Ok just tried it, and I can confirm it relies on the console clocks to downgrade/upgrade resolution and view distance mostly.
Quite noticeable too when I unplugged my USB cable/plug it again, since I can see the changes in live.
Honestly I think it's a good port, I have seen FAR worse for simpler games. Only tried it in handheld, and resolution is most of the time < 720p for sure since it is usually blurry but with docked mode clocks, the game is crystal clear and definitely running at 720p most of the time (and view distance clearly profits from the clock too).
Now it defeats a bit the purpose of handheld since you need a cable to have docked speed but still ! Then it looks good, won't say it looks "great" because the game is dated, even on PC but it looks what you'd expect a nvidia tablet to run witcher 3. Doesn't seem like a rushed job to me at all.
I myself never liked any of the Witcher game, but I might finally give it a try longer when taking a shit or something now that I can play it on the go, might be less boring than sitting in front of my TV ?
Even on basic clocks it doesn't drop resolution as much as Wolfenstein or Mk11. It's noticeably soft (sharper than Xenoblade 2, though), but looks very nice in portable mode, all things considered. And it seems to mostly be sticking to 30 fps (at least in white orchard, I have no doubt it'll have problems in the swamps and Novigrad), which surprised me. My biggest issue, graphics-wise, is that some of the textures, like the ground, are pretty low res, though they don't always seem so. Dunno what that's about - maybe some bug or lack of proper anistropic filtering that makes it stand out like a sore thumb in certain situations.
In the end, itโs definitely the worst looking version of TW3 you can play, but it's also a perfectly functional, full-featured one you can take with you anywhere. And it still looks good enough to convey the world and atmosphere, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think anything more can reasonably be expected from the Switch.
I ran it quickly and it looked very poorly. Runs fine and smooth as much as 30fps smoothness allows, but it just looks bad. I started the second DLC (โwineโ) just to check the graphics.
Is it really overclocking, though? It's not like there's any cooling mechanism in the dock. It only provides a powerline, a TV hook-up and forces higher clocks on the tablet, which otherwise operates the same way it does when you hold it in your hands. What's the difference between that and forcing these same higher clocks through software?
It's not overclocking Leo, as Aquma said, the dock itself doesnt provide any cooling at all so running in docked clocks in handheld will have the Switch cool the exact same way it would cool docked.
I could understand you don't want to push GPU at 921Mhz (>> docked clocks, but nvidia shield/tegra x1 clock) but there is no reason not to push docked clocks. At all.
If you wanna unplug your Switch half way, as long as you set the "unplugged" profile as default, it will revert back "live" to handheld clocks (so battery will be the same as normal).
You guys are not thinking this through. The one element which emits immense heat, and that is the screen. When the Switch is in the dock, it turns off the screen, which is how it compensates for the higher clock speeds.
Not saying you are wrong but allow me to be skeptical about this data. The SoC isn't even running at allowed clocks by nvidia in docked mode, I think we have quite an enough margin of heat, but yeah it's just assumptions, based on hundreds of people on gbatemp that did "overclock". So far I have yet to find anyone who pinpointed issues with the "overclock".
Not saying you are wrong but allow me to be skeptical about this data. The SoC isn't even running at allowed clocks by nvidia in docked mode, I think we have quite an enough margin of heat, but yeah it's just assumptions, based on hundreds of people on gbatemp that did "overclock". So far I have yet to find anyone who pinpointed issues with the "overclock".
Depends on how it's intended to be cooled. If the original specification requires active cooling, or more serious passive cooling, that could explain the lowered clock speeds.
0:22 Hahaha, if that isn't 320x240, I don't know what is. But let's suck the "impossible port" cock some more, eh DF.
@ aggressive LOD 1m from the character in 3:10...
I'm sorry, I just don't see the point. Skyrim looks so much better than this, with none of that low res, low LOD nonsense.
I think it looks a lot better than Skyrim on the Switch. Sure, Skyrim is sharper, but it's also really, really outdated and it shows in pretty much every little detail (or lack of thereof). It just looks very bland in comparision. But I guess different people take note of different things in the visual presentation.
Am I right in saying that there is no yet a way to get Retroarch working in SX OX? I am keen to play Mario 64 in 1080p widescreen, but I cba to go through the process of working out how to move from SX to Atmosphere!!
I think it looks a lot better than Skyrim on the Switch. Sure, Skyrim is sharper, but it's also really, really outdated and it shows in pretty much every little detail (or lack of thereof). It just looks very bland in comparison. But I guess different people take note of different things in the visual presentation.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Witcher 3 engine isn't much more advanced, or that the visual fidelity of a 2011 game is higher than one of 2015 with a completely different engine generation. It's just that the Switch hardware is not capable to run this engine generation. Virtually all modern game engines ported to Switch are super low resolution, suffer very aggressive LOD management and on top of that, have heavy FPS hits. Doom, Wolfenstein, this, even smaller scale games, like Hellblade.
