Pgr 4

kyleb said:
You might want to try playing some PC games where you can enable and disable things like AF and AA so as to understand how such features do effect the visuals instead of coming up with theories that have no basis in reality to argue agaisnt people who do know what they are talking about.

I think you give him too much credit.

And i'm pretty sure that if the creators of PGR3 could "keep the guardrails from shimmering like mad, sharpen the textruring of objects in the distance, and generally improve the look of the game" with minimal performance cost they would have.
 
You think I give who too much credit? I was talking to you. Seriously, all you have to do is try a PC game with AF on and off and you would understand exactly what such filtering would have done for PGR3 and how little of a peformace hit it takes on modren hardware.
 
Xenos shares 22.4GB/s bandwidth with Xenon... Adding AF(over 2x) on that will probably eat up a lot of bandwidth. How much bandwidth do PC graphic cards have? Way more I would believe, and hence they can afford with AF with not a significant performanced drop. I can see AF being used in Xbox 360 games that otherwise dont use a lot of the bandwidth.
 
Shompola said:
Xenos shares 22.4GB/s bandwidth with Xenon
Yeah, but it also has a dedicated ED-ram backbuffer and is a closed system so that isn't rightly a good comparsion to make. By "modren hardware" I was simply refering to the angle dependent methods which elevate much of the performace concerns while still provideing what would be a notable improvement on PGR3's graphics.

I don't see what the argument is here at all though as the thread starts out with a quote from one of the developers saying they didn't get a chance to implement many optimizations to the game and surely they could have snuck an bit of AF in with that if they had been given the time. Besides, Full Auto manages some nice AF so I have no doubt that PGR4 will be able to pull it off on the 360 as well.
 
i dont know what everyone's arguing about, we all know pgr3 was rushed and did not even use tiling. every dev will learn to use the hardware better the 2nd or 3rd time around. look at the jump from pgr1 to 2 on xbox.
 
kyleb said:
You think I give who too much credit? I was talking to you. Seriously, all you have to do is try a PC game with AF on and off and you would understand exactly what such filtering would have done for PGR3 and how little of a peformace hit it takes on modren hardware.
Well who do you think I'm arguing with? All I did was ask you a question bro. I was just bugging Evo-Ant because he does nothing but troll 360 threads, it was a joke not really meant to be taken seriously.
 
well you were obviously arguing with me when you posted:
scooby_dooby said:
kyleb said:
You might want to try playing some PC games where you can enable and disable things like AF and AA so as to understand how such features do effect the visuals instead of coming up with theories that have no basis in reality to argue agaisnt people who do know what they are talking about.
I think you give him too much credit.

And i'm pretty sure that if the creators of PGR3 could "keep the guardrails from shimmering like mad, sharpen the textruring of objects in the distance, and generally improve the look of the game" with minimal performance cost they would have.
And simply put; if you were familiar with the use of AF at all, you would know that you are wrong.
 
Well, AF really has a minimal impact on my PC, and i have a bloody NV35. AF these days is kinda cheap, and if anything the game is slowed down by other features before AF begins to be a problem. We don't need super high quality AF anyway, these games run at bloody 1280x720, which in PC terms is now a "low-ish" resolution.
 
kyleb said:
well you were obviously arguing with me when you posted.

oh you mean after you accused me of arguing"agaisnt people who do know what they are talking about." who exactly was I arguing with? I was just poking fun at a known troll..you need to relax
 
I asked you to stop arguing about things you don't understand after, in response to my post explaining what AF would have done for that game, you posted:
scooby_dooby said:
AF removes shimmering? I though that was caused by the 2xAA...
Yeah, you were arguing with me there, and you don't know what you are talking about. So please, feel free to relax yourself and come to terms with your ingornace on the subject instead of trying to exuse yourself by calling Evo-Ant a troll for what was a reasoned comment here, reguardless of his posting history.
 
Like I said I was ASKING YOU A QUESTION I don't play racing games on my PC so am not able to see the effect of AF on guardrails at 185mph.

All you had to do was answer the question in a mature way, instead of your condescending rude bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All you had to do was respect the fact that I had already stated that AF would clean up the shimmering guard rails and you would have never asked that question in the frist place.
 
scooby_dooby said:
All you had to do was answer the question in a mature way, instead of your condescending rude bullshit.

You definitely need to cool down. Recently (?) your posts have been quite provoking and lacking in maturity (ie. not admitting when you're wrong).
 
When they mean "faster" they mean 60 fps faster? I hope so. More (faster) cars would be nice too.

I have a feeling this thread is going to be locked down anyways so I guess I won't get an answer... :???:
 
"Faster" is just coming from the reporter, not the developer who in the quotes was clearly talking about pushing the graphics detail. So there is no reason to take the headline as any indication of what framerate they are targeting.
 
kyleb said:
"Faster" is just coming from the reporter, not the developer who in the quotes was clearly talking about pushing the graphics detail. So there is no reason to take the headline as any indication of what framerate they are targeting.

Bah, so no real news here. I would figure that all devs would be pushing the hardware...
 
Back
Top