PS3: New Dirt Pics

[djskribbles]

I wasn't impressed with the demo. No AA, bad shadows, screen tearing. Motorstorm, a launch title, puts it to shame. The bloom effect was turned down a notch, which is a good thing. Frame rate was also good, but overall it doesn't look as good as the 360 demo, which I had running at the same time.

the only fault i saw was a little aliasing but it wasn't that bad imo and i didn't even notice it while playing. i saw no tearing or bad shadows. the bloom was definitely toned down a bit, but i think it was for the better. it almost looks like the contrast was set far too high losing white detail. as you can see in the comparison, you can see more detail in the white/light colored path and the numbers on the vehicles. also, i did notice a little less grass and there are fewer or no spectators in the stands in the distance in that one shot.

overall, i think the demo looks great and it runs at a solid 30fps; i did not notice the framerate dip at all.

 

[DJ12]

The shadows actually appear more detailed to me.

http://sr-388.net/images/gaming/ps3/dirt/DSCF6556.jpg PS3

http://sr-388.net/images/gaming/ps3/dirt/DSCF6519.jpg 360

Look at the shadow cast against the wall, you can make out shapes in the PS3 shot where the 360 is just a car shaped blur.

 

[patsu]

The question is whether the demo is indicative of the final game, or has Sony shot themselves in the foot again by releasing old build.

 

[valioso]

If you havent played the 360 version is def worth the buy if you like rally racing.

 

[Todd33]

I should be more clear on the shadow comment, because of the lack of AA, the shadows would move and flicker on the PS3. Of course I was studying scenes when the car was idle, most players will be moving

I did not notice any lack of objects or trees. I did like the frame rate and bloom better on the PS3, but it does not look as good when staring with a critical eye. If they just turned on some AA it might be as good, but the frame rate trade off might not be worth it.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I did not notice any lack of objects or trees.

Look again, on the screenshot in the post by DJ12, you can see that there are no crowds and far less trees, and less signs.

 

[patsu]

Todd, besides framerate, did you notice the other differences that the developer mentioned ? Sound, load time, 1080p rendering ? How big an improvement is the framerate ?

As for your question. The far away spectator is missing in one of the snapshots (They are there in the rest). There are a few trees missing.


EDIT: Ok, I just realize the game has been released on Xbox 360, are you comparing the demo to a full game ? Will wait for more impressions later then.

 

[Neb]

Look again, on the screenshot in the post by DJ12, you can see that there are no crowds and far less trees, and less signs.

That is quite some difference and the xbox360 shadows are smother whilst the PS3 version has more rough edges (jaggies).

Let's see how the final game looks like considering this game is optimized for the PS3.

 

[Todd33]

Look again, on the screenshot in the post by DJ12, you can see that there are no crowds and far less trees, and less signs.

Unlike you, I played both versions. There are crowds in both. Whether or not the LOD, angle, position, etc. is different is another point. As for inconsequential trees and stuff (which is impossible to tell without studying screenshots), I'm sure that was part of the optimization after the frame rate critique of the 360 version. Do you want constant 30fps or more tree at 20fps?

 

[Todd33]

Todd, besides framerate, did you notice the other differences that the developer mentioned ? Sound, load time, 1080p rendering ? How big an improvement is the framerate ?

As for your question. The far away spectator is missing in one of the snapshots (They are there in the rest). There are a few trees missing.


EDIT: Ok, I just realize the game has been released on Xbox 360, are you comparing the demo to a full game ? Will wait for more impressions later then.

I compared the demos, though I have played the 360 full game. No 1080P, load times I'm sure have to do with with disc based loading, both demos are from the HD and both are long IMO. I don't have great equipment for audio comparisons.

 

[Neb]

Unlike you, I played both versions. There are crowds in both. Whether or not the LOD, angle, position, etc. is different is another point.

I am shure that the crowds are in both versions but at what draw-distance, the same or is it different?

More aggressive LOD means that they have made graphical sacrifices in favor of perfomance.

 

[Todd33]

I am shure that the crowds are in both versions but at what draw-distance, the same or is it different?

More aggressive LOD means that they have made graphical sacrifices in favor of perfomance.

It was really hard to tell in game, but I guess the SS show something going on.

 

[patsu]

No 1080P, load times I'm sure have to do with with disc based loading, both demos are from the HD and both are long IMO. I don't have great equipment for audio comparisons.

Ok thanks ! Guess we really have to wait for the final game to see the 1080p support and load time acceleration (if any).

 

[D3B]

That is quite some difference and the xbox360 shadows are smother whilst the PS3 version has more rough edges (jaggies).

Let's see how the final game looks like considering this game is optimized for the PS3.

There are no jaggies even up close to something in the FPS view.

 

[Tap In]

looks good on both... and it is a fun game with the best menus ever... graphics are amazing IMO... I do like the more rich looking lighting on the 360 version though (HDR not in the PS3 version?).

but... if they were not labeled I probably could not have told you which system it had come from.

 

[Mmmkay]

I should be more clear on the shadow comment, because of the lack of AA, the shadows would move and flicker on the PS3. Of course I was studying scenes when the car was idle, most players will be moving

I did not notice any lack of objects or trees. I did like the frame rate and bloom better on the PS3, but it does not look as good when staring with a critical eye. If they just turned on some AA it might be as good, but the frame rate trade off might not be worth it.

You're not seeing the AA? Because I am...


The shadows look to have been done in a completely different way to the 360 version, there's no dithering on the 360.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I do like the more rich looking lighting on the 360 version though (HDR not in the PS3 version?).

but... if they were not labeled I probably could not have told you which system it had come from.

This subject came up many months ago. I remember vaguely that the PS3's output is calibrated differently, or something. Perhaps this is a matter of HDMI's output range of something? I think though that often, and we have seen it before, direct grabs from PS3 come out darker and duller. What you'd really need to see is XB360 and PS3 on the same screen and with the same degree of calibration, so mid-grey on PS3's out is mid-grey on the display, gamma set appropriately. You'd also need to know that the artists didn't make any changes between platforms. That NEOgaf image to me just looks like the PS3 scene has toned-down brightness. The idea the HDR makes bright areas look bright is one of those hateful common misconceptions! You can have HDR where everything's dark, because it's a dark scene and in tonemapping you want to keep it low-key. And you can add overexposure to overbrighten things without needing HDR either. HDR is about preserving information across the whole lightrange.

My personal guess, seeing the excessive bloom in the XB360 version, I think the PS3 pics shown have are exhibiting the artist's touch rather than major technical differences.

 

[Tap In]

thanks Shifty

 

[Mintmaster]

(HDR not in the PS3 version?).

Both have bloom going on there. The 360 version just has a lot more, possibly because they used a similar algorithm on both but the larger range of FP10 calls for more bloom. (Also, is the PS3 version driving at a different time of day? The lights look on. Does DiRT do time of day effects?) Whether you call this lack of HDR is up to you, I suppose. Technically that's probably right, but there's nothing in those 360 shots that couldn't be done on PS3 with near zero impact.

What I notice more is a huge difference in the grass coverage. It's a apparent in a few screenshots. That was one of the key things that set apart the graphics of DiRT from other racers, IMO. I think it clearly has the best environment detail of them all (PGR3's detail is mostly limited to buildings).

You're not seeing the AA? Because I am...

I think he was talking about the shadows, not the geometry. DJ12 said the PS3 had more detailed shadows, but it's really due to either more samples or a blur pass for the ground shadows in the 360 version. The PS3 version's shadows would alias more in motion.

 

[Mmmkay]

Ah, I may have read too fast then, my apologies.