3D Gaming*

They published a paper and boasted about it in interviews. Naturally, people will look for the implementation in their demo. Since they didn't post any warning or disclaimer beforehand, by default, people will of course take it to be the real version.

EDIT: Ah, I see a G4TV preview on their 3D implementation now:
http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/...Player-Preview----Aliens-Take-ManhattanIn-3D/

The demo session, of course, offered an optimal setup for the ideal Crysis 2 experience, which is to say a great big 3D TV. The game's 3D effects opt more for a deep depth-of-field effect than a non-stop hail of bullets and debris seemingly flying at your face. The results are immediately impressive. There's an added sense of scale and grandeur to everything as you weave your way through the broken skyscraper canyons of an alien-invaded Manhattan Island. It's hard to say for sure if the 3D creates a loss of resolution, though, especially without the 2D version handy to compare it to, but the visuals look crisp and clean for the most part, with the notable exception of on-screen text, particularly in the weapon and Nanosuit customization screens.

…
Click to expand...
 
What 3D output options does the 360 support on hdmi 1.4 tvs? Is it only half resolution side-by-side, or does it support full 720p frame packing? If it only supports half-resolution formats impressions from the 360 version may not apply to PS3, and vice versa.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShadowRunner said:
What 3D output options does the 360 support on hdmi 1.4 tvs? Is it only half resolution side-by-side, or does it support full 720p frame packing?
Click to expand...

So far only the side-by-side packing.

If it only supports half-resolution formats impressions from the 360 version may not for to PS3, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Might have missed a word in there...

Well, what's interesting is that DF found that 3D mode was only toggable for 1080p. They may be trying to mitigate the issue by packing the two frames side-by-side into 1920x1080 output to reduce the amount of information loss from packing the information into 640.
 
AlStrong said:
So far only the side-by-side packing.
Click to expand...

Im guessing thats half-sbs rather than full-sbs, bassed on the rest of your post?


Might have missed a word in there...
Click to expand...

Fixed :oops:

Well, what's interesting is that DF found that 3D mode was only toggable for 1080p. They may be trying to mitigate the issue by packing the two frames side-by-side into 1920x1080 output to reduce the amount of information loss from packing the information into 640.
Click to expand...

Would make sense, max res per frame would be 960x1080 in that case. 960x960 would give them the exact same amount of pixels to render as 720p, and then scale that to 960x1080. Not perfect but shouldnt look too bad, certainly better than 640x720.

Have we seen any figures on what KZ3 is rendered at in 3D mode? Its definately much lower than 1280x720.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShadowRunner said:
Im guessing thats half-sbs rather than full-sbs, bassed on the rest of your post?
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1280 squashed into 640 for each eye.


Would make sense, max res per frame would be 960x1080 in that case. 960x960 would give them the exact same amount of pixels to render as 720p, and then scale that to 960x1080. Not perfect but shouldnt look too bad, certainly better than 640x720.
Click to expand...

Yup. From what I can tell they didn't change the render resolution in the beta, so it's 1152x720 packed into 960x1080.

Have we seen any figures on what KZ3 is rendered at in 3D mode? Its definately much lower than 1280x720.
Click to expand...

I think DF and Mazinger covered that. IIRC, it's 640x704 per eye with black bar on bottom. So it's horizontally scaled. This is true parallax as well I believe so it's understandable they'd need to cut back on res.
 
Would Killzone 3 have had to cut it's polygons in half to make 3d at 30fps doable or would they have been able to just develop the game as they would have for 2d and then lower the resolution?

I ask because if it's the former then the 2d version obviously suffers which is highly undesirable given that less than 2-5 percent will be playing it in 3d.
 
I think that's why they added SP co-op so that more people can benefit from their work, not just the 3DTV owners. The same constraints should apply there as well.
 
Yeah but I would have liked to have seen their engine and the PS3 pushed to the limits in the single player campaign. I mean it still looks to look amazing, but alas, what could have been would surely have floored us! I played the demo and it look amazing but are you saying it could have had twice the poly's?

I guess what I'm asking is did they create two sets of poly models for both versions?

I can see Uncharted taking the same route as well. I want the maximum amount of polys in my single player game!
 
Doesnt work like that. There should be no technical reason for poly count to be comprimised on the 2d version. Its no different from split-screen modes in games, the graphics are just paired down in that mode and use lower LOD, resolution etc. Some games have 4 player split screen, there is no way this feature means a 4x reduction in 2D mode.

The only thing really effected by having 3D or split screen modes is time spent on implementing them. This means that the budget is slightly increased by adding these modes due to extra man hours, or the 2D version is negatively effected by having less man hours spent on it.

Ofcourse design descisions may effect the 2D version, for example removal of an effect from 2D mode due to it not playing well in 3D and them wanting to maintain total consitency between the two, but again this is a design descision and not a technical one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MBDF said:
Would Killzone 3 have had to cut it's polygons in half to make 3d at 30fps doable or would they have been able to just develop the game as they would have for 2d and then lower the resolution?
Click to expand...

They can push the 2D as much as they want, but it'll just be more work to accommodate the 3D path because they'll be working with double the geometry load. You'll see how much more aggressive they are with LOD in the upcoming DF analysis (Just a reminder for all that the DF discussion should be in the appropriate thread).

edit: as shadowrunner says.

patsu said:
I think that's why they added SP co-op so that more people can benefit from their work, not just the 3DTV owners. The same constraints should apply there as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah. In theory, the workload would be similar with split-screen being simply a second controller having control over view number two. They'll want to keep the pixel resolution similar as well, but there are implications to having player two in the world with more wildly fluctuating performance.
 
AlStrong said:
They can push the 2D as much as they want, but it'll just be more work to accommodate the 3D path because they'll be working with double the geometry load. You'll see how much more aggressive they are with LOD in the upcoming DF analysis (Just a reminder for all that the DF discussion should be in the appropriate thread).
Click to expand...

Nice. I look forward to it.
 
I seached but didnt find anything. I was wondering If the Wii could do 3D, we know the tech was in the Gamecube and was wondering if the tech was
still there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Dedicated gaming GPUs bottom of the priority list?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Seanspeed
S
F
RDNA5 Speculation
Replies
2
Views
1K
Erinyes
E
R
Gaming and gaming hardware trends
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
eastmen
E
B
Game Engine Convergence And The Problem With UE5
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
17K
cheapchips
C
Cyan
Playtron : new Linux based platform-agnostic open gaming OS
Replies
10
Views
2K
MfA
M
Back
Top