Alucardx23
Regular
The water is almost completely covered in those. :smile: The biggest difference I noticed in the PS3 version is the lack of reflections and that the water doesn’t look transparent.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2010]
- Thread starter liolio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
The water is almost completely covered in those. :smile: The biggest difference I noticed in the PS3 version is the lack of reflections and that the water doesn’t look transparent.
Can anyone here give me a rundown of the technical discussion on RE5 in Japanese? I tried using google to translate but it still isn't clear enough for me pickup on everything being said.
I'm curious as to why the MT Framework engine the way it does on the PS3. Even with the mammoth installs it still has some shoddy performance that has been discussed here, not mention there's seems to no PS3 performance boost even with Capcom tweaking the engine.
I know (Super) Street Fighter IV didn't use it, and makes me wonder how MT will perform when it comes to future games (Marvel vs Capcom 3 for ex.)
I'm curious as to why the MT Framework engine the way it does on the PS3. Even with the mammoth installs it still has some shoddy performance that has been discussed here, not mention there's seems to no PS3 performance boost even with Capcom tweaking the engine.
I know (Super) Street Fighter IV didn't use it, and makes me wonder how MT will perform when it comes to future games (Marvel vs Capcom 3 for ex.)
There really isn't much there about the engine or platform specific stuff, just discussion of what they did with the game. Bear in mind that the installs really don't do anything for these types of games other than reducing loading times. Also, Capcom had the engine running on the 360 nearly a year earlier than the PS3, so they definitely have had more experience with the system.
Make no mistake though, the new version is a notable step up from the RE5 version. Sure, it may be dropping more frames than the 360 game, but it's still improved in that regards as well as other areas. It's hardly shoddy, but for a publisher whose games sell better globally on the PS3, it's puzzling why there isn't 100% platform parity at this point. I suppose that goes both ways since it's also puzzling why they can't get the 360 game triple buffered.. that memory excuse didn't make much sense.
MVC3 should be just fine considering that's a mere fighter. Like DMC4, it'll likely have a lot of the engine features turned off to run at 60Hz. Incidentally, DMC4 was practically identical on both systems, and had its perks on the PS3.
Make no mistake though, the new version is a notable step up from the RE5 version. Sure, it may be dropping more frames than the 360 game, but it's still improved in that regards as well as other areas. It's hardly shoddy, but for a publisher whose games sell better globally on the PS3, it's puzzling why there isn't 100% platform parity at this point. I suppose that goes both ways since it's also puzzling why they can't get the 360 game triple buffered.. that memory excuse didn't make much sense.
MVC3 should be just fine considering that's a mere fighter. Like DMC4, it'll likely have a lot of the engine features turned off to run at 60Hz. Incidentally, DMC4 was practically identical on both systems, and had its perks on the PS3.
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I have gathered.. they were at least experimenting with real-time Global Illumination (ala CryEngine 3, single bounce). Don't know if it really made it into Lost Planet 2. But the fixed 2xAA on 360 (or none on PS3) does certainly mark a change from the dynamic MSAA in prior games.
Really helpful thanks for your efforts Nebula. Sorry I was one of those asking for this kind of comparison and I'm pretty late to party.
So it's interesting that in the first set I was ok on the super blurry 840*480 and not on the second set. It's about trade off. Actually only devs can do the proper comparisons depending on how the game looks. You did a good job imo at showing that the difference between 1280p and 1158p are pretty minimal.
Alstrong posted a link to the new Ms gamefest presentation in this presentation they speak about the pro/con about playing with resolution (now they no longer enforce 720p on studios).
They also have interesting shots in the pres I advice people to have a look too.
Well "wws" aside the one I like the less is the klm shot (jaggies and low texture quality is really distracting to me.
In this set I'm more iffy. I can discard the 840*480 as it really too blurry vs the other shots. I see actually few difference between the 1280 and the 1158 shots. I'm attract by the sharpness of the 1680 shot but it's not like I find the 2 others shots despicable and my opinion may differ by watching the same scene in motion.
So it's interesting that in the first set I was ok on the super blurry 840*480 and not on the second set. It's about trade off. Actually only devs can do the proper comparisons depending on how the game looks. You did a good job imo at showing that the difference between 1280p and 1158p are pretty minimal.
Alstrong posted a link to the new Ms gamefest presentation in this presentation they speak about the pro/con about playing with resolution (now they no longer enforce 720p on studios).
They also have interesting shots in the pres I advice people to have a look too.
Billy Idol
Legend
Just read the Crackdown 2 tech interview at DigitalFoundry! Great stuff as always, but this really surprises me:
So the argument that AA is free on Xbox360 due to EDRAM, at least for Crackdown 2, is not entirely true!!
Janq said:
So the argument that AA is free on Xbox360 due to EDRAM, at least for Crackdown 2, is not entirely true!!
(((interference)))
Veteran
That's old hat, it never was and we have known for ages. It's only free if you use sub HD resolutions like COD does.
Billy Idol
Legend
huh? there are some (prominent) opinions around this forum that even with tilling, AA is basically free! Although some stated that this is not entirely true, we did not get any numbers!
So, this is the first time we actually hear numbers of the vertex load overhead of tiling for a specific game - so for me this is not old hat!
If the vertex load doubles(!), I wonder if the Xbox360 still has the edge over the PS3 in vertex processing in such situations, for instance!?
Um... just have a look at the list for simultaneous releases at least.