On the other hand, take older generation engine games, such as Skyrim, Grid and Bulletstorm, you get a much clearer picture overall, certainly much more stable in terms of visual fidelity (no flicker, no disappearing shadows 1-2 meters away from the view port). And those game look just fine on the Switch, play smoothly and provide a much more consistent and thus better experience.
The only exceptions are Mario Odyssey and to some extent Zelda Breath of the Wild, which were clearly optimized very well for the Switch hardware, but their content was created from the ground up for those systems in mind, rather than try to cram a PS4 content game into the Switch.
The perfect thing to do when porting these games would be to recreate the game engine and game content with the Switch in mind. For example, like they used to do for consoles vs PC back in the day, when developers and publishers cared. Doom 3 on Xbox was split into levels differently because of limitations in the system. But, of course, nobody cares anymore. Take Mortal Kombat 11, for example. Rather than take an engine that is much more suitable for the hardware, such as the MK9 engine, and export the content to that, they took a mutated engine that is wholly unsuitable for the Switch, and made a terrible messy port. Likewise for Doom, Wolfenstein and Witcher 3. Rather than a "miracle port", they should have done the right thing and created an engine and content suitable for the hardware.
This generation is particularly harder to do that, because of the jump to PBR pipelines, which while having substantial jump in visual quality and accuracy, are much more demanding on the hardware, but also on artists. PBR assets cannot be taken as is and just ported to an engine that does not use a PBR pipeline. This is why we don't see any developer "do the right thing"; because it's prohibitively expensive, and likely not worth the effort on Switch.
So given these constraints, I much prefer 360/PS3 era ports, rather than the said "miracle ports" that the phonetically-challenged Digitaw Foundwy clowns gush about every time they are paid to do so.
I get what you mean, but the thing is, resolution, cleanliness of image and presence / lack of shimmer and / or pop-in isn't everything when it comes to graphical fidelity - especially on a handheld platform with a somewhat small screen (which is what the Switch is for me, mostly, though I do play some games in docked mode too).
What matters most is the end result. And when I see Switch editions of Skyrim and Witcher 3, side by side, I prefer the latter one, despite all its flaws. By far, to be honest. Skyrim... it just doesn't look very well nowadays (excluding a heavily moddified PC version, of course). It's too long in the tooth and even in 2011 it wasn't exactly a looker or a technical marvel.
On the other hand, I can understand why you'd feel otherwise, hence my comment about valuing different things in visual presentation.
Am I right in saying that there is no yet a way to get Retroarch working in SX OX? I am keen to play Mario 64 in 1080p widescreen, but I cba to go through the process of working out how to move from SX to Atmosphere!!
Hi, the only core that doesn't work in SX OS right now is Flycast, and probably the new Saturn core that's coming soon. The rest you just have to hold R on an installed game to acesss Retroarch that gets you the extra ram and they should work. N64 definitely needs the extra ram.
Am I right in saying that there is no yet a way to get Retroarch working in SX OX? I am keen to play Mario 64 in 1080p widescreen, but I cba to go through the process of working out how to move from SX to Atmosphere!!
Hi, the only core that doesn't work in SX OS right now is Flycast, and probably the new Saturn core that's coming soon. The rest you just have to hold R on an installed game to acesss Retroarch that gets you the extra ram and they should work. N64 definitely needs the extra ram.
Interesting - thank you. So basically, it's playable via one of the other cores? Their own FAQ states it has to be atmosphere which is why i was so confused!
Any core recommendations specific to Mario 64 and DK64? Thanks!
Also, 832x468 "I am amazed at how well this game scales" -Yes, who knew, lowering the resolution ad absurdum and overclocking the CPU and GPU makes gaemz run faster. zOmG! The discovery of the century! Give this clown a Nobel price!
Am I right in saying that there is no yet a way to get Retroarch working in SX OX? I am keen to play Mario 64 in 1080p widescreen, but I cba to go through the process of working out how to move from SX to Atmosphere!!
Hi, the only core that doesn't work in SX OS right now is Flycast, and probably the new Saturn core that's coming soon. The rest you just have to hold R on an installed game to acesss Retroarch that gets you the extra ram and they should work. N64 definitely needs the extra ram.
Interesting - thank you. So basically, it's playable via one of the other cores? Their own FAQ states it has to be atmosphere which is why i was so confused!
Any core recommendations specific to Mario 64 and DK64? Thanks!
I have Mario 64 on Wii U, for DK64 I have full overclock in Retroarch main menu, Framerate Fullspeed, VI Refresh 2200, Framebuffer Emulation true. But it's still laggy in handheld mode, works good docked.
The devs of some of these cores hate SX OS that's why they recommend Atmosphere, and IMO they purposely made Flycast not work on SX OS as the first patreon beta worked then all versions since just crashes on SX OS. I can't prove that though, but they've openly admitted to hating SX OS.
Can you have both Atmosphere and SXOS installed on the same machine?
You can have both on the same sd card but you can only choose to boot one at a time. Here is a tutorial to switch between them without using your computer to send payloads, you can just use homebrew menu to get to either one.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
@ aggressive LOD 1m from the character in 3:10...
