Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[Lucid_Dreamer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgjylRdDrIA

They look pretty plentiful in these first 10 seconds, although they dissipate quicker than they do in KZ2. How does Halo: Reach fake its particle collisions? The video offers a quick explanation, but I was hoping you knew a bit more.

They both seems to use terrain + static collision detection with simple "physics". Might even just be simple collision based "physics". Just saying you use physics means little when complexity can be like 10+ year old games or expensive like PhysX GPU driven particle physics.

Somebody tell me what type of physics this is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naZWQ2S0Zzg

And what type of physics is used in this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eSG04ThpSQ

Winner gets a screenshot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgjylRdDrIA&hd=1

Start at the 1:00 mark.

 

[Neb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgjylRdDrIA&hd=1

Start at the 1:00 mark.

That is collision based "physics" running on GPU. So I was right. :smile:

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Actually, you didn't know what my point was at all. My point is: it's all about trade-offs and they're dependent on the objectives and limitations developers have/encounter. Asking why avatar doesn't use Crytek's system was really silly.

No, that was my initial point until some people said the lighting wasn't expensive. Then, my question was/is...where did all the additional performance ago

And, why are you comparing them to 1st party exclusives? Obviously focusing in one system only has it's advantages, but then we could say that KZ3 is not impressive because it only runs in one platform whereas C2 runs on three.

I'm comparing C2 to top performing console games. Isn't this about getting the best results possible out of both consoles? Some people, you included, mention things like "best on consoles" and "new graphics king" (in other threads). Why would you guys make such statements, otherwise?

Another thing is that these same people are the ones that like to ride on far smaller technical issues than C2 has. Why are these people (you included) so forgiving of much more plentiful and larger issues? I like balance. If you do it for one, do it for all. These people's statements/actions are not balanced. I'm just being equally critical to restore balance. However, I'm not making things up like some people seem to do (not implying you). These are things I've noticed.

So, how about you describe objectively what's below average on those systems, specifically:

-Geometry
-Gun models
-Physics
-Dynamic Lights
-Animation

Numbers would be appreciated.

Indeed, numbers would certainly be appeciated. Speaking of numbers, I see you left 5 items off the list you quoted from me.

Geometry - There is little complexity to it and there is little of it ('til it pops in).
Gun models - Look at the absence of detail on the weapon, especially the bullet belt
Physics - What happens to the particles from the sparks? How many objects are there even to move around? What happens to when ragdoll comes into play when shooting someone?
Dynamic Lights - How many do you even see on that level?
Animation - Look at a character everytime they move in front of you. It's like there were only 100 different animations for the characters.

Any videos of this actually happening? Crysis 2 popup problems are related to textures, shadows and small geometry, nothing as dramatic as you mention.

Yeah, I believe I saw that one in the Crysis 2 thread.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521041&postcount=1292

Was that suppose to have a particular point to it?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

That is collision based "physics" running on GPU. So I was right. :smile:

That's not what was said on the video, was it? "This creates the illusion of colliding particles..." "...virtually colliding particles at once." Plus, the particles didn't even have multiple bounces like in KZ2.

 

[Ruskie]

As for animations I agree with you BUT that is clearly only in MP,wheres in SP aliens and player move very fluidly.Than there is number of dynamic lights and stuff...You can't judge that based on one small MP map,in daytime.Im pretty sure there will be lots of them in SP,especially at night as their papers suggested.As for gun models I really don't know...SCAR in Crysis 2 to me looks really great and detailed,same goes for KZ3s assault riffle,same can't be said about shotguns and guns in general.I say we quit this childish comparison and wait for the retail versions of the game to compare them,ok?

 

[Ruskie]

That's not what was said on the video, was it? "This creates the illusion of colliding particles..." "...virtually colliding particles at once." Plus, the particles didn't even have multiple bounces like in KZ2.

And why do you think people care?THIS is example of great trade of.Full res particles.Lots of them and they bounce.They don't bounce multiple times as in KZ2 but there is alot of them,all at full resolution and at very little processing cost.Note that Im using the same argument that you used with L.Scofield about real time GI and HDR.

 

[AlNom]

That's not what was said on the video, was it? "This creates the illusion of colliding particles..." "...virtually colliding particles at once." Plus, the particles didn't even have multiple bounces like in KZ2.

Both the first Crysis linked video and the Halo Reach video clearly show particles that continue bouncing after the first.

