Killzone Prerendered E3 Trailer Talk

[zidane1strife]

Im not sure, But i think COD2 and KZ's smoke were done two different ways. The reason KZ's smoke looks so much better because its Volumetric Smoke, actual 3d smoke with the light of fire ambiently going through it. COD2's smoke, from when I last played it, looked like 2d smoke. I dont think I ever got a chance to walk around the smoke when it was like that. (like when the building collapsed). I might be wrong. But volumetric smoke is much more complicated. And not to be blunt, but I think the COD2 team faked their smoke.

On the other hand, the trailers we have seen (KZ/Warhawk/Motostorm/FF-demo/I-8/HS) all show methods of very similar smoke, so it seems like the ps3 hardware would definately be capable of doing events like that in-game.

I really hope its possible because the part in motorstorm, when the dust/smoke was flying behind the cars in the birds eye view was simply impressive.

The ps3 dev. kit 2.4Ghz cell was able to handle volumetric smog(which to me looked virtually identical to the one seen in kz trailer, though it may not be of the same quality, it's so close as to be indistinguishable. I've both trailers right in front of me.) along with the physics for the explosion, smoke and destruction that ensued in the gas station demo. Now I'm not sure what that demo involved, but it was said that it was all done on cell. Does that mean all the texturing, lighting, etc, that's normally done by a gpu was also done on the weaker 2.4Ghz cell while at the same time it was generating a physics based explosion with accurate volumetric smoke movement and debris collision detection?

You can definately see a difference in the KZ video, and the MGS4 video.
MGS4 is definately legit, and KZ is definately not.
The quality of the GI, meshes and Hypervoxels ( hint hint ) is in a whole different level than in MGS4. The MGS4 trailer doesn't even seem to have parallax mapping, which seems to be the *thing* in the next gen games. And there's a single character talking to a robot thingy, in very simple surroundings, with low resolution textures ( for next gen ), makes it significantly different from KZ. You should be able to spot the differences.

To a robot thingie with perfectly cylindrical smoothly animated tube, and the two most detailed realtime characters ever seen, with pixel-simulating shaders running over the robot's screen, and a super detailed high poly gun, and smoke effects too!(btw, only some parts of the environment had low-rez textures as it's said they had to recycle do to time constraints on the rushed trailer, snake, otacon, the robot've superb texturing.)

edited

 

[Deepak]

Good discussion people, just keep it civil. Thats why I am addicted to B3D...

 

[dubert]

Well, take a gander at this then. A rather simple game, being produced on the PC and PS3, both right now using the PC code, un-optimized for the PS3 yet the PS3 can handle it at 720p with a solid 49FPS framerate.

Compared even to Killzone, the vehicular detail, the character detail, the floor and environment textures are very much comparable to Killzone.

And again. The polycounts here are alot lower that on the KZ video. There isn't even a hint of GI, faked or otherwise. The are no Hypervoxels either.
You have to get a grip on reality.

 

[Titanio]

I think we should again bear in mind that it's not about technically matching the techniques and processes at play in a prerendered sequence, rather reaching a level that could look like that. That's what realtime rendering is all about - "tricks", perceptual quality etc.

Just because something is prerendered doesn't mean it can't be effectively "done" in realtime, for all intents and purposes, from most people's point of view. Hate to hold it up as an exemplar here, because it's not on the same plane as the Killzone trailer in terms of either complexity or impressiveness (though I do remember claims of "impossible" at E3 with regard to it also), but the prerendered Mobile Suit Gundam trailer has been pretty faithfully realised in realtime now.

 

[Bad_Boy]

The ps3 dev. kit 2.4Ghz cell was able to handle volumetric smog(which to me looked virtually identical to the one seen in kz trailer, though it may not be of the same quality, it's so close as to be indistinguishable. I've both trailers right in front of me.) along with the physics for the explosion, smoke and destruction that ensued in the gas station demo. Now I'm not sure what that demo involved, but it was said that it was all done on cell.

Your right, I cant believe I forgot about that demo, one of the most important demos related to this discussion. So like I said, I beleive its certainly possible the ps3 can do things like that.

Infact, I beleive a developer or someone even mentioned a game being created around that demo's engine.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8025980825115926132&q=playstation+3

I think we should again bear in mind that it's not about technically matching the techniques and processes at play in a prerendered sequence, rather reaching a level that could look like that. That's what realtime rendering is all about - tricks, perceptual quality etc.

True also.

 

[dubert]

If that smoke in the Killzone video can't be done on the PS3 or 360 then what's the big difference between this smoke (done on the 360 @ 60 fps as a launch game that was made for the PC too)

and this smoke (suppose to be a PS3 game)

http://jeremy.lwidof.net/demoreel/images/shotlist/shotlist_007.jpg


Now I know that the Killzone smoke is better overall over what COD2 had, but given that it's a PS3 exclusive game and Gureilla only has to program for one machine I will tend to think that it is possible. Also given the fact that the PS3 obviously has better hardware for stuff like this than the PC that the COD2 devs have to target and it makes me really think it is possible.
It's comparsions like this that make me say if devs can't deliver on this smoke
http://jeremy.lwidof.net/demoreel/images/shotlist/shotlist_008.jpg
then either they are not trying hard enough or they just suck. Plain and simple.

