PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion


Recommended Posts

+Audioboxer

It's 1920x800. But instead of stretching the image they display black borders. I think calling this 1080p native is a little misleading even if it's not necessarily false. I'm not sure how it is going to work in a game. They should give the option to run the game at 1920x1080 with FXAA or 1920x800 with 4x MSAA and black borders.

 

They will tweak/change the FOV for the ratio. Imagine something like below with you "seeing more" with a wider FOV.

 

original.jpg

 

Whether or not they manage to pull off some cinematic experience remains to be seen (think the gameplay embargo lifts on the 12th). Very few if any more titles are even going to go down this route, it's quite a "unique" situation in gaming.

 

To be fair though we've already seen a last gen title do this, Beyond! I've played the whole thing and didn't even realize till I seen this posted lol

 

2125940-169_beyond_graphicscomp_vf_03211

 

edit: Here's a better example showing off a wide FOV from the concept art

 

The_Order_1886_Concept_Art_01.jpg

 

4x MSAA is going to look absolutely amazing, but maybe the devs would consider your options, or not if this tweet is anything to go by

 

ZopsNUP.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
trooper11

4x MSAA is going to look absolutely amazing, but maybe the devs would consider your options, or not if this tweet is anything to go by

 

ZopsNUP.png

 

 

Its weird that in one tweet he says that going this route allows them to use 4xMSAA, hyping that up and then here he is downplaying that as not really crucial.

 

So they did not go this route thinking it would buy them more performance. 

 

Either way, I really don't care at this point.  I was perfectly fine with this style in Beyond, so that is not a problem.  Although I think I liked it more in Beyond because that game is already a cinematic experience being an adventure game and not a heavy action game. If the Order is going to be a cinematic adventure game like Beyond, then I think the style works great.  If it isn't, then we will have to see.

 

The Order is currently my most anticipated ps4 exclusive next to Infamous, so I cant wait to see some gameplay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

Its weird that in one tweet he says that going this route allows them to use 4xMSAA, hyping that up and then here he is downplaying that as not really crucial.

 

So they did not go this route thinking it would buy them more performance. 

 

Either way, I really don't care at this point.  I was perfectly fine with this style in Beyond, so that is not a problem.  Although I think I liked it more in Beyond because that game is already a cinematic experience being an adventure game and not a heavy action game. If the Order is going to be a cinematic adventure game like Beyond, then I think the style works great.  If it isn't, then we will have to see.

 

The Order is currently my most anticipated ps4 exclusive next to Infamous, so I cant wait to see some gameplay.

 

I think what he means is they'd be going with this FOV/resolution regardless, so 4xMSAA isn't what the game is built around.

 

I would say it's probably going to be like Uncharted/The Last of Us, more story focussed than say other TPS' like Gears of War.

 

Here's a good example of the FOV The Order is using as well

 

wnNQ49D.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
vcfan

So wait, is it really 1920x800?

They seem to be implying that it is native 1920x800/30 in order for them to hit performance targets that allow the use of 4XMSAA.

This whole resolution business always gets convoluted when it comes to consoles.

when you upscale 720p to 1080p, you say the game is running at 1080p, even though it was rendered at 720p natively.

with x800(however they want to name it), the game will run at 1080p, but it renders at 1920x800 natively. instead of upscaling and putting it in a 1080p framebuffer in the final output, they copy the 1920x800 frame as is into the 1080p buffer and and fill the empty space with black.

I could also load a low res image on my 1080p PC display,make it full screen and claim it runs at 1080p,but the image is not 1080p.

1600x900 = 1,440,000 pixels

1920 x 800 = 1,536,000 pixels

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

x800 is almost basically 900p,in terms of rendering pixels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

when you upscale 720p to 1080p, you say the game is running at 1080p, even though it was rendered at 720p natively.

with x800(however they want to name it), the game will run at 1080p, but it renders at 1920x800 natively. instead of upscaling and putting it in a 1080p framebuffer in the final output, they copy the 1920x800 frame as is into the 1080p buffer and and fill the empty space with black.

I could also load a low res image on my 1080p PC display,make it full screen and claim it runs at 1080p,but the image is not 1080p.

