Killzone: first pics
- Thread starter megateto
- Start date
http://www.psxnation.com/news/newsstory?idnumber=001387
Interestingly....
Guess thats settle PS2 vs 480p standard attack kill!
Graphics else, sounds like JD type of rendering, untextured polys in the background..to acheive that "large" world feel..unless of course the fog does proves us wrong.
Gameplay wise, bit disappointed that there is no vehicular combat....nice looking armors they have there.
Interestingly....
Guess thats settle PS2 vs 480p standard attack kill!
Graphics else, sounds like JD type of rendering, untextured polys in the background..to acheive that "large" world feel..unless of course the fog does proves us wrong.
Gameplay wise, bit disappointed that there is no vehicular combat....nice looking armors they have there.
marconelly!
Veteran
480p is not 'free' on PS2, as it saves video memory if you have half height front buffer. That does allow for more textures to be stored there. Image quality can suffer severely with half height buffer games, if if they don't filter it properly. Still, games like BGA and TR:AOD prove that you can have excellent image quality with half height front buffer. I hope Killzone will not disappoint there.
Ironically, the game with best textures on PS2 right now (SH3) DOES use full front buffer and can be played in progressive scan. Same goes for Burnout 2, for example.
A and TR:AOD prove that you can have excellent image quality with half height front buffer. I hope Killzone will not disappoint there.Ironically, the game with best textures on PS2 right now (SH3) DOES use full front buffer and can be played in progressive scan. Same goes for Burnout 2, for example.
marconelly! said:480p is not 'free' on PS2, as it saves video memory if you have half height front buffer. That does allow for more textures to be stored there. Image quality can suffer severely with half height buffer games, if if they don't filter it properly. Still, games like BG
Ironically, the game with best textures on PS2 right now (SH3) DOES use full front buffer and can be played in progressive scan. Same goes for Burnout 2, for example.
There’s something I don’t understand here, why should quality improve with full front buffer? When only displaying in interlace mode at 60 fps. The GS is reading from a 640x240 buffer. Full back buffer on the other hand I can understand, you render in 640x480 then blend it down to 640x240 and flip buffers.
Why should a front buffer for interlace display ever have full resolution?
*remembers what ERP said just days ago*...Chap said:
I wonder Chap, what criteria exactly do you use before you construde something as fact? If you read it on a fan newssite? If you've heard it more then twice by two different people? If you've saw it on TV?
:?
A bit of real facts - NDD's GDC presentation on J&D technology goes into great detail about their LOD system (and just about everything else) and they never manage to mention the non-textured LOD that has become something of a B3D fact from what I can see.
Which isn't to say it couldn't have been used - but going by official word, there is no indication to point it has.
I mention this partially because while the idea may sound awfully cool to a lot of people here it's far from being as trivial and in my experience with very large view distances (6km+) you will always have a ton of geometry that "must" remain textured no matter how far off in the distance you see it.
In fact, I can't really think of many examples where this would work decently at all, and those where it would are usually better off simply fading off into transparency and not drawing at all after certain distance (something which J&D DOES do, and quite a lot in fact).
Anyway, the Killzone interview refers to having "multiple" texture layers up close and fading them off as you move away - which is closer to what many XBox games commonly do (eg. Halo), to improve perceived texture detail.
That's because the notion that FrameBuffer size imposes limits on your texture storage is BS. (at least IMOMarc said:
).Saving 500kb on half frame buffers and using that for non-transient texture doesn't exactly mean much when your main mem texture pool is around 20mb.
Granted however, if you designed the application around critically relying on having that few hundredkb of extra static texture space, then you couldn't have an easy time changing back later on.
Because most games can't maintain 60fps constantly enough for this to work. Minor framerate fluctuations become a whole lot more obvious when your resolution halves when they happen.Squeak said:
But you're right, as long as you maintain 60hz, the quality doesn't change on any interlaced display.
