If PS3 can really do 1Tflops

[London Geezer]

What? I goes stinky on the PS2 because it is a Sony product? Nonsense!!! I am just disappointed in PS2 graphiiX. It is just that.

disappointed me + once bitten twice shy me + seeing history repeating me = helping to play down the hype.

Xbox might yet to display that truely clean CG dancing demo, but all its good games have really nice graphiiX and if you siting back and enjoying the graphiiX, some of them do look CGish. Very nice looking hardware power. Xbox came closer, much closer to displayin the graphiiX promise than PS2.

see what did i tell u.....

 

[chaperone]

OT: but i edited my last post.

Just in case someone missed it.

 

[London Geezer]

What? I goes stinky on the PS2 because it is a Sony product? Nonsense!!! I am just disappointed in PS2 graphiiX. It is just that.

disappointed me + once bitten twice shy me + seeing history repeating me = helping to play down the hype.

Xbox might yet to display that truely clean CG dancing demo, but all its good games have really nice graphiiX and if you are sitting back and enjoying the graphiiX, some of them do look CGish. Very nice looking hardware power. Xbox came closer, much closer to displayin the graphiiX promise than PS2.

Now we have threads about the miraculous(as Nvidia guy would say) PS3 and the clock rewinds and start over again.

I am wary because:
1)PS3 uses multiple general purpose CPUs.
2)Sony admitted it is "crazy" architecture.
3)How much expertise does IBM have with graphiiX(Sony fubared the PS2).
4)Some developers already voiced their concerns about creating content on PS3.
5)Broadband Grid crap.
6)ATi CEO expect it to be brute polygon pushing again, lack of hw pixel effects?

and u seriously SERIOUSLY believe that PS3 will lack pixel effects.
Chap get over urself.... we're talking about 2005-2006 here for god's sake.
do u REALLY believe that PS3 will be a PS2-with-more-polygons?

god....

 

[chaperone]

For Sony sake, i hope they dont miss any nifty 2005/6 graphiiX effects. I DO want to see good graphiiX on ANY consoles.

Then again, PS2 skipped on pixel effects even when good old GF1 had them.

 

[London Geezer]

For Sony sake, i hope they dont miss any nifty 2005/6 graphiiX effects. I DO want to see good graphiiX on ANY consoles.

Then again, PS2 skipped on pixel effects even when good old GF1 had them.

yeah GF1 HAD them... now how many games would run decently with those effects turned on?!

see, im trying to explain things here...

 

[chaperone]

PS2 Giants had bumpmapping removed from it. I also know you can turn on pixel lighting in PC NFS Porsche.

We wouldnt know how well an optimised game will run but at least there are games that run with them. Heck, i think old TNT and Matrox cards have some hardware support for BM, so did the DC!

Hey! Outcast 1 uses BM too!
http://www.outcast-thegame.com/tech/interview.htm

I think we are moving OT. Time to get back on track?

 

[mr]

Chap(erone):

Honestly, if you truly have a graphics fetish as big as you say, why waste your time with outdated XBOX technology?
After playing Rallisport, SplinterCell and Enclave (all demos) on a R300 with HighRes, and where possible with high levels of AF and AA the XBOX gets <fanboi speak>spanked pretty bad</fanboi speak> as far as Image quality goes. And guess what, the R300 was available only 10 months after XBOX.

XBOX has still loads of graphical defects compared to the latest offerings on the PC, needless to say offline CG. Bad, bad aliasing, color banding, blurry textures (low LoD and/or missing AF) are the most visible for me.

Disclaimer:
I'm very happy with the graphical ouput of XBOX, GC and (gasp) PS2, as these are consoles that are dirt cheap compared to the PC-HighEnd.
I just wanted to point out that IQ is still "bad" on all consoles compared to CG.

 

[overclocked]

yeah GF1 HAD them... now how many games would run decently with those effects turned on?!

see, im trying to explain things here...

The problem is that it won´t go in his head

Can´t help it Chap but you have the Xbox so then what´s the problem with you? There´s none forcing you to play or even see the PS2 games.

For Sony sake, i hope they dont miss any nifty 2005/6 graphiiX effects. I DO want to see good graphiiX on ANY consoles.

Then again, PS2 skipped on pixel effects even when good old GF1 had them.

Yes would be nice to see a Geforce 256 draw 10-20 million´s polys per/sec in a game..

 

[chaperone]

Do you see me talking about PC games?
As good as the PC hw has become, it is unneccesary overcomplicated to setup for me.

 

[London Geezer]

yeah GF1 HAD them... now how many games would run decently with those effects turned on?!

see, im trying to explain things here...

The problem is that it won´t go in his head

Can´t help it Chap but you have the Xbox so then what´s the problem with you? There´s none forcing you to play or even see the PS2 games.

For Sony sake, i hope they dont miss any nifty 2005/6 graphiiX effects. I DO want to see good graphiiX on ANY consoles.

Then again, PS2 skipped on pixel effects even when good old GF1 had them.

Yes would be nice to see a Geforce 256 draw 10-20 million´s polys per/sec in a game..

 

[overclocked]

Back to topic?

 

[chaperone]

The point still stands that Sony missed out on nifty effects.
Polygons alone does not make beautiful games(see R&C). You need balance.

