Can you show me an interview were they lied? All I've heard from people on this is complaints that Julian of Factor 5 compared an early XBox to a finished GameCube and said GameCube was faster. Even then Julian admited that this was an early XBox vs a finished GameCube, and was that even an official comment from Factor 5? Was it not just Julian talking in a forum? I'd really love to have links to all these 'lies' from Factor 5 just to know exactly what went on once and for all.
Can you give me a link that substantiate your claims? Again there is doubt in their honesty. I would be enterested in seeing if you can find some information that backs these claims up. They when can discuss whether they lied or not.
I can't remember that, but if it happened then fine, you can question what Sega say in the future about their games not Factor 5. As for how I would know that's BS, well because 60,000,000 is quite obviously impossible on PS2, that's just a technical fact.
If a developer makes certain claims they should back them up. The same should hold true to RL. How can we say these figures are accurate? How do you know these figures they are proposing aren't as ridiculous as factor5's assertions?
Many times in the past it has been said on this forum that Rogue Leader pushes 12,000,000+ polys per second, nobody else argued with that, not even any of the devs on this forum.
OK. SO because no one caught it and denied it must be true? I have heard people say those high polygon models were for cut scenes while lower polygon count models were used in game. I have heard that ingame models were around 2,000 - 4,000 polygons.
What's rediculous about it?
For one they sounds extremely high. Two there is no evidence to back up these claims. The same could be said about VF4. They can claim what they want but without actual figures they're assertions are meaningless.
You kept asking, did I count up the 12-15,000,000 per second number. I was saying that at least my numbers come from a source and if anyone's counting polys its you, your numbers come from just looking at the game and guessing.
come from a source? So if i turned to sega's page for the vf4 polycount i'd be justified in believing the game was rendering 60,000,000 polygons/second because i have a source that says so?
As for Rogue Leader having average polygon counts.. its poly counts and lighting quality is quite obviously way above average.
Did you see what ERP said? The lighting methods the gc uses are "grossly simplified." Above average Teasy? ERP doesn't think so.
If you don't want a fight then we don't have to have one. I don't want to have a slanging match, but I will retaliate if someone tries to insult me.
no one is insulting you teasy.
That back up your claims thing is a nasty one,
Why because i am asking for evidence? Why must you interprit this as i am calling you a liar?
it can come back and bite you. For instance back up your claims that Factor 5 have lied about Rogue Leaders polycounts, because nobody else seems to think so.
A lot of people here seem to think so Teasy. I am not the first person here that disagrees with the RL figures. Check the forum history. Second it doesn't make a difference what people here in this thread believe. If Factor5 misrepresented these figures then they're claims are null and void regardless of what people believe.
Or you could back up your opinion on Flipper not having more powerful T&L then Geforce 2.
Did you read what ERP said?
What i said exactly was that i wasn't so sure about Tangrineth's assertions. I didn't say i believed the Geforce 2 was more powerful then the Flipper. I just wan't sure about her exagerated claims.
Afterall we are talking about a much newer chip here (Flipper) when compared to Geforce 2, and with games like Rogue Leader and Metroid Prime on GameCube I would imagine its sensible to assume that Flipper is faster until its proven otherwise.
Newer doesn't beget better teasy in all cases. This chip is newer then the Geforce 3 - do you think it is more powerful then the geforce 3?
Where did you see this? Could you post it, because I didn't see that.
Sure i can i have the benchmarks right here (PDF file). If you want i can email them to you or upload them to you via messenger service or ftp.
Did Sega ever claim in an interview that they were actually pushing that number?
Would this make their webpage figure more accurate?
Did you go into specifics on how many polys were onscreen per frame at what framerate ect? Or was this a silly off hand, and probably confused, claim from a PR guy who wouldn't know a polygon if it poked his eye out?
would this make their webpage figure more accurate?
Well so far you've came up with some numbers that you think sound reasonable, and refused to believe any numbers I've given you no matter what source they're from.
No Teasy that isn't the case. I stated numbers i have been lead to believe are the norm. I have a hard time believing RL's polycount is dramatically higher then the norm without evidence for this. I don't believe developers should be trust on face value. A polycount figure is meaningless if they don't tell you how they got it, why, and what effects were being used or what conditions the tests were done under.
What I'd like to see is you show me some numbers from a few sources to show the opposite.
Hmmm i have had similiar arguments with christians. Teasy prove to me that the God of the universe isn't a 26th dimensional cream puff. Prove to me that VF4 isn't rendering 60,000,000 polygons/second. Do you see the similarity? You have made an assumption those Factor 5 figures are accurate without looking deeper into them. Teasy lets be reasonable, ok? You made a claim, you should back it up. Numbers from a webpage don't constitute evidence. They are meaningless figures if they have no value applied to them or conditions.
Rather then asking me over and over to prove it, then saying "I don't believe that source prove it another way". Your trying to make me jump through hoops here man
Teasy i am asking you to provide evidence for your claims.
