Provocative comment by Id member about PS2 (and Gamecube)!

Oh! Lets hope Killzone(BESTA FPS oN PS2??!!) have some of those crazy realtime dynamic stencil shadows that PS2 is sooooo capable of(not to forget the lighting since shadow/light are always one, right?). ;)

That might convince ID of PS2 amazing shadow rendering prowess!!! :oops: Who knows, it might kick start the trend of crazy shadows powered D3-like PS2 games! 8)
 
What does this have to do with ANYTHING?

More of PS2's high end games run at 60hz, whereas most of Xbox's high end games run at 30hz because of it's bandwidth.

yawwwwwwwwwwwn......now where is my list of <30fps PS2 games... :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
hehehe, nevermind that list, lets try something new...

Ninja Gaiden = argubly THE best looking semi-fixed Japanese console action game. 60fps. 480p.

RSC2 = argubly THE best looking console racer. 60fps. 480p.

Beat that. 8)
 
Brute force: 30fps
Halo: 25-30fps
Halo2: 30fps
Splinter Cell: 25-30fps
PGR2: 30fps
mgs2: 30fps(not a bad port)
Voodo Vince: 30fps
Fable: 30fps

You bringing up two games really makes no sense, just go look at the majority of high end Xbox games. The frame rates are rarely 60fps dude, and this is because of the bandwidth first and foremost.

Noone is bashing xbox, just pointing out a pretty much fact. Not unlike PS2 and it's IQ problems, do some ps2 games have good IQ? Yes, just like some high end xbox games run at 60fps. Same deal.
 
chaphack said:
maskraider,

nope. i dont think that is a good shot to show the blocky shadows. IIRC, you need to angle the camera so it is showing Heather's back, you know, something like a typical 3rd person behind view. Or at least level with Heather. IIRC again, i noticed the blocky shadows during the very early part when you first exit to the stairways. You can play around with the cam, and you can see that the shadows arent exactly rounded as Heather.

ANYWAY, go play D3 demo peeps. The way dynamic lights/shadows done is very cool.

I don't know what you've seen. But I didn't see anything blocky like what you've described. I think I have logged enough time with the game as I have finished the game at least 4 times already.

And for D3, I will wait for the release game, the demo didn't look really spectacular to me. HL2 looks way better in that regard.
 
What SH3 does, is to just blur the shadows in 2D before applying them to the scene. That, as people have noticed, creates some nasty artifacts.
Those minor artifacts (I wouldn't call them 'nasty' by any stretch of the imagination) are much less noticeable than shadow artifacts in any game so far that uses soft shadowing on that scale (notably Splinter Cell) Silent Hill team could have easily used hard edged shadows, avoid any artifacting, but the resulting shadows would look much worse and less natural (again, see those hard, unnatural looking shadows in D3).
 
I'd just like to mention that in the real world the softness of a shadow is mostly dependent on the distance from the object casting the shadow to the surface that the shadow is being casted on NOT the distance from the object casting the shadow in relation to the lightsource. The opaqness of the shadow however follows both lightsource distance and surface distance rules.

Does anyone know if SH3 handles overlapping shadows correctly? From what I can see D3 seems to handle them correctly by the methods Thwolly described.
 
You bringing up two games really makes no sense, just go look at the majority of high end Xbox games. The frame rates are rarely 60fps dude, and this is because of the bandwidth first and foremost.

I don't think its been proven anywhere by anyone that the 30fps-Xbox-Syndrome is bandwidth related. Doesn't the Xbox have more Z-tricks than all the other consoles (not to mention neat stuff like the crossbar memory controller)? As fas as I've heard it has more to do with the CPU, but my memory of that source is pretty vague.
 
zurich said:
You bringing up two games really makes no sense, just go look at the majority of high end Xbox games. The frame rates are rarely 60fps dude, and this is because of the bandwidth first and foremost.

I don't think its been proven anywhere by anyone that the 30fps-Xbox-Syndrome is bandwidth related. Doesn't the Xbox have more Z-tricks than all the other consoles (not to mention neat stuff like the crossbar memory controller)? As fas as I've heard it has more to do with the CPU, but my memory of that source is pretty vague.

Well some 30fps Xbox games are cpu limited while others are not. That fact alone disproves the notion that 30fps Xbox games are bandwidth limited. ;)
 
I'd just like to mention that in the real world the softness of a shadow is mostly dependent on the distance from the object casting the shadow to the surface that the shadow is being casted on NOT the distance from the object casting the shadow in relation to the lightsource.

Its mostly depends on the size/surface area of your light source, doesn't it ?
 