1600x900 = 1,440,000 pixels

1920 x 800 = 1,536,000 pixels

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

 

Who says that when they upscale? No one around here is claiming a 720p game is 1080p, nor is anyone talking about loading up lower res images and upscaling them. Upscaling isn't part of this conversation as it's not being done in any shape or form.

 

The viewable part of the game renders at 1920x800 yes, but the overall image is still rendering at 1920x1080. The black bars are being rendered here, they aren't being "added" at a later point, the initial output is still 1920x1080.

 

If you can grasp ratios, using a wide FOV like this simply cannot be done without black bars. Only way around it would be to use a monitor/TV like this with a 21:9 aspect ratio

 

EA93_120121108123722441.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew

I didn't have much interest when they showed The Order 1886 at E3 but that art style and setting have really won me over. I think the game looks gorgeous and the type of game you'd just have fun exploring in. And the big plus in my book, is that RAD are doing something other than GoW for a change. As much as I love that series, it needs a break or long hiatus.

 

Without a doubt the limited frame size is going to cut resources, but I believe them that it's an artistic choice and not a technical one from what they have said so far. IMO it doesn't even look like a very demanding game compared to what we already have in the launch games. They've used some very clever filters to make it look cinematic on top of the black bars.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
LaP

I can't really remember how it was at the beginning of last gen, but was that a better start compared to pcs?

 

If it was, then what is different this time?  PC hardware gets better at a much faster rate then say 8 years ago

 

Yeah but the problem is my pc is over 4 years old (built it december 2009) ... it's not new and not even close to it. Only the gpu is relatively new it's a 670 (will be 2 years old next summer).

 

I did not expect the One or PS4 to blow my PC out of the water but i expected them to do at the very least as good as it which is curently not the case.

 

Of course most of the games right now are ports so i'll wait and see things will surely improve but i really do hope the One/PS4 will be able to hit on a regular basis 1080p30 with 4xMSAA/8xCSAA before 2015.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vcfan

Who says that when they upscale? No one around here is claiming a 720p game is 1080p, nor is anyone talking about loading up lower res images and upscaling them. Upscaling isn't part of this conversation as it's not being done in any shape or form.

The viewable part of the game renders at 1920x800 yes, but the overall image is still rendering at 1920x1080. The black bars are being rendered here, they aren't being "added" at a later point, the initial output is still 1920x1080.

the point is, in both scenarios(upscaling, or adding black bars), the graphics portion is rendered at a lower than 1080p resolution, yet we end up with a 1080p image and output.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

the point is, in both scenarios, the graphics portion is rendered at a lower than 1080p resolution, yet we end up with a 1080p image and output.

 

But both scenarios are completely different. One has lower image quality due to upscaling, the other doesn't. You can't render a game without black bars at this FOV/ratio, the black bars are rendered as I've said before. Call it boring and unimpressive rendering, but it's natively part of the 1080p output, not upscaled.

 

Just in the same way as a movie shot in this ratio has black bars, and the only way to get rid of them is by putting your TV onto a zoom mode and losing some of the FOV. But you don't see people talking about upscaling with movies do you?

 

And I know movies ? games, but ratio = ratio and FOV = FOV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

The viewable part of the game renders at 1920x800 yes, but the overall image is still rendering at 1920x1080. The black bars are being rendered here, they aren't being "added" at a later point, the initial output is still 1920x1080.

That's completely disingenuous. That's like saying that the PS4 and XB1 can both render games at 4K if they just include massive black borders. It's not right to call it 1080p as that requires 1080 horizontal lines - here we're talking about 800 horizontal lines. To put that in perspective there are 25% fewer pixels being rendered, which is not a minor difference. It seems highly dubious that it was done entirely for artistic reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

That's completely disingenuous. That's like saying that the PS4 and XB1 can both render games at 4K if they just include massive black borders. It's not right to call it 1080p as that requires 1080 horizontal lines - here we're talking about 800 horizontal lines. To put that in perspective there are 25% fewer pixels being rendered, which is not a minor difference. It seems highly dubious that it was done entirely for artistic reasons.

 

Nothing like that unless you want to show me an industry standard ratio/FOV that would have these "huge black borders" on a 4K resolution. Because you know if we're talking 1920x800 within a 4K image these borders would probably take up half the screen and have to be added manually as I know of no ratio that would provide borders of that size.

