Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2013]

[COPS N RAPPERS]

At the :32 second mark, when they are doing the same thing, there is a bigger difference than 10fps for all those following frames. Am I the only one seeing that? The X360 FPS actually drops to 18 fps while PS3 FPS is in the 40s.

Yeah, i saw that too actually, after that it goes back to being solid for the rest of the vid. why there in that particular moment and not in expected places is interesting. the dismembering of metal gear ray is super fast when you would expect it to be even more complicated. It could have been one of those rare encountered moments while capturing the gameplay.

Gamersyde posted some media on the 360 version at 60 fps. (found here)

 

[Alucardx23]

I appreciate Platinum Games decision to add least try to have 60 fps gameplay, especially after playing the latest DMC (good game by the way), but for this type of games I think it is necessary.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Yeah, i saw that too actually, after that it goes back to being solid for the rest of the vid. why there in that particular moment and not in expected places is interesting. the dismembering of metal gear ray is super fast when you would expect it to be even more complicated. It could have been one of those rare encountered moments while capturing the gameplay.

Gamersyde posted some media on the 360 version at 60 fps. (found here)

After rewatching several times, the lowest FPS I've seen for both were 16fps for X360 version and 22fps for PS3 version. Did you notice the extra effects, where I mentioned?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Sorry, I didn't know that you really wanted to know if the 360 version had that exact 10 fps advantage for the complete game under all circumstances, when compared to the PS3 version. In that case I wouldn't know. At least for the video that Digital foundry published the difference seems to be around that number on average.

Someone said 10 to 20fps. That ended up not being true. You said 10fps. NeoGAF (they put quotes so I can see at work) quoted it was 10fps during QTEs. Then, you, finally, posted a Youtube video (which I can view at certain hours). That was best. Thank you.

Now, I can see that the action only really matched up at certain times. At those times, it seemed to be mostly a PS3 advantage in framerate. Other times it was a 2fps advantage for X360. Then, I saw additional effects, on PS3 version, with Raiden, in like for like frames.

It's interesting. Why wasn't this seen before?

Edit: Explosions are much more intense for the two legged tanks with additional smoke. The lines shot from the tanks into Raiden's chest has more particle effects, specular on Raiden leg and arms (3:58), water effects of screen stay while blue particle effects on screen (reappears on X360 after initial blast), etc. That tech article needs to be revisited.

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

Someone said 10 to 20fps. That ended up not being true.

A little bit more than my estimate but your'e correct they do revolve around 6 to 7 frames on average from each other closing in at 60 fps.

The intense action does set them apart a few frames.

The whole battle with metal gear ray doesn't seem to dip below 44 fps on 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4599MBazNH8

 

[djskribbles]

Those are all cutscenes aren't they?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

A little bit more than my estimate but your'e correct they do revolve around 6 to 7 frames on average from each other closing in at 60 fps.

The intense action does set them apart a few frames.

The whole battle with metal gear ray doesn't seem to dip below 44 fps on 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4599MBazNH8

PS3 is default, when not mentioned.

:22 - Tank has better lighting effects on it's leg, chest and mouth.
:23 - more dust around tank
:24 - more detail on the underbelly of tank
:25 - better light effects
:27 - X360 has a little more detail on the mountain to the left
:36 - more debris flying around and smoke cloud
:56 - three rockets impact (one fireball) compared to one or two (no fireball) X360
2:14 - two extra explosions on the right side
2:15 - big explosion on right side
2:32 - big explosion on screen
2:43 - Raiden now look less detailed than X360 version (was opposite earlier)
3:01 - bigger explosion
3:04 - Eye patch light looks much brighter and precise. It looks like just a glow on X360 with no real origin.

The rest looks like a legitimate 2 to 10 FPS (cutscenes included) X360 favor, when X360 leads in framerate. PS3 usually seems to have slightly more/better effects and slighty better detail in a lot of places. Thanks for the video!

