DS HW questions

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

1. what's an estimate for the viewing angle of the DS lite's screens? It seems to be as good as a TN, but maybe that's because you hold the DS lite.

2. is it really more powerful than the n64 overall? I know the N64 has at least as good of a feature set, since the N64

3a. is it fair to say that the genesis has a resolution advantage over it?

3b. how much would graphics benefit if it ran at ~320x240 (approximately the genesis' usual res)? It's 256x192 IIRC.

3c. is resolution the only graphical advantage a PS1 has over it? I personally think the ps1 has better graphics, so I was wondering if the ps1 having a resolution is why the ps1 has better graphics to me.

4. are there compression algorithims good enough that would allow a 256MB DS game card to have a version of Symphony of the Night completely in tact (except resolution, of course), including all voice samples, and equal audio quality? The Saturn's Japan-only version of SotN, i.e., Nocturne in the Moonlight, was only 484 MB according to Castlevania dungeon; 256 MB is 14 MB more than 1/2 of the size of NitM.

 

[swaaye]

How can it be more powerful than N64 when it lacks bilinear/trilinear texture filtering? It takes a lot of computational power to do that so they obviously cheaped out on the 3D hardware there.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

How can it be more powerful than N64 when it lacks bilinear/trilinear texture filtering? It takes a lot of computational power to do that so they obviously cheaped out on the 3D hardware there.

I didn't think it was a powerful as the n64 either, but I believe Nintendo once claimed it was.

 

[Nano]

As far as I'm aware, no it isn't as 'powerful' as N64 (for a start comparing the ARM chip to the 64-bit processor and vector co-processor), but apparently it does have a couple of graphical features the 64 didn't (i.e. capability for cel shading and 60fps) and lacks some that it did (i.e. texture filtering and AA implementations 64 had).

The DS is more powerful than the Playstation, the h/w limitation (afaik) being polygon performance (although this hasn't stopped DS games from outshining the older console).

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

Thanks=] I had assumed that the ARM CPU's in the DS weren't as fast as the CPU in the N64, but I still don't get why Nintendo once said it was more powerful than the N64.

Also, try to answer the other questions=]

 

[Nano]

Hmm, lets see...

Well, to be honest I haven't explicitly heard Nintendo say the DS is more powerful then the 64, but that's just going by what I've heard. Either way, how powerful a platform is can be a little hard to quantify.

I don't think its necessarily fair to say the Genesis has a resolution advantage over it. It may have a slightly higher res output, but the DS is outputting a fixed resolution to a fixed sized display (a small one at that), whereas the Genesis is typically outputting to larger, higher resolution displays. I'd think in terms of appearance, the smaller screen would win in offering sharp images. Also consider that DS is often outputting graphics in 3d, I might add the DS can handle texture sizes of upto 1024x1024.

If the DS could output at 320x240 with the same size screen, I'd imagine graphics may look a tad sharper, but there is no benefit performance wise as it would take a little more memory. So, very little benefit.

PSOne advantages; resolution, CD storage; DS has considerably more graphical features; AA, fog, cel shading, alpha blending, point texture filtering, transform & lighting, 60fps. It also has a faster main CPU and more RAM.

As for the last Q. I don't think I can really answer that

 

[Toaddio]

DS has considerably more graphical features; AA, fog, cel shading, alpha blending, point texture filtering, transform & lighting, 60fps.

I'm confused because the PSOne could run games at 60fps. Are you saying the DS can and the PSOne couldn't do that? I believe the original Battle Arena Toshinden on the PSOne had a 60fps option.

 

[Nano]

I'm confused because the PSOne could run games at 60fps. Are you saying the DS can and the PSOne couldn't do that? I believe the original Battle Arena Toshinden on the PSOne had a 60fps option.

I once thought that most consoles prior to DC only really ran at upto 30fps in 3d, however I could be totally wrong.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I once thought that most consoles prior to DC only really ran at upto 30fps in 3d, however I could be totally wrong.

PS1 had many games that were 60fps like the Tekken series.

 

[Nano]

PS1 had many games that were 60fps like the Tekken series.

Fair enough. I didn't really think about it before I posted

 

[swaaye]

F-Zero X was 60fps on N64, as I recall. It really is just a matter of taking the processing load down enough for the machine to be able to dish out the frames at the speed you desire. F-Zero X certainly was simplistic.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

F-Zero X was 60fps on N64, as I recall. It really is just a matter of taking the processing load down enough for the machine to be able to dish out the frames at the speed you desire. F-Zero X certainly was simplistic.

Speaking of F-zero, that's really one of the only game series that can be more and more fun w/ high-ass framerates. It would be cool as fuck if they made an f-zero x (or even mode 7) remake at 120 fps. Of course, the physics would need adjusting slightly, and their would need to be hardware and displays that could be capable of 120 fps, w/ a vsync on.

As for 99% of all other games, I don't get why 48 fps is so "unacceptable" to so many people for shit like platformers.

 

[swaaye]

Hey, I was fine with the 15-20 fps of most N64 games. At least at the time. High framerate is great, but I think people get caught up on it too easily. For some it really does matter though, like for those who are into the online shooters and are really competitive....

I'm fine with ~30fps in just about everything. It makes me feel like my GPU is at the right level of performance in a way.