 

You're trying to come from the argument that the bars are simply there due to technical reasons. That argument cant stand on it's own because as it's been said repeatedly now you cannot do this ratio without black bars on a 16:9 TV/Monitor. They're not being added manually or by hand, they're being added by "the laws of physics".

Link to post
Share on other sites
vcfan

But both scenarios are completely different. One has lower image quality due to upscaling, the other doesn't. You can't render a game without black bars at this FOV/ratio, the black bars are rendered as I've said before. Call it boring and unimpressive rendering, but it's natively part of the 1080p output, not upscaled.

 

Just in the same way as a movie shot in this ratio has black bars, and the only way to get rid of them is by putting your TV onto a zoom mode and losing some of the FOV. But you don't see people talking about upscaling with movies do you?

 

And I know movies ? games, but ratio = ratio and FOV = FOV.

a 720p game could be not upscaled,but have black borders on top and on the sides in a 1080p framebuffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

a 720p game could be not upscaled,but have black borders on top and on the sides in a 1080p framebuffer.

 

See my reply to theyarecomingforyou. What industry standard aspect ratio would cause a 720p image to have borders big enough for no upscaling to occur naturally? Artificially adding borders of your own size isn't applicable here as that is not what's happening, so why compare The Order to other made up scenarios where manually adding borders has to be done? That certainly doesn't prove a point other than showing you're struggling to grasp why changing the aspect ratio even adds borders in the first place.

 

If a game is running in 16:9 and runs at less than 1080p, it is purely due to technical reasons. There is no artistic element involved in deciding to upscale, and to add black bars to a game that runs in 16:9 is a man made process that again would have to be purely technical as you can't produce bars with a 16:9 resolution naturally (unless you run on a monitor/TV that isn't running in 16:9).

 

Running a game in 2.40:1 is an artistic choice, it's the widescreen cinema standard and will induce black bars on any TV/Monitor running in 16:9. If the viewing area wasn't 1920x800 then it would be for technical reasons, and there would be upscaling, as this is the limit for displaying in this ratio.

 

If anyone uses their head, I don't think a developer is going to go out of the way to create a whole game based around 2.40:1 simply to avoid having to scale back on 4xMSAA to hit 1920x1080 in 16:9. I mean, seriously? Games just do lower resolutions and upscale as they always have if there's technical issues, I certainly didn't see a trend of games running in 2.40:1 on the PS3 for technical reasons.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

Nothing like that unless you want to show me an industry standard ratio/FOV that would have these "huge black borders" on a 4K resolution.

 

You're trying to come from the argument that the bars are simply there due to technical reasons. That argument cant stand on it's own because as it's been said repeatedly now you cannot do this ratio without black bars on a 16:9 TV/Monitor.

You were arguing that it's being rendered at 1080p, which simply isn't accurate. And I never claimed that ratio could be achieved without borders on a 16:9 display but no other games opt to not use 25% of the display area for "artistic reasons". As for my 4K comparison, it's perfectly valid - 800p isn't an industry standard for the gaming industry and semantically it's no different to a 1080p game being rendered on a 4K display with massive borders (or an ultra-narrow resolution like 3840x520, which is the pixel equivalent to 1920x1080).

 

Whichever way you look at it the developer is rendering 25% fewer pixels than competing games and I don't believe for a second that performance wasn't a major factor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

You were arguing that it's being rendered at 1080p, which simply isn't accurate. And I never claimed that ratio could be achieved without borders on a 16:9 display but no other games opt to not use 25% of the display area for "artistic reasons". As for my 4K comparison, it's perfectly valid - 800p isn't an industry standard for the gaming industry and semantically it's no different to a 1080p game being rendered on a 4K display with massive borders (or an ultra-narrow resolution like 3840x520, which is the pixel equivalent to 1920x1080).

 

Whichever way you look at it the developer is rendering 25% fewer pixels than competing games and I don't believe for a second that performance wasn't a major factor.

 

I was mostly arguing that there wasn't any upscaling, and then proceeding onto talking about standards and why the borders are there.

 

800p is an industry standard, as is the aspect ratio 2.40:1, just because the gaming industry doesn't use it a lot (Beyond is one example) doesn't validate your made up standard that has big massive black bars in 4k. You're either dealing with a widely used standard(s), or you're making up others 3840x520? Making up others to try and create points is just silly.

