Devs Speak on PS3.0
- Thread starter Ardrid
- Start date
Hellbinder said:LOL, Ati has been orffering FP24 Render targets... Even better FP24 *MULTIPLE* Render Targets since the R300's LaunchGraphixViolence said:I particularly liked how Andrey from CryTek gave his little checklist of all the supposedly useful new features of SM3.0... including 16-bit FP render targets and MRT which the 9700 Pro has already had for the last year and a half
He was talking about FP16 blending num-nut. (multi-pass HDR rendering)
Mark Davis said:
Yeah alright carmack is gonna change from openGl to D3D to support the new PS 3.0.
Mark Davis said:
How about we use a morden game to look at the FPS say like far cry rather then a game that doesn't use any sort of DX8.0+ gen pixel shader? since no game is out that supports PS3.0 wouldn't it mean that current games are wrong to measure the expected FPS of future games that gonna us more complex effects?
Most of the other comments made I thought where valid but I dunno about this.
Tim Sweeny said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this done Per Vertex????
another article about the PS2.0 <-> PS3.0 discussion :
http://www.gamers-depot.com/interviews/dx9b/001.htm
http://www.gamers-depot.com/interviews/dx9b/001.htm
I found some comments startlingly facetious and marketing-laden. 
I found this an unfortunate inclusion.
In the rest of his comments, the usage of words like "obvious" and "huge" give the entire thing the sound of an advertisement, though the actual things discussed in that other commentary seem otherwise informative. Sort of matching the comments by Rowan that are on the "opposite side", with a similar touch of hype and focus on their own applications specifically, except that Rowan comments of that type happened to talk less expansively
OTOH, I found Andrey's and Rick's comments the most thoughtful and generally informative about the actual question. There was some turning of a blind eye to whether some things NV40 offered with its "PS 3.0/SM 3.0/CineFX 3.0" that it is trying to make synonymous, could actually be (or have already been done) without PS 3.0 on another card by Andrey, but that seems reasonably interpretd to be the result of the context of the question.
I found Bart's response the most gamer-centric and unadorned, while making it clear that it was restricted to his experience and opinion.
Tim Sweeny said:
I found this an unfortunate inclusion.
In the rest of his comments, the usage of words like "obvious" and "huge" give the entire thing the sound of an advertisement, though the actual things discussed in that other commentary seem otherwise informative. Sort of matching the comments by Rowan that are on the "opposite side"
, with a similar touch of hype and focus on their own applications specifically, except that Rowan comments of that type happened to talk less expansivelyOTOH, I found Andrey's and Rick's comments the most thoughtful and generally informative about the actual question. There was some turning of a blind eye to whether some things NV40 offered with its "PS 3.0/SM 3.0/CineFX 3.0" that it is trying to make synonymous, could actually be (or have already been done) without PS 3.0 on another card by Andrey, but that seems reasonably interpretd to be the result of the context of the question.
I found Bart's response the most gamer-centric and unadorned, while making it clear that it was restricted to his experience and opinion.
demalion said:
It suggests to me that he's probably doing the least forward looking development right now.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
A good reason why I returned UT 2004, developers part of the TWIMTBP are worse than a used car saleseman. Ever seen the movie 'Used Cars' with Kurt Russell, that is exactly how I picture Sweeny.
It used to be developers coded for the API, and used the strengths of all cards, now its 'show me the money' and I'll make your graphic card shine.
It used to be developers coded for the API, and used the strengths of all cards, now its 'show me the money' and I'll make your graphic card shine.
You returned a brilliant game because you don't like the lead engine programmers views? :?Doomtrooper said:
Reading the article it does seem that the developers most keen on SM3.0 are the ones that are developing the most cutting edge engines. When it comes down to engine programming I trust sweeney/carmack/crytek over some guy who works for Gas or wrote the engine for Tribes.
DaveBaumann said:
Actually, Rowan's comments struck me as the least forward looking, because they emphasized a limited subset of even PS 2.0.Bart simply talked about not seeing things beyond PS 2.0 as being "must have" and focused on PS 2.0 and minimum requirements, which would indeed be quite significantly forward looking in combination.
What he was the "least" at, IMO, was being talkative about the possibilities of technology and what it could achieve (as in pretty much not at all), and therefore leaving the reader the most uninformed about what his development was. I called this unadorned because this happened to be all that was required to answer the question and it made no pretensions on speaking further than his own perspective in recognition of what it lacked.
It is, of course, without the interesting technical discussions and evaluations of some other comments, so might be the "most boring" as well.
It's really sad to see how developers cater to their financiers and their publishers when voicing an opinion on future features and the impact it has on consumers purchasing decisions.
Basically it reads like yes it’s important because our financier says so. No it’s not important because our financier says so.
They should have asked the questions like this, “if you didn’t get paid by X how important is PS 3.0 over 2.0 as pertains to CURRENT CARD purchasing and future proofing that purchase for lets say the next 18 monthsâ€
I would bet my house that the answers would have been quit different on all counts.
As it stands now I take all of their comments with a grain of salt, call me cynical, but I’m way to experienced to see it any other way.
As for Andrey Khonich – Crytek, Makers of Far Cry, all I have to say is get to work. Your game needs serious patching and a hell of a lot more support than you have been giving the people that paid for the game.
Basically it reads like yes it’s important because our financier says so. No it’s not important because our financier says so.
They should have asked the questions like this, “if you didn’t get paid by X how important is PS 3.0 over 2.0 as pertains to CURRENT CARD purchasing and future proofing that purchase for lets say the next 18 monthsâ€
I would bet my house that the answers would have been quit different on all counts.
As it stands now I take all of their comments with a grain of salt, call me cynical, but I’m way to experienced to see it any other way.
As for Andrey Khonich – Crytek, Makers of Far Cry, all I have to say is get to work. Your game needs serious patching and a hell of a lot more support than you have been giving the people that paid for the game.
DW Fan!!!!! said:Thats your opinion and I understand your point, the problem is, its actually amazing what TWIMTBP members will do to protect Nvidia (do you remember TRAOD).
Also almost all Devs will have been at those same events including those which were interviewed, these are people who are'nt fooled by Nvidia's propaganda.
I personally think BOTH Get In The Game and TWIMTBP are BAD things and we do not need them, they are purely for marketing and that is what they are doing but you do not agree and that is fine as everyone has there own point of view and opinion of whats going on around them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree
Its pretty much because Nivida is sending them a fat Check to get there logo on the game box. So of course they are going to protect Nivida.
Anybody who still believes that PS2.0 is better than PS3.0 should read this article. For a development standpoint, I get the feeling that PS3.0 is 100's of times better than PS2.0 because of the flow control and other parts like multiple light sources.
I didn't see anything wrong with Epic's response - unless you in ATI marketting and response that only marketing guys would like 24bit instead 32bit precision.
Just my input on this topic.
I didn't see anything wrong with Epic's response - unless you in ATI marketting and response that only marketing guys would like 24bit instead 32bit precision.
Just my input on this topic.
