randycat99
Veteran
Teasy said:
Isn't that the de rigour response for anything that isn't running on teh Xbox.
GCN SC pics
- Thread starter PC-Engine
- Start date
Isn't that the de rigour response for anything that isn't running on teh Xbox.
Glonk:
"I can also understand why some of the levels may need to be resized, 24MB vs 64MB of RAM and all... "
It's not QUITE that simple, as you're undoubtedly well aware of. XB - all frame buffers stored in main RAM. GC, only front buffer, and it's in YUV format because it takes up less space than RGB I believe. All sounds on XB is stored in main RAM. Disk cache buffers, main RAM too. Other misc. things, main ram on XB...
Okay, so that doesn't make up for all the difference, but it sure isn't as bad as 64 vs. 24 MBs like you try to make it seem like.
Thanks for showing such a lack of bias, man.
*G*
"I can also understand why some of the levels may need to be resized, 24MB vs 64MB of RAM and all... "
It's not QUITE that simple, as you're undoubtedly well aware of. XB - all frame buffers stored in main RAM. GC, only front buffer, and it's in YUV format because it takes up less space than RGB I believe. All sounds on XB is stored in main RAM. Disk cache buffers, main RAM too. Other misc. things, main ram on XB...
Okay, so that doesn't make up for all the difference, but it sure isn't as bad as 64 vs. 24 MBs like you try to make it seem like.
Thanks for showing such a lack of bias, man.
*G*
Teasy said:
Until games use really effective anti-aliasing, it's actually always possible to tell which screens are frame buffer dumps (if they aren't too compressed) and which are video captures.
There's a 1-pixel wide black line on the top edge and a 2-pixel wide black line on the right side of your picture.
If picture dimensions are arbitrary, then there shouldn't be any reason why certain dimensions such as 640x448 show up so much more frequently than others. The fact that these dimensions show up so often is highly suggestive of a native resolution.
They would use a resolution like 576x448 for the same reason that they're using 16-bit colour: to save eDRAM space.
Besides, 576x448 isn't really an odd-ball size since it works out to a frame buffer that's 0x7e000 bytes large (assuming 16-bit colour). That's a nice, round number of memory pages, unlike 641x499, which works out to a size of 0x9c2e6.
But what if the image is compressed by a decent amount? That's one of the reasons why its extremely hard to be sure of the native res of a game just by looking at some pics.
Is it really that common? If so maybe that's to do with how GC captures it? Or how certain sites capture it?
I just don't know why any dev would use that res instead of 640x480? Can any dev answer this with something I haven't thought of. Because by using 640x448 rather then 640x480 they'd only be saving 120k of space (for the frame and Z combined) and the bandwidth/fillrate saving would be even more insignificant.
But that 2.1mb on-chip ram can fit a 24bit 640x480 frame and Z in there and still have 350kb space to spare. So why use 576x448? What are they going to use the rest of that space for (about 600+k) considering that ram is specifically for the frame and Z buffer? (especially when they already have 350k spare anyway). Stencil buffers or shadow volumes or something?
IGN have just posted the first of there "Fisher Friday" articles on the GC version of Splinter Cell:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/389/389495p1.html
Its mostly just stuff about the game in general and how it starts, the basic story ect. The only new peice of info I can see in there is that according to them the GC version has better controls then the XBox on.. which may suprise some people.
Appart from that they also have 7 video's of the GC version and two new pics:
However its very probably for IGN insiders only. I can't be sure whether it is or isn't though as I have an insider account and I get logged in automatically.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/389/389495p1.html
Its mostly just stuff about the game in general and how it starts, the basic story ect. The only new peice of info I can see in there is that according to them the GC version has better controls then the XBox on.. which may suprise some people.
Appart from that they also have 7 video's of the GC version and two new pics:
However its very probably for IGN insiders only. I can't be sure whether it is or isn't though as I have an insider account and I get logged in automatically.
