Not sure. In some shots it seems yes, but that may just be some clever post-processing. In others, 360 yes, PS3 no.
Yeah, seem nearly identical to me. Both look to have some AA.
Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Yeah, seem nearly identical to me. Both look to have some AA.
That is just a backpack, since the game NPCs are dynamically generated.. the game just decided to put a backpack on that guy for that time it was run.
biggest? but in general or in this game? Because if is it the last sound like so strange...The soldier clothes are done with the good-old detail map 'texture-compression' - ie. high frequency detail (in this case, normal map repeated-noise patterns) is 'high'-resolution, while low-frequency detail (diffuse/color textures, base normal map etc.) are low-resolution.grandmaster said:
It's pretty obvious in shots that have soldiers in closeup, across all platforms.
I would hardly call a jagged shadow more detailed. Hell, I'd argue the opposite.
For example 1024x1024 shadowmaps without soft edges and/or jittering will look worse than 512x512 soft/jittered shadowmaps. But to low shadowmap resolution + soft edges/jittering will look bad in motion becouse you will see "steps/blocks" of the shadows whenever the shadows move.
But looking at comparision 1 they seem to have same shadowmap resolution but xbox360 has soft edges (or maybe just the angle that masks it?).
Shot 1.
360 lacking mapping/same detail on the clothes on middle guy?
PS3 lacking same intensive lighting for light source?
PC and PS3 jaggies visible on shadows?
Shot 2.
PS3 less AA and less moon glare?
PS3 lacks some vegetation/shrub on the ground to the right of the gun?
Shot 3.
PS3 more pronounced mapping detail or just "angle for the moment" situation?
PS3 more aggressive LOD for mapping/texture (ground/rock) under the tank/above the middle guys head?
Shot 4.
360 more grass, longer draw distance for grass?
PS3 and xbox different vegetation color/lighting?
PC has better LOD for bushes (left corner)?
360 more "trees" on the right side (thin "ropes" or whatever they are called)?
Shot 5
Difference in the LOD for tree at the top right corner?
360 has less (lower res) or no mapping on the shoe?
PS3 fire effect resolution lower (windows)?
PS3 less AF (middle ground textures)?
Shot 6.
360 and PS3 differences in mapping on soldiers?
Interesting and good screenshots to use for comparision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the game basically running on the COD4 engine with new fire effects, or is it significantly improved ie like GoW2's UE3.5.
Because if its basically the same engine with different art, then there's not going to be major differences as COD4 had parity between 360/PS3 thanks to Infinity Wards hard work.
And has anyone confirmed the resolution/AA is the same as COD4 (600p/2AA) or have they bumped up the rez to full 720p. The slight blurriness in the console screens posted (similar to COD4) seems to indicate the former.
Because if its basically the same engine with different art, then there's not going to be major differences as COD4 had parity between 360/PS3 thanks to Infinity Wards hard work.
And has anyone confirmed the resolution/AA is the same as COD4 (600p/2AA) or have they bumped up the rez to full 720p. The slight blurriness in the console screens posted (similar to COD4) seems to indicate the former.
grandmaster
Veteran
Resolution seems identical, and it's the same engine with new fire effects. The definition of parity in a broader sense is best reserved for the game tech and frame rate threads.
Is there something weird with the PS3 bump mapping? It looks like it's too pronounce.
[url]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9765/image2kx9.th.jpg[/IMG]
i noticed that too, its similar to the prominent normal mapping on the PS3 version of Fallout 3.
Unfortunately, in COD5 it doesn't look as realistic as the 360's less pronounced mapping. Especially looking at these screens:
Mod Edit: A gentle reminder that whether or not something looks good/better is not the focus of discussion. -AlS
PS3http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7339/cod5ps3004lf3.jpg
360http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2250/cod5360004om9.jpg
Look at the back of the soldier
PS3http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/383/codps3006rx4.jpg
360http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6815/cod360006gi9.jpg
The boot and lower leg of the dead soldier in the foreground. This pic also seems to show that the 360 has slightly better (perhaps through implementation) AA, notice the slightly more complete tree branches, next to the burning building in the top right of the screen. Though it could be just LOD or a one off thing
PS3http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2259/cod5ps3002eo7.jpg
360http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6528/cod5360002wa7.jpg
Less prominent in this scene, but still sharper than the 360's, look at the soldiers helmet/back, and the knife scabbard on the back of the soldier standing in front of him.
360http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6528/cod5360002wa7.jpg
Less prominent in this scene, but still sharper than the 360's, look at the soldiers helmet/back, and the knife scabbard on the back of the soldier standing in front of him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ouch, the difference between either console version and PC is immense. I checked the game resolution lists but couldn't find it, does anyone know if CoD:WaW is still using a lower native resolution? And if so, which one? The quality degradation is quite pronounced here.
Eurogamer has a good comparision posted confirms that both versions are 600p with AA enabled.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=308281&page=1
it confirms that at certain scenes the PS3 drops environmental details (such as vines) to maintain framerate (the 360 version runs smoother than the PS3 by 10-20%).
And confirms that the PS3 has shiner/more pronounced normal maps (i wonder why? extra space due to Blu-ray?, the 360 has more memory for textures so its interesting).
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=308281&page=1
it confirms that at certain scenes the PS3 drops environmental details (such as vines) to maintain framerate (the 360 version runs smoother than the PS3 by 10-20%).
And confirms that the PS3 has shiner/more pronounced normal maps (i wonder why? extra space due to Blu-ray?, the 360 has more memory for textures so its interesting).
Last edited by a moderator:
NXE in 720p again
old dashboard was in 720p because little firmware (16MB) but now with a 128MB budget i hoped a 1080p NXE
Are they using any AA for the avatars? I have to admit some puzzlement as to why they don't use vector graphics for the 2D items at the very least (unless that's not the issue; I haven't had time to grab NXE).
NXE in 720p again
old dashboard was in 720p because little firmware (16MB) but now with a 128MB budget i hoped a 1080p NXE
I have to admit that I do not understand the sad smiley context. I think it looks great on my 1080p set.
From a technical perspective, would it be becuase all of the content that is displayed compared to the blades system.
a 1080p GUI in a Full HD TV it's 1:1 mapping and it's faaar better and legible, 720p it's ridiculous for a 2008/2009 GUI
I agree, seeing as the 360 can display up to 1080p, surely this should be an option with the GUI. It must be down to the actual space the gfx's take up thats dictated that it should be 720p.
Like someone said earlier though, surely they could have made the majority of gfx as vector thus reducing the space required and then it could be made on the fly.
Similar threads
