Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
The article was well balanced. I enjoyed it! It was like a game review and tech review in one! I would have liked to see DF try to contact GG for more tech info. The fact that a KZ2 level ran in the KZ3 engine at only 50% warrants a deeper dive into the tech.
Stay tuned. These things usually take some time because of PR or the devs are on break with the game about to launch. Same thing happened for the Halo: Reach interview. Just because it doesn't happen day one, doesn't mean we haven't tried.
One of those "duh" things some folks forget.
Although freeing up GDDR is one thing (more texture space for example), XDR usage would be more interesting considering it has to hold just about everything else - engine, sound, AI, etc...Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Cool article; bonus points for the reminder that switching to MLAA from QAA has freed up considerable resources. Although the videos seem to have a bit more compression than what I'm used to from DF
Not to mention KZ2's XDR usage was only 101MB to begin with, according to the dev PS3 screens in that video interview (game was running in the background).One of those "duh" things some folks forget.
That doesn't seem right. Why would you leave more than half of the RAM free? That's lunacy... Do you have the interview or screengrab of that debug view? That may not even account for allocated streaming buffers either, which would fluctuate anyhow - to say "only 101MB" would be quite wrong in that instance.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Thats exactly what i was thinking :smile:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Really? I'm sure you have the same ability to screengrab as I do or probably better. How about I give you another video source?
http://n4g.com/news/clickout/263265
um...well I first have to be able to identify what it is you're talking about... I mean it's all well and nice for you to give a link, but it was rather poor in quality and isn't helping your claim. None of the camera zoom-ins in the youtube link @ the time index even show memory. Again, it's just processor timings that are visible. This is your claim, so I don't see why you're being difficult.
The second link shows it later on.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Ok, you see it in the second link? Cool. I was being difficult because I'm using the PS3 right now. I would only be able to capture the poor 240p video stream allowed to play via Youtube. That would be worse than your ability to screengrab.
Yup. Thanks for that. Soooo.... the 101MB and 190MB appear to be their current total allocated (based on 97/101 and 174/190) based on game data. It doesn't seem to be the whole story though because they don't even list the framebuffer allocation, ~36MB, which would put it up to 226/256MB for the GDDR3 portion. The other 30MB.. who knows.
Just seems rather suspicious if you consider what Naughty Dog's breakdown of XDR was for Uncharted 1. http://www.naughtydog.com/docs/Naughty-Dog-GDC08-UNCHARTED-Tech.pdf on page 28. They list all sorts of engine programs in addition to the raw game data, so I doubt it's really only 101MB being utilized for KZ2. The game has to have functionality besides data afterall.
Just seems rather suspicious if you consider what Naughty Dog's breakdown of XDR was for Uncharted 1. http://www.naughtydog.com/docs/Naughty-Dog-GDC08-UNCHARTED-Tech.pdf on page 28. They list all sorts of engine programs in addition to the raw game data, so I doubt it's really only 101MB being utilized for KZ2. The game has to have functionality besides data afterall.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Maybe KZ2 was more a testbed for procedural content than Uncharted 1. I remember that was mentioned in a tech article/doc or two. Could that possibly explain it?
L. Scofield
Veteran
What a big drop in quality when activating 3D it seems. Performance isn't as good and it drops v-sync too.
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/0/0/9/7/2D_1.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/0/0/9/7/3D_2.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/0/0/9/7/2D_1.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/0/0/9/7/3D_2.jpg.jpg
Maybe less CPU intensive while doing background streaming or level loading.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Thats the tradeoff for using true S3D at the moment, its simply a lot more work for the console to do. I think something like the trioviz tech is the way to go for now imo. Or maybe give people like me the option of the two, if its easy enough to implement the 2d + depth mode.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yap… and comparing shots in 2D is somewhat inaccurate because the 3D effect is completely missing. The perceived resolution and depth should be better in 3D mode. Also dynamic artifacts like pop-ins are not noticeable in static screenshots. Should have more in 3D mode.
DF didn't comment on aiming + throwing grenade in 3D mode. It should be more intuitive/natural in stereoscopic presentation. Gauging distance (e.g., jumping across a ledge, up or down with the jetpack) should be more apparent too. Will check it out myself someday.
DF didn't comment on aiming + throwing grenade in 3D mode. It should be more intuitive/natural in stereoscopic presentation. Gauging distance (e.g., jumping across a ledge, up or down with the jetpack) should be more apparent too. Will check it out myself someday.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked