Look at this Google-cached (pulled down) PlayStation 3 page

[Panajev2001a]

Basic things like texture sampling/filtering, Z-buffer/Stencil buffer updates, etc... will find Hardware support/acceleration... the rest will be handled through shaders using Vector processors like the APUs which is not too dissimilar from the approach even DirectX is following ( think about unified Vertex and Pixel Shaders )...

 

[chaphack]

That case, i hope so that PS3 is indeed very powerful enough to run all those software and subpixel stuffs in true next gen glory. Go for new approach! Go for true power to make new approach looks as good/better than old approach!

 

[Vince]

This is where chaphack seems to really miss the "thought boat" on this whole PS3 thing (well actually, he misses it numerous areas, but you get the point). It's not a matter of hardwired 3D features, anymore. Basically any effect is open game once you are able to express it in software. That's the beauty of this approach- you get to meet and beat anything the competitor has in the way of effects by software, while the other guy's features are frozen in hardware once the die has been approved.

I don't think he "gets" the point about sub-pixel polygons, either, as he still seems to be rambling on about whether textures will be high-res or not. It's an entirely different ballgame once the polygons are smaller than the pixels vs. what we have now where the pixels are smaller than the polygons. Determining the color for a pixel based on a "texture" (if that entity will even have a formal existence in this new regime) become radically easier to handle, as I understand from the article.

Strong the force in this one is.

 

[randycat99]

I'd luv to put the Jedi-freak-on that Princess Armadelia, boy I tell ya.

 

[notAFanB]

ANYWAY, i think polygons are the least of PS3 worries. It will be interesting to see how much RAM Sony can afford in PS3. I hope this time round, they provide enough for true next gen visuals.

yeah this is a bit of a grey Area for all next gen systems. do you go for fast but less space or visa versa?

Full support across all HDTV res, color depth should go as far as advancement allows, hires detailed textures, large next gen gameworld, large next gen online worl blah blah blah.

ah hahahahhahaha.....

That case, i hope so that PS3 is indeed very powerful enough to run all those software and subpixel stuffs in true next gen glory. Go for new approach! Go for true power to make new approach looks as good/better than old approach

just because it can doesn't mean it will. my guess (pull outta my arse no less) is that it should be plenty fast enough using older rendering methods for launch titles.

 

[3dcgi]

I'm skeptical about the 16x supersampling theory. That would require a massive amount of frame buffer memory.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The thing with texture is that the ones that are procedurally generated the resolution will not matter... you "basically" render them in the resolution you need each frame, in real-time and they trade a bit of processor cycles for a lot of space saving...

Another issue will be texture sampling, we will have take care of it with nice AA, but that will not be enough...

We will need to have careful attention at the shader level sampling the texture as with any decent size texture we will have quite a high number of texels to produce a single color...

And it is not like if we need to use texture micro-polygons enable us to use 16x16 textures...

I know that PRMan is designed for off-line high-quality rendering of cinematic CG scenes, but it is said that the program spends a huge part of frame time in I/O which includes quite a bit of Texture transfers ( as well as geometry, Shaders, etc... )

We will need high quality textures, but I think that between Texture compression ( who tells you that they cannot dedicate some APUs in the Visualizer to do something like VQ Textures decompression or even decompress 3D Textures ? ), 25.6 GB/s of external RAM bandwidth ( good for texture streaming ), procedural textures there should be nothing to cry a river about...

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'm skeptical about the 16x supersampling theory. That would require a massive amount of frame buffer memory.

Edit: Well... after I did the calculations I posted here, I thought about it and see the situation being quite a bit better than expected...

If you render at 640x480 you will need a 16x back-buffer which you can keep at 32 bits, while Z-buffer and back-buffer can be set to 32 bits...

This means ~19.6 MB for the back-buffer and ~2.34 MB for front-buffer and Z-buffer.

This means that with 21.94 MB we can have it all... and we still have space left for quite a bit number of textures...

I expect the fill-rate to be around 2-4 GPixels/s... each Pixel Engine in the Visualizer would work on a separate micro-polygon ( in the patent we have 4 Pixel Engines, 1 in each PE )

This would mean that overdraw can be up to ~400-800x if we take into account 480p with 16x AA, but I realize I am not taking account fill-rate wasted for unseen micro-polygons and the fact we might not be able to write at that speed ( Shaders' performance would be the limiting factor IMHO )...

 

[Grall]

Panajev,

You expect PS3 to run in 32-bit integer color depth? How would the machine cope with all the fancy shading you expect it to do with your reyes-style renderer you've dreamt up for it?

As for procedural textures... Sure, probably great for wood or flames or such, but many many surfaces - particulary man-made ones - can't be procedurally generated. Besides, if the thing is supposed to generate textures in real-time you'd have to render the scene in texture order or else waste vast amounts of processing power on re-generating textures over and over again as they appear in different places in a scene. There goes your deferred shading/geometry ideas as well dude. *poof*

You can't have it all, dude.