CaptainHowdy
Regular
ok then DK, if you REMEMBER that mission so well, every detail, you would notice that there is no brick texture on that wall...
you are the only one who has the game you know, it was the soul reason I got an XBox next to Rallisport.
time to put my new Leadtek capture card to the test for the first time for a demonstration on how bad a beautiful game can look at the wrong angles
all of the below are Xbox shots, captured at 640x480, direct feed via svideo..
here is the Xbox version , the mission in question, the exact same scanner, notice the wall texture
now, across the room, there is a brick wall texture that matches, we like to talk how ugly the GC texture is, how soon we forget what they look like up close
this demonstrates how much better the brick textures look at a distance, yet how ugly the model looks in the wrong lighting
now again, the hallway you were talking about, looks somewhat the same, the only difference I see in the GC version, is the light isnt on, maybe in two months, they can fit one light in there, I know Cubers will feel really let down that 8 foot of space they cant get to isnt visable without nightvision if not.
you are the only one who has the game you know, it was the soul reason I got an XBox next to Rallisport.
time to put my new Leadtek capture card to the test for the first time for a demonstration on how bad a beautiful game can look at the wrong angles
all of the below are Xbox shots, captured at 640x480, direct feed via svideo..
here is the Xbox version , the mission in question, the exact same scanner, notice the wall texture
now, across the room, there is a brick wall texture that matches, we like to talk how ugly the GC texture is, how soon we forget what they look like up close
this demonstrates how much better the brick textures look at a distance, yet how ugly the model looks in the wrong lighting
now again, the hallway you were talking about, looks somewhat the same, the only difference I see in the GC version, is the light isnt on, maybe in two months, they can fit one light in there, I know Cubers will feel really let down that 8 foot of space they cant get to isnt visable without nightvision if not.
Teasy:
The GCN has less RAM than the Xbox, the game was designed on Xbox and ported to PS2 and GCN.
Unless you believe in magic, there's no way you can cram the same detail/level into less than half the RAM with less than half the bandwidth but lower latencies.
Look at the PS2 and GCN screenshots. Both have darkened areas that are lit in the Xbox version.
The GCN has less RAM than the Xbox, the game was designed on Xbox and ported to PS2 and GCN.
Unless you believe in magic, there's no way you can cram the same detail/level into less than half the RAM with less than half the bandwidth but lower latencies.
AFAIK, the main use for A-RAM is for game menus, perhaps a level cache (not unlike the Xbox how the Xbox can use the HD as a level cache), can help save progress throughout the game before dumping it to a memory card, that kind of thing.Blade said:Heh, maybe I'm a little misinformed here.
It's possible to load it up with textures that you aren't using, then when you start approaching an area that will use them, start trying to swap them into the RAM, but I don't think it's used much for that at all.
But those pics are of a game with over 2 months left in development. By all means use those pics as a guideline to how the game is looking so far on GC but don't use them as a final comparison to the XBox version at this stage.
But that assumes that Splinter Cell uses 100% of XBox's ram space/bandwidth ect. So with less ram/bandwidth you need to cut the game down. But its not neccesarilly true. In fact its extremely unlikely that SC uses anywhere near all of XBox's ram space and bandwidth.
Also once everythings taken into account XBox's bandwidth advantage over GC is closer to 60% then over 100%, the big texture cache may help further to reduce that too. The ram difference is more like 64mb vs 32-34mb then 64mb vs 24mb. So XBox still has a very good ram space/bandwidth advantage, but that advantage is not nearly as big as the raw specs would suggest.
I've just been watching the vids of the GC version of this game. Even at this stage in development I don't see a difference in textures compared to the XBox version. The textures in the GC version look very sharp indeed. As yet I haven't seen vids that expose the lighting much (no well lit areas). I can accept, certainly at this point at least, that the lighting is less impressive in the GC version (after all Matt at IGN said that and he's played both games). But I do not accept that any great looking XBox game will automatically have to have texture quality/level size ect reduced.
BTW Glonk If you want any of the video's I can upload some of them to my website for you. But I can't post the link here because I don't have thousands of mb/s bandwidth to waste (well I have about 1.5gb to waste but that might not be enough if I post the link here)
The last 2 months are done doing optimizations and testing, NOT implementing new features (graphically or gameplay wise).Teasy said:
Why on earth do you think it's extremely unlikely? Titles like SC are hand-tailored to run well on the consoles they're designed. MS released tools that detail specific bandwidth usages on the busses at various times, detailed RAM usage statistics, etc -- I think it's extremely unlikely that SC would not use nearly 100% of Xbox's space/bandwidth. Whether it uses it effectively is up to discussion, of course, but I'm pretty sure they used what was given to them the best they could.
Excuse me for my bluntness here, but that HAS to be the biggest load of crap statement from someone who has never developed a game on any platform! Extremly unlikely based on what? You're opinion?