See the lighting on the last image for the Hypervoxels. You can see the light affects the voxels based on the thickness of the smoke, and the position of the light. also the animated billowing of the clouds is way too smooth, since it is in fact a procedural turbulence texture handling it. It would require hundreds of frames for the smoke to animate like that. The smoke in COD is in fact a volumetric rendered into a 2D texture, and mapped into a particle. You cannot get the properties of a real volumetric hypervoxel for a flat polygon like that. You could do multitexturing on the particle smoke of course. 1 for transparency, 1 for a normalmap to account some effects of lighting, and maybe also a zbuffer render of the original volume, to do tricks. But if that was animated it would require way too many textures, and especially if the textures are of a resolution that you will not see pixellation. There are many properties in a real volumetric that cannot be done AS IS with a realtime engine currently.

 

[Bad_Boy]

See the lighting on the last image for the Hypervoxels. You can see the light affects the voxels based on the thickness of the smoke, and the position of the light. also the animated billowing of the clouds is way too smooth, since it is in fact a procedural turbulence texture handling it. It would require hundreds of frames for the smoke to animate like that. The smoke in COD is in fact a volumetric rendered into a 2D texture, and mapped into a particle. You cannot get the properties of a real volumetric hypervoxel for a flat polygon like that. You could do multitexturing on the particle smoke of course. 1 for transparency, 1 for a normalmap to account some effects of lighting, and maybe also a zbuffer render of the original volume, to do tricks. But if that was animated it would require way too many textures, and especially if the textures are of a resolution that you will not see pixellation. There are many properties in a real volumetric that cannot be done AS IS with a realtime engine currently.

Umm, no offence at all, but I think you should read the couple posts above yours. I think volumetric smoke like that is very possible.

 

[dubert]

Umm, no offence at all, but I think you should read the couple posts above yours. I think volumetric smoke like that is very possible.

Not a real voxel AS IS.

​

See the render time on a SINGLE real voxel. Nothing else in the scene but 1 light source. No meshes, no GI, nothing but a single voxel. Rendered in my dual core AMD X2.
Took 4 minutes 29 seconds, for a SINGLE voxel. Imagine that with all the other stuff a game has to calculate, at 60 fps, and on hundreds of particles.
269.7 seconds * 60 frames = 16182 seconds for 60 frames. 16182 seconds / 60 seconds is 269.7 minutes = 4,495 hours for 60 frames of 1 SINGLE voxel. So the PS3 would have to render in 1 second, what my dual core X2 would render in 4,495 hours. So that would make 1 cell of a Cell, 970920 times faster than a new AMD X2.
But Like I said, there are tricks to make it *look* somewhat like a Hypervoxel, but definately NOT AS IS, and NOT like in the KZ trailer.

 

[Mmmkay]

After listening to the interview, here is his full answer:

"Interviewer: So it is gameplay, all that stuff is all gameplay?

Jack Tretton: It is gameplay. I mean beyond great gameplay, I think we have the opportunity to tap into worldwide development resource. Cause when you mention something like Killzone, that's of our? sister company over at Europe."

I guess some people interpret his answer in a different way that IGN and I listened to.

Edit: What Jack Tretton said about the Killzone demo is no different than what MS stated about the Xbox with "Toy Story" graphics. Lies, PR spin, whatever you want to call it, all the same IMO.

That is taken very much out of context, since Jack was interrupted with that question while answering his previous question. He was still speaking in terms of I-8. I addressed this issue a few weeks ago and I don't think there's really any room for debate here. IGN simply misinterpreted his comments.

 

[zidane1strife]

Not a real voxel AS IS.

​

See the render time on a SINGLE real voxel. Nothing else in the scene but 1 light source. No meshes, no GI, nothing but a single voxel. Rendered in my dual core AMD X2.
Took 4 minutes 29 seconds, for a SINGLE voxel. Imagine that with all the other stuff a game has to calculate, at 60 fps, and on hundreds of particles.
269.7 seconds * 60 frames = 16182 seconds for 60 frames. 16182 seconds / 60 seconds is 269.7 minutes = 4,495 hours for 60 frames of 1 SINGLE voxel. So the PS3 would have to render in 1 second, what my dual core X2 would render in 4,495 hours. So that would make 1 cell of a Cell, 970920 times faster than a new AMD X2.
But Like I said, there are tricks to make it *look* somewhat like a Hypervoxel, but definately NOT AS IS, and NOT like in the KZ trailer.

Well does look volumetric they even rotate the camera around it and looks like gobs of smoke not 2d particles, and the lighting does get through selectively, that is the thickest smoke doesn't quite let it through as the less thick smoke does once the explosion's light intensity has gone down a bit. There's also heat haze, accurate explosion/smoke displacement physics, lot's of debris with collision detection, and probably doing all that a gpu does to render the gphx(unless I missheard, or someone knows and can clarify this for us without braking NDA) at the same time while going at 2.4Ghz.

In the end the end product's what matters.

 

[Bad_Boy]

In the end the end product's what matters.

