Probably best not to just quote the one post. Out of context it may lead to trouble!
First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
Probably best not to just quote the one post. Out of context it may lead to trouble!
archangelmorph
Veteran
Im sure it will
Did they do this changes after the E3 demo?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1039398&postcount=88
"I was at the presentation yesterday. Some interesting ideas. Overall, dropping HDR, 4X MSAA for 2X, using only 12 (6) taps on 512x512 shadowmaps for the main directional light, dropping specular color for materials, dropping directional lightmaps, dropping shadows and per-pixel lighting on particles, only one lighting model for the entire world, for the sake of more lights (actually, for the sake of lighting performance non-dependent on the geometry but only on fragments lit which would be desirable) didn't seem worth it to me."
Are you deliberately trying to troll or maybe you just didn't realise that your actions would be interpreted as such..?
In anycase the answer to your question is directly no.. The "changes" were never made full stop..
These "tradeoffs" were made as "design decisions", way before any part of the Killzone engine got implemented I suspect..
Next time I'd spend a little more time and think about what your trying to achieve before posting obakan..
Im sure it will
Did they do this changes after the E3 demo?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1039398&postcount=88
"I was at the presentation yesterday. Some interesting ideas. Overall, dropping HDR, 4X MSAA for 2X, using only 12 (6) taps on 512x512 shadowmaps for the main directional light, dropping specular color for materials, dropping directional lightmaps, dropping shadows and per-pixel lighting on particles, only one lighting model for the entire world, for the sake of more lights (actually, for the sake of lighting performance non-dependent on the geometry but only on fragments lit which would be desirable) didn't seem worth it to me."
These are not new changes--all of these design trade-offs were in the E3 demo already, and we've all seen the end result. Stop trolling.
yes in CoD2 and CoD3 and I'd assume CoD4
You could even shoot of the helmet in MoH1.
dabomb665m
Newcomer
because shooting off helmets is why we play these games, right boys?
because shooting off helmets is why we play these games, right boys?
No, because shooting off their helmets is the only way to get at their unprotected heads and get the head shot!
Looking at the trailer all helghasts of that model has the helmet lit in the front like that shot, so no.
It's an impressive shot nonetheless.
From that pic, I'd say no. The yellow in the helmet is light from the goggles. So far I haven't seen any evidence of indirect illumination.
How does the upper lip of the helmet get illuminated then ?
I can understand the bottom lip being lit by the goggles, but I wouldn't think it be possible for the upper lip to be lit by them ?
Perhaps it is bleed-through?
...or the actual light in the engine is not in the same place as where you see the light emitting texture.
That does not look like indirect lighting, and if it is then a lot of other games provides the same lighting effect.
Edit: I just thought about this first ss shown of KZ2, notice the helmet forehead
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/img_4692210.html
Last edited by a moderator:
archangelmorph
Veteran
Problem is GG aren't selling their engine and therefore they don't need to "sell it" if you get my meaning..
As far as i'm concerned i'll just be happy to see some of their technology shared among Sony's other internal studios for whatever games they may work on in the future.. Granted it's probably not going to be suited to all game types but i'm sure there's enough in there (especially with regards to SPU [practical] usage) for other to be able to take out and adapt to their own needs..
would love to c resistance 2 using deffered rendering. also wish they could tell us how much SPU power they've harnessed for the game.Problem is GG aren't selling their engine and therefore they don't need to "sell it" if you get my meaning..
As far as i'm concerned i'll just be happy to see some of their technology shared among Sony's other internal studios for whatever games they may work on in the future.. Granted it's probably not going to be suited to all game types but i'm sure there's enough in there (especially with regards to SPU [practical] usage) for other to be able to take out and adapt to their own needs..
