Do you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
A web-survey on PC Gamer* asked "Do you use AI, and if so what for?",
with various options from "not at all", to "everything", but in
between those extremes it also suggested "Only for in-game upscaling,
such as with DLSS or FSR4"... and then took umbrage when the numbers indicated that 47% of those surveyed didn't even use AI upscaling in
game.**
The PC Gamer author was really surprised that so many people didn't
use DLSS. Myself, I'm less surprised... but maybe that's because I
never use it myself. In my case, it is less because of some extreme
stance against AI (I mean, I'm not sure I'd really consider DLSS4 to
be "AI" anyway) as it is that I just don't need it. My games look good
enough already. To be sure, I distrust the hackery that is DLSS, and
prefer to play the game 'as the developer intended it'. And earlier
DLSS versions of DLSS really weren't so much about improving the
visuals as frame interpolation made for smoothing the framerate
anyway.*** And while it isn't so much an issue with me, eXtreme Gamers dislike the marginal lag and inaccuracy caused by DLSS4 frame
interpolation.
Not to mention, there's a whole host of PC gamers who never, ever open
the Video Options sub-menu anyway, and so would never enable it. Or
who are running games on older hardware, for that matter.
So between all that, I'm not surprised that 47% of surveyed gamers
don't use AI even for frame generation. It's not just gamers disliking
AI that's preventing it. There's a host of other reasons too.
Do you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
===
* I know, there's a lot of stuff gone wrong there already, but let's
all politely disregard that.
** article here https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/so-47-percent-of-pc-gamer-readers-say-they-dont-use-ai-at-all-but-i-wonder/
*** the newer DLSS5 that caused such an uproar on its announcement is something entirely different, and nvidia really should have used an
entirely different name for such a radically new technology. But since
this tech requires TWO 5090GTX cards working in tandem (and is not
readily available to the public yet anyway) it's not surprising that
nobody on a web-survey would admit to using it
Do you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
The only recent time I can recall when I actively looked for this setting
was in the recent Indiana Jones game, and I believe I also ran the in-game >benchmark to test its effect (it did help). There had been gaming news >stories hyping this feature when the game came out. I may or may not have >enabled it in The Witcher 3, but now I can't recall if that game even offers >that setting; not sure. When and if I get to another graphically intensive >game -- specifically Stalker 2 and Cyberpunk -- I will certainly be looking >for and enabling DLSS to help with framerate.
rms
A web-survey on PC Gamer* asked "Do you use AI, and if so what for?",
with various options from "not at all", to "everything", but in
between those extremes it also suggested "Only for in-game upscaling,
such as with DLSS or FSR4"... and then took umbrage when the numbers indicated that 47% of those surveyed didn't even use AI upscaling in
game.**
The PC Gamer author was really surprised that so many people didn't
use DLSS. Myself, I'm less surprised... but maybe that's because I
never use it myself. In my case, it is less because of some extreme
stance against AI (I mean, I'm not sure I'd really consider DLSS4 to
be "AI" anyway) as it is that I just don't need it. My games look good
enough already. To be sure, I distrust the hackery that is DLSS, and
prefer to play the game 'as the developer intended it'. And earlier
DLSS versions of DLSS really weren't so much about improving the
visuals as frame interpolation made for smoothing the framerate
anyway.*** And while it isn't so much an issue with me, eXtreme Gamers dislike the marginal lag and inaccuracy caused by DLSS4 frame
interpolation.
Not to mention, there's a whole host of PC gamers who never, ever open
the Video Options sub-menu anyway, and so would never enable it. Or
who are running games on older hardware, for that matter.
So between all that, I'm not surprised that 47% of surveyed gamers
don't use AI even for frame generation. It's not just gamers disliking
AI that's preventing it. There's a host of other reasons too.
