Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*

[Kameradschaft]

1120 or 1152 x 720 at the time I can't remember exactly, but even then the trailer footage then was pretty compressed, and I don't have time at the moment to check todays screenshots.

Same res as Halo Reach? from what I've seen though Halo Reach does have better IQ and better texture filtering - I'm wondering how the PS3 version will look and run...also seeing as the engine isn't doing as good as expected on the 360 it will be interesting to see how Project Kingdoms will turn out tech-wise as it's still based on CryEngine 3 but it's developed specifically for the 360.

BTW Al if you could tell us also something about Bulletstorm's resolution and AA it will be nice, my guess is 720p no AA.

 

[AlNom]

Same res as Halo Reach? from what I've seen though Halo Reach does have better IQ and better texture filtering.

Might be indicative of 1120 instead of 1152, but I'll need some time to check more steps (may have to defer until later in the week). I mean, it could also be their blur filter for near-objects making things look weirder than they should in general.

BTW Al if you could tell us also something about Bulletstorm's resolution and AA it will be nice, my guess is 720p no AA.

Something to look forward to tonight.

lighting renderer puns intended ಠ_ಠ

 

[Kasersky]

ADS dof seems like a bug.

also treser's link

dont know the validity of the pic but if thats the ps3 version its definitely subhd.

 

[Ruskie]

IMO these shots look much convincing than that last batch which seemed to be much more compressed(these are to).So pixel counters when you guys have time you could take a look at these.
http://i51.tinypic.com/33lcdfl.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/20aevpj.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/j129ao.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/1549czr.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/faacjt.jpg

 

[dragonelite]

ADS dof seems like a bug.

Then they didn't complete fixed it in the demo, DOF looked really bad in the alpha and there was a lot of complaining on the combat testing forum section.

 

[Kasersky]

Then they didn't complete fixed it in the demo, DOF looked really bad in the alpha and there was a lot of complaining on the combat testing forum section.

so it's not fixed yet in the demo? sorry just kinda difficult to understand what you wrote.

 

[AlNom]

Then they didn't complete fixed it in the demo, DOF looked really bad in the alpha and there was a lot of complaining on the combat testing forum section.

Considering how similar the demo is to the alpha, I wouldn't be too surprised if the demo was just a quick re-build of what they had at the end of the closed test (including the state of the multiplayer map).

 

[AlNom]

BTW Al if you could tell us also something about Bulletstorm's resolution and AA it will be nice, my guess is 720p no AA.

That appears to be the case, even for non-sun-lit objects or anything. They sure use quite a bit of post-fx for the sky.

 

[nightshade]

Considering how similar the demo is to the alpha, I wouldn't be too surprised if the demo was just a quick re-build of what they had at the end of the closed test (including the state of the multiplayer map).

They didn't even changed the name
It reads "Crysis 2 closed beta"

 

[AlNom]

edit: Whats the performance cost for AF?

Mix of # of texture address/filter units and main memory bandwidth (since you're running extra texture lookups of said textures which are in main/graphics memory. There is a level of artist control over what textures can be sampled more, but I suppose it comes down to time. IIRC, Doom 3's built-in AF control did just that, which was why global forced AF sometimes saw performance hits.

 

[ultragpu]

Are we still not certain of the resolution in Crysis 2 AL? I can see some shots are more sharper than others, the discrepancy is fairly sizable.

 

[Rangers]

Kind of sucks but I dont mind, still the best looking game imo, however, does this mean all Cryengine 3 games will use this resolution???

Credit to Mazingerdude, and his comments

Yep, it's running sub HD, but not without a reason.

I believe it is mostly due to the 10MB EDRAM limit, as 3 RTs of Crysis 2's deferred renderer would require 3 tiles to fit in with 22MB G-buffer size. (too much loss in performance) 1152 x 720 res will yield 19.9 MB G-buffer. (2 tiles) It'll be interesting to see how PS3 version turns out.