Exactly. Titanio touches on this in his post.

 

[zRifle1z]

Not a real voxel AS IS.

​

See the render time on a SINGLE real voxel. Nothing else in the scene but 1 light source. No meshes, no GI, nothing but a single voxel. Rendered in my dual core AMD X2.
Took 4 minutes 29 seconds, for a SINGLE voxel. Imagine that with all the other stuff a game has to calculate, at 60 fps, and on hundreds of particles.
269.7 seconds * 60 frames = 16182 seconds for 60 frames. 16182 seconds / 60 seconds is 269.7 minutes = 4,495 hours for 60 frames of 1 SINGLE voxel. So the PS3 would have to render in 1 second, what my dual core X2 would render in 4,495 hours. So that would make 1 cell of a Cell, 970920 times faster than a new AMD X2.
But Like I said, there are tricks to make it *look* somewhat like a Hypervoxel, but definately NOT AS IS, and NOT like in the KZ trailer.

Great example. Thank you.

 

[dubert]

Well does look volumetric they even rotate the camera around it and looks like gobs of smoke not 2d particles, and the lighting does get through selectively, that is the thickest smoke doesn't quite let it through as the less thick smoke does once the explosion's light intensity has gone down a bit. There's also heat haze, accurate explosion/smoke displacement physics, lot's of debris with collision detection, and probably doing all that a gpu does to render the gphx(unless I missheard, or someone knows and can clarify this for us without braking NDA) at the same time while going at 2.4Ghz.

In the end the end product's what matters.

What you are missing here is the fact that a technology demo, showing a single piece of tech running in a confined environment. Remember the old tech demos on the old consoles?
Like the highly detailed ( for that time ) T-Rex on PS1. Did you ever see a game running multiple instances of that T-Rex with the same detail in a game engine, that involves game logic, surroundings and other assets? No. I remember the Dreamcast tech demo showing a room with huge amount of polygons ( for that time ), but that level of detail didn't get into games since it was just a technology demo, showing something very specific. I also remember seeing a DOT3 bump mapped golf ball in the same demo. But bump mapping didn't get into any DC game, only for that demo.
A demo showing a particular effect is not a representation of what you can do in a game engine in multiple instances. I've seen faked SSS running realtime ( although 5 fps ), and even that is a "fake", it still ran at low framerates, and only showing that particular effect.
I've seen GI, and "realistic" caustics running realtime at low FPS, but again, not a chance to run on a full blown game engine.

 

[Bad_Boy]

It wasnt just a tech demo though. He specifically said it was a scene from a game they have in development.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

It wasnt just a tech demo though. He specifically said it was a scene from a game they have in development.

I remember him saying that aswel.

 

[dubert]

I remember him saying that aswel.

Oh well. If that's true, then more power to them!
But I would like to see that demo too...

 

[zidane1strife]

I remember him saying that aswel.

and it was most likely using the 2.4Ghz cell

What you are missing here is the fact that a technology demo, showing a single piece of tech running in a confined environment. Remember the old tech demos on the old consoles?
Like the highly detailed ( for that time ) T-Rex on PS1. Did you ever see a game running multiple instances of that T-Rex with the same detail in a game engine, that involves game logic, surroundings and other assets? No. I remember the Dreamcast tech demo showing a room with huge amount of polygons ( for that time ), but that level of detail didn't get into games since it was just a technology demo, showing something very specific. I also remember seeing a DOT3 bump mapped golf ball in the same demo. But bump mapping didn't get into any DC game, only for that demo.
A demo showing a particular effect is not a representation of what you can do in a game engine in multiple instances. I've seen faked SSS running realtime ( although 5 fps ), and even that is a "fake", it still ran at low framerates, and only showing that particular effect.
I've seen GI, and "realistic" caustics running realtime at low FPS, but again, not a chance to run on a full blown game engine.

Even the clothing in FF:TSW was rather stiff, heck most cg clothing was till a few years back. You'd have said something like the FFVII tech demo with supah smooth clothing animation would run at 60fps on early ps3 kits, and most would've laughed. Yet it happened, what was difficult to do even in prerendered scenes became feasible for realtime. New algorithms always pop-up, you never know when a good realtime solution will appear.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Oh well. If that's true, then more power to them!
But I would like to see that demo too...

Here it is : http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/updates.php?user=HardWood

Its the second one from the bottom

 

[dubert]

and it was most likely using the 2.4Ghz cell



Even the clothing in FF:TSW was rather stiff, heck most cg clothing was till a few years back. You'd have said something like the FFVII tech demo with supah smooth clothing animation would run at 60fps on early ps3 kits, and most would've laughed. Yet it happened, what was difficult to do even in prerendered scenes became feasible for realtime. New algorithms always pop-up, you never know when a good realtime solution will appear.

The poly counts aren't even close to Spirits, even today on realtime apps.
And solving physically accurate dynamics for highpoly objects is still slow.
The dynamics in game engines are not even close to that accuracy, but they suffice for games and the lowpoly objects in them.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

This thread has reached the bottom... I especially like how one guy shows the UT2K7 image and says that this is the proof for KZ being possible in realtime... ROTFL...