PGR3 (photo mode) pics

Let's face it.

As far as reality goes, being able to capture its essence -- let alone set it into motion -- will probably require a computing device that is billions upon billions of times more powerful than Cell ever though of being.

But IBM's new chip might be able to dodge those crippling calculations by manipulating motion pictures ... ;)
 
pgr52zv.jpg
 
I just laid out a my view on the renderer, garage is the besy looking thing in the game after the photo-mode(im not a cargame enthusiast but i would rather have the order of that split to when driving). As for the style and tracks/art i think its pretty bad, im more into RR/NFS if i had to choose, liked the latter one(DEMO) better on the PC with i find odd regarding the controller scheme.
 
Dave Glue said:
Uh...because one is still pictures, and one has to be...you know, actually calculated in real-time?
Click to expand...
So?Models are the same, textures seem the same, and the console can display images at higher resolutions.

Its not like GT4 where the models, resolution and texture detail were lower for real time moments.
 
The best GFX in the game are found the the garage, this truly amazed me. the in-game stuff was a big step down for me. I look farward to the day when the in-game GFX will be this good:
Click to expand...

And here we were arguing about those "developers-blog-screenshots" and all the excuses on why there were little to no screens that showed gameplay footage looking that good....

I must say I do like the lighting though.
 
Phil said:
And here we were arguing about those "developers-blog-screenshots" and all the excuses on why there were little to no screens that showed gameplay footage looking that good....

I must say I do like the lighting though.
Click to expand...

But some of those are from gameplay.
 
pakotlar said:
On a second note, who is beginning to think that the only serious difference between xbox360 and PS3 will be complexity of physics calculations, with the PS3 being cable of rendering a significant enough # of physics body dynamics/ simulation points over the xbox360 to make it noticeable to the end user (poor sentence structure eh? :)).
Click to expand...
I'll throw in my 2c and say that I'm not convinced that the increased theoretical power of the PS3 (vs. 360) will be able to be realized in perceptably better physics and/or AI. I've read a lot of discussions on the raw power of the respective processors involved, and it isn't obvious that the Cell architecture is as well suited to physics and AI as the XeCPU architecture. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but it is far from a given and we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference anyway... so whether the processor differences are actualized as noticeable gameplay differences is far from certain.
 
Bigus Dickus said:
I'll throw in my 2c and say that I'm not convinced that the increased theoretical power of the PS3 (vs. 360) will be able to be realized in perceptably better physics and/or AI. I've read a lot of discussions on the raw power of the respective processors involved, and it isn't obvious that the Cell architecture is as well suited to physics and AI as the XeCPU architecture. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but it is far from a given and we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference anyway... so whether the processor differences are actualized as noticeable gameplay differences is far from certain.
Click to expand...

considering how small the difference between some xbox1 and xbox360 games is with regards to the power gap, i would consider this a reasonable standpoint.
 
Bigus Dickus said:
I'll throw in my 2c and say that I'm not convinced that the increased theoretical power of the PS3 (vs. 360) will be able to be realized in perceptably better physics and/or AI. I've read a lot of discussions on the raw power of the respective processors involved, and it isn't obvious that the Cell architecture is as well suited to physics and AI as the XeCPU architecture. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but it is far from a given and we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference anyway... so whether the processor differences are actualized as noticeable gameplay differences is far from certain.
Click to expand...
A few of the rabid PS3 supporters here would disagree, but I totally agree. I've programmed a physics engine, and I can tell you that a 2-3x faster processing power (which Cell won't have in practice anyway) won't make a noticeable difference in gameplay, especially with some processing tasks varying with objects as N log N, N^2, and even N^3. Even more limiting is that FP power often isn't the limiting step, and latency-limited tree navigation is the problem. On a PC you'll notice it because the physics engine is tuned for one specific speed, so 1/3 the CPU speed makes for 1/3 the framerate. On a console, though, you tune your object number and physics accuracy to the processor, so gamers won't know what they're missing. Cross platform titles may show a small difference, but nothing 99% of gamers could notice.

In the end it will all come down to programming skills. I'd rather have better coders for my platform than 10x the CPU power. Graphics is a somewhat different story, but coders and especially artwork will still make an enormous difference.

Here's discussion I had regarding this issue:
aaronspink said:
Mintmaster said:
I never said it wouldn't, but we're not talking about no physics vs. awesome physics. My point is 2 or 3 times the FP power (doubtful) will not have a significant impact on physics, especially in terms of what it brings you in a game.
Click to expand...
In the mainstream physics realm, anything less than 10x more power isn't really noticable.

I've actually coded a physics engine. Yes, there's a lot of FP code in there, but really impressive physics (which I haven't achieved yet) needs to navigate and maintain large spatial data structures, solve sparse matrices, and know how to leave things alone that aren't going to change. It's not simply a matter of crunching numbers.
Click to expand...

You're not kidding, there are some significant programming issues in physics, there are a lot of algorithims that would run 4-8x faster if hardware could support efficient scatter and gather of single FP(SP or DP) quantities into packed data structures. The problem is that the basic memory technologies are moving in the other direction.
Click to expand...
 
Mintmaster said:
I've programmed a physics engine, and I can tell you that a 2-3x faster processing power (which Cell won't have in practice anyway) won't make a noticeable difference in gameplay,
Click to expand...
How do you define 'faster processing power'? For AGEIA's Physx chip, there are some cool demos which are not possible on Pentium, do you think it's not at all related to gameplay? Or cloth simulation or facial simulation?
 
Mintmaster said:
In the end it will all come down to programming skills. I'd rather have better coders for my platform than 10x the CPU power. Graphics is a somewhat different story, but coders and especially artwork will still make an enormous difference.
Click to expand...

Before you read this I'm pretty sure you know Sony has good coders, but I have to say it. Sony may have more power (even though ease of coding levels that out) but Sony also has some of the best devs the world has to offer. So they probably aren't too worry about that.
 
I'd personally take 10x the CPU performance *AND* good coders. There is no law that says that good coders and higher CPU performing platforms are can't simultaneously exist.

Just because an algorithm scales by N log N or N^2 rather than N, doesn't mean higher performance won't matter, it just means that algorithmic performance should be maximized first, then tweak to HW.

Amdahl's law doesn't say one should not care about performance.


On the non-local memory access front, as I pointed out in a past thread, this is not neccessarily a roadblock for CELL performance, it just means that physics code can't be as "general purpose" as one would like. The integration step is highly streamable, and collision detection contrary to common wisdom (some were claiming it is inherently serial which it is not) can be distributed.

The real burden is dealing with large databases. But some classes of algorithms, especially particle systems, should absolutely fly on CELL and certainly will be noticable. Actually, CELL + mega alphablending eDRAM GPU would be incredible for particle effects.
 
Mintmaster said:
In the end it will all come down to programming skills. I'd rather have better coders for my platform than 10x the CPU power. Graphics is a somewhat different story, but coders and especially artwork will still make an enormous difference.
Click to expand...

Do better development tools factor into this at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
11K
homerdog
homerdog
R
Valve just pushed out a massive Steam Beta Client Update (UI improvements, new features)
Replies
2
Views
738
Pressure
P
Shortbread
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
105 106 107
Replies
2K
Views
197K
Karamazov
K
Michellstar
Forge – Halo 5: Guardians Edition, coming to PC
Replies
15
Views
2K
Silent_Buddha
S
R
Retro VGS coming: 100% offline retro ARM based console in Atari Jaguar shell
Replies
5
Views
2K
Rangers
R
Back
Top