DeadlyNinja
Veteran
That's not a fair comparison since the pic on the right isn't a direct feed picture. Of course the game looks amazing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ok, full interview from anonymous third party about Wii GPU.
- Thread starter DeadlyNinja
- Start date
That's not a fair comparison since the pic on the right isn't a direct feed picture. Of course the game looks amazing.
Reguardless it's still different. You can tell that the model was changed some, also. Less reliance on bloom, too.
If you can find the new MP3 pics laying around the web I think the debate that devs are half hearting effort on Wii can be put to rest.
Here's a quote from the interview on MP3 that play online did.
"Play: Okay, gotcha! So moving on to the visual side of things, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about how developing for the Wii is different from developing for the GameCube.
MP: Well, our production pipeline was similar, so it was a lot faster for us to get up and running on the game hardware, which was great. But we were also able to make a great deal of enhancements to the game world. There’s more polygons, higher-res textures, bloom lighting—a lot of graphical enhancements that we were able to make on the Wii that we couldn’t do on the GameCube.
MK: We really looked at the Wii from a philosophy of “wow, look at all the stuff that we can do now,†as opposed to “well, it doesn’t do this, and that’s kind of a bummer.†So for us, we were really able to accomplish a lot more things than we could do on the GameCube. And in my opinon [laughs], it’s the best-looking Wii game out there. I won’t say it was seamless, but it certainly wasn’t like developing on a brand new piece of hardware with a six-month learning curve. The development environment is a cakewalk to work with, and we feel we took advantage of what the hardware has to offer. I’m partial to the bloom lighting, it’s a really nice effect, and we could never have done that on GameCube."
Source
Here's a quote from the interview on MP3 that play online did.
"Play: Okay, gotcha! So moving on to the visual side of things, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about how developing for the Wii is different from developing for the GameCube.
MP: Well, our production pipeline was similar, so it was a lot faster for us to get up and running on the game hardware, which was great. But we were also able to make a great deal of enhancements to the game world. There’s more polygons, higher-res textures, bloom lighting—a lot of graphical enhancements that we were able to make on the Wii that we couldn’t do on the GameCube.
MK: We really looked at the Wii from a philosophy of “wow, look at all the stuff that we can do now,†as opposed to “well, it doesn’t do this, and that’s kind of a bummer.†So for us, we were really able to accomplish a lot more things than we could do on the GameCube. And in my opinon [laughs], it’s the best-looking Wii game out there. I won’t say it was seamless, but it certainly wasn’t like developing on a brand new piece of hardware with a six-month learning curve. The development environment is a cakewalk to work with, and we feel we took advantage of what the hardware has to offer. I’m partial to the bloom lighting, it’s a really nice effect, and we could never have done that on GameCube."
Source
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
On a console it's pretty doable. Wii/GC/PS2 can do regular per channel multiplication for sure if not a dot product. All you have to do is a full screen pass with the CPU where you add R+G+B and write it into A. With only 256K pixels, that's a piece of cake on a CPU, and they can access video memory very efficiently. Of course, you have to draw everything again to use the value, and there's no normalization.you can not do normal map on the cpu.That is a per pixel instruction.
Still, it's pretty likely that Wii/GC has a dot-product operation on the GPU. They said Geforce2 class, right?
You can do better then that - if you run deferred shading numbers on PS2, @30fps you get something like 32instructions/pixel(single VU), which allows for a lot more then just dot product.Mintmaster said:All you have to do is a full screen pass with the CPU where you add R+G+B and write it into A. With only 256K pixels, that's a piece of cake on a CPU, and they can access video memory very efficiently.
Basically you get you SM3.0+, with dynamic branching @ 1pixel granularity, and no texture lookups. Unfortunately there are other issues that make this less then practical, but cpu setup is up to it.
No dot-product, dependant lookup with a hard-wired 3x2 matrix transform.Still, it's pretty likely that Wii/GC has a dot-product operation on the GPU.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Oh I know (about doing better than just a dot3), I just wanted to point out to bomlat that it was doable.You can do better then that - if you run deferred shading numbers on PS2, @30fps you get something like 32instructions/pixel(single VU), which allows for a lot more then just dot product.
Basically you get you SM3.0+, with dynamic branching @ 1pixel granularity, and no texture lookups. Unfortunately there are other issues that make this less then practical, but cpu setup is up to it.
I'm interested in what the other issues are, but I guess they're covered under NDA, right?
What exactly can you put into that matrix? A vertex attribute? Only a constant? Can the vector being transformed come from a texture?No dot-product, dependant lookup with a hard-wired 3x2 matrix transform.