Hardknock said:
He says it's playable in real-time now. He does not state in the quotes you provided that it's currently at 30fps. Nor does he state if any graphical vadality had to be sacrificed to obtain a decent framerate. Like I said we need more information before anything like this is useful.
He does mention graphical validity, though not explicitly. He mentions that everything seen in the E3 footage, bar some post effects, is running realtime. If he explains the post-effects are missing from the current build, would he not also clarfiy other differences? So the only other area of contention is if it's running at 30 fps, which I did point out already wasn't absolutely confirmed. It kinda depends on one's definition of realtime. 5fps is realtime. But if that's the case why doesn't Deano qualify as such? Why mention realtime in relation to current build if it's less than the realtime quality needed for a game (30 fps) without explaining as much? And also if the game isn't running at 30 fps now, what have Ninja Theory been doing these last months? Leaving it at 5 fps and not improving their engine at all to get the frametrate up to something useable? We have to assume the game has progressed, and is better now then it was then. If it was running at 5fps at E3, it's running faster now, at a speed Deano calls 'realtime', and looking as good except without a post effects. In fact he says 'what you see at E3 is what you get now' and what I saw at E3 was running at 30fps.
Sure a lot of this is reading between the lines a
bit. It'd be nice if Deano had said 'we are running the same game as shown at E3 but at 30 fps with the same shader complexity and geometry detail, less a few post effects, with the same physics and AI in effect, on a 720p framebuffer, using 80% of the SPEs capability' and stuff to that effect. But even without such a clear explanation of the current build it doesn't strike me as illogical to undestand that the point of his post was to say 'yes, the E3 showing was at lower frame rates but we've sped them up now.'
Still, this discussion really doesn't belong here and should be taken to another thread 'is HS realtime or not?' or something similar I'd have thought. Except I guess it's hard to question Nick's point if we can't confirm in the first place his comparison with HS is valid.
Edit : Ah, I see we've caught the mods eye with our off-topicness. For accuracy here's the quote in context
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=602767#post602767
I suppose the point's raised by Nick Lassett and subsequent discussion of the comparison ought to be moved into a 'Are the limits of PGR3's small frame buffer...yadayada...something to be concerned about' thread. Dunno. It all seems relevant in a kind off-topic way