I'd just like to mention that in the real world the softness of a shadow is mostly dependent on the distance from the object casting the shadow to the surface that the shadow is being casted on NOT the distance from the object casting the shadow in relation to the lightsource. The opaqness of the shadow however follows both lightsource distance and surface distance rules.
That's true but is hardly relevant to any of todays games, which are still far from being able to reproduce shadows on that level of corectness :)
 
V3 said:
I'd just like to mention that in the real world the softness of a shadow is mostly dependent on the distance from the object casting the shadow to the surface that the shadow is being casted on NOT the distance from the object casting the shadow in relation to the lightsource.

Its mostly depends on the size/surface area of your light source, doesn't it ?

For all practical purposes the brightness of a light source is directly related to the distance of said light source therefore the brightness affects the opaqness of a shadow not its softness. For example a shadow casted by an object that is lit by a single candle will not be soft if the distance between the object and casted surface is small. Now if you keep that distance unchanged and used a brighter light, the shadow will still be a hard shadow but slightly more opaque. If you moved both the object and the surface closer or farther away from the light source making sure you keep the other distance unchanged, the end result would still be the same, a hard shadow. Remember that moving the casted surface away from the object is NOT the same as moving the object closer to the lightsource. It might seem the same but it's not because in reality the distance between the object and light source hasn't changed at all. To simulate a change in distance between the object and light source without actually changing it, all you have to do is make the light brighter/dimmer.
 
chaphack said:
Ok, back to the shadows thingie...

Since we have a fair share of developers in this topic. Have to ask, just because one type of game. SH3(semi-fixed cam with loadings between small areas) did somewhat of shadows, is it fair to use that as a basis, that another type of game(maybe a full 3D fps with dynamic shadows) will achieve similarly satisfactory results, for all its intent?
Isn't that just what is discussed here! (or at least tried to, if only someone did not pop in with trolling).
Pay attention, boy!
 
Paul,

haha! I know what are you trying to drive at. ;) But it is not going to work. PS2 poor IQ IS of comparable concern, it IS the worst amongst next gen systems. The truth is for all to see. Sadly Xbox 30fps is not of a major concern(paul hits head on Da wAll! :oops: ). If it is, then PS2/GC/DC all are the 30fpsDOOMED! Simple as that.

Now please carry on living in your dream world. KTHXBYE. :oops:
 
Ok, back to the shadows thingie...

Since we have a fair share of developers in this topic. Have to ask, just because one type of game. SH3(semi-fixed cam with loadings between small areas) did somewhat of shadows, is it fair to use that as a basis, that another type of game(maybe a full 3D fps with dynamic shadows) will achieve similarly satisfactory results, for all its intent?
 
SH3 can almost be played as any 3rd person adventure game with completely free camera as long as you hold R2 all the time while moving your character. Camera will follow behind your back constanly. Camera angles simply have nothing to do with shadow calculations in SH3.

Chap, it's a stupid argument really - Dreamcast could do that kind of shadowing, PS2 and GC certainly can do it, as games on them clearly demonstrate (Luigi on GC, SH3 on PS2) It just happens that SH3 does those shadows in a really dramatic way (and they're everywhere), to make a horror atmosphere, just as D3 does, so that makes people bring it up as an example. Shadows alone would simply be a non-isue in some kind of possible Doom 3 port, no matter what that ID guy said. It's the massive use of normal maps and huge amounts of 'regular' textures that would pose a real problem, and wolud make a reasonably close port impossible on PS2. I don't really see what would be a technical limitation to make a GC version if not for the memory alone, but that I think is going to be a huge problem on Xbox too.

I think that some kind of tech demo that would utilize D3 technology could be made on PS2 (maybe even on DC, although it's small fillrate limits the usage of DOT3 operation even more than on PS2 - we're talking the full scene bumpmapping here) but as noone is ever going to bother making something like that, it's all just speculation.
 
marconelly! said:
SH3 can almost be played as any 3rd person adventure game with completely free camera as long as you hold R2 all the time while moving your character. Camera will follow behind your back constanly. Camera angles simply have nothing to do with shadow calculations in SH3.

Chap, it's a stupid argument really - Dreamcast could do that kind of shadowing, PS2 and GC certainly can do it, as games on them clearly demonstrate (Luigi on GC, SH3 on PS2) It just happens that SH3 does those shadows in a really dramatic way (and they're everywhere), to make a horror atmosphere, just as D3 does, so that makes people bring it up as an example. Shadows alone would simply be a non-isue in some kind of possible Doom 3 port, no matter what that ID guy said. It's the massive use of normal maps and huge amounts of 'regular' textures that would pose a real problem, and wolud make a reasonably close port impossible on PS2. I don't really see what would be a technical limitation to make a GC version if not for the memory alone, but that I think is going to be a huge problem on Xbox too.

I think that some kind of tech demo that would utilize D3 technology could be made on PS2 (maybe even on DC, although it's small fillrate limits the usage of DOT3 operation even more than on PS2 - we're talking the full scene bumpmapping here) but as noone is ever going to bother making something like that, it's all just speculation.

No offense marc, that is why i wanted to hear from a developer dude. ;)
 
Back
Top