Do you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
A web-survey on PC Gamer* asked "Do you use AI, and if so what for?",
with various options from "not at all", to "everything", but in
between those extremes it also suggested "Only for in-game upscaling,
such as with DLSS or FSR4"... and then took umbrage when the numbers >indicated that 47% of those surveyed didn't even use AI upscaling in
game.**
The PC Gamer author was really surprised that so many people didn't
use DLSS. Myself, I'm less surprised... but maybe that's because I
never use it myself. In my case, it is less because of some extreme
stance against AI (I mean, I'm not sure I'd really consider DLSS4 to
be "AI" anyway) as it is that I just don't need it. My games look good
enough already. To be sure, I distrust the hackery that is DLSS, and
prefer to play the game 'as the developer intended it'. And earlier
DLSS versions of DLSS really weren't so much about improving the
visuals as frame interpolation made for smoothing the framerate
anyway.*** And while it isn't so much an issue with me, eXtreme Gamers >dislike the marginal lag and inaccuracy caused by DLSS4 frame
interpolation.
Not to mention, there's a whole host of PC gamers who never, ever open
the Video Options sub-menu anyway, and so would never enable it. Or
who are running games on older hardware, for that matter.
So between all that, I'm not surprised that 47% of surveyed gamers
don't use AI even for frame generation. It's not just gamers disliking
AI that's preventing it. There's a host of other reasons too.
Do you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:21 -0600, "rms" <rmsmoo@moomoo.net> said this
thing:
I'm fortunate in that I'm not that sensitive to low frame-rates. SomeDo you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
The only recent time I can recall when I actively looked for this setting >>was in the recent Indiana Jones game, and I believe I also ran the in-game >>benchmark to test its effect (it did help). There had been gaming news >>stories hyping this feature when the game came out. I may or may not have >>enabled it in The Witcher 3, but now I can't recall if that game even offers >>that setting; not sure. When and if I get to another graphically intensive >>game -- specifically Stalker 2 and Cyberpunk -- I will certainly be looking >>for and enabling DLSS to help with framerate.
rms
gamers swear that anything under 120fps is unplayable; I'm fine with a >quarter of that. (I'm not averse to higher, but it's harder for me to >notice). I'm much more sensitive to fluctuating frame-rates; jumping
from 60 to 90 to 70 to 50... that drives me nuts.
But usually I just cap the framerate at 60fps, and I'm good. My
hardware is more than capable of reaching that naturally, so stuff
like DLSS4 frame-interpolation is just wasted effort (and has
downsides of its own).
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage!
;-)
On Mon, 04 May 2026 09:04:01 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage!
;-)
And now you can fire up DOSBox, set cycles to "max," and run it at 80
fps!
On Sun, 3 May 2026 16:02:21 -0600, "rms" <rmsmoo@moomoo.net> said this
thing:
I'm fortunate in that I'm not that sensitive to low frame-rates. SomeDo you use DLSS3/DLSS4/FSR in your games?
The only recent time I can recall when I actively looked for this setting >>was in the recent Indiana Jones game, and I believe I also ran the in-game >>benchmark to test its effect (it did help). There had been gaming news >>stories hyping this feature when the game came out. I may or may not have >>enabled it in The Witcher 3, but now I can't recall if that game even offers >>that setting; not sure. When and if I get to another graphically intensive >>game -- specifically Stalker 2 and Cyberpunk -- I will certainly be looking >>for and enabling DLSS to help with framerate.
rms
gamers swear that anything under 120fps is unplayable; I'm fine with a quarter of that. (I'm not averse to higher, but it's harder for me to notice). I'm much more sensitive to fluctuating frame-rates; jumping
from 60 to 90 to 70 to 50... that drives me nuts.
But usually I just cap the framerate at 60fps, and I'm good. My
hardware is more than capable of reaching that naturally, so stuff
like DLSS4 frame-interpolation is just wasted effort (and has
downsides of its own).
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage!
;-)
On Tue, 05 May 2026 10:12:25 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
said this thing:
On Mon, 04 May 2026 09:04:01 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage!
;-)
And now you can fire up DOSBox, set cycles to "max," and run it at 80
fps!