 

[Delta9]

Both the first Crysis linked video and the Halo Reach video clearly show particles that continue bouncing after the first.

I haven't played much of reach but I did shoot gun at walls and it had no bouncing.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

So it all makes sense now, I knew you've been trolling Crysis 2 for a reason, and now I'm done attempting to have a conversation with you.

BTW it's amusing how many of your points contradict each other in your post SMH

That's a good way of saying you can't explain your position. Also, you said many of my points contradict each other, but you haven't provided any examples. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[BRiT]

I haven't played much of reach but I did shoot gun at walls and it had no bouncing.

Prob not what you had in mind, but that reminded me of this fail video...

 

[L. Scofield]

Why would MLB09 go with a realtime solution if none of the lighting is dynamic? Might as well go for a higher quality offline solution if it's completely static. Plus, baseball games are definitely ideal candidates for time of day lighting changes.

The link Nebula posted suggests lighting calculations for the environment as well as the characters are performed at runtime. Specifically this part:

I see. Very good tech there. CE3's edges it (indirect shadows) but still, it's pretty good :smile:

No, that was my initial point until some people said the lighting wasn't expensive. Then, my question was/is...where did all the additional performance ago

I think you're confusing arguments now.

I'm comparing C2 to top performing console games. Isn't this about getting the best results possible out of both consoles? Some people, you included, mention things like "best on consoles" and "new graphics king" (in other threads). Why would you guys make such statements, otherwise?

Don't get confused now, I was very specific about the lighting, not the game as a whole. Some people do indeed consider it a good contender for best graphics and as long as they don't start with "generational leap"-type of comments there's nothing wrong with that.

Another thing is that these same people are the ones that like to ride on far smaller technical issues than C2 has. Why are these people (you included) so forgiving of much more plentiful and larger issues? I like balance. If you do it for one, do it for all. These people's statements/actions are not balanced. I'm just being equally critical to restore balance. However, I'm not making things up like some people seem to do (not implying you). These are things I've noticed.

You exaggerate a lot. People who actually played the game told you as much. Besides, if you're so fair, where are your critics towards PS3 games?

Geometry - There is little complexity to it and there is little of it ('til it pops in).
Gun models - Look at the absence of detail on the weapon, especially the bullet belt
Physics - What happens to the particles from the sparks? How many objects are there even to move around? What happens to when ragdoll comes into play when shooting someone?
Dynamic Lights - How many do you even see on that level?
Animation - Look at a character everytime they move in front of you. It's like there were only 100 different animations for the characters.

So, nothing objective that we can actually measure and compare, just your biased opinion...

That's not what was said on the video, was it? "This creates the illusion of colliding particles..." "...virtually colliding particles at once." Plus, the particles didn't even have multiple bounces like in KZ2.

The particles in that video DO have multiple collisions, they bounce off the vehicle onto the ground and even there they bounce some more. Essentially, they made a pretty accurate solution that looks great. What's wrong with that?

 

[NRP]

Prob not what you had in mind, but that reminded me of this fail video...

LOL! The ultimate particle collision!

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Both the first Crysis linked video and the Halo Reach video clearly show particles that continue bouncing after the first.

I see the particles hit the hood of the truck. Then, I see the particles disappear into the ground. The particles that didn't hit the truck bounced once on the ground and disappeared into the ground. It doesn't really matter, though. The bounces aren't really physics on colliding particles, anyway.

 

[Delta9]

Prob not what you had in mind, but that reminded me of this fail video...

 

[L. Scofield]

I see the particles hit the hood of the truck. Then, I see the particles disappear into the ground. The particles that didn't hit the truck bounced once on the ground and disappeared into the ground.

Well, there are a few explanations for this:

1)Somehow that link directs you to another video.
2)You have poor eyesight.
3)You're making stuff up.

It's particularly easy to see the multiple bounces when the spark shower ends at 1:13

It doesn't really matter, though. The bounces aren't really physics on colliding particles, anyway.

So, how is is possible that the bounces are accurate relative to the geometry they hit? Is it magic then?

 

[Delta9]

It's particularly easy to see the multiple bounces when the spark shower ends at 1:13

But is this in the actual game? I think that part is the reason I checked for sparks and saw none using gun.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Well, there are a few explanations for this:

1)Somehow that link directs you to another video.
2)You have poor eyesight.
3)You're making stuff up.

