There is even MLAA LBP 2 vs LBP 2xMSAA... to me, MLAA is a lot better of simple 2xMSAA, far away... the only problems are the blobbed effect in slow camera motion in some edge, but I think it's a compromise acceptable after all. Could be interesting to see in the future, if will be possible to mask those artifacts or less...
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2010]
- Thread starter liolio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
There is even MLAA LBP 2 vs LBP 2xMSAA... to me, MLAA is a lot better of simple 2xMSAA, far away... the only problems are the blobbed effect in slow camera motion in some edge, but I think it's a compromise acceptable after all. Could be interesting to see in the future, if will be possible to mask those artifacts or less...
That AA used in NFS:HP reminds me of GTA IV
http://www.gram.pl/upl/news/20080913082333.jpg
Obviously a PC screenshot but the power lines looked liked that in console versions as well.
http://www.gram.pl/upl/news/20080913082333.jpg
Obviously a PC screenshot but the power lines looked liked that in console versions as well.
GTAIV has blur filter and DOF aswell as A2C. Anyway the blur in GTAIV is by far worse. I got the game on PC and even at native 1680x1050 res on a 20" LCD monitor it is a blurfest. Upscaled 1280x720 games looks betterand I use ATI GPU scaling.
The demo code and shipping code are different, they don't look the same. To properly compare the effects of their mlaa, we need the final build with it both on and off. We can't do that so there is no way to know what effect on texture detail it has.
I saw lbp2 at e3, but again there was no non mlaa version to compare it to so I can't come to any conclusion as to what it does to textures. Devs do all sorts of post process, so there is no way for me to know if a slight blur or softness to textures is a result of mlaa, or from other post process steps, intentional artistic look, etc. The only way to know is:
1) take final build of game
2) take screen grab with mlaa
3) take identical screen grab without mlaa
4) compare
That's it, there is no other way to know.
The LBP1 pics aren't Digital Foundry direct digital grabs and are slightly blurred captures. They are no use for comparing texture quality.
The Under Siege one is probably the best, but..not full size:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22661479&postcount=29
Rock textures look a bit flatter..
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22661479&postcount=29
Rock textures look a bit flatter..
You have to compare the 720p shot with MLAA and the other with No AA and the result is impressive imho, only the jaggies are reduced and it seem that the texture quality remain the same
In 1080p, on the other hand, there is some clearly improvement on the ground texture and the jaggies are a lot more reduced compared to the 720p.
This should come as no surprise. MLAA isn't applied where there is low-contrast between pixels, meaning textures as left well alone as the texturing hardware ensure they are suitably antialiased. MLAA could apply to shader aliasing which could result in a degree of blurring I guess, depending on how it's handled.
dragonelite
Veteran
Fall out new vegas face off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-fallout-new-vegas-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-fallout-new-vegas-face-off
360 looks alot better. Can someone please tell me why ps3 versions of multiplats are always washed out? Are they using better lighting on the 360?
Interesting to see the differences in assets detailed here.
Engine wise it seems this game is basically a content pack for FallOut 3 with no engine improvements at all. Note that the difference in voice size for PS3 is that all different languages are included on the BD disc. The PS3 pays for having 50% higher texture resolution on disc (equal to PC) by having more loading / streaming issues and a required install.
Engine wise it seems this game is basically a content pack for FallOut 3 with no engine improvements at all. Note that the difference in voice size for PS3 is that all different languages are included on the BD disc. The PS3 pays for having 50% higher texture resolution on disc (equal to PC) by having more loading / streaming issues and a required install.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
If you look at the 360 vs PC screens, you can see that the 360 version doesn't have accurate colors. The PC vs PS3 screens are more in line with each other. That could be the difference you are seeing.
Fallout 3 PC version has roughly a 1GB texture pack. Nice to see they are [hopefully] increased textures res and not just that the variety is greater as it was IMHO good in F3. And no problem with 32bit memory systems, just make game use 3/4GB 32/64bit and it is done. I mean there is a reason why the mod folder with texture replacements in my F3 installation is 5,2GB alone.... it really pops in your face with lots of 8-16mpixel textures.
Though I would have thought they could do AA in some form for PS3 and also the lack of proper fog is strange. Maybe they keep CPU well occupied since this game is heavy on CPU having to update all the worlds AI In-Sector and OOS if it is like F3 and Oblivion. AI and the life scheme is quite complex with each day having different tasks set which the AI tries to achieve in a non pre-set manner and taking moral system etc into account. Like a super lite version (in comparision) of what Egosofts X3 series does to maintain a living independant AI controlled world.
Though I would have thought they could do AA in some form for PS3 and also the lack of proper fog is strange. Maybe they keep CPU well occupied since this game is heavy on CPU having to update all the worlds AI In-Sector and OOS if it is like F3 and Oblivion. AI and the life scheme is quite complex with each day having different tasks set which the AI tries to achieve in a non pre-set manner and taking moral system etc into account. Like a super lite version (in comparision) of what Egosofts X3 series does to maintain a living independant AI controlled world.
AFAIK PC uses FP16 HDR and maybe why PS3 lacks AA?
(((interference)))
Veteran
Why does the 360 version of Las Vegas have far worse textures than the PS3 version?
especially since they're only using 4.8 GB of DVD space, it makes no sense - the 360 has a clear RAM and GPU advantage and the vast majority of multiplat titles have had better textures on 360.
Was it pared back so they could use 4xMSAA?
especially since they're only using 4.8 GB of DVD space, it makes no sense - the 360 has a clear RAM and GPU advantage and the vast majority of multiplat titles have had better textures on 360.
Was it pared back so they could use 4xMSAA?
- Status
Similar threads
