???The engine is designed to cater for 60fps at 4k, my feeling is performance takes more priority than pushing visuals. The first engine demonstration trailer is probably indicative of the general look and feel of what's to come, more or less.
It still has to run on 1S, 1X and Lockhart at 60fps with all the stuffs you mentioned so one could assume the base level design, amount of enemy spawn, interaction, geometry lay out etc wouldn't change all that much between the platforms otherwise one version could play quite differently mechanically. Take Halo 5 for example, the main differences between the 1X and 1S are the 4K resolution and improved AF. 99% of the asset quality is the same, as well as lighting, shading, particles, level density.???
Who said that
They have 4K, they have 60fps. They have PC as well which can scale as high as people want.
They don't have to reduce the visual fidelity bar at all.
They have an engine that is catered towards Halo. That means they aren't designing a game to be a walking forest simulator because that isn't the type of game it's going to be. It's going to be supporting wide, expansive, fast gameplay with air and ground vehicles, with long distance aiming, all sorts of large AOE type weapons.
That is what the engine is catering towards.
And why would a engine designed to support all those things be incapable of looking great or incapable of scaling up very high?It still has to run on 1S, 1X and Lockhart at 60fps with all the stuffs you mentioned so one could assume the base level design, amount of enemy spawn, interaction, geometry lay out etc wouldn't change all that much between the platforms otherwise one version could play quite differently mechanically. Take Halo 5 for example, the main differences between the 1X and 1S are the 4K resolution and improved AF. 99% of the asset quality is the same, as well as lighting, shading, particles, level density.
Now I don't know how the Slip space engine scales for all the versions, just having some speculation and putting current gen into the equation. Would be interesting to see the difference between the 1S and XSX version come release.
about 720pish if you are comparing native to native.Just to play devil's advocate - the Series X is ~10x more powerful than the One S in pure flops and a LOT more in practical performance.
The One's games are going to look pretty shoddy for the last few games that are required to be present on both machines.
Edit: what's a 10th-15th of 4k?
I dunno, I wasn't around back then, well I had the games, but I didn't compare things in this way. I think for a short period of time Halo 3 was considered to be fairly high end. Halo 4 was also fairly impressive for what they accomplished looking at the hardware they worked with.And I say this as a Halo fan who has played them all(except Halo 5)....but has Halo ever really been on the bleeding edge in terms of graphics? I guess the first one sorta did at the time... what always stood out to me about Halo was more the physics engine if anything..
I'm expecting good but not mind-blowing stuff with Infinite. At the end of the day it's got a Microsoft budget behind it.
about 720pish if you are comparing native to native.
I dunno, I wasn't around back then, well I had the games, but I didn't compare things in this way. I think for a short period of time Halo 3 was considered to be fairly high end. Halo 4 was also fairly impressive for what they accomplished looking at the hardware they worked with.
From what I can see right now, in what they've shown, a lot of high quality DOF, high quality dynamic lighting, materials are looking very good. Huge vistas, landscapes etc.
I'm most impressed by lighting. That's just me. And dynamic lighting is one of the highest computation costs for graphics, so if you can nail amazing dynamic lighting and have amazing graphics alongside that - you've succeeded in my books.
Minecraft RTX is still the tour de force for me, hoping to see more of that.
you doing it by pixel count or by resolution?Looks grimer than that. I calculate either:
1152x648
768x432
It'll more likely be the lower end of those numbers too. Maybe I'm even being conservative. What other compromises can they make?
Goes to show the differences between the two machines though. Wowzer.
That's probably a relic from previous generations where the engine empowered the artist and there was a clear difference between a 'good' engine and not so good engine. Getting a good looking game on PS2 meant very clever coders who could write an effective engine that got the most from it. These days the hardware is very accessible and any game can use PBR and baked lighting to look good, so there ain't a huge amount to differentiate on overall look, and the difference will come in terms of optimisation and how many FPS a game gets with a particular engine.Way too much credit is given to code, hardware, and how much and engine can utilize said hardware, without people giving the real credit to the cost and labour to produce the effects, the details, and the art for a game.
you doing it by pixel count or by resolution?
1280 * 720 = 921600px
3840*2160 = 8294400px
= 9x pixel difference.
If you 1/2 the frame rate and reconstruct there should be enough room there to make up the power differential.
Even then, it's conservative. It's a 10x raw power differential. We didn't take into account how efficient they are at leveraging each clock cycle.
The lower the resolution the worst reconstruction looks, especially if the lower one is then half the framerate.If you 1/2 the frame rate and reconstruct there should be enough room there to make up the power differential.
YesI was counting by pixels. It's highly unlikely to be a 9x difference between them, only in raw tflops. Didn't Cerny state that the RDNA2 CUs are like 60% larger?
2160p is 3840 x 2160 == 8294400 pixels. 10% of that is 829440 pixels. That's a little under 720p, about 1216 x 684.Looks grimer than that. I calculate either:
1152x648
768x432
Direct calculation is SQRT(pixels / 144) for a 16:9 aspect screen. That's SQRT(pixels / (16 x 9))you doing it by pixel count or by resolution?
Realistically that far favours a larger delta as XBSX is a significant advance in hardware efficiency at those flops. If we go with the rule of thumb RDNA versus GCN flops is 3:2 or whatever, you'd be looking at maybe more like XBSX being 15x the GPU power.Even then, it's conservative. It's a 10x raw power differential. We didn't take into account how efficient they are at leveraging each clock cycle.
Looks grimer than that. I calculate either:
1152x648
768x432
It'll more likely be the lower end of those numbers too. Maybe I'm even being conservative. What other compromises can they make?
.