*G*

 

[V3]

You expect PS3 to run in 32-bit integer color depth? How would the machine cope with all the fancy shading you expect it to do with your reyes-style renderer you've dreamt up for it?

Shouldn't be a problem. As long is 640 res.

As for procedural textures... Sure, probably great for wood or flames or such, but many many surfaces - particulary man-made ones - can't be procedurally generated. Besides, if the thing is supposed to generate textures in real-time you'd have to render the scene in texture order or else waste vast amounts of processing power on re-generating textures over and over again as they appear in different places in a scene. There goes your deferred shading/geometry ideas as well dude. *poof*

I think you got it wrong, but yes its going to use some FLOPS.

 

[chaphack]

Doesnt the new DX9 cards render in 64/128 color depth? If PS3 optimizes at 32bpp or limited at 480p w/ higher bpp, it is gonna be PS2 all over again....

squeeeze the RAM Sony! RAM it up PS3 arse!

 

[V3]

Doesnt the new DX9 cards render in 64/128 color depth?

16 bit per component to 32 bit per component. And I think only NV3x actually does 32 bit per component, not sure.

 

[Grall]

V3:

Sorry, but what does resolution have to do with pixel depth? In what way is 640 res going to make 32bpp integer more useable as a display res for PS3? No matter what your res, 32bpp is going to introduce serious artefacting, that's pretty much a given.

Anyway, ATIs DX9 chips always uses 128bpp framebuffers in FP mode, it's only Nvidia that has the ability to do 64bpp FP...


*G*

 

[Gubbi]

I'm skeptical about the 16x supersampling theory. That would require a massive amount of frame buffer memory.

Edit: Well... after I did the calculations I posted here, I thought about it and see the situation being quite a bit better than expected...

If you render at 640x480 you will need a 16x back-buffer which you can keep at 32 bits, while Z-buffer and back-buffer can be set to 32 bits...

Your Z buffer has to be the same resolution as your backbuffer, -otherwise you won't be able to determine which subpixels to cull.

Also with 16x supersampling you get a 16x increase in number of micropolys. The whole idea of micropolys is that you don't have to scan-convert them (so they have to be smaller than your subpixels).

Then you have to deal with shadows, where you get to transform your geometry for every light source, rendering shadow maps (using a traditional scan-conversion rasterizing approach ?).

For all the power and on-die eDram the PS3 will have I just cannot see it implement a REYES architecture.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Paul]

it is gonna be PS2 all over again....

Sony, Toshiba and IBM aren't stupid. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[chaphack]

Sony + Toshiba = PS2
Sony, Toshiba and IBM does quite spell graphics either, IMHO

ANYWAY, higher bpp will need more RAM, right?

 

[London Geezer]

ps2 all over again?
it might be, if Sony messes A LOT of things up ALL AT THE SAME TIME....

still, i think that little old PS2 is pulling out some things that are just amazing to say the least. i'm sorry to say that after around 6 hours into SH3, i'm absolutely and fully satisfied with what a (LETS NOT FORGET) 3 years old console is doing in terms of graphics and i fail to see how ANYONE can complain about it.

it's always been about compromise. and it will always be. as powerful and mighty as PS3 and PS4 and PS5 will be, there will always be room for improvement, and i would put my money on the amount of memory first. but WHAT THE HELL maybe not eveyone has seen what SH3 is doing, some of the effects that it uses, the amount of detail put into the characters and into the environments. all from an UNDERPOWERED 3 YEAR OLD console.

i still have to purchase ZOE2. actually let me rephrase that. KONAMI ARE STILL SITTING ON THEIR ASSES AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE FRIKKING THING TO BE RELEASED. but if everyone is putting SH3 on par with ZOE2 in terms of visual beauty, then i really fail to see how anyone cannot be satisfied considering ps2's specs were finalized years ago. and we all know that a PC-friendly architecture out at the time of PS2 launch would simply melt down trying to replicate the amount of detail into SH3...

 

[Paul]

Sony, Toshiba and IBM does quite spell graphics either, IMHO

The only thing wrong with GS was it's lack of VRAM and features. Think Sony is going to make the same mistake twice?

ANYWAY, higher bpp will need more RAM, right?

Why do you continue to think that PS3 will be a ram-starved system? We DONT even know how much ram the thing will have.

 

[megadrive0088]

128-bit color / rendering precision was one of the givens that I thought PS3 and all next-gen consoles would have.

 

[London Geezer]

128-bit color / rendering precision was one of the givens that I thought PS3 and all next-gen consoles would have.

ME TOO.... still, since i assume the trend of console-RAM-starvness will still exist, i'm not raising my expectations too high....

u know, better being pessimistic than disappointed


note: is STARNESS even a word? starvation just sounded so...... u know.... serious...