Dice (now owned by EA iirc) some are working on the new Battlefield
oh and RSC2 was quite possible the best looking game on Xbox1 (played great too).
First Colin McRae: Dirt Preview(Xbox360)
- Thread starter chris100
- Start date
Dice (now owned by EA iirc) some are working on the new Battlefield
oh and RSC2 was quite possible the best looking game on Xbox1 (played great too).
Megadrive1988
Veteran
well, I disagree with their decision to go 30fps, but I have to respect them for taking a stand on the issue, doing what they believe is best for the game, so credit to them for that, even though I wish it could've been 60fps.
personally I strongly, strongly feel that both Microsoft/ATI and Sony/Nvidia should've aimed higher with the fillrate of their GPUs. I think both Xenos and RSX should've been 8000~10,000 Mpixels/s instead of 4000 Mpixels/s. that would've solved the framerate tradeoffs made this gen.
ahhh ... those are the guys eh?
If the rumored RSC3 is true, that will be a must buy. Agreed, RSC 1&2 were awesom on xb1. :smile:
Higher fillrate without adding pixel shader power and memory bandwidth would not necessarily make for a better machine. The PS2 had tons of fillrate, but not every game was 60 fps.
1. I doubt that GT4\3 had the most advanced physics model.
2. You can still waste tons of resources on physics even tho its an arcade game.
3. Polyphony digital are imo, one of the best developers in the world.
My bet is that PGR4 will outdo FM quite a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I should've said; Xenos and RSX also needed the additional main memory / graphics memory bandwith and shader performance needed to support higher fillrates.
so which games on ps2 had better one??
Il bet that Burnout runs has more physics heavy code than GT4 had.
So in summary, you think that Xenos and RSX should have been better in every single way!
And developers would still say, "Hey, my game can look 2x better at 30fps" and have gone that route
I doubt that. When you start to consider all the tuning options Gran Turismo offered without even going as far to how each of the hundreds of different cars differentiated themselves, one can only wonder how many parameters their physics engine had to handle. Burnout is a simple game in comparison with more or less scripted damage and few cars with no tuning potential that would differenciate each car. Then there's tire wear, surface grip (rally mode, wet tracks etc) that didn't exist at all in Burnout games. Or did that change in the later ones (only played Burnout 2 and 3)?
I may have chosen a bad example for a game with physics (i only owned GT4 and MGS3 on the PS2 so cant really tell), but my point was that just because something seems "realistic" doesnt necessarily mean it has very advanced physics.
Operation flashpoint is probably the most realistic shooter in the world, and its a 7year old game with a absymal physics engine compared to other games.
Actually, all the tuning options and how many cars there is is largely irrelevant. Its all numbers, its not like it has to check how ALL the cars in the GT4 library handles at all times. It just draws up handling numbers, how much it weights etc. It could have 8 cars in the library, and it could have 8 million, it would still be the same amount of physics each race .
Megadrive1988
Veteran
And developers would still say, "Hey, my game can look 2x better at 30fps" and have gone that route
yeah, I know, <sigh>
Ostepop said:
No doubt about that. Just that in the case of Gran Turismo, I see the physics engine a little bit more advanced than say Burnouts one.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say the 600 cars numbers is what makes the engine realistic - it's more that if a team is able to make hundreds of cars actually *feel* different, you can rest assure the physics engine is dealing with a little more than "some handling numbers and how much it weighs" kind of numbers.
It's quite obvious the Gran Turismo series goes quite a bit further than that - the numbers of cars that you can actually drive and feel the difference is one way to find out - simply looking at the customization level (car settings, tuning settings) that again changes the feel of each car extends further how many factors they must be dealing with.
it's more that if a team is able to make hundreds of cars actually *feel* different, you can rest assure the physics engine is dealing with a little more than "some handling numbers and how much it weighs" kind of numbers.
the numbers of cars that you can actually drive and feel the difference is one way to find out - simply looking at the customization level (car settings, tuning settings) that again changes the feel of each car extends further how many factors they must be dealing with.
I dont see why it has to be. Just because the cars feel different doesnt in any way imply that there is very heavy physics code going on. IMO, it just implies that the team did a good job recreating the handling, and that the different numbers work.
Note: GT4 can for all i know have a very sophisticated physics engine, but i nothing that i've noticed when playing has shown that.
When i was younger i made a go-kart game, and just fooling around with different numbers after you've build the basic physics engine, will make things act very differently.