PGR2: confirmed 30fps only.
- Thread starter Ug Lee
- Start date
wazoo said:
only Faf?????
OK ask Faf.
I'm not saying PS2 isn't capable of multi texturing, I'm saying the hit is much more drastic then other consles so it's not widely used. I'm not goign to get into tis argument with you over 60 vrs 30 and mult textred verses single textured.
All I'm saying is tha things aren't always what they seem. framerate specifically. I can remember many instances where people claimed a game on gamecube ran at 60 fps after watching a 30 fps video clip posted on the net.
All I can say is that you'd be suprised at how many games actually run at 30 fps. Specifcally games that allow for split screen play.
I'm not saying PS2 isn't capable of multi texturing, I'm saying the hit is much more drastic then other consles so it's not widely used. I'm not goign to get into tis argument with you over 60 vrs 30 and mult textred verses single textured.
All I'm saying is tha things aren't always what they seem. framerate specifically. I can remember many instances where people claimed a game on gamecube ran at 60 fps after watching a 30 fps video clip posted on the net.
All I can say is that you'd be suprised at how many games actually run at 30 fps. Specifcally games that allow for split screen play.
Qroach said:
maybe when hearing "multitexturing" u think of bump mapping and such.
but multitexturing involves more than that. and PS2 games have had multitexturing since launch. specular especially. the performance hit for 2 textures on ps2 is very negligible therefore it is widely used. as i said i still have to enounter a game on ps2 that doesnt feature some kind of multitexturing in it. in fact, the fill rate hit is actually in favour of ps2 compared to GC when using more than one texture layer. of course though on PS2 u'd have to send the geometry everytime.... still, at least 2 texture layers in pretty much every ps2 game i've seen. maube not on EVERY surface OF COURSE, but it is used extensively.
no hard feelings...
bbot said:
u actually got an xbox instead of a ps2+gt3+ffx+MGS2 which was available at that time? marconelly!
Veteran
PGR was 60FPS. There's no question about it. It skipped frames here and there (rarely) but was 60FPS 99% of time.
Most higher profile PS2 games I can think of use multitexturing. In MGS2 document disc, they even say they use three textures on many objects (base + specular + enviro) Just on top of my head: BGA1/2/Champions Of Norrath (blindingly obvious specular+enviro), SH2/3 (specular or base+effect textures), GT3(at the very least base + enviro + specular), Burnout 2 (base + enviro + specular) Jak & Daxter/Jak 2 (base + enviro on metal objects), Primal has at least specular on characters, probably enviro too here and there, I can't really remember. Pretty much every better fighting game has specular at least on characters + enviro on metal objects. Most of these games I counted above run at 60FPS, btw.
There really isn't almost a single high profile PS2 game that I can think of that doesn't use multitexturing, and many use it extensively. Heck, even something as simplistic looking as Ape Escape 2 uses enviro mapping for some nice rainbow/metal effects.
Most higher profile PS2 games I can think of use multitexturing. In MGS2 document disc, they even say they use three textures on many objects (base + specular + enviro) Just on top of my head: BG
A1/2/Champions Of Norrath (blindingly obvious specular+enviro), SH2/3 (specular or base+effect textures), GT3(at the very least base + enviro + specular), Burnout 2 (base + enviro + specular) Jak & Daxter/Jak 2 (base + enviro on metal objects), Primal has at least specular on characters, probably enviro too here and there, I can't really remember. Pretty much every better fighting game has specular at least on characters + enviro on metal objects. Most of these games I counted above run at 60FPS, btw.There really isn't almost a single high profile PS2 game that I can think of that doesn't use multitexturing, and many use it extensively. Heck, even something as simplistic looking as Ape Escape 2 uses enviro mapping for some nice rainbow/metal effects.
I find it funny how someone would not notice the difference of 30 fps opposed to 60 fps in a racing game. Perhaps if you never played a 60 fps game... True, better than having an unstable framerate if it's really bad, but overall, I'd always take the framerate instead of the 'extra detail'. Some speculation on my side: perhaps the team feels so strongly about the 'extra detail' because of Gran Turismo 4?
Most higher profile PS2 games I can think of use multitexturing. In MGS2 document disc, they even say they use three textures on many objects (base + specular + enviro) Just on top of my head: BG
Most higher profile game son PS2 run in 16 bit color while using the dither matrix hardware, I bet nobody even notices that as well.
Environment mapping is cheap, and not quite the same as using multiple textures (for example detail texturing) and things like that. As far as I know PS2 games don't use specularity maps. They use a base texture, then change the type of shading used on the object (blinn, gouraud, etc) to simulate a gloss or a difference in specularity. Add environment mapping to that and you can make somehting look like metal or that it's reflecting the environment, when in reality it's a good fake with low performance hits. PS2 can also do emboss bump mapping which could be considered multi texture as well (although nobody is using it much).