Teasy, I've read through the responses and I can't believe some of the stuff you're saying here. Imo, you and the other cube defender are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Quincy, do you ever stop wandering into threads with off topic flamebait? Do you ever stop defending XBox or attacking GC? Glass houses and stones spring to mind.
But you haven't even seen the GC version yet. Apparently the XBox version will look best. But I don't see how you can judge that personally without playing the other versions.
I say I don't accept automatically that SC has to have lower quality textures in the GC version. You see that as me saying Splinter Cell for GC is definitely as good looking as the XBox version.
I say "So XBox still has a very good ram space/bandwidth advantage, but that advantage is not nearly as big as the raw specs would suggest." and rather then seeing that as being fair towards GC you see that as defending GC.
As you said some people only see what they want to see.
But you haven't even seen the GC version yet. Apparently the XBox version will look best. But I don't see how you can judge that personally without playing the other versions.
I say I don't accept automatically that SC has to have lower quality textures in the GC version. You see that as me saying Splinter Cell for GC is definitely as good looking as the XBox version.
I say "So XBox still has a very good ram space/bandwidth advantage, but that advantage is not nearly as big as the raw specs would suggest." and rather then seeing that as being fair towards GC you see that as defending GC.
As you said some people only see what they want to see.
You know this to be a fact do you? How exactly do you know ubi-softs development timescale then?
Just because a dev has something available to then that does not mean they use every bit of it. There are many factors stopping them from doing this. Dev time, cost, talent and also having a basic idea of what they want from the game and not adding extra's for the sake of milking a consoles power.
In the end Splinter Cell is not at the edge of what is possible on XBox. So you simply cannot look at this from the point of view of "XBox has this much ram and bandwidth, GC has this much. So an XBox game will beed this much lower res textures and this much smaller levels on GC ect".
Quincy
Extremely unlikely based on the fact that much more is expected from XBox then Splinter Cell provides, technically. Or are you saying that Splinter Cell is as much as we can expect visually from XBox?
Tell me which stuff you can't believe and what you can't believe about it and we'd have a discussion in the making. BTW to be absolutely blunt, your opinion isn't worth much to me when your acting like this.
It's common practice, I'd need evidence to the contrary before I can even assume for the sake of argument that Ubi Soft is stupid enough to implement new features right before a release. But hey, it's Ubi Soft.Teasy said:
I'm sorry, Teasy, but this is just ridiculous.
Both of your arguments now hinge on the fact that "Oh, but we don't know that Ubi Soft behaves like 99% of the developers out there! Maybe they will add features a couple weeks before the RTM date! Maybe they don't use the optimization tools -- which would mean that maybe it isn't using 100% of the Xbox's bandwidth and memory -- which would mean that maybe with the GCN's architecture we wouldn't notice any loss in texture quality!
The game was designed to run on the Xbox. The levels were designed to run on the Xbox, the textures were designed to fit in the Xbox RAM and bandwidth, the geometry/lighting details designed to work well with the NV2A. The GCN is getting a port of this engine. Things have to be cut, it's a port of a game designed to run on a system with at least twice as much bandwidth and RAM.
Step back and look at how far fetched this is getting.
I remember seeing impressions of games (or screenshots/vids of games) over the years that are said to not be of the finished game as little as around 2-3 months before release. Splinter Cell is supposed to be out 2 and a half months from now. I don't see why these pics can't be of a not quite finished build of the game, especially since they could have been taken a week or so ago, or more. 2 and a half to three months seems like plenty of time to add the final touches to a game. After all Factor 5 built an entire, extremely technically impressive, game from the ground up in 9 months (as well as making the sound tools the game used at the same time)
Optimization tools would simply optimize the game to make it run as well on that system as possible. It would not make any game automatically use all of XBox's memory space or bandwidth. Do you think that when they made, say, Blinx for XBox that game also used 100% of the system's bandwidth and memory.. simply because they used optimization tools?
All I am saying is lets not do this "XBox is this fast, GC is this fast so this GC port of this XBox game will need this much cut out". Notice that I am not claiming that the GC version will be just as good looking as the XBox version or better? All I am saying is we do not know how it will look in comparison, no matter how sure you are that it will be cut down in just about every way imaginable, your basing it all on pics, guesses and faulty logic. When the game is released we'll actually know the answers here rather then guessing them.
Similar threads
- Locked
