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

If that's eventually confirmed then it's definitely a step up from 1120x585.

 

To be fair, NG2 had 2xAA. Many people complained about an inconsistent frame rate though.

I think both games run on different engines, and they look noticeably different. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the Sigma engine compares to the engine used in NG2.

 

AHEM.

Evidently, certain folks have a tough time with sticking to the topic and forum rules... Offending posts (or any that were relevant to that line of discussion) have been moved here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=53558

Further violations will result in more yellow or red cards being handed out! Please be mindful of the difference between Technical Discussion and your own preferences (which may in fact be wildly different from others!)

 

MazingerDUDE pegs it at 1120x585 just like the 360 code based on the media released (ie to be confirmed):

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?p=611

Also, I see no dynamic framebuffer on Riddick on either version.

 

Really? It seems too strange why worsen in ngs 2 compared ngs? Reduce the resolution sound like sadistic...I hope only the video release is low res. Another question in Riddick on ps3 the textures sharpness and the HUD change dynamically often. What is it if not dynamic resolution? And the resolution on ps3?

 

Maybe NGS2 is more demanding than NGS?

Also, I'm wondering if it was just easier/cheaper, in terms of porting assets and such, to just port over the same res as the 360 version?

 

That's a rather distinct possibility given the larger numbers of enemies and larger scope environments and effects compared to the first game.

The rendering resolution should be fairly independent of the assets, although with a higher resolution, you'll get the higher LOD or MIP maps loaded, but then one would just worry about the increased pixel shading requirements at that point anyway. Memory is one possibility if they are really pushing it (however their implementation may be).

 

Well however I'll be wait to said is sub hd too on ps3. Sure the video release of GDC it is, but Cryengine too has shows in a terrible resolution. Probably would be, but establish through a clip would be 'uncorrect'.

 

Realtime dismemberment played a vital role in the gameplay engine in NGII. Interestingly, instead of having buckets of blood pouring out when an enemy loses a limb, there is an alternate effect as shown in the trailer.

Interesting. Btw, the 2nd 360 screen's link goes to the PS3 thumb.

 

Thanks, fixed it

 

Here are some screens I took of some HD videos of the 360 version of Riddick, showing the (horizontal) resolution switching between 1024x576 and 1280x720:

 

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/riddickres.jpg


I think the visible aliasing is just caused by post processing probably by a lower res alpha channel

Here's an example

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/lowresalpha.jpg

 

Seems likely now that I've seen this. There's an article in GPU Gems that describes the technique for adding glows (it's just as you mention with the lower res alpha buffer):

http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems/gpugems_ch21.html

 

So it does or doesnt dynamicaly switch to lower resolutions?

 

Please note that the video player that I used to capture these shots had a sharpening filter turned on (to better accentuate the aliasing). Just throwing that out there in case that extra filtering is skewing anyone's results.

I'm absolutely certain there is a dynamic resolution changing going on, at least in the PSN demo I've played firsthand. In some scenes in the demo, there is a very noticeable sudden blurring and changing of edge aliasing step patterns if one observes closely. I suspect that if it weren't for the major pile of bodies on the floor in the one shot I took, the aliasing wouldn't be as bad as it is; the slowdown caused by all those characters on screen at a time probably triggered a resolution come-down to 1024x576.

Here's another picture comparison I made showing the dynamic resolution at work, that shows a clear difference in the edge/aliasing stepping patterns in a couple spots:

 

Can anyone take a stab at guitar hero metallica? I was wondering if they changed the resolution since world tour on either ps3 or xbox 360.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/10148-guitar-hero-metallica-xbox-360-and-ps3-screenshots/

 

The PS3 shots there are 720p with no AA, and I would say there's a strong chance that they're actually 360 shots bearing in mind that Neversoft have yet to produce any Guitar Hero game on PS3 that wasn't sub-HD, including the recent World Tour.

It would be great if they've bucked the trend though.

 

GH3 ran at 60fps on my 8600GT-M at 720p and higher. Why they couldn't manage that on the PS3 is beyond me.

 

Wow. The GH series are sub-HD on the PS3?

There isn't even much going on in those games...

 

I guess input lag and display lag are their concerns... the game must run with a consistent framerate, so the gameplay doesn't suffer. On top of that, it is quiet likely, that the PS3 development didn't get the same amount of developers as the 360 version did.