So 720p with no blur filter on PS3 this time? GOOD.
Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
So 720p with no blur filter on PS3 this time? GOOD.
A couple offscreen shots from GAF on the last image where the books are? and also on another image where a small table is.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17017865&postcount=1205
That looks a very subtle amount of SSAO. So much so that I totally failed to notice that PC ver had SSAO & PS3 had none while playing.
Probably because the game already has a dark look.
Probably because the game already has a dark look.
brain_stew
Regular
There's definitely SSAO in the PC version but its quite subtle and not very high quality. Its easiest to spot if you're in a pipe.
The radius in which it sampling the environment appears to have been cut down compared to Gears of War 2, and the shadowing quality itself is not as good. The upshot is that the occlusion appears much much faster, which is likely why it is harder to notice in the first place (being a darker game in general and thus blending in well); FWIW, the SSAO in Uncharted 2 behaves similarly.
The game is pretty dark in general, so yes, it makes it a little more difficult to notice the difference.
I'd say so. If it weren't pointed out in this topic, I wouldn't have noticed it at all.
Rocksteady did a pretty damn good job overall on the console versions.
brain_stew
Regular
PC as well, just an excellent effort all around, its the best looking/performing multiplatform UE3 title as far as I'm concerned, pretty impressive considering its only the studio's second game iirc.
The only thing I would like is a config tweak to improve the shadowing resolution of the ambient occlusion on the PC version. I've got the normal shadowmaps looking really nice and high resolution which makes the low resolution ao stick out a little, still the performance is great so its a decent tradeoff all things considered.
Is there any technical reason why the PS3 couldn't support the selective aa and ssao of the 360 version (I'd guess not but its worth clarifying)? Or are we safe in the assumption that they were dropped for performance reasons (a smart choice if you ask me, they don't have a huge impact, really)?
What do you mean by "the occlusion appears much, much faster?" Do you mean it renders onto the screen without much latency? Or that the game runs smoothly?
What I find a little strange is that the presence of SSAO usually has a huge impact on the overall look and darkness of the environment, but when comparing the two console versions' screenshots, it's almost as though the SSAO doesn't change the look of the environments at all (although objects and characters do have a very visible contact-shadows effect). Maybe it's because the PS3 version included pre-baked AO maps to compensate for the missing SSAO, but that would cause a separate load of memory issues in itself.
The limitations of the algorithm result in artifacting where an object moves in front of a distant corner where there is SSAO in effect i.e. the ambient occlusion gets disrupted. With Gears of War 2, the SSAO takes some time before it settles on-screen, maybe half a second to 1 second, which is a lot more noticeable than B:AA's or Uncharted 2's rendition.
Just downloaded the demo on 360. SSAO is pretty good.
1. They use a much tighter radius than Gears 2.
2. There doesn't seem to be any frame delay. My guess is that instead of accumulating SSAO over multiple frames, they are using single-frame.
3. They do a really good job of fixing edge artifacts. In Gears 2, you can see a one pixel white halo around everything, but I don't see it Batman AA.
4. Just like Gears 2, they don't have SSAO on moving characters. When characters die and lay on the ground, they get SSAO, but if you look at Batman's feet, he doesn't get any.
5. I bet their kernel is uses a cross pattern of samples. When the pipes on the ground are almost horizontal or vertical, you can see lots of flickering in the SSAO as the camera moves.
Overall, nicely done! If you don't notice it, it means they did a really good job.
1. They use a much tighter radius than Gears 2.
2. There doesn't seem to be any frame delay. My guess is that instead of accumulating SSAO over multiple frames, they are using single-frame.
3. They do a really good job of fixing edge artifacts. In Gears 2, you can see a one pixel white halo around everything, but I don't see it Batman AA.
4. Just like Gears 2, they don't have SSAO on moving characters. When characters die and lay on the ground, they get SSAO, but if you look at Batman's feet, he doesn't get any.
5. I bet their kernel is uses a cross pattern of samples. When the pipes on the ground are almost horizontal or vertical, you can see lots of flickering in the SSAO as the camera moves.
Overall, nicely done! If you don't notice it, it means they did a really good job.
I was thinking,here we keep talking about resolution & AA but rarely talk about AF.
I've never seen much to be talked about AF on console games. [only time I've read about it is Riddick's 4*AF & Heavenly Sword's 8*AF..]
Any idea what amount of AF we get in console games normally ? [well I know a lot of games use bilinear filtering but I am talking about those which are trilinear + have some AF]
I've never seen much to be talked about AF on console games. [only time I've read about it is Riddick's 4*AF & Heavenly Sword's 8*AF..]
Any idea what amount of AF we get in console games normally ? [well I know a lot of games use bilinear filtering but I am talking about those which are trilinear + have some AF]
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hard to quantify, so we can only realy say 'none', 'some' or 'lots'.
It is kind of hard to gauge the quality of texture filtering in this thread, because if you're not controlling the game firsthand and specifically looking at how the textures change, you don't know if any given texture's apparent level of detail is due to resolution or filtering quality.
brain_stew
Regular
You can't really make a definite statement on how much is applied, just give a "best guess". The overall standard is petty damn low from my experience, many games forgo it all together which can look very nasty at times.
I personally feel its more of a priority than aa in most cases, but I'm sure others will disagree. It just makes me feel all that time creating beautiful high quality textures all goes to waste. I'd take lower resolution textures with high levels of af over higher resolution textures with bilinear filtering personally.
Its usually one of the first things I test out when I play a game, what I found bizarre the other day was that a sub HD launch game with no aa and a horrible framerate, Quake 4, has some really good texture filtering, it looks about 4xaf to me. Seems really counter to the usual choices made, but I guess it may come from the PC development background of Raven.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right...I'm wrong on this one. I was looking at his feet, and his feet didn't seem to get any SSAO, but when I looked closer, his feet are getting a TINY bit. Same for the enemies. So characters do get SSAO, but they have tweaked it so that the feet just don't get much, as opposed to something like Uncharted 2 where there is a lot more darkening around the feet.
In his normal standing position, now that I look again, he has a little bit of SSAO under his armpit, by his arms near the body, and around his crotch. And YES, I looked at his crotch in the name of science.