BTW, the game looks absolutely amazing. I was extremely impressed how good this game looks in such boring generic environment, all possible with real time GI the first time ever in video game!

EDRAM strikes again This is why I've never been a huge fan, though I'm too technically ignorant to be informed about that.

So if we know the PS3 version is subHD (from presentation shot), could it have been 720P if there existed no 360 version? In other words was PS3 version just subHD because it's basically multiplatform?

I also think ten steps was not enough to get a precise reading, although it's going to be subHD either way.

Anyways as long as games are "720" vertical they seem to get a pass, at least Halo Reach did. A weird mental thing I guess.

 

[ultragpu]

You mean this shot here, was this confirmed to be sub hd too?

 

[Rangers]

I recall somebody (Kasersky?) somewhere on B3D recently said it was, so I would guess so.

 

[assen]

This particular shot seems to be supersampled, the branches on the trees are too good to be true.

 

[AlNom]

Let's wait until we get some hard shots before we go off about PS3, folks.

 

[Gitaroo]

can some confirm if Catherine is using QAA on PS3?

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/01/30/catherine_vs_catherine/

I think could be one of the rare case that it actually benefit from QAA over 2xMSAA. Probably because of the art style, and simple texture so there is minimal lost in texture detail. The game does look super clean when I play it.

 

[AlNom]

Folks, this is the Analysis thread, not the "I know what I like," thread. Bunch of posts also moved to the Game Tech thread.

can some confirm if Catherine is using QAA on PS3?http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/01/30/catherine_vs_catherine/

Yep. Classic quincunx edge blurring can be seen in the original blog's first listed image.

 

[AlNom]

Yep, it's running sub HD, but not without a reason.

I believe it is mostly due to the 10MB EDRAM limit, as 3 RTs of Crysis 2's deferred renderer would require 3 tiles to fit in with 22MB G-buffer size. (too much loss in performance) 1152 x 720 res will yield 19.9 MB G-buffer. (2 tiles) It'll be interesting to see how PS3 version turns out.

The math logic is fuzzy unless he were assuming FP16 render targets or that it was 2xMSAA'd. The whole point is to avoid tiling.

EDRAM strikes again This is why I've never been a huge fan, though I'm too technically ignorant to be informed about that.

It's a fairly small compromise when you've got pixel fillrate and shading to consider as well. It helps maintain a frame render time under 33ms total, and you'll be dealing with fewer drops to 20fps.

So if we know the PS3 version is subHD (from presentation shot), could it have been 720P if there existed no 360 version? In other words was PS3 version just subHD because it's basically multiplatform?

Could the framerate have been worse? Could they have dialed down the effects even more because of the higher demands of a higher resolution? Would textures be affected because of the increased RAM requirements.

Could Call of Duty look what it does now if they didn't have a lower target resolution that just fits in the eDRAM?

Could

Could

Could... Could... could... Please. We have no idea what state the PS3 version is in, so this is just silly and pointless. Resolution isn't everything, and yet it affects a whole bunch of other factors you are completely ignoring.

I guess we can just forget about the compromise already being made for the light propagation volumes for their SSGI on PS3...

I also think ten steps was not enough to get a precise reading, although it's going to be subHD either way.

You'd need at least 72 steps to discern (with certainty) the difference between 1120 & 1152 for example.

Anyways as long as games are "720" vertical they seem to get a pass, at least Halo Reach did. A weird mental thing I guess.

This isn't a bloody contest. It is what it is. Or maybe people don't care enough to discern the difference between 1280x720 upscaled versus 1152x720 upscaled (to 1360x768, 1920x1080 etc). Can you The temporal AA blending isn't going to help in motion clarity either.

This is getting rather silly.

 

[Ruskie]

Al,if i may ask what is exactly compromise that they made on ps3 by doing LVP with MSAA remapping trick?Will it reflect on quality being worse or?