Using multi texturing on a single object or two, may not cause a big performance hit, but that's hardly what I'd call usage in comparrison to other consoles. let's put if this way, the PS2 is essentially similar (feature wise to a ATi Rage card and what it can do graphically). All imo of course...
Yes, but we've covered all we can of that topic, really.
"PGR2 at 30 fps? That sucks."
I mean, what else are you going to say? Hehe. No need to start a new topic to hash out all the other tangents. Threads wander, it's a way of life. But there's really not too much TO say about "PGR2 at 30 fps" anymore.
"PGR2 at 30 fps? That sucks."
I mean, what else are you going to say? Hehe. No need to start a new topic to hash out all the other tangents. Threads wander, it's a way of life. But there's really not too much TO say about "PGR2 at 30 fps" anymore.
Just to go back the PGR 30/60fps thing, didn't the game run near 60fps but the environment map only update at 30 (or every other frame)? I remmember playing it in Game and thinking it didn't feel as smooth as GT3 even though it was very fluid. Can't remmember where i read it, could have been here...
Qroach said:
Qroach, I won't dip into technical aspects as I think this is a question of the experience, so the technical shortcuts of how x console performs certain tasks aren't really of interest. So in other words, who gives a damn what the colour depth of most textures is aslong as the game looks good? Framerate however is something that is easily distinguishable and for a racing game to run at half the framerate is simply unacceptable - no matter what excuses you may find. There should be no substitude for framerate, especially in this genre.
On a side note: I think we already covered the feature set of the GS and its similarity with older graphics card. I don't think there's any need to go through that again, especially in a thread about a racing game that has its framerate halfed for the benefit of some 'extra details'.
sir doris said:
YES i can confirm that the reflections ran at half the frame rate and it did really stand out. they LOOKED better than GT3's reflections of course, but GT3 reflections FELT more real, because in reality reflections run at the same speed as everything else really. and as i explained a long time ago on other threads, the human eye is more succeptible to movement rather than on image quality to a certain extent. if something moves in a realistic way it FEELS better than something prettier but moving unrealistically...
not going to continue the argument on ps2 multitexturing cuz it's not worth it...
Well Phil I seriously disgree.
For one things graphics are one of the most important factors when talking about framrate, is it not?
Tradeoffs like this are made all the time and the average consumer dosen't notice these things. A game isn't running at "half frame rate" when running on a TV at 30 fps. Which is why 30 fps is perfectly acceptable.
I also don't agree with a the comment that most PS2 games are running at 60 while on xbox they aren't. Unless you have a framerate counter on screen to prove that, it's a pretty baseless comment. An argument can be made on PC with regards to framerate because it can display an entire frame, but on TV's that's another story entirely.
I honestly think this is more of a PC aspect that has been impressed on console markets in a unfair manner. A TV can render 60 half height fields per second, not 60 complete frames like a PC monitor. IN a game like jak and dextures, what do you need precision like that for? from a development point of view (just my opinion) I'd sacrifice that extra performance for more detail and have the game run at 30...
For one things graphics are one of the most important factors when talking about framrate, is it not?
Tradeoffs like this are made all the time and the average consumer dosen't notice these things. A game isn't running at "half frame rate" when running on a TV at 30 fps. Which is why 30 fps is perfectly acceptable.
I also don't agree with a the comment that most PS2 games are running at 60 while on xbox they aren't. Unless you have a framerate counter on screen to prove that, it's a pretty baseless comment. An argument can be made on PC with regards to framerate because it can display an entire frame, but on TV's that's another story entirely.
I honestly think this is more of a PC aspect that has been impressed on console markets in a unfair manner. A TV can render 60 half height fields per second, not 60 complete frames like a PC monitor. IN a game like jak and dextures, what do you need precision like that for? from a development point of view (just my opinion) I'd sacrifice that extra performance for more detail and have the game run at 30...
Qroach said:
oh dear..... so u r serious when u say that to your eyes there is no difference from smoothilicious GT3 and, say, Apex.....
the fact that a TV can only display 60 half frames per second means NOTHING. the difference is there whether u like to admit it or not.
what i and others said is that pretty much all the major PS2 games run at 60fps while i'm still waiting for the names of hi-profile Xbox games running at the same speed. DOA3 ran at 60fps but hey it's a fighter and every fighter runs at 60fps.... Halo, the best game on the console runs at an UNSTABLE 30fps. Halo2 will run at 30fps. and if u say the difference in precision is negligible then i feel sorry for you. especially in a FPS like Halo where 60fps is a must.
Let's be fair, I'd be happy with a stable 55 fps too...