Well consistent framerate was never a trivial issue. And of course the more complex the app, the more likely it is you won't be able to predict every situation with possible fluctuations in framerate.
It's not all bad though - resolution halving is not very noticeable with games that run filtered - flicker filtering already lowers the resolution by quite a bit - enough that dropping to 240 is quite difficult to really notice when game is in motion(you must be looking for it and even so it can be very subtle - depending on your TV) - especially when it's just occasional thing like in GT3 or J&D...
Actually a good example of how hard it is to notice would be SoulCalibur2, which also runs halfheight front buffer in interlaced mode, and has occasional slowdowns, yet to date I don't recall anyone commenting on resolution halving in there
It's not all bad though - resolution halving is not very noticeable with games that run filtered - flicker filtering already lowers the resolution by quite a bit - enough that dropping to 240 is quite difficult to really notice when game is in motion(you must be looking for it and even so it can be very subtle - depending on your TV) - especially when it's just occasional thing like in GT3 or J&D...
Actually a good example of how hard it is to notice would be SoulCalibur2, which also runs halfheight front buffer in interlaced mode, and has occasional slowdowns, yet to date I don't recall anyone commenting on resolution halving in there
Fafalada said:That's because the notion that FrameBuffer size imposes limits on your texture storage is BS. (at least IMOMarc said:
Saving 500kb on half frame buffers and using that for non-transient texture doesn't exactly mean much when your main mem texture pool is around 20mb.
Granted however, if you designed the application around critically relying on having that few hundredkb of extra static texture space, then you couldn't have an easy time changing back later on.
Are you basically saying that all those big developers compromising image quality in exchange for more texture space, are incompetent?
You could be right though.
But to layman it would seem to be a good idea to have a permanent residence for textures that are used often, so you wouldn’t have to resend them over and over again.
How small a buffer do you recon it would be possible to get by with, without compromising texture quality?
It has been speculated that the XGPU has around 128kb, but maybe those two chips (GS and XGPU) aren’t comparable at all?
Just two questions:
1. Jumping from a full frame buffer to a half framebuffer does only save 500 kb ??? What's the reason of that ???
2. It's a question about interlacing. When you render using half frame buffers: how many do you render ? 60 even and 60 odd ? or just 30 even and 30 odd ?
There is display resolution (X x Y pixels), and then there is texture resolution (X x Y texels), two almost completely unrelated measures.
Of course, with lower display resolution, you would be able to get by with lower resolution textures without it being noticeble. But at the current standard of textures, that would mean below Gameboy screen resolutions.
Of course, with lower display resolution, you would be able to get by with lower resolution textures without it being noticeble. But at the current standard of textures, that would mean below Gameboy screen resolutions.
But if you are halving screen resolution (on the GS) you could use...well, you should use textures that had half the resolutions if you wante to save space.
Are you telling me that the fact of having textures of less resolution is a problem ??? I thought you were only increasing free space...
Are you telling me that the fact of having textures of less resolution is a problem ??? I thought you were only increasing free space...
half frame buffer....
that means no pro-scan........
i mean... if Jak2 can do it, (and a lot of the best looking games fro ps2 out already) why cant this thing?
that means no pro-scan........
i mean... if Jak2 can do it, (and a lot of the best looking games fro ps2 out already) why cant this thing?
london-boy said:half frame buffer....
that means no pro-scan........
i mean... if Jak2 can do it, (and a lot of the best looking games fro ps2 out already) why cant this thing?
This is just a function of how they developed their game engine. It might be, that if they had the time to re-engineer the engine, they could. But how would they gain? It is the job of game developers to make great games that sell loads; not to meet arbitary technical criteria.
ShinHoshi said:
If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be suggesting using "half interlaced frame" textures! i.e. because using a half frame buffer you can throw away half your horizontal lines, the same is true for your textures. Which is as nonsense, as the half frame will not affect textures at all consistently. A texture in one frame, can be orientated and sized dfifferently in the next frame.
Similar threads