 

Lastly no one is arguing there isn't a technical benefit, the developers themselves have already admitted that on Twitter and said that's how 4xMSAA came about. But read my post above do you genuinely think a game is going to be created around an aspect ratio just for performance reasons? Really?

 

Jeez why doesn't someone email IW/Activision and get them running COD in 2.40:1 for guaranteed 60FPS at all times...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew

You were arguing that it's being rendered at 1080p, which simply isn't accurate. And I never claimed that ratio could be achieved without borders on a 16:9 display but no other games opt to not use 25% of the display area for "artistic reasons". As for my 4K comparison, it's perfectly valid - 800p isn't an industry standard for the gaming industry and semantically it's no different to a 1080p game being rendered on a 4K display with massive borders (or an ultra-narrow resolution like 3840x520, which is the pixel equivalent to 1920x1080).

 

Whichever way you look at it the developer is rendering 25% fewer pixels than competing games and I don't believe for a second that performance wasn't a major factor.

 

Not true. View the previous pages and you'll see Beyond Two Souls did it, and further, it was possible to remove the black bars with debug mode. The full 1080 was being processed with the black bars added for artistic reasons.

 

uGUhc.jpg

673021_20131007_screen001.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav

Who says that when they upscale? No one around here is claiming a 720p game is 1080p, nor is anyone talking about loading up lower res images and upscaling them. Upscaling isn't part of this conversation as it's not being done in any shape or form.

 

The viewable part of the game renders at 1920x800 yes, but the overall image is still rendering at 1920x1080. The black bars are being rendered here, they aren't being "added" at a later point, the initial output is still 1920x1080.

No sane developer would unnecessarily waste rendering resources only to mask 25% of the image with black bars. Their tweet about 4xMSAA is proof enough that with black bars they will be rendering only 75% of a 1080p frame. If they had no performance limits they would do both and that tweet would not exist.

IIRC many games render images in some weird aspect ratios, it's not uncommon to do that and save resources. I am pretty sure Halo3 had a weird aspect ratio on its frame buffer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

Not true. View the previous pages and you'll see Beyond Two Souls did it, and further, it was possible to remove the black bars with debug mode. The full 1080 was being processed with the black bars added for artistic reasons.

We're talking about one game and I highly doubt that the full 1080p was being rendered with black bars covering it up, as that would be horribly inefficient and shoddy programming. I imagine it was done for performance reasons, which only supports my original point that it's not being done for "artistic reasons".

 

The Order 1886 will only be rendered at 30fps with the letterbox, so I imagine performance is a major factor - either they're struggling to optimise the game or they're pushing the graphics to really "wow" people. I mean we're talking about 25% fewer pixels and half the framerate of competing games, so something is going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hedon

Bummer that the order is going to end up just being a QTE game, only at 30fps and 800p. I had high hopes for this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
trooper11

Not true. View the previous pages and you'll see Beyond Two Souls did it, and further, it was possible to remove the black bars with debug mode. The full 1080 was being processed with the black bars added for artistic reasons.

 

 

Wow, I had no idea they actually just covered up usable space.  That seems highly wasteful for a game to be developed that way.  In movies it make sense since the camera being used takes in more information which is then cut to the size they want.  They have no choice but to take it all in at the start.  Game developers don't have the problem. 

 

I suppose if they were worried that the final game would not work right at the cropped size, they would go ahead and create the entire game in the standard size just so they can choose either view.  Or maybe they do it in order to offer the user the choice of view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andre S.

But both scenarios are completely different. One has lower image quality due to upscaling, the other doesn't. You can't render a game without black bars at this FOV/ratio, the black bars are rendered as I've said before. Call it boring and unimpressive rendering, but it's natively part of the 1080p output, not upscaled.

The black bars are incidental due to the aspect ratio of the monitor you're displaying it on. If you were rendering the game on a 1920x800 display, it would output at 1920x800, because that's the actual size of the frames rendered by the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

Bummer that the order is going to end up just being a QTE game, only at 30fps and 800p. I had high hopes for this thing.

 

QTE game? Where are you getting that from? We've not even seen decent gameplay, the embargo ends on the 18th IIRC.