Edit: The images are off by a few frames. That's why side-by-side image captures aren't as accurate as possible. All you have to do is look at what's happening in the backgrounds to see they are at different points. There are even more effects in the screenshots you took on the low FPS PS3 images, at that time.

 

[COPS N RAPPERS]

Edit: The images are off by a few frames. That's why side-by-side image captures aren't as accurate as possible. All you have to do is look at what's happening in the backgrounds to see they are at different points. There are even more effects in the screenshots you took on the low FPS PS3 images, at that time.

they are timed within milo seconds apart, the wave length lines is what you should go by if you are splitting the hairs of time. (Green means 360 blue is ps3.)

 

[Gitaroo]

PS3 is default, when not mentioned.

:22 - Tank has better lighting effects on it's leg, chest and mouth.
:23 - more dust around tank
:24 - more detail on the underbelly of tank
:25 - better light effects
:27 - X360 has a little more detail on the mountain to the left
:36 - more debris flying around and smoke cloud
:56 - three rockets impact (one fireball) compared to one or two (no fireball) X360
2:14 - two extra explosions on the right side
2:15 - big explosion on right side
2:32 - big explosion on screen
2:43 - Raiden now look less detailed than X360 version (was opposite earlier)
3:01 - bigger explosion
3:04 - Eye patch light looks much brighter and precise. It looks like just a glow on X360 with no real origin.

The rest looks like a legitimate 2 to 10 FPS (cutscenes included) X360 favor, when X360 leads in framerate. PS3 usually seems to have slightly more/better effects and slighty better detail in a lot of places. Thanks for the video!

Edit: The images are off by a few frames. That's why side-by-side image captures aren't as accurate as possible. All you have to do is look at what's happening in the backgrounds to see they are at different points. There are even more effects in the screenshots you took on the low FPS PS3 images, at that time.

sound like there are quite a bit of graphical difference.

 

[deanos]

Tech Analysis: Killzone: Shadow Fall demo:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-shadow-fall-demo-tech-analysis

 

[jlippo]

Tech Analysis: Killzone: Shadow Fall demo:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-shadow-fall-demo-tech-analysis

Seems like he missed the screen space reflections.

 

[Inuhanyou]

i like that its locked with no dips whatsoever even in stressful situations like that explosion with all those particle effects flying everywhere

 

[warb]

sound like there are quite a bit of graphical difference.

Yeah, but nah.

And there's a graph visible in every shot for a frame rate comparison.

 

[eloic]

Crysis 3 Face-off:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-3-face-off

Bottom line for consoles: technical achievements at the expense of framerate. PS3 confirmed to have lower resolution (although barely noticeable) and more framerate problems.

So, nothing surprising here. Pretty much what we all expected

 

[Inuhanyou]

Basically Crysis 2 all over again.

 

[nightshade]

Atleast they bothered to scale the HUD properly this time around for PS3.

 

[Jedi2016]

Tomb Raider:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tomb-raider-face-off

 

[knock]

Tomb Raider:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tomb-raider-face-off

i'm pretty sure Ps3 engages MLAA instead FXAA...

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/2/7/5/8/360_043.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/2/7/5/8/PS3_043.jpg.jpg

 

[Silent_Buddha]

i'm pretty sure Ps3 engages MLAA instead FXAA...

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/2/7/5/8/360_043.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/2/7/5/8/PS3_043.jpg.jpg

Aliasing is godawful in both of those shots, but is particularly tragic for the PS3 version. So much detail is lost in the background due to the insufficient AA. Not that the X360 version is better overall despite preserving far more detail in the distance. The black crush on the 360 loses quite a bit of detail in the foreground, the tree is particularly bad.

Regards,
SB

 

[knock]

Aliasing is godawful in both of those shots, but is particularly tragic for the PS3 version. So much detail is lost in the background due to the insufficient AA. Not that the X360 version is better overall despite preserving far more detail in the distance. The black crush on the 360 loses quite a bit of detail in the foreground, the tree is particularly bad.

Regards,
SB

i don't agree...

it's pretty obviuos that ps3 has less jaggies...