KILLZONE Shadow Fall [PS4]

Not having Indirect Shadows is a very stupid decision, I mean, We are talking about NEXT GEN, Bring something NEW instead of increasing Polygons or increasing the resolution of textures etc, BRING INDIRECT SHADOWS LIKE THE LAST OF US.

I can't believe GG took the decision of having pathetic Ambient Occlusion.
 
They still have 8 or 9 months to fine tune things. I wouldn't beat them up over their decisions till then. Especially since by the sounds of it they either haven't got near final dev kits yet or just very recently got them.
 
You guys have to realize and you can't underestimate this. THEY STARTED THE PROJECT 2.5 YEARS AGO.

It was constantly in flux and they always knew they were going to have a launch title. They lifted their engine wholesale from KZ3 immediately after finishing and started work on the earliest of PS4 dev kits in seems like. They were going for the lowest common denominator and they hit that with what looks like KZ3+.

There should be no reason to beat them up over this, on their next game when they have everything about the hardware in a stable state is when they can start figuring out how to really tap into it.
 
Last of Us already has indirect shadows. I'm sure GG will be able to support something similar or better on PS4...
 
I wouldn't beat GG up over visuals too. I would like them to put in more zing in the art direction (like KZ2 and 3 !), and perhaps explore more gameplay elements. In KZ2 and 3, we had preprogrammed destruction. I am wondering if they will do more dynamic destruction in KZ4.
 
There's certainly enough bandwidth and memory and fill rate for 1080p 30fps and still do more than KZ2/3 did. And the engine isn't doing anything shockingly complex so far - large draw distances and lots of simple single textured geometry for the city scape, but no sign of radically new rendering tech, and a few noticeable issues too (no character shadows in that airborne shot, for example).
How can you be so sure they didn't use tessellation on the rubble? Isn't rendering them raw more taxing on the system?
 
Look at the buildings in the far backround, with the uprezzed scans. You can tell that tessellation implementation and those kind of advanced effects were not a factor when shipping this game for launch period. They just might have implemented textures raw. PS4 obviously has the processing power to not make everything look like a glob of nothing like PS3 and 360 do with their rubble
 
So I was thinking as also mentioned in another thread, that if you use various texture layers to conserve memory, that could use more bandwidth as you'd be merging the layers while rendering each frame, accessing all layers. Costs less memory, but more bandwidth. But if you have a few GB extra to spare, you could afford to load the various layers and pre-merge them in memory before the renderer accesses them, and that would decrease texture bandwidth by the amount of layers you have?

Like Nesh, I don't know and I'm trying to learn, so apologies if I say something stupid.
 
Hello everybody, I am a new member here although I have been monitoring this board from time to time.

Although it is still very early and certainly not optimised, I would like to ask, mainly due to Phil's information regarding the 1,5GB of Ram available on early devkits for gfx, if we have any indication of how much RAM the PS4 OS will require when it is good and ready.

Again, I know that everything is in rough form right now, but certainly some people (especially a dev like Phil) will have an idea of just how much system ram the OS will require.

I ask this because the PS4 seems to be doing a lot of things in the background and even though they have a dedicated chip to alleviate the main CPU APU from these tasks, it still requires RAM to actually record your playthrough, download, and all those things.

So I want just a rough estimate. Some people say some crazy numbers and that will be utterly disappointing if it is true.

Phil or anyone, would be awesome if you could shed some light and we get an idea of just how much of 8GB are actually going to be available for devs.

Thank you and sorry for the long post! ;)
 
I think we have some indication of the OS being based on the Vita's OS. Let's imagine that we have at least those same features as the Vita's OS (Browser, Party Chat, a maximum of 5 'small' apps allowed open next to the game). The Vita has 640MB of memory (512MB main, 128MB VRAM). I don't think we know the actual memory constraints, but there have been some hints that the Vita OS reserves 96MB of RAM and 32MB of VRAM for tasks that can stay in memory in paralel to a main game. This seems reasonable if we look at the behaviour of those apps that can run in paralel to a game, how quickly the web-browser runs out of memory when a game is concurrently open, early screenshots we've seen of games and how much memory they used (e.g. Uncharted had 412MB or so in use irc).

128MB of 640MB is about 1/5th, so extrapolating that to 8GB, that would be a max of 8/5 = 1.6GB. Not all applications would scale up in memory, especially taken into proportion that the PS4 has more than 12x the memory of the Vita - some of those apps would have to run at 4k native to become as demanding in terms of used graphics/system memory (same in PS4), while background audio for chatting wouldn't necessarily take more memory than on Vita at all.

But my guess would be that considering we should expect some concurrent apps, 1.5GB is not out of the question, leaving 6.5GB for games.

However, Sony didn't know they could do 8GB until very recently. This makes it entirely possible that Sony aimed for 512MB for OS, leaving 3.5GB for games, and in that case, if they don't change that, they would leave 7.5GB for games, and then it will depend on how much pressure there is from the OS/Services people to have more memory (e.g. 1GB total) versus pressure from the developers who say that they want 8GB.

So between 512MB and 1.5GB is the range I would expect for Sony.

