Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[assurdum]

Who is slamming DICE? As a PS3 owner, I praise them.

And was it really confirmed that the PS3 was given higher priority, or are people assuming so given the fact that the PS3 was the one used to showcase the console version?

I think for the most part, people are aware of the situation - that the PS3 and 360 are essentially the same in terms of performance.

In all honesty, it does seem like you give your 0.02 of the PS3 hardware every chance you get, and the tone of your posts suggests that you have a real hate towards the hardware. Maybe it's just in response to the few that still do believe that the PS3's hardware is on another level. But that's just what I get from reading your posts.

Who slamming DICE it's just an idiot & DICE shouldn't gives so much credit to the childish post imho.

 

[kagemaru]

I disagree. Games are still continuously showing that there is untapped power out there, even if only sometimes they are related to clock cycles (but more often than you think). If anything, Battlefield 3 shows that there is still untapped power, because there are a few things that are unique to what they do, and that means other games aren't doing them.

We are definitely reaching a phase where better algorhithms are going to yield more and better results than just better clock optimisation though, no question about that. But I can hear that not all games are pushing the hardware as much as others just from listening to the fan. And while this may sound unscientific as high fan noise can just mean being inefficient with the clock cycles, it still means that games that do not have the fan running at max speed are very likely not to use all the cycles.

If this is the case then how do you explain the missing motion blur from the console versions? Definitely not due to lazy devs.

I'm with Scott on this one, I'm sure by now getting extra performance is like extracting blood from a stone.

In all honesty, it does seem like you give your 0.02 of the PS3 hardware every chance you get, and the tone of your posts suggests that you have a real hate towards the hardware. Maybe it's just in response to the few that still do believe that the PS3's hardware is on another level. But that's just what I get from reading your posts.

IIRC he mentioned a good while ago that his posts would be different if most people here were making hyperbolic/ignorant claims about the 360. Most people here don't have the misconceptions regarding the 360 as they do regarding the ps3.

I'm the same way, so I can understand where he comes from here. Here I'm sure most may think I prefer the xbox all the way when really I love the ps3 as much, before Dead Island was released, I was easily playing my PS3 more. When playing on Live, every so often the PS3 will come up and someone bashes it. Well in these instances, I'm the one defending the PS3 since I hold no allegiance to either console/company.

 

[Arwin]

But since you asked, yes you are 100% correct games are being held back by not being fully optimized for hdd streaming. But you can never fully optimize for hdd because of the ps3. On 360 you can do what Dice did, strip the performance back a bit for dvd only guys and for everyone else they install it on hdd and enjoy the full experience.

But that's not the whole story though is it? Because up to now I cannot think of a single game that explicitly uses this option, and sacrifices graphical fidelity between the HDD and non-HDD versions. We've seen limits to functionality before, sure - Forza 3 locked you out of some cars and even two of the most prestigious racing tracks if you didn't install the second disc to your HDD, and even Forza 4 only allows you 250 cars instead of 500 if you don't install the data from the second disc. But what DICE has done here doesn't even come close to the second closest thing, which is probably Halo 3 loading faster from DVD + HDD then from HDD alone. Allowing to install the DVD to HDD is great and improves performance for some games as well as load-times, but it is not quite the same - these games are still optimized for loading from DVD, and their iso's are then simply dumped to HDD without any functional difference on anywhere the level of what Battlefield 3 is doing.

My frustration is reading quotes from him and others how of course said game must not be optimized for ps3, that's why it doesn't peform better. Yes, him and many others still post stuff like that in 2011. We now have 6 years of cumulative evidence (games), 6 years of time to have console tech documents widely leaked, 6 years of head to head comparisons, and 6 years of comments from developers.

... snip ...

I'd have thought that bf3 would finally have put this all to bed given how it was designed from day one with the ps3 in mind but I guess not, instead the true answer is that DF is now apparently on the Microsoft payroll as well.

