointed is that the 30fps mode is ruined by stuttering, making it useless.
It's the mode with the best visuals, and it's a game where 30fps wouldn't hinder the gameplay experience like it does in other games.... It's sad that this happens in so many games when it shouldn't happen in principle.
Revenge of the Phil:
12TF > 10TF > 16TF
Looking at this:
I think 1440p with dlss quality and high/optimized settings = 60fps on 3080. 4k with DLSS performance may be a stretch but you can try.
50-55FPS:
3/5 fps of advantage it's a more a pat on the back than a revenge.
kevboard
Member
"Series X version seems to be the only ok-ish console version for now"
33 FPS ( PERF MODE)
that's why I said ok-ish...
it is able to work with a VRR range that goes all the way down to 20fps, and the framerate seems to stay above 50fps for most of it.
it's still a technical disaster on every platform, but this is at least not a complete disaster, no thanks to the Devs, but thanks to the ability to force 120hz on Xbox
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
It's not the hardware, it's developers and (lack of) Sony quality control.
For 750$/800€ you get shit experience and that's the reality no matter who is responsible for this.
It's in VRR window. That's all that matters.
Xbox has 40-60 and 40-120 VRR windows + LFC for everything lower. PS5 with 48-60 in this game...
Last edited:
Dude that's what the hardware components costs..like come on. And wouldn't blame the hardware for an universally bad porting
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Cheaper XSX and even regular PS5 gives you better experience. Even fucking 9060XT with 350$ MSRP will give you much better experience.
I'm glad I didn't bought this game on my Pro...
VRR shouldn't be an excuse for bad perfomance.
But the porting sucks on every console. This is not a Sony fault.
Bojji
Member
Sony allowed this game to perform like this on Pro. They could have rejected it, force Konami to fix it.
VRR makes the game playable on Xbox.
They can't reject a port because runs worse. It's not how work, you should know it. Stop to be so irrational.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
They can reject the whole game or even remove it from the store. They have done it.
But they don't give a fuck unless developers tell people to do refunds like with Cyberpunk.
Right now, base PS5 has better experience than Pro PS5.
MS has ever rejected a game with bad performance on console? Or Nintendo? I would to remind to you on Pro runs on quality mode. Better experience on base ps5 is partially true.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
This is for people who still think that 4K DLSS-Performance mode is equivalent to playing at 1080p.
Real 1080p upscaled to 4K (this is how 1080p looks on my 4K screen)
4K DLSSPerformance
And 4K DLAA for reference
I also wanted to see how 1440p DLSS-performance mode looks like. The image is surprisingly good, but in some places I could notice some small lumen instability. DLSS-Balance (DLSSQ in other games) fixed that.
Real 1080p upscaled to 4K (this is how 1080p looks on my 4K screen)
4K DLSSPerformance
And 4K DLAA for reference
I also wanted to see how 1440p DLSS-performance mode looks like. The image is surprisingly good, but in some places I could notice some small lumen instability. DLSS-Balance (DLSSQ in other games) fixed that.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
His own quote calls the Xbox version the only OK console version, lad self owned himself and didn't even realize it
It shouldn't be true at all.
Pro should never be worse than base.
Dampf
Member
8% is not what I would call big performance impact.
In general hardware Lumen is pretty easy to run and with UE5.6 it will be even faster.
Stuart360
Member
lol i dont know what you have been reading but performance really isnt as bad as you think it is, unless you want to play at 4K or something.
On my 3700x, 32gb ram, RTX 3070 combo the game runs at 50-60fps at 1080p Ultra, except shadows on High, and DLSS on Quality.
In fact if i change my desktop to 50hz, the game is pretty much locked at 50fps, and i'm about 4 hours in.
By the way its the shadow setting that is the big performance hog with this, NOT the global illumination setting which controls all the RT stuff. I'm not certain why the shadow setting is so demanding but put that on High and everything else on Ultra and you will be more than fine.
SKYF@ll
Member
There will be visual differences due to different graphics settings on all three consoles. (Furthermore, HW VRS can be enabled on Xbox Series X, which can improve performance by 5-10%; it can also be enabled on PS5 Pro, but developers will need to add code.)It varies...But if you watch the video... there are more scenes where the PS5 is better at reflighting the vegetation.
That's why there's this performance difference... there are times when even the PS5 is better than the Series X...
Maintaining 60fps in Performance mode should be the top priority.