Pssst... PSP... psst... Pixel Shading... psst
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
The Painters algorithm is a valid (and fairly good) form of HSR (hidden surface removal), the PS1 was fairly unique in having hardware acceleration of it. The ordering table hardware would still be handy today in a few situation. The GTE also rocked... best true coprocessor (rather than seperate co-CPU like device) ever in a console/computer.
Not using a Z-buffer saved a fair chunk of VRAM (128K) and a lot of bandwidth, also the subdivision used for perspective correction also helped reduce z-fighting errors.
Not using a Z-buffer saved a fair chunk of VRAM (128K) and a lot of bandwidth, also the subdivision used for perspective correction also helped reduce z-fighting errors.
archie4oz said:
Project Reality was a code word like Dolphin not specs.
Mode 7 was a marketing term for the real world capabilities of the SNES's graphics chip just like GCN's realworld specs. Peak numbers are hyped specs used by fanboi's for bench racing like 66 Mpolys/sec unlit, unshaded
But it is that much easier for a console manufacturer's marketing department to publish the theoretical, calculated maximum values, than to guess what the developers will be able to pull out of the machine in games.
I mean, there is the possibility, that some developer releases a game that is using non-textured flat polygons, and thus reaches the near maximum polygon rate, while another developer releases a multitextured game with many effects that eat the polygon pushing power.
I mean, there is the possibility, that some developer releases a game that is using non-textured flat polygons, and thus reaches the near maximum polygon rate, while another developer releases a multitextured game with many effects that eat the polygon pushing power.
Why not? Didn't Tobal on PS1 use flat polys?
well, I did mean flat, coloured and lit polys...
well, I did mean flat, coloured and lit polys...
I didn't say it was a PS2 game, I said it was a PS1 game.
How does it cancel out the possibility that someone would make such a game on PS2 :?
Wireframe is not the same as flat shaded polygons, or is it? I'm no expert and may use wrong terms, but...
How does it cancel out the possibility that someone would make such a game on PS2 :?
Wireframe is not the same as flat shaded polygons, or is it? I'm no expert and may use wrong terms, but...
If you accept your argument that lower precision classifies something as "hack" then everything prior to something with better precision is automatically a hack.Mfa said:
IE. all realtime 3d on PCs before Quake. PSX entire graphics pipeline...(I think N64's also, it was fixed point too right?). All fragment shading before GFX and R300...
Of course this list could pretty much go on forever...
Actually that was 66 shaded/prelit. Which makes a fairly big difference as it refers to a number for something that actually gets used in real world.PCEngine said:
These numbers at least have a context.
"In-game" situation is completely undefined on the other hand, and even if it was, it would still have no meaning in cross platform comparison which is just about the only thing your type of consumer cares about
But I would possibly buy a game that uses just shaded/prelit (thanks Fafalada), if the game looked good and original because of that. A sequel to REZ with 50-60 MPolys/sec would surely look and play great.PC-Engine said:LOL you don't get it do you? People don't want Vectrex style graphics today my friend...15 years ago sure...
Maybe some oddball game like REZ, but I don't think REZ is pushing 66 Mpolys/sec
REZ used wireframe and flat polygons, and it is one of my favorite and better looking games this gen.
DeanoC said:
This thread is actually the first time I hear it mentioned that the PS is having hardware accelerated poly sorting... Seems we learn something new every day!
Yeah, PS hardware really WAS ahead of its time. The MDEC was also really cool, it did awesome FMV from just doublespin CDROM datarates, Philosoma was a crappy game but it had incredible FMV.
One thing that always annoyed me though was all the texture skating/warping, THAT really was the hardware's achilles heel. Giving it perspective correction would have boosted IQ so much. Proper edge clipping would also have been great, I'm sure you all have seen polys touching the edge of the screen just disappear and leave a big black hole in tons of PS games, that really messes with the suspension of disbelief when playing a game. Well, at least for me it does.
Z-fighting was the third biggest IQ problem in my opinion. Things got lots better in later games, but it is always a problem nevertheless.
I really don't have a good idea of how much it would cost to fix these issues...