Should probably consider the sort of geometry covering the screen and where the tile boundaries are. If it takes a very small number of geometry to represent the sides of a skyscraper... (as mentioned in the interview) guess how many triangles have to go back for processing?
Billy Idol
Legend
Sorry, but which list?
You mean the resolution list and the comparison of multiplatform games on PS3/Xbox360?
What does this have to do with my question? O do you assume that all inferior PS3 MP games are vertex processing bound?
The only game I can remember which had brutal vertex processing advantage on Xbox360 is Ninja Gaiden 2, but this game is subHD...so please enlighten me Mr Mod!
Billy Idol
Legend
BTW, talking about vertex processing:
The SPUs help out the RSX in vertex processing to keep the pace. But if I understand it correctly, culling only reduces the load in finding non-visible vertices...this sounds like a passive help! So what do you do when even after culling, the vertex load is too high? Is it unrealistic to assume that there are situations where culling does not even help so much?
The SPUs help out the RSX in vertex processing to keep the pace. But if I understand it correctly, culling only reduces the load in finding non-visible vertices...this sounds like a passive help! So what do you do when even after culling, the vertex load is too high? Is it unrealistic to assume that there are situations where culling does not even help so much?
Simultaneous releases. Check my edited post.
Point is that the 360 can still have enough geometry processing leeway left even with tiling. Really depends on the game.
Of course, you don't always see 2x or 4xAA; geometry overhead is not the sole reason to avoid tiling. Perhaps they don't want to deal with issues with certain effects due to how render targets are handled. Or sometimes devs are trying to shoot for 60fps and any *unnecessary* overheads should be avoided. Simple examples... Call of Duty, Ninja Gaiden 2, Bayonetta.
Point is that the 360 can still have enough geometry processing leeway left even with tiling. Really depends on the game.
Of course, you don't always see 2x or 4xAA; geometry overhead is not the sole reason to avoid tiling. Perhaps they don't want to deal with issues with certain effects due to how render targets are handled. Or sometimes devs are trying to shoot for 60fps and any *unnecessary* overheads should be avoided. Simple examples... Call of Duty, Ninja Gaiden 2, Bayonetta.
As far as we know the answer is yes, particularly since MSAA seems to have the same kind of percentage wise performance penalty for every increased level (e.g. 30% worse for MSAAx2, 60% for x4). But on the other hand it is definitely possible that the combination of GWAA and SPU culling in native 720p or higher situations, the situation could well be reverse, and maybe even considerably so? Perhaps this is part of the reason of Sony's 1st party exclusives appear to outperform the 360s by such an extent.
Anyway, the Crackdown 2 DF article is a very interesting article, very open and candid look inside - I just got round to reading it yesterday evening.
Billy Idol
Legend
Thanks guys!!
We have far too few details on most games on consoles to claim one game technically superior to another. Games like GTA4 are likely more demanding than most games people claim technically superior.
People tend to think that since they think Game A looks better, it must be superior.
This forum is just as guilty as any other. Enough people think a game looks great so it automatically becomes an incredible technical achievement beyond all others in the genre.
People did the same with PS2 games last gen. People had all of these crazy poly count figures for games that they threw around as fact, and it was considered fact until Sony released performance analyzer results showing most games doing far less than previously believed.
With some incredibly talented artists working in the industry today, it's simply not possible to know for sure.
People tend to think that since they think Game A looks better, it must be superior.
This forum is just as guilty as any other. Enough people think a game looks great so it automatically becomes an incredible technical achievement beyond all others in the genre.
People did the same with PS2 games last gen. People had all of these crazy poly count figures for games that they threw around as fact, and it was considered fact until Sony released performance analyzer results showing most games doing far less than previously believed.
With some incredibly talented artists working in the industry today, it's simply not possible to know for sure.
Very nicely said.
I disagree ... I think this forum is at least slightly less guilty than most others.
It is just as easy to forget that multi-platform games are inherently limited in extracting the most out of a machine, or that open-world games reflect the state of development of today versus several years ago when all the important technical decisions have been made and have then become locked in by the art assets produced. But all of that aside, this forum as well as the likes of Digital Foundry have managed to uncover a lot of technical details on the two platforms and if you add them all up, I think we know quite a lot ...
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Even better said.I disagree ... I think this forum is at least slightly less guilty than most others.
But all of that aside, this forum as well as the likes of Digital Foundry have managed to uncover a lot of technical details on the two platforms and if you add them all up, I think we know quite a lot ...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I disagree ... I think this forum is at least slightly less guilty than most others.
However you can also take it to mean that it's far more of a technical achievement to achieve graphics and performance parity in some of the better multiplatform games. COD:MW2 for example in being able to achieve not only 60 fps gameplay but also very nice visuals that are virtually identical on two very disparate systems.
In some ways that's a higher technical challenge and achievement than pushing one console (KZ2 for example). In other words, multiplatform would have a lower absolute bar of graphics quality. But achieving top graphics quality on two very different systems is a huge technical achievement in itself.
Just a different point of view. And I wouldn't say anyone claiming either title as higher technical achievement is wrong. They would be both correct depending on point of view.
Regards,
SB
I disagree ... I think this forum is at least slightly less guilty than most others.
But all of that aside, this forum as well as the likes of Digital Foundry have managed to uncover a lot of technical details on the two platforms and if you add them all up, I think we know quite a lot ...
I think he has an interesting underlying point that games like GTA just don't receive as much love as perhaps they should when talking overall platform achievement. Even DF has played with the Uncharted series being the most advanced on PS3 at times. I have a soft spot for GoW myself.
- Status
Similar threads