But there is also a group that claims that most multi-platform games, given the proper attention / development budget, should at least achieve parity. We've heard countless of stories of how few developers are on the tech side of things versus artists, as well as your own assertion that proper streaming setups make games better on all platforms, but particularly we've seen that the PS3 suffers much more when this doesn't happen. And considering how many games didn't come close to parity in the beginning (and it still occasionally happens, though much more rarely now), that's where I think a lot of more reasonable / understandable level of frustration comes from. This combines with Microsoft failing to manage to output anything exclusive that has similar wow factors as PS3 exclusives have (Forza 4 is the closest thing I can think of though). This doesn't have to mean anything about the actual potential of the hardware, but it gives doubters ample room.

And then people are shocked when devs won't comment publicly on anything. Look at what happened to Repi, they put the ps3 first and foremost and yet they got slandered by the sdf nut cases.

I think you spend a lot of time on forums that I don't spend time on, and from what you're describing, I'm good, thank you. And I can't even remember DICE ever putting the PS3 first and foremost, just that they were much more forward in exploring the potential of the hardware of each platform, and publishing about this. That got a lot of attention, but anyone expecting that to result in a multi-platform game that would be far superior on PS3 just got blind-sided by technical presentations. That was just DICE being DICE, and we love them for it, just like they poked holes in DX11 laying bare its crippling bottlenecks and talking to Microsoft about fixing those for the greater benefit of all of us .

Personally, I find it fascinating almost equally that the Arcade unit had to be left behind to get the 360 version to the same level as the PS3 version, as that the 360 version could be pushed up in quality by actually properly using the HDD, suggesting that the 360 still has untapped reserves.

 

[assurdum]

Jeez what I have done I beg to suggest to the mod to paste all the discussion in the Cell topic, more sense to continue there; increndible what a single drop can to do in a forum...

 

[RobertR1]

This combines with Microsoft failing to manage to output anything exclusive that has similar wow factors as PS3 exclusives have (Forza 4 is the closest thing I can think of though). This doesn't have

I'd venture to say that the motherships prioritize different areas of focus than.

Sony seems to be all about presentation with their top studios.

MS seems to be more focused on pushing the social aspects available. Everything with MS seems be centered around how we can get multiple people on Live Gold playing with each other and using social/online features.

Thus where the PS3 games shine graphically and fall at the social/smooth online interaction, the opposite is true for the 360.

 

[joker454]

But that's not the whole story though is it? Because up to now I cannot think of a single game that explicitly uses this option, and sacrifices graphical fidelity between the HDD and non-HDD versions.

They don't, for reasons on both sides which changed over the years. The 360 didn't offer any hdd install at all for the first few years so it was never an option then for example. Also for a while Sony was pressuring for us for smaller mandatory size installs because at the time there were many 20gb/40gb models out there that were getting maxed on space. Fast forward and now with 120gb+ drives common it's not a big issue anymore so it's now a viable option. Or I should say it will be a viable option once Sony decides to allow full game installs. Until then we'll settle for what Dice has done which is a good step imho...but I'd prefer games fully customized for hdd play. Ultimately though the biggest hurdle is the console users themselves who are accustomed to just putting in the disc and playing. Ps3 players have had to overcome that because they had no choice, mandatory installs were simply needed for parity. 360 players haven't had to get used to that, so it's another hurdle that would have to be overcome to get full hdd optimized games.

But there is also a group that claims that most multi-platform games, given the proper attention / development budget, should at least achieve parity. We've heard countless of stories of how few developers are on the tech side of things versus artists, as well as your own assertion that proper streaming setups make games better on all platforms, but particularly we've seen that the PS3 suffers much more when this doesn't happen. And considering how many games didn't come close to parity in the beginning (and it still occasionally happens, though much more rarely now), that's where I think a lot of more reasonable / understandable level of frustration comes from.

The beginning was a very different time, a >100MB memory difference between among other things all but assured that parity was impossible. Plus the ps3 is more dependent on streaming due to it having less ram and due to it's slower optical drive, you have to use it's hdd+optical drive in tandem just to get parity, that's just the nature of that beast. Sony as far as I've heard has since relaxed on mandatory installs so companies can keep using them to even the playing field.

