Author Topic: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.  (Read 177 times)

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« on: Monday, November 12, 2018, 05:50:14 PM »
GameWatcher - Rumor: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine:
https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/starfield-elder-scrolls-6-engine

If the above is true w/ Stayfield and ES6 not going on a newer engine, let's look at things.

Creation Engine is Bethesda's fork of the GameByro Engine.
Usually, Bethesda games on the GameByro or Creation Engine are best capped at or right around 30fps or 60fps...b/c of physics issues otherwise.
Physics are a huge issue on their engines, when the game goes over 60fps...as physics go completely out-the-window, wrong & ridiculous big-time (game-breaking).
So, this means those w/ high-end video cards & high-end monitors that support 90hz, 120hz, 165hz, 240hz monitor (a lot of new games support high-end monitors).
No matter what, you're still likely going to be stuck with 60fps tops here b/c of the physics issue.
Only good thing: modding system stays the same.
Modders don't have to learn much new and these games likely will be very moddable & support mods.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #1 on: Monday, November 12, 2018, 05:50:25 PM »
[Place-holder right here]

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,907
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #2 on: Monday, November 12, 2018, 10:52:50 PM »
I don't understand the push for such high frame rates anyway.  I guess I'm a product of the NTSC age, where 60 fields per second felt as good as real motion.

I remember a few years ago hooking up a Wii to Sandy's 42" Panasonic VIERA plasma TV.  Playing one of the Mario Karts, I could absolutely not see frames at all, nor blur.  Everything was as perfectly clear and in focus while moving as it was while still.  I think plasma strobes something like 10 times per frame, or about 600 per second.  But the motion itself is still just 60 intervals per second.  It has no smearing whatsoever (unlike LCD), and that update rate is higher than I need to see perfect fluidity.

Short take, I have no issue with games capped at a solid 60 fps.  I even prefer that over higher frame rates that can't be perfectly maintained.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday, November 14, 2018, 05:06:37 AM »
I used to think like that: "Oh, I don't need more than 60fps. Who the hell need 120fps or 240fps?"

And then I got my SC15 laptop with 120hz and G-Sync. Blew my mind.

And then I also got my 240hz monitor w/ G-Sync for my desktop.

G-Sync w/ high framerates is amazing. Totally different experience. I couldn't believe how much better and smoother gameplay is, in all fronts. No input lag, no stutters, no slow-downs, no graphical tears, no adjustments need to be made when playing - it's gaming perfection with amazing butter smooth performance, pretty much.

So, here's why: games can still take nasty hits or have input lag, even w/ 60fps without G-Sync or FreeSync. If you take a hit, you'll notice it; especially if it drops to 30fps in a scene. I notice it when it hits from say 60fps down to 50fps - as you get a slow-down, a stutter, a hitch, something. It makes you adjust for the framerate, in the way you play; you got to slow it down a bit.

V-Sync's issue is it goes along w/ the monitor's limit, not the graphics card - so you can still get stutters and input lag. Input lag is the pits, as it can screw up your gameplay and make it feel way more janky - and with Fallout 4, this is one of the biggest issues w/ that game. Fallout 4 is definitely a game that....needs less jank, in its combat/gameplay.

Even w/ 60fps capped on Fallout 4 (it's the hard-coded limit w/ that game) with G-Sync - this game is finally not hitting input lag, stutters, and any of that non-sense. Thank God the game isn't taking any major hits here, as you likely will notice it, even w/ G-Sync b/c you'd still be in the under 60fps range...which is what many people do not see past: 60fps.

Having 90fps will ensure when you get slapped back to 60fps on a nasty hit, you feel nothing. This is the advantage of high framerates. Higher the framerate, the better...b/c when you take nasty hits, if you remain above 60fps (which has a better chance w/ higher framerates), you see or feel nothing. This is the key. You don't have to adjust to the stutter, the slow-down, or anything - b/c it won't happen. Why won't it happen? A lot of people, they likely won't see or feel anything past 60fps, 90fps, or 120fps (depends on the person); it's going so fast, most won't be able to process it w/ their mind - so this is the best way to smooth all of the other non-sense out (input lag, stuttering, slow-downs, having to adjust to lower framerates b/c of a wicked dip in framerate, etc).

When you have high framerates, this really matters most for action-packed games w/ intense scenes and a lot of stuff going on. If there's tons of explosions, special effects, fog, God-rays, violence, action, objects, enemies, AI, people jumping online, and anything happening on-screen - expect a hit of some kind. It's inevitable with all this going on. Think of competitive games like Overwatch and fast-paced games like COD games - where there's tons of stuff happening, which is likely always going to give you a big hit, no matter what.

This is something every gamers should experience for themselves.

It's the only way you'll notice the difference, is to experience it yourself. Gamers should need and want higher framerates (yes, even if it's 90hz tops on a monitor) and adaptive sync tech (that's G-sync on Nvidia cards and Freesync on AMD cards paired w/ a 90hz+ monitor) just to get rid of the annoyances of input lag, stutters, slow-downs, adjustments, graphical tearing, and all of the non-sense.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,396
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #4 on: Friday, November 16, 2018, 11:45:54 PM »
Couldn't care less. None of that bothers me and never has.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,907
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #5 on: Saturday, November 17, 2018, 07:47:42 AM »
Heh.  I know he has some valid points, but only in the context of competitive play.  The guys that are really serious about this play games at their lowest settings, on TN panels, with as little processing as possible.  No 4K either--too much of a frame-rate hit, and 4K screens take longer to draw an entire frame than lower-res panels.  If they don't use freesync/gsync, they let the screen tear too.  It's all about response time, not looks.

How many people are that much into it?  I don't know, but I suspect it's not a big percentage of the overall players.  I also suspect that much of the push toward higher resolutions and frame rates is there in order to keep having a space where only the elite can tread, and where hardware makers can make more money.  1080p@60Hz still seems like perfection to me, but you don't have to break the bank to get there anymore; so how are enthusiasts going to do better than the rest if everyone already got as good as it gets?  How are hardware makers going to get you to reach deeper into your pockets?

Offline idolminds

  • ZOMG!
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 11,775
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #6 on: Saturday, November 17, 2018, 12:42:54 PM »
The thing thats most disappointing about still using that same engine is the new games will likely still have the weird bugs and "Bethesda jank" as all their open world games share. A troll launching a bear into space was funny in Skyrim but that game will be nearly 10 years old by the time the new ones release.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #7 on: Saturday, November 17, 2018, 04:25:12 PM »
The thing thats most disappointing about still using that same engine is the new games will likely still have the weird bugs and "Bethesda jank" as all their open world games share. A troll launching a bear into space was funny in Skyrim but that game will be nearly 10 years old by the time the new ones release.

Bingo. Bethesda should revamp and/or fix obvious issues, if possible. At least...try.

I would even be happy w/ a 90fps cap and physics still worked properly at that framerate, TBH. More modern games are supporting this stuff. This all would allow for some room, in case the framerate goes down majorly...and you feel nothing b/c you're still around 60fps even after the hit. This would really help out those heavy framerate killing areas that take really big hits normally no matter what, like say FO4's Fenway Park/Diamond City....which get killed in performance. A 90fps to 60fps hit with G-Sync would kill any sort of stutters, lag, slowdowns, etc; it would help quite a bit.

Creation Engine, especially with Fallout 4 at 1080p60hz still can be laggy, janky, stutter, and whatnot; especially if you're stuck w/ the crummy V-Sync solution (which they have forced-on, by default, via INI files). If you force V-Sync off via INI's for FO4 PC, you better set the max cap to 30fps or 60fps somehow (probably via NVidia Inspector or MSI Afterburner).

EDIT:
Some games, just run like ass - whether it's b/c there's so much going on in the game-world, the graphics quality, AI, poor optimizations, a bunch of these things, all of these things, and/or other things...well, whatever. GR: Wildlands for me is normally one of those. Even w/ G-Sync and often in the 60-75fps range w/ G-Sync On on my SC15 laptop, it's still very smooth.

Not something I could say, when running it w/ a 40fps cap on my desktop w/ the 970 with no V-Sync; it was bouncing b/t 35-60fps before I had G-Sync here; I should test it w/ G-Sync here on this rig. Still had stutters, graphical tears, and other weirdness, before G-Sync.

« Last Edit: Saturday, November 17, 2018, 05:00:59 PM by MysterD »

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #8 on: Saturday, November 17, 2018, 04:33:38 PM »
Heh.  I know he has some valid points, but only in the context of competitive play.  The guys that are really serious about this play games at their lowest settings, on TN panels, with as little processing as possible.  No 4K either--too much of a frame-rate hit, and 4K screens take longer to draw an entire frame than lower-res panels.  If they don't use freesync/gsync, they let the screen tear too.  It's all about response time, not looks.

How many people are that much into it?  I don't know, but I suspect it's not a big percentage of the overall players.  I also suspect that much of the push toward higher resolutions and frame rates is there in order to keep having a space where only the elite can tread, and where hardware makers can make more money.  1080p@60Hz still seems like perfection to me, but you don't have to break the bank to get there anymore; so how are enthusiasts going to do better than the rest if everyone already got as good as it gets?  How are hardware makers going to get you to reach deeper into your pockets?

That's the thing: I thought 1080p60hz or 1440p60hz was perfection, to me.

Then I got G-Sync.

4K30fps is...meh; I'd rather do 1440p60, since 4K60fps is too pricey right now.

See, without G-Sync, stuff still wasn't ideal. I still was getting lag, stutters, and other weirdness w/ V-Sync on. With V-Sync off and either FastSync on or off, you still can get that nasty screen-tearing too.

We do have 4k60fps cards, which are the GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 2080 Ti cards...that go for $700-1200. Guess what? That's pricey as hell for just only 60fps.

TBH, you'd be better off with 1080p at anywhere from 90fps to 240fps; or 1440p with 90fps.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,396
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #9 on: Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 09:30:21 PM »
<old man walked-home-in-snow voice>

I used to play Descent on a 486 at about 5 FPS. I beat the game and had a good time. You all can keep this luxury bullshit.

</old man>

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 17,473
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
    • MysterD's XFire Blog
Re: Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI might not be on a new engine.
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 05:19:43 PM »
<old man walked-home-in-snow voice>

I used to play Descent on a 486 at about 5 FPS. I beat the game and had a good time. You all can keep this luxury bullshit.

</old man>

With today's power and whatnot - shouldn't be tough to run Descent 1 w/ OpenGL at 30fps. [shrug]
It's an old game - so, unless you're using a source port, might be best to cap it at 30fps or 60fps.

New games and new engines should have no excuse here w/ any of that crap. Bare min, should aim for 60fps on PC. At best, 240hz support is where it's at.

EDIT:
Worth noting, according to PCG Wiki for Descent - there are source ports for Descent, such as DXX-Rebirth and D2X-XL for higher FPS capping.