Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*

semitope said:
The other version really doesnt have the lights to produce the effect so yes it would be in only one version. I dont quite notice the same thing happening in the background lights
Click to expand...

So, they used more spot lights on the version who got the worse Framerate and got the more screen tearing? Strange decision, no?
 
My theory is that they didn't use spot lights, the PS3/distant lighting is something else.

Somebody suggested it doesn't even need to be a 3D texture, as all the lighting is virtually on the same level.
 
rekator said:
So, they used more spot lights on the version who got the worse Framerate and got the more screen tearing? Strange decision, no?
Click to expand...

Assuming lighting is the bottleneck for the games performance on the ps3. A games performance being worse on one platform doesnt mean that the effects in that version automatically must be worse in all regards. Tomb Raider was a good example of that. It makes sense if you have different teams that they may put in something in one version that makes it look slightly more real and accept a performance penalty whilst another team might go with a less effective design but get better performance.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Actually LOD seems to be a bit more aggressive in the sequel, more geometry and character popping, and of course pixelated shadows from the cascaded shadow map.
And character texture budgets sound lower too (looking back at the first game, normal mapping seems far more evident to me, but it sounds like they're a size smaller then the diffuse maps in AC2). So general image quality actually seems to be reduced.

This may be the price of dynamic lighting, as the first game had none, it was always daytime or at least static stuff within buildings and caves.
Click to expand...

Seems more or less unchanged to me actually. I thought AC1 had less draw-in as well until I actually put it in again, but it's basically like for like (at least on the PS3). The environments in ACII simply show the effect more because there are a lot more open spaces in the game and unlike in Damascus and Jerusalem the rooftops in ACII aren't flat. The second game also renders a lot more civilians at the same time. The textures actually seem a bit crisper in ACII to me as well (quite impressive actually. I ran around for a good half hour in Venice, scanning for low res textures in first person mode and I simply couldn't find any. It's incredibly consistent), the game just goes for a different look. It's a lot cleaner looking.
 
I'm at the Venice sequence, the visual definitely seems to be the high point here. As beautiful as the day time looked, I especially liked the night scene when the carnival arrived. The moon was so bright it's like a sun and the glistening water reflections were so pretty along with all the fireworks and civilians. I actually think the environment textures improved quite a bit than AC1, however characters outside of Ezio, have really flat normalmapping it's almost like they only used a diffuse map. But overall I'd say ACII looks better.
 
Sigfried1977 said:
Seems more or less unchanged to me actually. I thought AC1 had less draw-in as well until I actually put it in again, but it's basically like for like (at least on the PS3). The environments in ACII simply show the effect more because there are a lot more open spaces in the game and unlike in Damascus and Jerusalem the rooftops in ACII aren't flat. The second game also renders a lot more civilians at the same time. The textures actually seem a bit crisper in ACII to me as well (quite impressive actually. I ran around for a good half hour in Venice, scanning for low res textures in first person mode and I simply couldn't find any. It's incredibly consistent), the game just goes for a different look. It's a lot cleaner looking.
Click to expand...

Ack, sounds like they downgraded the X360 to match the PS3 with regards to pop-in from your account. Since PS3 had more pop in (and less decorative objects on rooftops) compared to both the X360 and PC version in AC1. Yet PS3 and X360 are reportedly similar in that aspect in AC2.

Wonder if it's due to higher res textures? And thus needing to conserve memory compared to the first version?

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Ack, sounds like they downgraded the X360 to match the PS3 with regards to pop-in from your account. Since PS3 had more pop in (and less decorative objects on rooftops) compared to both the X360 and PC version in AC1. Yet PS3 and X360 are reportedly similar in that aspect in AC2.

Wonder if it's due to higher res textures? And thus needing to conserve memory compared to the first version?

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

Developers do that? Would seem the typical thing is to just do as much as you can on each regardless of the others limitations.
 
ultragpu said:
however characters outside of Ezio, have really flat normalmapping it's almost like they only used a diffuse map. But overall I'd say ACII looks better.
Click to expand...

As I've quoted a character modeler from Ubi, looks like they're using 1/4 size normal and spec maps for the characters; in fact I think the head's spec maps are also shared between all male / female characters.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Ack, sounds like they downgraded the X360 to match the PS3 with regards to pop-in from your account. Since PS3 had more pop in (and less decorative objects on rooftops) compared to both the X360 and PC version in AC1. Yet PS3 and X360 are reportedly similar in that aspect in AC2.

Wonder if it's due to higher res textures? And thus needing to conserve memory compared to the first version?

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
:???: So why not more tearing and fps on the 360 at this point? Simply AC 2 has more details , this is the reason of more popin.
 
The screenshots there are a bit compressed, and the quincunx certainly does not help either, but I believe it's the same 960x720.
 
I see. So any idea why they (and other devs) choose to take it so low, when realistically you should want a higher resolution image to be upscaled? That's almost Ghostbusters territory for image quality. Is it a case of their upscale process being resource hungry or something else?
 
I've moved the Saboteur PS3 AA discussion here. Once we get an idea of the AA method, we can include it in our analysis findings!
 
I didnt knew where to post this but I wanted to tell that the PC ver of Saboteur doesnt supports any AA either just like the 360 ver. and forcing AA from control panel doesnt helps, any idea as per why thi sis happening as clearly one of the console version is adding some sort of AA...And also I think I noticed SSAO in 360 & PC version, can somebody with the PS3 copy confirm if the PS3 ver too has SSAO ?
 
AFAICT, there is no SSAO in use at all.

As for the lack of AA support, it could be down to a number of things. DX9 limitations (requiring nvidia/ati driver hacking to support an alternate means) or simply post-processing effects post-MSAA resolve. There is discussion regarding the AA on Saboteur PS3 in the other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
Shimmering lines, common in menus, HUDs: Term for the artifact? And possible to "fix" with post-processing?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Davros
D
J
Graphic card/CPU configuration for best memory graphics in Flight Simulator 98?
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
homerdog
homerdog
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
iroboto
B3D IQ Spectrum Analysis Thread [2021-07]
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
15K
OlegSH
O
A
Machine Learning to enhance game image quality
2
Replies
27
Views
11K
Alucardx23
A
Back
Top