Regarding parity, I've argued in the past the ps3 has more bottlenecks and is more subject to performance spikes, which makes achieving parity with the 360 complicated. It's easier to keep the 360's gpu near peak load than keeping rsx at peak load. In other words if both spent ~30ms of time on a frame then you are more likely to drops frames on the ps3 version because it's more likely to have performance spikes that take it past ~33ms. I still don't think both machines can always achieve parity due to the generational differences in their gpu designs. Yes I know I still cling to the freakish notion that the gpu matters in a video game machine Six years later we see that ps3 games have gotten much closer, like the new Batman, but still have frame rate issues at times. Others still fall short even 6 years later because not every game will be spu'able enough to get parity. Bf3 was to be the ps3 poster child because it's renderer plays to the ps3's strengths, but in the end it still basically attains parity. That alone should be really telling to the folks here.

This combines with Microsoft failing to manage to output anything exclusive that has similar wow factors as PS3 exclusives have (Forza 4 is the closest thing I can think of though). This doesn't have to mean anything about the actual potential of the hardware, but it gives doubters ample room.

You know that's infinitely debatable so I won't even bother. Like I've also said in the past, to me it's multi platform titles this gen that have been most impressive.

I think you spend a lot of time on forums that I don't spend time on, and from what you're describing, I'm good, thank you. And I can't even remember DICE ever putting the PS3 first and foremost, just that they were much more forward in exploring the potential of the hardware of each platform, and publishing about this. That got a lot of attention, but anyone expecting that to result in a multi-platform game that would be far superior on PS3 just got blind-sided by technical presentations.

That's just what I'm saying, people are still expecting this untapped power for whatever bizarre reason. Here's the difference between how they view it and how i view it. They view Bf3 parity as not using the ps3 to it's max, I view it as wow I can't believe they got that old hardware to match the 360, very impressive spu work. I kept silent on the whole thing (well, until now) because the result isn't surprising. I just don't get why some people still are given all the evidence available over all these years. I mean c'mon guys it's been 6 years!

Personally, I find it fascinating almost equally that the Arcade unit had to be left behind to get the 360 version to the same level as the PS3 version, as that the 360 version could be pushed up in quality by actually properly using the HDD, suggesting that the 360 still has untapped reserves.

Not exactly...more like if you were to run a graphics profiler on a 360 Arcade running Bf3 you'd see it having lots of gpu idle time due to lower art assets being used, whereas the 360 hdd version would be closer to maxed out. So it's not an untapped reserves situation, it's more like letting the 360 arcades gpu idle more to accommodate their lack of storage. I know that may anger some 360 arcade owners but to me it's a good solution to the storage problem. It's also very easy to implement.

Jeez what I have done I beg to suggest to the mod to paste all the discussion in the Cell topic, more sense to continue there; increndible what a single drop can to do in a forum...

Don't worry about it, it's good to put the mods to work sometimes, it's healhy

 

[(((interference)))]

Yeah, it really is telling that despite all the work DICE put into the PS3 version the 360 manages to hold parity (apart from what seems to be some rendering bugs in cutscenes). And I was really expecting the PS3 to have a tangible advantage over the 360 and have said so on many occasions (since it was also using a fully deferred renderer - an absolute rarity on 360)

They can't even use the old 'the renderer is ill suited to the PS3's architecture' excuse like they did with Black Ops, GTA/RDR, Crysis 2 and any number of MP titles since this time DICE went out of their way to offload shading to the SPUs (as well as using them for things like light culling) which is beyond what even most PS3 exclusives do.

 

[ultragpu]

Six years in, and we're just seeing more and more that the two consoles are relatively equal, with some minor advantages and disadvantages for each. Seems the multiplatform devs are able to produce tech-heavy games that are up there with the best. Early in the gen, everyone, myself included, thought the first parties would eventually be able to put out tech that the multiplatform devs couldn't reproduce. It's been pretty interesting to see, through Digital Foundry, how parity (roughly) has become more the norm, and the 3rd parties are pushing the systems just as well as anyone else.

I agree with most of that judging by the effort from Dice but if you really wanna get down to it I would say Naughty Dog is still a clear cut above the rest in terms of pushing tech. I will leave the art alone since it's subjective. Whether it's their talented staffs or simply because of the hardware doesn't matter at this point, but the game comes out of their studio is clearly the most technically sound at the time of release. Just my personal opinion.

