PS3: New Dirt Pics

[rekator]

Still not that much of a difference, atleast not what have been stated before. No comments on the particles/collisions?

I prefered a 60 fps video comparaison than poor qualities photos for this type of comparaison…

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I prefered a 60 fps video comparaison than poor qualities photos for this type of comparaison…

neither version runs at 60fps AFAIK

 

[rekator]

neither version runs at 60fps AFAIK

Yes, I knows but to really appreciate the differences in a particules system than a other you need at least double frame video, DIRT was 30 fps so 60 fps…

 

[patsu]

The differences are being raised as limitations in the PS3 version though, aren't they? I mean, differences of a small scale are invariably present in cross-platform titles. The point raised is if the PS3 version doesn't look as good as XB360 version, where reducions in scene complexity present in static screenshots balances out improvements elsewhere. If we're using this game to compare platform performance, then the differences are all important. Are the things missing in the PS3 version because the developers had to do geometry cutbacks? Specifically in the light of a much improved framerate? Nebula's pics throw up an interesting question to my mind - why are there these differences when they're so small? Is the absence of a couple of trees, and the replacement of a long billboard with a few shorter billboards, going to free up much resources to accomodate a large framerate increase? Seems to me that the changes marked are pretty inconsequential.

Perhaps these changes are a matter of memory constraints? The devs trimmed down some megabytes of track detailing to fit around PS3's smaller memory map? That makes more sense to me than making these changes to make gains in framerate. The major technical concerns of AA, framerate, resolution, particles and HDR, are unlikely to be affected by the tiny differences in scene geometry.

Yeah... that's why I'm reserving my judgement. Am waiting for confirmation of 1080p, 7.1 sound and better framerate in the final game. Codemaster would have done more optimization after the demo and further delay. I don't even know better particle system is supposed to be in the plan.

 

[djskribbles]

considering the demo is 720p, im guessing the final release will just be scaled to 1080p.

 

[pjbliverpool]

The shots were inaccurate. Look at theese instead.

Xbox360
PS3

To me nothing were added/removed. You can actually see the trees now.

In this post its also possible to see that the PS3 has more details to its interior, more particles during collision.

Neogaf post - Warning blurry photos

Enjoy!

Interesting. I hadn't noticed those differences between the PC and 360 versions but even on medium the PC has the PS3 level of detail/features.

 

[Tap In]

whoever took those 360 pics on Neogaf needs to adjust the contrast on their TV, that's horrible.

mine looks nothing like that and has a very cool lighting effect, realistic even.

 

[djskribbles]

i think his contrast is fine, the reason his has a cool look to it is because the color temperature on his set is set to a cooler color temperature (most sets have this option). that may be his preference as his PS3 shots look quite cool too. i personally like the warmer color temperatures.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

i think his contrast is fine, the reason his has a cool look to it...

Tap In's cool comment was regards his own TV. And by 'cool lighting' I don't think he means 'blue-tinted' but 'looks good'. The XB360 shot is too contrasty and loses all the shading detail on the car, so I can well imagine a better calibration of the TV would give better results (although better is subjective, and some people might prefer the high-contrast XB360 look over the more natural and subdued PS3 look in those screenshots).

 

[Tap In]

Tap In's cool comment was regards his own TV. And by 'cool lighting' I don't think he means 'blue-tinted' but 'looks good'. The XB360 shot is too contrasty and loses all the shading detail on the car, so I can well imagine a better calibration of the TV would give better results (although better is subjective, and some people might prefer the high-contrast XB360 look over the more natural and subdued PS3 look in those screenshots).

correct, thanks Shifty

also


I just played this same track on 360 (not the demo) and on my screen it looked nothing like the oversaturated top pic and more like the bottom.

Xbox360
PS3

so these images are not accurate for coming to a conclusion here.

 

[Todd33]

The pics originally linked Neogaf were from a calibrated TV (both PS3 and 360 inputs). I'm not sure there is much you can do to make the 360 version look different, it has over the top HDR and high contrast, anything you do to compensate is going to screw up all other games.

 

[tha_con]

So no one here is taking the obvious route?

DiRT 360 release comments "The game looks great, but the frame rate suffers as a result"

DiRT Development studio "Hey guy's, how do you think we can improve this, the game runs the same on both right now, the frame rate isn't optimal, what do you think we can do?"