It's particularly easy to see the multiple bounces when the spark shower ends at 1:13

I've watched it about a dozen times now. I see what's happening. There are some particles that bounce once, then land and disappear. There are other particles that bounce twice, then land and disappear.

So, how is is possible that the bounces are accurate relative to the geometry they hit? Is it magic then?

I'm not Bungie. Beyond understanding them say it's not actual colliding particles simulation going on, it's for Bungie to answer. Don't you think that would/should be the correct course of action?

 

[kagemaru]

Yeah, I believe I saw that one in the Crysis 2 thread.

If you truly believe this, then find the video, otherwise without any proof to back up your claims, your word is meaningless.

I've played the demo every day it was available, in countless games, the graphical oddities have not once effected my gameplay. I have no issue pointing out what I believe to be faults, but I see no need to exaggerate things that aren't even there.

That's a good way of saying you can't explain your position. Also, you said many of my points contradict each other, but you haven't provided any examples. Coincidence? I think not.

Plenty people, myself included, have not only explained our positions but have done so with logical reasoning behind it. Everything either seems to go over your head or you ignore all points because of lack of comprehension or flat out bias. You lack even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about, so how is anyone supposed to carry out anything close to an intelligent conversation with you? You drag the threads down with your meaningless and baseless comparisons.

As for you contradicting yourself:

It's below average compared to 1st party exclusive offerings. Do you think you could logically argue how Crysis 2's animations, texture filtering, physics, streaming, dynamic lights, AA, geometry, characters on screen, draw distance, gun models, etc are near Killzone 3's? If so, I would love to hear it. Of course, Killzone 2 or 3's lighting isn't near Crysis 2, but that's mainly it. I'm only talking about the MP of each game. Since you wanted to know "compared to what", you have it.

Wouldn't dynamic lights be considered part of a game's lighting?? So by your twisted logic, KZ3 has better dynamic lights but Crysis 2 has better lighting?

The least you could do is be consistent with your trolling.

I haven't played much of reach but I did shoot gun at walls and it had no bouncing.

Playing Reach right now. While there isn't any bounce when shooting a concrete wall or rock (they land on the ground and disappear.), I'm seeing some bounce when shooting a shipping box or when a fuel tank explodes. The effect is in there, why it doesn't happen when shooting certain surfaces may be an artistic choice.

The particles in that video DO have multiple collisions, they bounce off the vehicle onto the ground and even there they bounce some more. Essentially, they made a pretty accurate solution that looks great. What's wrong with that?

I think his point is due to Bungie using the words: "the illusion of colliding particles..." "...virtually colliding particles at once."

Since they used the words illusion and virtually, they aren't "true" colliding particles.

Sad that a developer has to be so careful with their words or they get twisted around by the console warriors. I see particles, and I see them colliding, it doesn't matter in the end what process they use to create the effect.

 

[L. Scofield]

But is this in the actual game? I think that part is the reason I checked for sparks and saw none using gun.

I don't know, it could be for certain effects only.

I'm not Bungie. Beyond understanding them say it's not actual colliding particles simulation going on, it's for Bungie to answer. Don't you think that would/should be the correct course of action?

If that's the case, then you shouldn't dismiss the system so casually...

Another +1 to kagemaru

 

[ultragpu]

I've played the demo every day it was available, in countless games, the graphical oddities have not once effected my gameplay. I have no issue pointing out what I believe to be faults, but I see no need to exaggerate things that aren't even there.

It is not a case of game breaking but rather when you put it side by side next to kz3, you would see all the the shortcomings of crysis 2 a lot more clearly. Sub HD, low res DOF, strong aliasing, pop ins, lack of AF and flat textures are just some standout issues in the demo. Then again, we all have different standards.

Plenty people, myself included, have not only explained our positions but have done so with logical reasoning behind it. Everything either seems to go over your head or you ignore all points because of lack of comprehension or flat out bias. You lack even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about, so how is anyone supposed to carry out anything close to an intelligent conversation with you? You drag the threads down with your meaningless and baseless comparisons.

He raises some valid points so just because more people are disagree with him doesn't make him wrong. A lot of things here are speculations anyway.

Wouldn't dynamic lights be considered part of a game's lighting?? So by your twisted logic, KZ3 has better dynamic lights but Crysis 2 has better lighting?

KZ3 has a lot more dynamic lights on screen from what I have observed, Crysis 2 does have better lighting as in HDR and GI and I believe that's the double edged sword which should not be used here.