Nope. But wouldnt be a first time a patches changes some stuff wich maybe wasnt needed tho. :)
Its hard to say whether it was patched in. A dynamic res that sticks to the upper limit more often than not, is quite hard to distinguish.
Yeah, I agree. The problem then comes from time and resources (for DF and VG etc). Big games like TW3, that happen to also have a lot of problems at launch make for an easier argument to re-test, compared to say Farcry 5. Which by all accounts was solid on release.
Indeed I'd rather the resolution dip slightly rather than the framerate, but obviously in a perfect world I'd prefer neither to dip! Nothing beats that full crisp native 4K. But that's where high end PCs come in to play.
I didn't mean that, I meant if a game could hold native 4K .
Or maybe this was introduced in a patch after the menu frame tearing issue? I mean this is a really late analysis.
The game didn't have frame rate issues prior to now so this is unlikely, it's likely it was simply missed. Resolution adjustments can be incredibly hard to notice and count especially with aggressive TAA like in Far Cry 5.
IIRC DF mentioned that pixel counting was tough to do because of the AA implementation used.
TAA is very aggressive. Furthermore it's not like it drops regularly. DF is not infallible. Said that, I don't believed for a second it's was locked 4k, especially knowing Ubisoft. They are quite smart with such dynamic res.
Indeed, there has been a lot of under the hood improvements this gen that really help image quality and performance.
There is no dynamic res in the PC version like AC:O. they also may have lead DF to believing it wasn't on Consoles either.
The PC version vid came later tho and done by somebody else. :)
The title makes it clear that the OP wanted to let people know that the game is not 4k (at least not all the time).