For Microsoft it all depends on if they do really go for WinRT in the system (still what I would expect), in which case 2-3GB seems a reasonable target. The whole idea / rumor about why they went with 8GB of DDR plus the embedded RAM for GPU accelleration was always speculated to be for this purpose of having a lot of cheap memory available to be able to run WinRT.

Pretty wild guesses from me though.
 
I think we have some indication of the OS being based on the Vita's OS. Let's imagine that we have at least those same features as the Vita's OS (Browser, Party Chat, a maximum of 5 'small' apps allowed open next to the game). The Vita has 640MB of memory (512MB main, 128MB VRAM). I don't think we know the actual memory constraints, but there have been some hints that the Vita OS reserves 96MB of RAM and 32MB of VRAM for tasks that can stay in memory in paralel to a main game. This seems reasonable if we look at the behaviour of those apps that can run in paralel to a game, how quickly the web-browser runs out of memory when a game is concurrently open, early screenshots we've seen of games and how much memory they used (e.g. Uncharted had 412MB or so in use irc).

128MB of 640MB is about 1/5th, so extrapolating that to 8GB, that would be a max of 8/5 = 1.6GB. Not all applications would scale up in memory, especially taken into proportion that the PS4 has more than 12x the memory of the Vita - some of those apps would have to run at 4k native to become as demanding in terms of used graphics/system memory (same in PS4), while background audio for chatting wouldn't necessarily take more memory than on Vita at all.

But my guess would be that considering we should expect some concurrent apps, 1.5GB is not out of the question, leaving 6.5GB for games.

However, Sony didn't know they could do 8GB until very recently. This makes it entirely possible that Sony aimed for 512MB for OS, leaving 3.5GB for games, and in that case, if they don't change that, they would leave 7.5GB for games, and then it will depend on how much pressure there is from the OS/Services people to have more memory (e.g. 1GB total) versus pressure from the developers who say that they want 8GB.

Τhank you very much for your constructive response! :)

I drool at the though of a PS4 OS that requires just 512MB of RAM. But to be honest recording video and using web brower, chat while at the same time in game, sounds very very optimistic to me.

To be honest I would be very disappointed if Sony added the extra RAM because they wanted to add all these features and services running in the background. I would gladly sacrifice the video recording if it meant improving my games and the longevity of the console. Sure all OSes are getting updates that make them lose "fat" (look at PS3 which -if I am not mistaken started from around 120MB to just 50MB right now), but anthing more than 1,5gb for PS4 OS, sounds disappointing to me. Especially since I am a very antisocial gamer (haha) and have no interest in social networking, sharing videos etc etc.

I am wondering though... if Phil said that initial devkits had 1.5 ram dedicated to gfx...how much was the total ram of that specific devkit?
 
Well let's put it this way. The recording video is built into the hardware, and may well cost only a very trivial amount of memory. Party chat was something that the Xbox 360 could handle through the system just fine with only 32MB reserved for the entirety of its OS.

Web Browsing however I would expect to cost a fairly significant amount of memory to be enjoyable, but it's not impossible to do with 512MB - remember that the PS3 does all these things with 512MB right now.

Currently I would guess 1GB (my iPad 3 seems pretty ok with that amount), but with a good option for them to go 512MB either way.

If devs would have assumed 3,5GB and can now get 7GB, they'll probably be more than happy already to allow Sony to reserve 1GB - never forget that it's endlessly more feasible to release some more RAM from the OS to developers than take it away from them.
 
Well let's put it this way. The recording video is built into the hardware, and may well cost only a very trivial amount of memory. Party chat was something that the Xbox 360 could handle through the system just fine with only 32MB reserved for the entirety of its OS.

Web Browsing however I would expect to cost a fairly significant amount of memory to be enjoyable, but it's not impossible to do with 512MB - remember that the PS3 does all these things with 512MB right now.

Currently I would guess 1GB (my iPad 3 seems pretty ok with that amount), but with a good option for them to go 512MB either way.

If devs would have assumed 3,5GB and can now get 7GB, they'll probably be more than happy already to allow Sony to reserve 1GB - never forget that it's endlessly more feasible to release some more RAM from the OS to developers than take it away from them.

Wait, PS3 cant use the web browser while your are in game , unless something has changed dramatically and I never noticed it.

But generally I agree with what you say. 1Gb for OS would be good news when the machine is shipped. It would mean that via firmware updates and lots of "trimming" we could get even more ram available for devs.

I just dont want to hear anything about a 2+ GB OS, thats all, sounds kinda bad to my ears, that a console needs 2gigs of Ram just to boot, heh ;)
 
Wait, PS3 cant use the web browser while your are in game , unless something has changed dramatically and I never noticed it.

No, my point was that the PS3 has 512MB of memory in total, and it has a working web-browser ... ;)

I just dont want to hear anything about a 2+ GB OS, thats all, sounds kinda bad to my ears, that a console needs 2gigs of Ram just to boot, heh ;)

It wouldn't be just to boot, it would be for being much more capable for 'multi-tasking' and 'task-switching' purposes.
 