More likely 800fps. Or maybe 80,000. Wing Commander didn't limit
frame-rates, and the faster your CPU, the faster the game ran. It
makes the original game difficult to run on modern PCs. Even the
DOSBox emulation overhead isn't enough to slow it down. Even juggling
DOSBox cpu-cycles only gets you a close approximation of how the game
was meant to be played. It might run too slow one moment, then too
fast the next.
[using cycles=max, the spaceships in the intro --normally a
combat sequence that takes twenty or thirty seconds-- whips
by so fast you almost can't see it; it's just the briefest
blur of colors representing an epic space battle. It's a
great reminder of how powerful modern PCs have become in
comparison to what we used to have]
There have been numerous fan-made fixes for the problem, with maybe
the most comprehensive being the WC allTinker overhaul mod, available
here: https://alltinker.itch.io/wcat
On Tue, 05 May 2026 11:43:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2026 10:12:25 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>Cycles table:
said this thing:
On Mon, 04 May 2026 09:04:01 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage! >>>>;-)
And now you can fire up DOSBox, set cycles to "max," and run it at 80 >>>fps!
More likely 800fps. Or maybe 80,000. Wing Commander didn't limit >>frame-rates, and the faster your CPU, the faster the game ran. It
makes the original game difficult to run on modern PCs. Even the
DOSBox emulation overhead isn't enough to slow it down. Even juggling >>DOSBox cpu-cycles only gets you a close approximation of how the game
was meant to be played. It might run too slow one moment, then too
fast the next.
[using cycles=max, the spaceships in the intro --normally a
combat sequence that takes twenty or thirty seconds-- whips
by so fast you almost can't see it; it's just the briefest
blur of colors representing an epic space battle. It's a
great reminder of how powerful modern PCs have become in
comparison to what we used to have]
There have been numerous fan-made fixes for the problem, with maybe
the most comprehensive being the WC allTinker overhaul mod, available
here: https://alltinker.itch.io/wcat
8088 4.77 MHz 310
286 16 MHz 3350
386DX 33 MHz 7800
486 66 MHz 26800
Pentium 100 77000
If you set cycles to 3350 or a little lower, you will likely have good >results.
Not sure about that, so I'm going to try it myself. I know it works for
Raid on Fractulus.
On Wed, 06 May 2026 11:17:54 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,You don't really need DOSBox with MUNT built in. It works quite well
Zaghadka wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2026 11:43:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2026 10:12:25 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>Cycles table:
said this thing:
On Mon, 04 May 2026 09:04:01 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I knew all those years playing Wing Commander at 8fps had advantage! >>>>>;-)
And now you can fire up DOSBox, set cycles to "max," and run it at 80 >>>>fps!
More likely 800fps. Or maybe 80,000. Wing Commander didn't limit >>>frame-rates, and the faster your CPU, the faster the game ran. It
makes the original game difficult to run on modern PCs. Even the
DOSBox emulation overhead isn't enough to slow it down. Even juggling >>>DOSBox cpu-cycles only gets you a close approximation of how the game
was meant to be played. It might run too slow one moment, then too
fast the next.
[using cycles=max, the spaceships in the intro --normally a
combat sequence that takes twenty or thirty seconds-- whips
by so fast you almost can't see it; it's just the briefest
blur of colors representing an epic space battle. It's a
great reminder of how powerful modern PCs have become in
comparison to what we used to have]
There have been numerous fan-made fixes for the problem, with maybe
the most comprehensive being the WC allTinker overhaul mod, available >>>here: https://alltinker.itch.io/wcat
8088 4.77 MHz 310
286 16 MHz 3350
386DX 33 MHz 7800
486 66 MHz 26800
Pentium 100 77000
If you set cycles to 3350 or a little lower, you will likely have good >>results.
Not sure about that, so I'm going to try it myself. I know it works for >>Raid on Fractulus.
Yup. Works great. Like you have the full powered computer that can play
it. Maybe 3000 cycles would be preferable, but it's right there.
Wish I could find that DOSBox hack with MUNT in it though. I really want
to try this with an MT-32. It's on my HD somewhere.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,116 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 89:18:09 |
| Calls: | 14,306 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,338 |
| D/L today: |
1,552 files (532M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,525,562 |