The black bars are incidental due to the aspect ratio of the monitor you're displaying it on. If you were rendering the game on a 1920x800 display, it would output at 1920x800, because that's the actual size of the frames rendered by the game.

 

This is true, it's just 99% of TVs are 16:9. Only monitors have really started with the wide aspect ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hedon

QTE game? Where are you getting that from? We've not even seen decent gameplay, the embargo ends on the 18th IIRC.

 

This is true, it's just 99% of TVs are 16:9. Only monitors have really started with the wide aspect ratios.

You were not aware that the game has quicktime events?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Audioboxer

Not true. View the previous pages and you'll see Beyond Two Souls did it, and further, it was possible to remove the black bars with debug mode. The full 1080 was being processed with the black bars added for artistic reasons.

 

uGUhc.jpg

673021_20131007_screen001.jpg

 

Almost right, the FPS does actually drop in some scenes when you take away the bars.

You were not aware that the game has quicktime events?

 

"Just being a QTE game".

 

You know more about this game than any of the rest of us and journalists who've only just been to an embargoed event?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hedon

Almost right, the FPS does actually drop in some scenes when you take away the bars.

 

"Just being a QTE game".

 

You know more about this game than any of the rest of us and journalists who've only just been to an embargoed event?

Hey, if you were not aware of the public knowledge that the game is QTE friendly, don't blame me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andrew featured and unpinned this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Jay Bonggolto
      Microsoft announces general availability of Application Guard for Office
      by Jay Bonggolto



      Microsoft unveiled a couple of security features for Microsoft 365 early in 2020, which included Application Guard. Today, the company announced that Application Guard for Office has hit general availability.

      The feature basically puts documents from untrusted sources in a container before opening them in order to ward off malicious threats. Microsoft also noted that it analyzes every malicious attack contained by Application Guard to bolster its threat intelligence. Your files are also protected from kernel-based attacks since it uses Hyper-V-based containers.

      Unlike Protected View which opens documents in read-only mode, Application Guard opens files in a virtualized sandbox where you can still edit and print documents in a limited capacity without leaving the container. These files include those coming from untrusted sites, files stored in potentially unsafe folders or network, and documents blocked by File Block.



      That said, you can still choose to disable protection for a specific file if necessary, provided you're confident that it's safe. Prior to opening that file, it will be scanned with the Safe Documents feature if it's enabled. In addition to documents, emails are protected as well with combined security from Application Guard and Microsoft Defender for Office 365.

      The new feature is turned off by default and administrators will need to set the right policy for each user in an organization. It's available to customers on Current Channel and Monthly Enterprise Channel while a rollout in Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel is scheduled later this year.

    • By Abhay V
      Microsoft releases Edge Dev 89.0.774.4, the final build for version 89
      by Abhay Venkatesh



      As is the case every week, Microsoft has released a new Edge build for users in the Dev channel. Today’s build bumps the version up to version 89.0.774.4, which is the last build from major version 89 making it to the Dev channel. The firm is planning to promote this build to the Beta channel next week, pending any small bug-fixing updates.

      As for the build itself, there are a couple of new features, bringing improvements to Collections and the Read Aloud function for PDFs, along with the host of fixes to reliability and changed behavior. Additionally, the firm highlights the completion of features such as History and Open Tabs sync, something that has been rolled out to all versions of the browser. It also adds that builds across channels now sport support for Apple Silicon natively.

      Here are the two new features added with this build:

      As usual, there are a bunch of fixes to improve the reliability of the browser. Here is the complete list:

      And here are the fixes to address changed behavior:

      Lastly, there are a few known issues, some of which have been on the list from the last few releases. Here is the complete list:

      With this version making it to the Beta channel, the first version 90 build might make it to the Dev channel as early as next week. Guessing from this week’s Feedback Summary, one of the features that might make it to that version is the ‘Tab Previews’ option from Edge Legacy.

      As is the case always, today’s release should automatically be downloaded and installed. However, you can head into Settings > About Microsoft Edge to manually check for updates.

    • By Abhay V
      Surface Duo begins receiving its first firmware update for 2021
      by Abhay Venkatesh

      Microsoft is rolling out a new firmware update for the Surface Duo, making it the first update in over two months. While the firm had been serving monthly updates for the dual-screened Android device, it skipped the December update owing to the holidays and reportedly due to a tricky bug. Today’s release brings with it a bunch of improvements along with the December and January Android security patches. What it does not bring is the Android 11 update, of which there is no information from the company.