Developer 1 - "You know, there's a lot of grass and tree's, and textures used to create these assets, that could probably be better spent on other things, and would probably yield more stability"

Developer 2 - "wow...I never thought of that"

Months later - "Wow, PS3 version is really really smooth, but WTF!? I needzorz more grass!!!!"


Honestly, it's very easy to see why they cut those things out, and reduced certain things. The main complaint with DiRT was it's lack of a stable frame rate. Why is this really so hard to see? Is everyone THAT desperate to say "omg one of these consoles is weaker than the other".

Come on, let's get in touch with reality, huh?

 

[morlock]

In the start of the the track there are lots more geometry and lull-lull around the track compare to the parts that is missing some trees and grass. Have they removed it because of drawlimitations or because the track does'nt fit in memory or something?

 

[Obakan]

How is the framerate on the PS3 version anyone got a in-game video?
Is the PS3 version 720p or 1080p? Correct me if i´m wrong but the Xbox360 version is 720p?

 

[warb]

Both versions are rendered at 720p, and I think both support 1080p upscaled.

 

[Obakan]

Both versions are rendered at 720p, and both support 1080p upscaled.

Thanks warb.
Then I have no idea what can be the reason, memory?
Same ammount of AA on both versions?

 

[Tap In]

... The main complaint with DiRT was it's lack of a stable frame rate.

actually that complaint was mostly for those that downloaded the DEMO.

those of us who actually purchased the game know that the frame rate was rock solid in all areas EXCEPT when looking in rear view in a 8 buggie race.

 

[Tap In]

The pics originally linked Neogaf were from a calibrated TV (both PS3 and 360 inputs).

well that's fine and dandy but I'm just saying my 360 retail version of dirt looked closer to that PS3 shot last night when I played it and not over the top.

the HDR and contrast were perfect IMO. :smile:

I'm not sure there is much you can do to make the 360 version look different, it has over the top HDR and high contrast, anything you do to compensate is going to screw up all other games.

sure you can.

I can make all kinds of adjustments on my Samsung to get different results. I have mine adjusted and Dirt looks awesome (one of the best looking games PERIOD released so far) as well as the Bioshock demo and other games at the same settings. Hell, just turning off or on DNIe can change it drastically.

In fact most media have shown PS3 games to be rendering in a lower contrast with less saturation (in videos where people notice it being "washed out") so by default those who play mostly on their PS3's may have those settings tweaked in their tv to account for that output device.

Switching to X360 (where the settings would perhaps need to be different) may be a factor in some of these comparisons.

 

[tha_con]

actually that complaint was mostly for those that downloaded the DEMO.

those of us who actually purchased the game know that the frame rate was rock solid in all areas EXCEPT when looking in rear view in a 8 buggie race.

I guess, I rented it, and my experience was different. From playing the rental, and playing the PS3 demo, I can tell a difference rather quickly in frame rate.

Even so, if this is the same demo, so to speak, that was on the 360 (I never downloaded the 360 version) and it runs better, it could be safe to say, possibly, that the final retail version will also run better on the PS3.

Either way, my personal experience has been that the PS3 version is more stable, and I could really care less about how much grass, or how many tree's there are (more, or less) in a racing title.

Like I said on NeoGAF. Maybe some of you should be looking for a game called GrASS and not DiRT. Racing doesn't seem to be your interest, grass and tree's do.

 

[Jesus2006]

The differences are being raised as limitations in the PS3 version though, aren't they? I mean, differences of a small scale are invariably present in cross-platform titles. The point raised is if the PS3 version doesn't look as good as XB360 version, where reducions in scene complexity present in static screenshots balances out improvements elsewhere. If we're using this game to compare platform performance, then the differences are all important. Are the things missing in the PS3 version because the developers had to do geometry cutbacks? Specifically in the light of a much improved framerate? Nebula's pics throw up an interesting question to my mind - why are there these differences when they're so small? Is the absence of a couple of trees, and the replacement of a long billboard with a few shorter billboards, going to free up much resources to accomodate a large framerate increase? Seems to me that the changes marked are pretty inconsequential.

Perhaps these changes are a matter of memory constraints? The devs trimmed down some megabytes of track detailing to fit around PS3's smaller memory map? That makes more sense to me than making these changes to make gains in framerate. The major technical concerns of AA, framerate, resolution, particles and HDR, are unlikely to be affected by the tiny differences in scene geometry.

Totally agree here. These changes are too small to be performance related. More likely this is due to artistic changes in the tracks (like in Ridge Racer). Maybe the artists didn't like some things and changed it a bit (like these short billboards).