Probably quite a bit, hehe. In the end I must say having a cheap console with fast, OK 3D graphics like the PS sure beats an expensive console with slow, good 3D graphics...Do we get perspective correction on polys when running PS games on PS2?
*G*
PC-Engine said:rabidrabbit said:
Didn't the Vectrex use not lit, non shaded polys?
After all we all want to see new PS2 games pushing 66 Mpolys/sec wireframe mode!!!
that because it is a spec sheet, non a demo/pre made engine that devs conform to. so for devs it's pretty useful (can gauge probable performence from experience).
I agree it suck for the consumer but what else can you do without under/overselling your product? looking at the intel/AMD debacle over clockspeeds just makes me dizzy (what the 'real' speed oif an XP1800+?).
nope just bilinear filtering.
6-12 textured + lit Mpolys/sec ingame with AI, physics, etc. has more useful information than 66 Mpolys/sec untextured + lit non ingame numbers
It's pretty obvious that Nintendo's numbers are more realistic if conservative compared to SONY's. Wouldn't it be funny if Nintendo were to go back and change their numbers to 70 Mpolys/sec gouraud shaded non ingame polys?
It's pretty obvious that Nintendo's numbers are more realistic if conservative compared to SONY's. Wouldn't it be funny if Nintendo were to go back and change their numbers to 70 Mpolys/sec gouraud shaded non ingame polys?
Panajev2001a:
> Ever considered this eventuality ?
No, because that makes absolutely no sense.
archie4oz:
> Sony hasn't published any performance specs so they really
> can't "hype" the PSP on it's performance now can they?
Yes they have... T&L and fillrate.
PC-Engine:
> 6-12 textured + lit Mpolys/sec ingame with AI, physics, etc. has more
> useful information than 66 Mpolys/sec untextured + lit non ingame
> numbers
While I personally appreciate the nobility of providing conservative estimates it's completely arbitrary. Developers will push the hardware in different ways and get different results.
> Wouldn't it be funny if Nintendo were to go back and change their
> numbers to 70 Mpolys/sec gouraud shaded non ingame polys?
Not so much funny as it would be a lie. At least when talking about Flipper. Probably part of the reason for Nintendo's conservatism.
> Ever considered this eventuality ?
No, because that makes absolutely no sense.
archie4oz:
> Sony hasn't published any performance specs so they really
> can't "hype" the PSP on it's performance now can they?
Yes they have... T&L and fillrate.
PC-Engine:
> 6-12 textured + lit Mpolys/sec ingame with AI, physics, etc. has more
> useful information than 66 Mpolys/sec untextured + lit non ingame
> numbers
While I personally appreciate the nobility of providing conservative estimates it's completely arbitrary. Developers will push the hardware in different ways and get different results.
> Wouldn't it be funny if Nintendo were to go back and change their
> numbers to 70 Mpolys/sec gouraud shaded non ingame polys?
Not so much funny as it would be a lie. At least when talking about Flipper. Probably part of the reason for Nintendo's conservatism.
Actually shadow calculations require tremendous amounts of non-lit non-textured, basically z-only pixels. So that 66 million figure is technically useful.* Besides, in any serious device the figures quoted are raw specs, rarely do we see a device that has a spec sheet with "this is what we think are clients will actually get" written on it. The reason for this is that the first figure has at least some formal, technical grounding whereas the second is totally arbitrary.
And yes, I do think the term "Project Reality" certainly does attempt to convey some data about the performance of the unit in question, much more so than "Emotion Synthesis."
*Ironically many applications in the future might use much more geometry for shadows than for final rendering.
Archie:
Yeah, Soul Calibur was a System 12 game (S12 was basically a PSX with 2MB of VRAM) but so was Tekken 3 and Ehrgeiz. And both of those came out (somewhat) all right on PSX.
And yes, I do think the term "Project Reality" certainly does attempt to convey some data about the performance of the unit in question, much more so than "Emotion Synthesis."
*Ironically many applications in the future might use much more geometry for shadows than for final rendering.
Archie:
Yeah, Soul Calibur was a System 12 game (S12 was basically a PSX with 2MB of VRAM) but so was Tekken 3 and Ehrgeiz. And both of those came out (somewhat) all right on PSX.