 

[djskribbles]

Yeah, it really is telling that despite all the work DICE put into the PS3 version the 360 manages to hold parity (apart from what seems to be some rendering bugs in cutscenes). And I was really expecting the PS3 to have a tangible advantage over the 360 and have said so on many occasions (since it was also using a fully deferred renderer - an absolute rarity on 360)

They can't even use the old 'the renderer is ill suited to the PS3's architecture' excuse like they did with Black Ops, GTA/RDR, Crysis 2 and any number of MP titles since this time DICE went out of their way to offload shading to the SPUs (as well as using them for things like light culling) which is beyond what even most PS3 exclusives do.

Again, how do we know how the load was spread out between the two platforms?

 

[NRP]

If this generation taught me anything, it's how effective PR and marketing are on some people.

 

[eggpain]

i think each version does has its own pros and cons.
there's something in GT's comparsion video that both DF and LOT didn't pick out:
PS3 version uses lower LOD models in certain place:

could be a bug. so are 360's aliased flare and missiing blur……

 

[ultragpu]

That could be the streaming issue when you get killed off and restart at a checkpoint, you gonna have to wait a few seconds for the high res assets to load up.

 

[eggpain]

That could be the streaming issue when you get killed off and restart at a checkpoint, you gonna have to wait a few seconds for the high res assets to load up.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pc-vs-battlefield-3/722998

just watch the video,higher assets never load at all...
could be bug or opt, my bet is on bug…

and in this video it seems only PC has camra based motion blur

 

[almighty]

After looking at the comparison's and to my PC gamers eyes the PS3 version looks better.

Anti-aliasing is much more effective
It appears to produce a sharper picture then 360 ( FXAA blurring the image too much? )
Lighting seems better and more pronounced

 

[function]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pc-vs-battlefield-3/722998

just watch the video,higher assets never load at all...
could be bug or opt, my bet is on bug…

Maybe it's a LoD issue that relates to memory? The PS3 still has less memory, so assuming you're using every Kilobyte on the 360 something will have to give somewhere.

Pity you can't put the 360 HD install pack on internal flash or USB drive though, even though DF's tests appear to indicate that it should work. Thinking about it though, maybe the low end of what MS allows through USB was just too slow, so they had to close that option off entirely? If the HD texture pack only ever comes from a HDD (on both 360 and PS3) then maybe USB drives that can handle disk installs fine just can't cut it.

The HD texture pack on HDD could require far greater data transfer rates and lower latency than even DVD could manage. Maybe disk space wasn't the only reason for the HD install.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also for a while Sony was pressuring for us for smaller mandatory size installs because at the time there were many 20gb/40gb models out there that were getting maxed on space. Fast forward and now with 120gb+ drives common it's not a big issue anymore so it's now a viable option. Or I should say it will be a viable option once Sony decides to allow full game installs.

How do sony conttrol install sizes? If full installs are flat-out denied, what stops a developer putting all the assets on HDD and just loading the game executable from BD? Someone somewhere is drawing a line as to what can and can't be installed on HDD, and I'm wondering who that is and how they pick that line.

Don't worry about it, it's good to put the mods to work sometimes, it's healhy

More work?! You realise most mods are ex-devs kicked out from game development because we were too lazy to even be lazy devs, right?

 

[RDK]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pc-vs-battlefield-3/722998

just watch the video,higher assets never load at all...
could be bug or opt, my bet is on bug…

and in this video it seems only PC has camra based motion blur

i can confirm its a bug i am playing it right now ... even the head of the guy on the right is still low poly and will switch only when i will go close enough

like i said before ... the game is a mess with tons of bugs in SP,MP

 

[RDK]

if you die and start from checkpoint this will happen to some textures...


before

after

and i have 7200RPM drive in my PS3

 

[Scott_Arm]

Again, how do we know how the load was spread out between the two platforms?

According to repi they have a tech team that is responsible for all platforms. They do not prioritize one console above another, and do not have a split team. They all work at coming up with custom solutions for each platform. It's pretty remarkable that Frostbite 2 is quite different on each platform, but the end result is very close to being the same.

 

[Scott_Arm]

i can confirm its a bug i am playing it right now ... even the head of the guy on the right is still low poly and will switch only when i will go close enough

...


like i said before ... the game is a mess with tons of bugs in SP,MP

If it switches as you get closer, doesn't that mean it's not likely to be a bug but just an LOD transition based on proximity?