thill1985 said: That was not what your earlier post said. Your earlier post suggested it was rendering below 2160c up to 216c as the max. I asked for a source and your provided link never suggested that was the case. It only mentioned dynamic res scaling, and DF's quick look revealed CBR artifacts in the image. There is no reason to assume, as you did, that the game scales up to 2160c as its max. All we know is that it scales dynamically and implements CBR at some stage presumably. Click to expand...

thill1985 said: Scaling can be any process that takes sub-native input res and outputs native res.... Click to expand...

That's not right. Scaling is any process that transforms one buffer into another of a different size without input from the three-dimensional scene setup. It doesn't require the target to be larger than the source, and it doesn't require that either size be native to the final display device.

This makes little sense. Analysis shows that when at 3840x2160,is using CBR. According to the developer, it is not always at 3840x2160. My assumption was that, no matter the buffer size, it always uses CBR. I believe this because that's what other dynamic CBR games do.I also believe it because the alternative you're proposing seems perverse. You say the game might not use CBR when the buffer is below 3840x2160, say at 3760x2115. But think about what you're actually claiming there: that the game can natively render 7.95m pixels, but instead of upscaling the last 342k, instead clicks on CBR to natively render 4.15m pixels and then reproject the other half. I mean, this isn't physically impossible, but I can't think of a single benefit should a developer make this choice.EDITED TO ADD: I just noticed you said "Scalingbe" and not "Scaling is", so my response to you isn't valid. If you were just giving an example rather than a definition, there's nothing to correct. I'm going to leave what I wrote so the redaction is clear, but please ignore the struck content.