Noi, it has AAx4
New technical info on the PS3 version of Oblivion
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
Uhm... If there is one thing that PS2 didn't need to "emulate" was Vertex Shading. In fact, the PS2 "Vertex Shaders" were even better in certain aspects than the "real" VS's in the Xbox. And they were also clocked double (The EE was 300MHz while the NV2A was 150MHz). You can't really call them Vertex Shaders as that is a DirectX term, but the VUs were pratically PS2's "Vertex Shaders" as they did the same job and more...
I think NV2A was 200 MHz. Originally specified for 250 MHz. At 150 MHz it would be under the spec of a GeForce2 GTS.
I'm not so sure I believe that PS2 had a significant edge over Xbox. It sure doesn't look like it in any games. I also don't think that's ever been said on here by the devs. For one, the fact that those vertex shaders were on-chip with the rest of the graphics subsystem is probably a huge practical advantage. And only one VU was really capable of much if I recall right.
Supernatural
Newcomer
Thx. But no mention of HDR there. Is there someone who know if the PS3 version of Oblivion got HDR or not?
The main difference is that the VUs of the PS2 were fully programmable and a lot more flexible than the vertex-shaders of the NV2a. The main difference I see in the Xbox vs PS2 debate is that Xbox was a lot more straightforward and easier to extract performance out of - which is why most games on that platform are within the same leaque and all show of nice IQ. PS2 on the other hand offered perhaps way to much freedom and required different approaches that resulted in the majority of games (at least initially) to be less impressive with significantly worse IQ. On the other hand though, the PS2 was capable of exceptional results in both complex worlds and good IQ as some developers were able to show.
Well there was not much AA in the original Xbox version, so i guess they won't change much here in this respect. Definately no 4xAA.
Why shouldn't there be no HDR? In fact if they didn't choose some special way the PS3 HDR should be even better (quality vise) because of the much higher precision.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
So how would you rank the two systems if overall system performance is the metric at hand, when all the strengts and weaknesses are put together?
Last edited by a moderator:
The metric you are looking for is dictated by the developer and what hardware suits him better to achieve his specific goals. The two consoles are very different by nature, how do you quantify which strength and weaknesses are important and which aren't? You can't - not unless you limited the comparison to a single task or benchmark to find out which hardware it better suited for that given task.
Supernatural
Newcomer
PS3 cannot do AA and HDR at the same time. So, they may have chosen AA over HDR.
The ps3 screens seems to more be "flat" in terms of dynamic lighting:
Oblivion PS3
Oblivion XBOX 360
PS3 cannot do AA and HDR at the same time. So, they may have chosen AA over HDR.
The ps3 screens seems to more be "flat" in terms of dynamic lighting:
Oblivion PS3
Oblivion XBOX 360
I'm not quite sure how you can tell "dynamic lighting" from screenshots, because by the very name, it seems to be something that requires motion to be observed !
In any case though, the PS3 is capable of doing HDR and AA because HDR can be done in other methods (ie. through NAO32 space).
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Yes but the relevant information here is whether Bethesda is using something like that?
I think you are taking the blooming white sky and fogged distant mountains in the xbox360 as "HDR"?
It certainly can fool the eye into thinking there's more "depth" to the image, a bit like in photography where an image that's focused all through looks less interesting and flat compared to an image that's "framed" with focusing to a point of interest.
The PS3 shot on the other hand seems to have some "HDR" like effect on the castle, and the sky is more "detailed" with clouds.
But I think the difference in these pictures is mostly caused because the game does feature dynamic day and lighting changes (and weather?). The xbox360 shot seems to be taken closer to midday, and the PS3 to noon or morning (in game time).
So in the other shot, the sky is less clouded than in the other, and the shots, while approximately similar are still taken from different positions. For example, if you moved a bit in the xbox360 shot, you might no longer see that "HDR" bloom of the sun in the water because of the light hitting from slightly different direction.
It certainly can fool the eye into thinking there's more "depth" to the image, a bit like in photography where an image that's focused all through looks less interesting and flat compared to an image that's "framed" with focusing to a point of interest.
The PS3 shot on the other hand seems to have some "HDR" like effect on the castle, and the sky is more "detailed" with clouds.
But I think the difference in these pictures is mostly caused because the game does feature dynamic day and lighting changes (and weather?). The xbox360 shot seems to be taken closer to midday, and the PS3 to noon or morning (in game time).
So in the other shot, the sky is less clouded than in the other, and the shots, while approximately similar are still taken from different positions. For example, if you moved a bit in the xbox360 shot, you might no longer see that "HDR" bloom of the sun in the water because of the light hitting from slightly different direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
PS3 cannot do AA and HDR at the same time. So, they may have chosen AA over HDR.
The ps3 screens seems to more be "flat" in terms of dynamic lighting:
Oblivion PS3
Oblivion XBOX 360
Looks like the PS3 version has texture filtering aswel
RSX ROPs can't apply MSAA on FP16 render targets, but using a FP16 RT is not the only method available to implement HDRR to a given renderer (See Half Life 2 or Heavenly Sword, for instance).
I guess you meant anisotropic filtering, because, even thought I'm the first one to criticise Bethesda's coding skills, I'd at least linear filtering on all the surfaces.mrboo said:
With that said, slighty off topic, the early pictures of Oblivion had pixelated surfaces that we thought were due to point filtering, some considered them to be driver bugs, but in the end it was just some DXTC compressed normal map artefacts. I guess Bethesda didn't use any quality tricks (Red channel to alpha, Z obtained via PS, or even the Ati hardware accelerated 3Dc).
Just got Game Informer in the mail today:
Bethesda basically says the two version are the same and that visually there are very little differences and that downloadable content for the PS3 version is iffy due to Sony's online service. Also:
I wonder if this means the PS3 version will have longer loading times?
Bethesda basically says the two version are the same and that visually there are very little differences and that downloadable content for the PS3 version is iffy due to Sony's online service. Also:
I wonder if this means the PS3 version will have longer loading times?
I doubt it. I'm sure they can work a solution with the harddrive in every PS3. The loading times were rather long in both PC/Xbox360 version in my opinion, so if they were any longer it would just slaughter the game. My PC ain't some shitty computer either so it most likely wasn't because of my PC that the loading times weren't exactly short. I can't call them extremely long but they were just in the spot where I started feeling if it would take any longer to load this it would just kill the game. I didn't mind the loading times in the start of the game but later on they really wear you out.
Similar threads
- Locked
