Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
I'm not sure if it's due to me playing on a smaller TV (32") or what, but the TAA doesn't look bad on my screen. I'll agree that Reach may look sharper at times, but Reach also had a lot more ghosting on closer moving objects, where I maybe seen it once or twice playing the demo.
Come on, you surely follow PS3 exclusive threads better than most, how come you don't remember?
http://www.myfreeps3.net/ps3-news/643/the-most-light-sources-in-one-killzone-2-scene-is
You know it's not like all those lights shade a single pixel at the same time.
It's not that expensive for a deferred renderer.
I didn't say you had.
Nice, I like the lighting in Crysis too. Too much realism is a little boring though.
More importantly, it's clearly doing the wrong trade-offs.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a fair bit of fanboy bickering at the moment for a Beyond3D Technical Forum discussion. Please keep it technical.
corduroygt
Banned
Actually, bullet hitting metal and causing sparks is not realistic at all.
http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/
corduroygt
Banned
It's extremely improbable as it says in your link.
However, to judge which games have better graphics is not much of a technical discussion to begin, since some of it is based on art, which is subjective.
Since most people think KZ3 has better graphics and effects than C2, I think that debate is settled. Whatever Crytek did was just not as effective as whatever GG did on a console.
L. Scofield
Veteran
I was thinking, since CE3's GI system relies on point lights, you can make the argument that even on a sunny map, there's hundreds of lights being calculated each instant 
Thanks for the link but where is the link to GG document/video, not some fan site article. Also "it’s revealed that there are an incredible 350 light sources in one Killzone 2 scene". In one scene, one. We dont even know peak for C2.
And lets not go personal again. I do remember you directing a lot of personal posts/comments against me when in disagreement, wasn't that how you earned your tag?
Keep it mature and to the point.
Indeed and since C2 also has deffered renderer it is with numbers one can estimate how they fare against each other. Factoring in scene, weapon bullets, GI IL, sparks, explosions etc and using fair comparision pics.
Oh OK, didn't fully understand that part as "your prodigy" in Google only listed some pop-punk techno band.
Doesn't mather, this isn't about art this is about technical merit. Thats what this thread is for. I see Shifty already adressed that point, good.
OK you don't trust the magazine, maybe you should trust yourself, here is one of your comments on the topic:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1276008&postcount=595
Barking up the wrong tree. You wanted a number, got one, move on.
Talk about personalisation. For the record though, I don't know what you are talking about, I know I frequently comment about your posting habits, but it's not a disagreement just an observation.
After those I remember you toned it down significantly, until recently I suppose.
kKeep it mature and to the point.
OK Let me know when you count all those.
Yes you are right, I only said my opinion on lighting because I don't want to get lynched by you guys.
Let's move on.
Do you mean visually overall or technically? Is Crytek's effectiveness with PS3 HW based off the config files? There's definitely some more impressive stuff that Crytek is planning to put out before release...at least that's what they've said. I suppose if people know the ins and outs of KZ3 and what CE3 is capable of on consoles, then they can weigh in. Personally I don't so I'd like to see the both in their best light or play through them.
Still not from documents/video but article by site. Same as me commenting it now in previous post. I am sure there might be lightsource comment(s) in some document and for what scene, if even still there for the final game.
Still the point is that it is in a single scene. It's a peak value for an unknown scene.
*Settled via PM instead after being contacted by Betan*
If I do though I dont care much for it since it's the results of the use that is interesting. but I do comment about 'fact statement' that X game has more lightsources when one is quite much an unknown quantity so far. Just not enough data to make a conclusion. It might have more or it might have less but there is no definitve answer to it right now like some wants to think for their own reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Might be so though I wonder how much lightsources for bullets, impacts etc add to the scene count. Will be interesting to see when demo is out and the visual impact.
L. Scofield
Veteran
So the article doesn't say they're DYNAMIC lights. Could be lightmapped then.
A light that you see for like 3-5 frames isn't as important for actual gameplay experience, it only matters for people arguing over screenshots
And bullets? Seriously? For stuff like plasma shots in Halo that travel slowly, OK use a light source, but for bullets, really?
And bullets? Seriously? For stuff like plasma shots in Halo that travel slowly, OK use a light source, but for bullets, really?
A light that you see for like 3-5 frames isn't as important for actual gameplay experience, it only matters for people arguing over screenshots
And bullets? Seriously? For stuff like plasma shots in Halo that travel slowly, OK use a light source, but for bullets, really?
Lol, I meant energy based projectiles when saying bullets. Regular bullets only when they impact with metal objects.
Neither game is out yet so no conclusion can be deduced. If you want to go by just the beta's then I guess C2 is clearly superior since it had working online play (KZ3's was broken last I checked) but note that would be an equally silly conclusion.
The strength of what C2 does (among many other things) is in finally allowing fully destructible environments. No baked solution can provide anything more than typical limited and/or scripted destructible sets. With C2, and apparently Battlefield 3 from what I'm reading, you will finally be able to make levels where anything can be marked for destruction and the lighting will all just work seamlessly rather than having to fake it all in a limited manner as all older tech games like KZ3 do.
If you go point by point comparing beta's then yeah, KZ3 clearly does some stuff better than C2. Their aa implementation while limited is definitely better than C2's, their display is sharper, and less pop in of decorative objects. But then you'd be missing the main point which is lighting, which C2 clearly wins at. It may not be standard today, but realtime gi is now on it's way to becoming the defacto standard, and in time anything less will seem antiquated in comparison.
Plus remember the primary point of a multi player beta is to test netcode for stability, balance and robustness, and fix/tweak that data before release. If you want to go by visual merit then wait until both games are released and compared their single player experiences. In the case of C2's tech I think where it will mostly shine is in game releases that use it after C2 does.
Why is destruction so limited in the two MP maps they've put so far you think?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked