NFS: Hot Persuit 2
- Thread starter evil
- Start date
Ok I'm pissed.
Yup, I've seen the PS2 version (apparently the one made by BlackBox). Compared to that, the GC version just isn't finished. It looks SO much better, more special effects, weather selection, nighttime driving, more EVERYTHING.
I'm considering bringing this unfinished piece of junk back tomorrow.
Yup, I've seen the PS2 version (apparently the one made by BlackBox). Compared to that, the GC version just isn't finished. It looks SO much better, more special effects, weather selection, nighttime driving, more EVERYTHING.
I'm considering bringing this unfinished piece of junk back tomorrow.
randycat99
Veteran
Thanks for checking, evil.
Regarding the 30/48/60 fps issue, I think once you compare NFS to say Burnout 2 or maybe even Test Drive, you may notice just a tad bit of choppiness in NFS on objects that are moving across the screen very fast (other things not in a panning state look completely smooth, of course). It pretty much disappears once you aren't trying to stare it down. So that is where my suspicion is that it is probably running just a tad short of 60, thus 48 and using a 2:3 pulldown technique to derive the final 60 fields/sec output. I luv the game, and 48 fps is quite adequate for me.
I don't think it is 24 at all, because I would anticipate that rapidly moving objects as they are in this game would severly show up choppy. I can see choppiness in movies (typical 24 fps presentation) with only moderate panning, motion blur or not. It is very distinct to me, and clearly pan rates have to be moderated to prevent the 24 fps presentation limitations from getting competely out of control. NFS is not like this (at least, not in that degree). So that is why I feel 24 fps NFS is unlikely. Motion would simply be too painful if it were so in a game such as this.
I've wondered a lot if there is a very subtle motion blur in effect which may be further masking any remnant choppiness, but still cannot say for sure. There certainly seems to be an aggressive use of a depth blur, though (or a very aggressive mipmapping technique, perhaps?). Maybe a notch too aggressive, IMO. It is a useful effect, but needs to be just a bit more subtle. I can understand the intent of a photorealistic presentation where the subject (your car) is in focus and other depths are slightly out-of-focus. It would seem more natural if the other depths were just not that much out of focus as it appears in this game. There's also the trade-off whereby the image looks as if it is a camera shot, but somewhat betrays the sensation of really "seeing" the scene in those cases where the viewer is looking at something else other than your car (logically, that object should be in focus, not the car). So it was a creative intent decision there. This is in contrast to other driving games where everything is in focus (by virtue of the simple, straight rendering strategy). So anything you care to look at will be in focus as you would expect, with converse trade-offs as discussed earlier. Either way has its virtues, IMO. I wouldn't say there is a "wrong" way to go about it.
Regarding the 30/48/60 fps issue, I think once you compare NFS to say Burnout 2 or maybe even Test Drive, you may notice just a tad bit of choppiness in NFS on objects that are moving across the screen very fast (other things not in a panning state look completely smooth, of course). It pretty much disappears once you aren't trying to stare it down. So that is where my suspicion is that it is probably running just a tad short of 60, thus 48 and using a 2:3 pulldown technique to derive the final 60 fields/sec output. I luv the game, and 48 fps is quite adequate for me.
I don't think it is 24 at all, because I would anticipate that rapidly moving objects as they are in this game would severly show up choppy. I can see choppiness in movies (typical 24 fps presentation) with only moderate panning, motion blur or not. It is very distinct to me, and clearly pan rates have to be moderated to prevent the 24 fps presentation limitations from getting competely out of control. NFS is not like this (at least, not in that degree). So that is why I feel 24 fps NFS is unlikely. Motion would simply be too painful if it were so in a game such as this.
I've wondered a lot if there is a very subtle motion blur in effect which may be further masking any remnant choppiness, but still cannot say for sure. There certainly seems to be an aggressive use of a depth blur, though (or a very aggressive mipmapping technique, perhaps?). Maybe a notch too aggressive, IMO. It is a useful effect, but needs to be just a bit more subtle. I can understand the intent of a photorealistic presentation where the subject (your car) is in focus and other depths are slightly out-of-focus. It would seem more natural if the other depths were just not that much out of focus as it appears in this game. There's also the trade-off whereby the image looks as if it is a camera shot, but somewhat betrays the sensation of really "seeing" the scene in those cases where the viewer is looking at something else other than your car (logically, that object should be in focus, not the car). So it was a creative intent decision there. This is in contrast to other driving games where everything is in focus (by virtue of the simple, straight rendering strategy). So anything you care to look at will be in focus as you would expect, with converse trade-offs as discussed earlier. Either way has its virtues, IMO. I wouldn't say there is a "wrong" way to go about it.
BenSkywalker
Regular
No, it certainly doesn't. I can think of one game from last gen that ran @60FPS(FZX).
Name them.
On interlaced displays
Control input latency is the defining characteristic to tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. There are a few games that run at 60FPS this gen that I can think of, but not very many. Choppiness on an interlaced display becomes noticeable when the framerate drops below 30FPS. If anything, 60FPS would appear more choppy on an interlaced display then 30FPS(due to fade rate and alternating line updates).marconelly!
Veteran
Ah, you are talking about the last gen? Sorry, I misread that.
I have an interlaced TV - 60 FPS games look hell of a lot smoother than 30FPS games. In 30FPS games you can even see very pronounced line 'combing' effect where every even line goes ahead of odd lines when the camera movement becomes fast, and the movement is simply choppier.
Compare a game like DOA3 with Halo. I can't believe you can't see the difference in smoothness when you swing the camera around in Halo vs what you get when the camera moves around in DOA3.
BenSkywalker
Regular
Halo runs sub 30FPS frequently, in particular when you swing the camera around. DOA3 runs at 30FPS.
marconelly!
Veteran
DOA3 runs at rock solid 60Hz progressive (60 full frames/sec). Except if you have some grand revelation on how the framerate is calculated, every single person who has played it, can confirm this.
BenSkywalker
Regular
Use a vid capture device that can record at 60FPS and compare consecutive frames. Not that that is really required with DOA3, you can easily tell by the control responsiveness. "Every single person" that played PGR insisted that it was locked @60FPS also, despite very obvious dips to ~20FPS.
marconelly!
Veteran
Yes, Project Gotham runs at 60FPS but sometimes (and very rarely) skips frames and dips to 30FPS area. Control responsiveness has nothing to do with the whole issue. It's easily observable which games are 60FPS and which are not. It's really very obvious to the point I'm stumped why are we even having this discussion.
Just for the sake of an argument, what are those 'few' 60FPS games that you know of?
Just for the sake of an argument, what are those 'few' 60FPS games that you know of?
BenSkywalker:
Yes, you will need to explain your definition of "frames per second".
I could name literally thousands of games from the 8- and 16-bit eras of consoles, homecomputers and arcade systems that run in 60fps.
Let's begin with an example. What, according to your definition, makes the SNES title Super Mario World not run in 60fps?
Yes, you will need to explain your definition of "frames per second".
I could name literally thousands of games from the 8- and 16-bit eras of consoles, homecomputers and arcade systems that run in 60fps.
Let's begin with an example. What, according to your definition, makes the SNES title Super Mario World not run in 60fps?
BenSkywalker
Regular
Marconelly!-
Control responsiveness has everything to do with 60FPS v 30FPS on a console. Given the interlaced nature and high dot pitch(which makes finer motion vanish) of TVs there is next to no visible difference between 30FPS and 60FPS for a console. When you see a stutter it is from the framerate dropping to sub 30FPS levels.
VNZ-
You mean the definition(I certainly had nothing to do with it)? Distinct frames per second. How many screen updates is always 60FPS on a NTSC TV no matter what. Even a static picture displayed on a TV screen is redrawn @60Hz, that doesn't change the FPS however.
PC-Engine-
Refresh rate is an entirely different subject from framerate however.
Control responsiveness has everything to do with 60FPS v 30FPS on a console. Given the interlaced nature and high dot pitch(which makes finer motion vanish) of TVs there is next to no visible difference between 30FPS and 60FPS for a console. When you see a stutter it is from the framerate dropping to sub 30FPS levels.
VNZ-
You mean the definition(I certainly had nothing to do with it)? Distinct frames per second. How many screen updates is always 60FPS on a NTSC TV no matter what. Even a static picture displayed on a TV screen is redrawn @60Hz, that doesn't change the FPS however.
PC-Engine-
Refresh rate is an entirely different subject from framerate however.
marconelly!
Veteran
True. Game can be 30FPS and display progressive output on a HDTV screen (Halo, etc.)
Control responsivenes is afected by framerate updates yes, but (at least for me) the most obvious difference if something is 60 or 30 is the smoothness of motion. I can easily see the difference in the smoothness between the two. I know some people are less susceptible to this, though. Sub 30 framerates are not just choppy, they are terrible.
I would still like you to list those few games you know of that are 60FPS, because I know of whole lot of them, on both PS2 and Xbox. You can also see the last few pages of that 10 page thread where we have discussed simmilar issues with Legion, about Rogue Leader framerate.
BenSkywalker:
You say most games that obviously do all this run at 30fps, with some notable exceptions (F-Zero X). Please explain what makes a perfect example of 60fps gameplay to the rest of us - say Super Mario World on SNES - don't run at 60fps according to your/the definition.
Agreed. Then how come we don't agree on the fact that every game that both updates its game logic (ie. control, object movement etc) and VRAM contents (be that a modern framebuffer, or the scrolling registers, OAM etc of previous generations) in sync with the vertical blanking of the TV system (ie. 60 times per second on an NTSC console) runs at 60fps?