I still have a 19" CRT around here and do occasionally load up games at 1024x768x120Hz.

 

[jlippo]

As far as I know there hasn't been a single console which hasn't been able to display an image in single frame.

 

[Teasy]

As far as I'm aware, no it isn't as 'powerful' as N64 (for a start comparing the ARM chip to the 64-bit processor and vector co-processor)

You should compare the ARM CPU and vertex shader to N64's CPU and vector processor.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I saw environment mapping used in the water in Riz-Zoawd all while Dorothy runs quite fast with a silky smooth frame rate. I even saw pre-baked shadows being used in Tales of Hearts. The DS has its own bag of tricks but it's not as powerful since it doesn't have to render at such a high resolution. I'll bet if Nintendo actually shrunk the N64 and stuffed it into the DS, the games might look even better.

I think what he meant about the DS being 60fps is that the DS usually doesn't suffer from frame rate issues like PS1 and N64. Unless the game is badly programmed or used 3D in both screens. Rune Factory 2 is hilariously bad. The game uses pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D characters, yet the game slows down when there are 4 character on screen.

 

[Thowllly]

PSOne advantages; resolution, CD storage; DS has considerably more graphical features; AA, fog, cel shading, alpha blending, point texture filtering, transform & lighting, 60fps. It also has a faster main CPU and more RAM.

fog: ps1 had fog too.
cel shading: any hardware that can do texturing can do cel shading too
alpha blending: ps1 had it too
point texture filtering: ps1 had it too, and I would hardly call it a feature since it's the worst texture filtering you can have. (It's really no filtering at all)
transform & lighting: the ps had a transform unit, but I don't think it did lighting though.
60fps: as mentioned, the ps1 had several 60fps games.

But the ps1 did not have AA. Also, more importantly, the ps1 lacked sub pixel precision and perspective correct texture mapping, which don't necessarily make that much of a difference in screenshots, but make a huge difference in motion.

 

[Nano]

I think what he meant about the DS being 60fps is that the DS usually doesn't suffer from frame rate issues like PS1 and N64. Unless the game is badly programmed or used 3D in both screens. Rune Factory 2 is hilariously bad. The game uses pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D characters, yet the game slows down when there are 4 character on screen.

In truth I didn't particulary mean it as a strict point of comparison, I was more/less quoting technical details. Like the 64 it can transform polys at 60fps, but it may not have been the case had the Nintendo's ideas/philosophy been different. But in a round about way, yes. It is generally easier to make 60fps DS games, but that's down to more factors.

cel shading: any hardware that can do texturing can do cel shading too

Not strictly true. PSone never did true Cel Shading. Unless I'm wrong, Cel shading entails more than the style of textures, there is more detail from the outilnes, the dynamic light sources and even the use of a z buffer (which afaik DS has).

transform & lighting: the ps had a transform unit, but I don't think it did lighting though.

Yup.

60fps: as mentioned, the ps1 had several 60fps games.

Correct.

But the ps1 did not have AA. Also, more importantly, the ps1 lacked sub pixel precision and perspective correct texture mapping, which don't necessarily make that much of a difference in screenshots, but make a huge difference in motion.

 

[Thowllly]

In truth I didn't particulary mean it as a strict point of comparison, I was more/less quoting technical details. Like the 64 it can transform polys at 60fps, but it may not have been the case had the Nintendo's ideas/philosophy been different. But in a round about way, yes. It is generally easier to make 60fps DS games, but that's down to more factors.

If you just meant to quote technical details, you should just do that, instead of passing it of as a list of advantages over the PS1. And anything that can transform more than 60 polys in a second can transform polys at 60fps

Not strictly true. PSone never did true Cel Shading. Unless I'm wrong, Cel shading entails more than the style of textures, there is more detail from the outilnes, the dynamic light sources and even the use of a z buffer (which afaik DS has).

I never said the PS1 had games with cel shading. I just said it could do it. Which it can. And I never said that cel shading was a style of textures, it's not. It's many things, usually using calculated lighting intensity as a texture coordinate into a texture going from dark to light in discrete steps. Or using outlines, or both, but both are not required (see Zelda: wind waker). Dynamic light sources are not required, although the PS1 can do that just fine. use of a z-buffer has nothing to do with cel shading (but would go on the list of advantages of the DS over PS1)

 

[Nano]

If you just meant to quote technical details, you should just do that, instead of passing it of as a list of advantages over the PS1. And anything that can transform more than 60 polys in a second can transform polys at 60fps

Indeed, and I might say I never claim to be 'error free'

I never said the PS1 had games with cel shading. I just said it could do it. Which it can. And I never said that cel shading was a style of textures, it's not. It's many things, usually using calculated lighting intensity as a texture coordinate into a texture going from dark to light in discrete steps. Or using outlines, or both, but both are not required (see Zelda: wind waker). Dynamic light sources are not required, although the PS1 can do that just fine. use of a z-buffer has nothing to do with cel shading (but would go on the list of advantages of the DS over PS1)

I wouldn't go as far as 'nothing to do with'. It can very much have something to do with it depending on implementation. Subsequently architectures such as Dreamcast and DS would have advantages with use of a z-buffer whilst compositing the image.