      As has been the case for the past few months, the Duo is getting improvements to address stability issues with touch, possibly still ironing out issues pointed out by early reviewers. There are also improvements to the UI stability, likely to fix crashes or issues with features like App Pairs and the overall stability of the software when moving apps across screens. The changelog is generic in nature and does not divulge much information about the details of the updates.

      Here is the complete changelog of the January 2021 update that brings software version 2020.1211.85:

      As usual, this release only applies to the unlocked version of the device and is rolling out gradually, meaning it will be a while before all users see the update hit their devices. Users that own the AT&T version of the Duo might have to wait slightly longer for these updates. Usually, updates for the carrier variant are served within a week, so the wait should not be too long.

      The company is also slated to make the Surface Duo available to more markets soon. It will be interesting to see what the timeline is for the release, and if the device gets an update to Android 11 by then or even ships with the updated software in those regions.

    • By LoneWolfSL
      Halo: MCC Season 5 of content lands with new Halo 3 and Reach unlocks
      by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe

      Halo: The Master Chief Collection's journey to PC completed with the arrival of Halo 4 late last year, but 343 Industries isn't finished with updating the game across all platforms just yet. Today, the studio launched the fifth season of content for the multi-game collection, delivering a range of new cosmetic unlocks aimed at Halo 3 and Halo: Reach along with a lightweight MCC update.

      Halo: MCC Season 5 is dubbed Anvil and its battle pass has 100 unique new items for customizing player armor, weapons, and nameplates. These include armor pieces from the Halo Online project finally being implemented to Halo 3 and the cut GRD helmet over to Halo: Reach. The timed seasonal challenges this time offer some interesting rewards as well, including the humorous 'Mister Chief' helmet.

      The free battle pass requires Season Points for unlocking this content as usual, which can be earned from simply ranking up by playing any of the included Halo experiences, as well as completing challenges that refresh daily, weekly, and across seasons. Moreover, all content from battle passes remains a part of the collection even after a season ends, letting players go back and unlock content from previous rounds.

      Today's Halo: MCC update is related to the cosmetic side as well. Players will now find a new toggle in the options menu for disabling or enabling the new skins being added to Halo 3, letting those who prefer the original experience keep it that way. The game already had a similar toggle set up for the new Halo: Combat Evolved skins.

      Halo: The Master Chief Collection Season 5 Anvil is now available for all PC (Steam and Microsoft Store), Xbox One, and Xbox Series X|S players. The size of the update will be around 258MB on Steam, 6.3GB on the Microsoft Store PC version, and up to 9.9GB for Xbox consoles.

    • By Hamza Jawad
      Microsoft releases 2021 release wave 1 plans for Dynamics 365 and the Power Platform
      by Hamza Jawad



      In June last year, Microsoft released the 2020 release wave 2 timeline for its Power Platform and Dynamics 365 services. This was the second and final major release wave for the previous year. Today, the Redmond firm has unveiled plans for the first release wave for this year concerning both the aforementioned platforms.

      The 2021 release wave 1 plans provides information on the major enhancements and new capabilities that will be arriving for Dynamics 365 and the Power Platform between April and September. The timeline below showcases a quick overview of how users can expect this rollout to commence over the following months:

      January 27: Release plans unveiled February 1: Early Access available - customers to be allowed to test the features in a non-production environment TBA: Release plans to be made available in 11 additional languages; namely Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese (Brazilian), Spanish, and Swedish April 1: General availability - Production deployments begin, with regional deployments to initiate on April 2 For Dynamics 365, the focus of the new capabilities will center around Marketing, Sales, Customer Service, Field Service, Finance, Supply Chain Management, Project Operations, Guides, Human Resources, Commerce, Fraud Protection, Business Central, Customer Insights, Customer Voice, and industry accelerators. For the Power Platform, meanwhile, all services falling under its scope including Power BI, Power Apps, Power Automate, and Power Virtual Agents will be improved upon. Microsoft has also specifically remarked upon new capabilities for the AI Builder and Power Apps portal in Power Apps.

      Interested users can check out the detailed release plans for the Power Platform here, and for Dynamics 365 here.