No, my point was that the PS3 has 512MB of memory in total, and it has a working web-browser ... ;)



It wouldn't be just to boot, it would be for being much more capable for 'multi-tasking' and 'task-switching' purposes.

Yeah I know, I over simplified it just to make my point more obvious. I know it is not just to boot, but do all the extra things it does. But my main grip is that it is still a console, and it really sounds weird to know that your console OS needs almost as much as your personnal computer OS. Plus, as I said, I really am not that interested in some of those features that will have a ram cost.
 
Understood.

I thought what is also interesting is the amount of RAM that the bandwidth allows to be consumed per frame. From the top of my head that was something like 5.6GB per frame at 1080p/30fps. So at the current RAM speed, I'm guessing that 6GB could be a good minimum amount to ensure that games can make the most of the available bandwidth (of course they can easily consume 5.6GB per frame when a game only has 2GB of assets in memory as well, and new assets need to be streamed in, etc.), but I'm wondering if it is a useful very rough indication nonetheless.
 
DF just published a analysis.
Read it here.

"Killzone: Shadow Fall is set to wave the 1080p banner when it arrives, and based on close, frame-by-frame scrutiny of the trailer, we can confirm this target is being realised fully here, giving us a crisp level of image quality we seldom see outside of PC gaming. But, while this leap gives us an impressive 2.25x pixel increase over the 1280x720 seen in Killzone 3, is this standard actually here to stay for all future releases?

The available evidence from this and other Sony trailers suggests that this is indeed the case, owing to the vastly higher fill-rates afforded by the PS4's powerful Radeon graphics processor. Chief among the priorities in its design is of 176GB/s memory bandwidth at its disposal in concert with a whopping 32 ROPs - stats that place these aspects of the PS4's architecture on a par with some of the fastest PC rendering hardware. Put into perspective, this level of throughput exceeds that of even capable £120+ PC graphics cards, including current mid-range favourite the Radeon HD 7850. Recent benchmarks of this card show little issue in running DirectX 11 titles like Battlefield 3 on high settings at 1080p60. In other words, given the right optimisation for the new version of Sony's custom LibGCM graphics library, there's more than enough of an overhead for the PS4 to push for more than what we're seeing here - or at least break even with 1080p going forward.

Even with such a high resolution in place, anti-aliasing is still necessary. The series has used a range of post-processing methods in the past, going from the blur-inducing quincunx of Killzone 2, to the sharper morphological (MLAA) method in Killzone 3. Given that we see image treatment in Killzone: Shadow Fall extends to non-geometric elements such as foliage, there's a strong indication that a post-process approach is making a return here and we wouldn't be surprised to see the return of MLAA in effect. This is backed up by the light shimmer effect we see on high-contrast edges too, showing sub-pixel noise which this method typically has trouble addressing. Even with these artifacts though, the image looks far beyond the quality console gamers have grown accustomed to. The fact is that, with more resolution to work with, the issues that have blighted post-processing AA in the current-gen era are far less of an issue at 1080p.

It's a beautiful game overall, but with compromises that only make sense if frame-rate has become the priority. Those hoping to see a trend of fluid 60FPS titles begin from day one will be disappointed, but for Shadow Fall the emphasis is placed on a cinematic spectacle rendered at 1080p30. The frame-rate is confirmed to be capped at 30FPS during interviews with the studio, and based on our feed we see this is absolutely 100 per cent stable throughout the entire demo. No drops, no screen tearing - it's a smooth play-through all the way, suggesting that the frame-rate could be running higher if it weren't locked down on this figure. So there's no 1080p60 here and Guerrilla's decision to lock at 30 also has implications for controller latency - it's a shame that Killzone won't have the crisp response that only 60Hz provides, and that helps makes PC gaming attractive to so many.

As it stands, the condition of Killzone: Shadow Fall's demo hints at the greater promise of its full release later this year. Regardless, and perhaps most importantly, out of all the titles showcased at Sony's event this week, Guerrilla Games is making the most practical declaration of intent for the future of PS4. Here we have unscripted stretches of gameplay on display with a multitude of effects we may well have seen in isolation on PS3, but rarely all in tandem, and never at this incredible sense of scale.

There are some curious cut-backs we didn't expect to see, but there's plenty of development time remaining until the game is finished, and with the bar being raised in almost every other category, it's perhaps inevitable that certain shortcomings - specific hangovers from the last generation - might rise to the surface. On the positive side, the push for higher-grade volumetric effects, masses of on-screen geometry, object-based motion blur, SSAO, and a full 1080p native frame-buffer all stand as the big selling points from a technical perspective in the here and now.

Based on specs alone, the PS4 clearly has far more to offer than what we're seeing, and it's worth remembering that Guerrilla would have developed a large chunk of Shadow Fall on incomplete hardware. Our understanding is that final kits based on actual PS4 production hardware are a relatively recent phenomenon, and now the developer has a fixed target to aim for, we may well see significant engine improvements. But if this stands as the level of technical quality we should expect for Shadow Fall's final release, we'll be due for one of the most technically compelling launch titles we've seen in a very long time."

Becoming increasingly excited about E3.
 
Back
Top