 

[mr]

I don't get the "will PS3 lack effects compared to the competition, like PS2 lacks dot3" worries.
By 2005 most GPU's will differ only in shader execution speed, as we are moving (fast) towards full programmability, unlimited instructions and high precision FP "processing elements". PS3 seems to sit right there, so any shader could be compiled for XBOX2, GC2 and PS3 just with varying speeds.

Do you see me talking about PC games?

I picked XBOX games for the PC to demonstrate the "superiority" of PC-graphics hardware over XBOX. I obviously failed to get my points across which are:
1.) Don't compare XBOX graphical output with CG.
2.) From CG POV (and even PC-HighEnd POV) all consoles suck when it comes to Image quality, so don't get all that excited about it. (And again they are cheaper so that's not a bad thing)

As good as the PC hw has become, it is unneccesary overcomplicated to setup for me.

That is not the point.
You = XBOX grafixx is da Best111!!!
Me = XBOX is a nice console, but it has still way to many graphical defects to call it CG.

I don't want to sound rude, but your XBOX gloating is sometimes too much to take.

 

[overclocked]

Polygons alone does not make beautiful games(see R&C). You need balance.

Give me a break, J&D and R&C(same engine btw) is not a good example
of that IMO.
I think both those games look great in my eyes, but again it had only looked great for you if it had been on the Xbox.

I rest my case.

 

[overclocked]

The point still stands that Sony missed out on nifty effects.

And my point still stands that you should give a heck about PS2 games and enjoy your Xbox.

I don't get the "will PS3 lack effects compared to the competition, like PS2 lacks dot3" worries.
By 2005 most GPU's will differ only in shader execution speed, as we are moving (fast) towards full programmability, unlimited instructions and high precision FP "processing elements". PS3 seems to sit right there, so any shader could be compiled for XBOX2, GC2 and PS3 just with varying speeds.

Totally agree with you on that.

 

[London Geezer]

AND...

what some poeple COUGH::CHAP::COUGH cant seem to understand is that when making a console, the manufacturer has to deal with a little thing called COMPROMISE.

when designing the PS2, Sony came up with the idea that it would have to push an insane amount of polygons (and let's be honest here, at the time and for quite a while after release, PS2 pushed an insane amount of vertices per second compared to the competition). this HAD to come at a compromise of course. unless u wanna pay £600 for a console....
plus take into consideration that (it's just my idea) Sony wanted PS2 games to have a certain look. and that would be *insane amount of polygons and pretty nifty framebuffer efects*...
i mean some of the effects done on PS2 are just to *weird* (to put it simply) to be replicated fully on *newer hardware*...

OF COURSE they could have put 64megs of memory instead of 32Meg... or a GS with 8Meg eDRAM, but how much would it have costed?! it was already pretty expensive at launch...

OF COURSE they could have *tighten some screws here and there* but it's pretty obvious that at the time of release, the final product was the prefect balance between price and performance in the eyes of Mr Sony...

the same thing could be said about ANY console.... even your dearest Xbox... COUGH::CELERON3::COUGH

really u make me sound like a PS2 fanboi here where all i'm trying to do is open your eyes and try to be a little bit wiser...

but ur next reply will probably be **YEAH BUT MY POINT STILL STANDS, IT DOESNT HAVE PIXEL EFFECT**... so why am i wasting my time....

 

[Fafalada]

I need to see fullscreen videos of the early techdemos!!! The internet videos and screens look very nice though.

They looked like first gen PS2 games. (field rendering with no filtering, simple textures)
Those demos that actually had a real product counterpart were usually a bit worse looking then the actual games (Tekken Tag, Bouncer).
If you include the fall TGS showing(not really techdemos, but still), there was also those that looked a LOT worse (GT), and those that looked a bit better (R5) then final game. But all of them, without exception, were outdone in later generations of PS2 software.

 

[BoddoZerg]

the same thing could be said about ANY console.... even your dearest Xbox... COUGH::CELERON3::COUGH

Actually, if there's any big weakness of the Xbox's visuals, I'd have to say its Antialiasing/Aniso. Apparently, Xbox is not capable of using AA with decent framerates, because most Xbox games either suffer from blatant aliasing like Halo, or they use AA and suffer massive frame lag like Unreal Championship. One of the expectations for the GeForce4 based Xbox was that it would be vastly better at antialiasing than other consoles. This turned out to be dismally wrong.

 

[London Geezer]

I need to see fullscreen videos of the early techdemos!!! The internet videos and screens look very nice though.

They looked like first gen PS2 games. (field rendering with no filtering, simple textures)
Those demos that actually had a real product counterpart were usually a bit worse looking then the actual games (Tekken Tag, Bouncer).
If you include the fall TGS showing(not really techdemos, but still), there was also those that looked a LOT worse (GT), and those that looked a bit better (R5) then final game. But all of them, without exception, were outdone in later generations of PS2 software.

Thanx for clearing that up... i actually thought i was the only one who believed that the first tech demos looked a bit crappy compared to later efforts like GT3, MGS2, FFX, ICO... not to mention the superior ZOE2 and Silent Hill 3....

 

[overclocked]

Add ACE4 to that list, it looks soooo good!