You may want to re-read what Fran posted (almost a year ago too
). He's saying there's nothing done in Gears of War that cannot be done on RSX i.e. it would be possible.
RSX: Vertex input limited? *FKATCT
- Thread starter Hypx
- Start date
You may want to re-read what Fran posted (almost a year ago too
). He's saying there's nothing done in Gears of War that cannot be done on RSX i.e. it would be possible.peacegamer
Newcomer
Well, no... I was actually agreeing with Fran, quoting nAo's post n. 54, which in turn was quoting ShootMyMonkey... well, it's getting too complicated... my fault, sorry.
archangelmorph
Veteran
Are you being sarcastic?
Seems to me that the PS3 development community is producing better results than at launch... threads like this one that were once rampant have all but ceased and people are basking in the glory of a few really good-looking exclusives such as Uncharted and R&C. Given the optimizations currently available (new dev tools) can this type of discussion be pretty much put to rest now?
This type of discussion has been put to rest by the swift hammers of the moderators, not by some magical pixie dust that the new dev tools have blown into the RSX's vertex pipelines.
Threads like this ended in early November, so why dig it up now? And has much changed in the last two months to render discussion on RSX's performance moot?
Eurogamers has an entire series comparing 360 and PS3 games. The good news is that most major gameplay/performance issues have been resolved, the bad news is that, at least at this point, most multiplatform games still peform and/or look a little better on the 360. Interesting topic but one B3D members have had difficulty discussing due to cheerleading and inability to remain ontopic/fact driven. On the technical side I think devs have said about all they can... there are development issues. On all sides, some similar, some different... and yet they march on, the tools have got better on both sides of the fence, and we are starting to see some fairly mature products that really shine (both exclusive and multiplatform) as well as some real dissappointments. Sounds about par for any generation to me. I do admit that most of the 2005 PR E3 rah-rah is pretty dead at this point. Common denominators and fiscal realities have made some of the "potential what ifs" pretty irrelevant over 2 years into this generation. The core technologies that support a viable business model seem to be the core focus.
So, it's harder to develop for the PS3, and it has less memory available (especially for textures) than the Xbox360. And of the available multi-platform games, none (or very few) used the SPUs extensively to do stuff not possible on the other platforms.
Sounds realistic to me.
Does that mean that the PS3 is a bad platform? It is, compared to the others, if you want to run the same game on all. And not many companies develop for it exclusively, and have taken the time to put all the extra power available to good use. Which will take time and study in any case.
Sounds realistic to me.
Does that mean that the PS3 is a bad platform? It is, compared to the others, if you want to run the same game on all. And not many companies develop for it exclusively, and have taken the time to put all the extra power available to good use. Which will take time and study in any case.
I'd say using "good" and "bad" isn't going to get you anywhere.
For example, PS3 forces developers to deviate from the old PPE style coding to data centric coding which helps the game for both PS3 and 360.
Is PS3 good in this sense? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the games in a more efficient way.
Is PS3 bad in this sense? ya, it's harder to write for, and you need to do more work
I'd say that describing it as a "significantly different" platform would suffice.
For example, PS3 forces developers to deviate from the old PPE style coding to data centric coding which helps the game for both PS3 and 360.
Is PS3 good in this sense? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the games in a more efficient way.
Is PS3 bad in this sense? ya, it's harder to write for, and you need to do more work
I'd say that describing it as a "significantly different" platform would suffice.
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
Well, most of the people who complain about or support it basically have the same reasoning why it's good or bad. It's all a matter of which word gets the attention.
Is PS3 a good platform? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the code and data in a more efficient way.
Is PS3 a bad platform? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the code and data in a more efficient way.
Is PS3 a good platform? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the code and data in a more efficient way.
Is PS3 a bad platform? ya, it forces programmers to restructure the code and data in a more efficient way.
think this would help the ps3 and the texture storage?
http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/201800372
http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/201800372
I don't know if it was the whole level or if it was per frame, but I heard somewhere that the uncharted jet-ski levels had 6million polygons. If that was per frame that's impressive.
Well, to be fair, GDC EDGE demo was said to be processing more than 7*30 million triangles/second.
Of course that's not what goes to RSX which is the thread title.
@Butta, that also means all the visually acclaimed PS3 exclusive games don't tell much about RSX even if one ignores art, etc.
IIRC, the English summary of the unseen (at least by me) Spanish (?) interview implied the whole level. However at the time many people thought it was per frame since there was a little ambiguity in the summary.
Anybody has a link to the original interview? Nebula?
You sure? I read a spanish interview, and I also read a translation of said interview, was that what you read? or was it something else?
LINK:
spanish interview thread
Considering that a highly detailed character usually doesn't surpass 200k polygons, 6 million polygons doesn't make sense at all.
Addon:
even crysis doesn't utilize over 100k polygons. I really don't expect the terrain to be more detailed than the characters.
btw
720*1,280=921,600
It make absolutely no sense to me to have a 6:1 ratio between polygons and pixels.
We've heard of people talking of 3M+ polys per frame already, that'd be a 3+:1 ratio roughly going by those calculations.
For comparisons sake, jak and daxter 1's island(whole world) is said to have 50+M polygons for the whole thing.(around 10 hours to beat that game, but IIRC, there are several things to do in the various areas, so you re-thread same territory for quite a bit of it.)
I haven't played uncharted, so I don't know how long or short the jetski segment is, which would help us here.
I do know the interview is a bit ambiguous, he's saying the level is one of the biggest in uncharted, then mid sentence gives the 6M poly figure and starts talking about realtime reflections and bump-mapping, shadowing, refractions, etc.
which would hint at it being things running in realtime, and thus per frame.
Again, the beginning of the sentence would suggest it's is whole level, but the latter part hints otherwise. But if it is one of the biggest levels in uncharted, it might be bigger than jak's island and thus should have more polygons than jak's island.
I'd have to know how big it is to say for sure, maybe it's the biggest by a little or maybe the levels are small in uncharted, in which case the 6 million would be for the whole level.
edit:
But the figure is a bit too high, as you've said, so it is likely it is for the whole level.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
6 million could well be total issued triangle count, which may well be multiplied by all the passes (e.g. Z-Prepass, shadowmap passes, render pass, reflection map pass, etc). The scene itself could be far fewer polygons per frame, but when you consider how many passes there are, it could add up to a lot of tris actually sent to the GPU, albeit with a fair amount of repetition.
Similar threads
