this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
67 points (90.4% liked)

PC Gaming

12574 readers
327 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We've done a lot of testing on DLSS4 and FSR 4 (and 3.1) to inspect image quality frame-by-fake-frame in addition to upscaling image quality. At times, these technologies serve their purposes well; DLSS in particular has gotten a lot better with its transformer model and FSR has substantially improved with version 4. We have a lot of criticisms of the fake frame technologies -- especially benchmarking them on normal charts -- but they do have a place in some situations. Now, we're looking at Lossless Scaling and Lossless Frame Generation (sometimes called Lossless Scaling Frame Generation, or LSFG). This tool is highly versatile and does more than just upscaling for select games (and frame generation), but we're really only focusing on those two core use cases today. It's not as good as the tools built by multi-trillion dollar companies, but for something basically independently built and sold on Steam (and for $7), it's not a big loss to try.

Link to Lossless Scaling, https://store.steampowered.com/app/993090/Lossless_Scaling / https://losslessscaling.com/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Why would I want to use it in games that already run well? What's even the point of frames above 60 when it's not the "real" kind that twitch shooters need?

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I like framerates over 100 even for "cinematic" games because it just feels better.

Like Cyberpunk is single player, but near 100FPS just feels so much better than 60fps and you get a lot less eye strain.

I always feel like the lower the framerate in game, the more processing my brain is doing to tell me that the game is fluid motion.

Of course its a complicated topic that has to do with animation consistency etc but higher is generally a lot better.

[–] 0li0li@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh, another reason: if it's ever time to upgrade your GPU, try this $8 app and you might be able to push it another 3-5 years.

Still on a 3060 here and nowhere close to upgrading (cap the game at 41fps, get 164fps out)

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

See, now this sounds like a much better use for it.

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Less motion sickness for me and better power consumption for me. I have a 380hz monitor and it's been very helpful in capping my game FPS on 90 and 4x fake frames it to 360 fps. My shit reflex can't differentiate the input delay but my eyes can definitely see the smoothness difference between 90 and 360 FPS.

[–] 0li0li@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Amen, 60fps stutters. 75 or higher is fine, but to me anything around 60 looks bad, especially when the game is demanding because its low graphics still look photorealistic.

[–] 0li0li@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Even for top down arpgs, 60fps looks like shit when you taste 120+fps

For smoother gameplay with no dips when the game chugs or loads in the background.

Some people like ray tracing, some like smooth gameplay.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've tasted 120 fps. I'm not impressed.

I understand potentially needing high fps in fast paced shooters with incredibly short TTK. The kind where reaction speeds need to be counted in fractions.

But demanding 120 fps for most other things is just being spoiled. Even good old 30 fps is good enough if you're playing something turn-based.

No, a tool like this should be used to elevate weaker hardware. It has no purpose generating fake frames if you can already have a playable framerate.

[–] 0li0li@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're right, 20fps and low polycount is just fine. You still on a 360p CRT too?

It"s an $8 purchase that can quadruple your framerate, and at the very least, hides dips from any games. Sure, little use in turn-based games and point and clicks... but for everythong else, smoothness looks and feels better.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Don't be a spoiled hyperbolic ass. But hey, you probably love Unreal Engine too.

Have fun with your discount fake frames.

[–] 0li0li@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fake frames, as opposed to the real life pictures other frames are...

You remind me of people how kept posting that the human eye can't see frames past 30. Where are they now lol

Mark my words: you will use frame generation someday and you will not come back. Maybe from a future nvidia feature (eg DLSS), maybe from a monitor, in VR (been a thing for a while but it's not good yet). You will like it.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

Yes, as opposed to real life rendered images other frames other.

And you don't need more than 30 fps if it's not some fast paced game. And you don't need more than 60 fps if its not a twitch shooter. And frame generation is just... Sub-par in every way imaginable. It's only useful if to get some semblance of frame stability if your hardware isn't up to snuff.

And that's the only thing that matters; a well rendered stable framerate.

People like you are the reason why corporate entities are trying to push for all this ugly shit into newer games and GPUs.