You say most games that obviously do all this run at 30fps, with some notable exceptions (F-Zero X). Please explain what makes a perfect example of 60fps gameplay to the rest of us - say Super Mario World on SNES - don't run at 60fps according to your/the definition.
BenSkywalker said:On interlaced displays
You're just factually wrong. Most console games these days run at 60fps, and they all have to be able to do it interlaced to be playable on a regular television. GT3, Tekken Tag, Tekken 4, VF4, AC4, RRV, MotoGP, etc. Interlaced 60fps animation does not look choppy, and in fact looks a heck of a lot smoother than 30fps. Besides, each time you're watching Friends or the news on TV, the animation rate is 60Hz, and the display is interlaced, and no one's complaining. That's the norm.
Phat.
BenSkywalker
Regular
Phat-
All NTSC video feeds are 30FPS. The same frame is redrawn twice for a vid feed.
VNZ-
For SMW it is easy to explain why it couldn't run at 60FPS, the SNES and its carts did not have the technical capability of doing so. Unlike a 3D game every frame had to have seperate images already drawn and loaded on to the cart. All of these images had to be pulled from the cart and then displayed, carts did not have the memory to store the kind of data that a game like SMW would require. The other issue for the SNES is bandwith and throughput of the video output system. I suppose it would be possible in a theoretical sense to draw something at 60FPS on the SNES, but not a game with multiple objects moving around. 30FPS is smooth on a console as long as the framerate doesn't fluctuate.
Marconelly!-
I don't have a problem seeing the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS on a PC(not refresh rate which anyone should be able to see, FPS), telling the difference on a console comes down to input latency.
If you are running 60FPS on an interlaced display you are updating half the screen twice as often. If you take into account the dot pitch on TVs and the fade rate(which isn't the same as PCs) the visual benefits of running at 30FPS are pretty much nil.
SSBM is the only game I have from the current generation that runs at 60FPS(out of 22 for the Cube and XBox).
All NTSC video feeds are 30FPS. The same frame is redrawn twice for a vid feed.
VNZ-
For SMW it is easy to explain why it couldn't run at 60FPS, the SNES and its carts did not have the technical capability of doing so. Unlike a 3D game every frame had to have seperate images already drawn and loaded on to the cart. All of these images had to be pulled from the cart and then displayed, carts did not have the memory to store the kind of data that a game like SMW would require. The other issue for the SNES is bandwith and throughput of the video output system. I suppose it would be possible in a theoretical sense to draw something at 60FPS on the SNES, but not a game with multiple objects moving around. 30FPS is smooth on a console as long as the framerate doesn't fluctuate.
Marconelly!-
I don't have a problem seeing the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS on a PC(not refresh rate which anyone should be able to see, FPS), telling the difference on a console comes down to input latency.
If you are running 60FPS on an interlaced display you are updating half the screen twice as often. If you take into account the dot pitch on TVs and the fade rate(which isn't the same as PCs) the visual benefits of running at 30FPS are pretty much nil.
SSBM is the only game I have from the current generation that runs at 60FPS(out of 22 for the Cube and XBox).
randycat99
Veteran
BenSkywalker said:
Can you solidly substantiate that is what really happens? I was always under the impression that it would be more logical to make the most of the existing system bandwidth by showing alternating odd/even fields from an image that is updating at 60 frames/sec since you have at your disposal a temporal resolution of 60 Hz. What would be the point of all that de-interlacing/blending operations when converting to a progressive system, if it were as simple as combining adjacent odd/even fields to derive a single, integrated image? I am aware that the original NTSC systems many decades ago utilized 30 fps in a manner you describe.
BenSkywalker
Regular
It's an issue of bandwith on the cable line side. Would you rather have 500 channels at 30FPS or 250 at 60FPS(looking at digital)? Movies in theaters are shown at 24FPS and people don't complain frequently about it, 30FPS constant is good enough to represent smooth motion for the overwhelming majority of people.
randycat99
Veteran
The bandwidth requirements for either frame/sec scheme should be the same if you are simply transmitting 60 fields/sec (how the original frame is divied up from a native 24/30/60 fps is up to the guy who is mastering the program, I suppose). Though digital cable could create some exceptions, depending if it is a dedicated interlaced transmission or a dedicated progressive transmission (which is intended to be interlaced at the user end if need be) or you may find a mixture of programs (being that digital would give you that kind of flexibility). I'm certainly not the expert to say how the broadcast industry is addressing this.
Most cinemas movies are 24 fps but it's not interlaced. It's also passive not interactive like games. Also IIRC the individual frames in cinema are displayed twice ie. running at 48 fps but only 24 frames are unique. Also SMS runs at 30 fps but is using some kind of new technology to make it appear like it's running at a higher framerate. Anyone know what that technology involves?
