Question about 1080i/p and Xenos
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
On a TV, i know, but i never thought it would work with rendering... Well you learn something new every day...
The aspect ratio used in rendering does not *have* to mimic the aspect ratio of the framebuffer.
Yeah, and our eyes are more sensitive to virtual resolution as well. so using a 5:4 or 4:3 resolution to render a widescreen image often looks notably better than using more pixels pixels in a widescreen format. For instance I play some PC games at 1280x1024 with a 16:9 rather than using 1600x900; even though there is there is over 100,000 more pixels in the latter, I simply find that with qualilty scaling the former hides aliasing better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup. LB, take any widescreen game on the Xbox for example.
Edit: easiest example is really the Doom 3 engine games so far. (r_aspectratio)
why, be my guest, blakjedi. a reduced-size main render target is just that - a reduced size main render target. and whatever reasons and justification the fanbois may think of, such a 'feature' essentially speaks of one thing and one thing only - you did not have the bloody fillrate you wish you had. not necesserily because the HW could not deliver it, but because you somehow did not manage to extract it. i'm not saying it's a deadly sin, but yes, bizzare cut quite a corner there, while the rest of the 360 launch-window teams was sweating to get tiling work somehow.
but of course there's always some apologist stepping up and starting to explain how all kind of secondary render targets may be of lower res and how that's natural. no shit, sherlock, but how about the main one?
Yeah, Doom 3 is one of the games I was talking about when I spoke of rendering at 1280x1024 with a 16:9 aspect ratio instead of using 1600x900, and with the all shader alaising inherent to that game it really helps. CoD2 is another example of a game that lets you set the resolution and aspect ratio seprately right in the menu options.Yup. LB, take any widescreen game on the Xbox for example.
Edit: easiest example is really the Doom 3 engine games so far. (r_aspectratio)
Many obviously weren't using tiling as a number of the launch games were simply 1280x720 with no AA.
obviously. i did not mean every single last one of them. point is, there were 3rd party devs who walked the walk and took the hit. while some 1st party ones, with ms' PR at the helm, just talked the talk of mandatory this, free that. anyway, i just got irritated by that guy's 'let me explain to you how bizzare were being wrongfully accused' approach, based on a clumsy attempt to smear the difference between a game's main and all the rest (secondary) render targets. fact is, bizzare cut a corner there which others did not. and he'll has to live with it.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Choice is a terrible thing...
Why on earth have we ended up with two and a half (i.e. 720P, 1080i, 1080P) incompatible HDTV standards anyway - surely both the TV and games industries would be tons better off if there was a single standard. I'm certainly not buying an HDTV set until one resolution emerges as the winner - I'm buggered if I'm spending eight hundred quid only to view everything through a crappy scaling filter.
when the industry jumps to the next generation of television standard, UHDV or whatever, in a few decades, it better be one format, one standard for North America and Japan.
scooby_dooby
Legend
And PGR still remains one of the nicest looking titles on the 360, what's your point again?
imo f@nboys are the ones who even think things like internal resolutions need to be 'defended' or 'spun', normal people don't care, they only care about the end result on screen.
Well PGR is also one of, if not the jaggiest game on 360, it's very evident straight away and that's the end result, whatever the internal resolution is and whatever you think of people pointing that out.
PGR is great example where giving developers the option to target any resolution is a win-win. For their particular expeirence they felt that the trade off of using 720p was not worth it, hence going with a lower resolution. To me that is a great looking arcard like experience.
I hope we get to see a largre variety of next gen games using diffferent resolutions based on their requirements. I'm still hoping that Microsoft bring Flight Simulator out at 1080p. That is such a great game and really benefits from higher resolutions.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya it is pretty jaggy, my main turnoff on the game actually, it's still a very gorgeous game, especially when not passing guard rails or chain link fences.
see my quotes and you'll surely understand what my point is.
believe it or not, but there's one other category of people who care about render targets resolutions. they're commonly referred here as 'developers'. they're the guys who meet the project deadlines, and the guys who satisfy the publisher's requirements. and when some of them spend time to implement 'mandatory' features (instead of making their products 'nice looking' the way they see fit) while others get a special treatment it's somewhat of a pity. but don't worry, i don't expect you to feel the same.
Isn't this a tech forum? It doesn't matter what you care about, but the point still remains that the unexpectedly reduced framebuffer is somehow being explained into a feature. The end result could have been better, if that is all you care about.
IIRC I read a postmortem on MotoGP where they very clearly state they were CPU limited (specifically by drawcalls).Acert93 said:
I certainly agree that MS deserves all the bashing on this because they were the ones to use "standard AA&HD" as a Marketting/PR point. They over promised and under delivered, there's really not much to damage control there.darkblu said:
That said - I wouldn't bash Bizarre for this - last gen (admitedly, analog displays were more forgiving here) there were as many main target resolution choices as there were developers. There's tons of last gen games that rendered odd sizes like 512x512, not to even mention the really exceptional ones like ICO (still with spectacular results) - in the end devs try to choose what suits their project best.
I suspect PGR res was chosen as favorable over 720P with no AA.
Faf, i am not questioning bizzare's technical/whatever decisions here; the paragraph of mine that you quoted was meant to be read only in the context i used it in: IHVs' doctrines, 1st parties' products and fanboism.
one thing set me off here: some guy's attempt to call a down-sized framebuffer 'an effect', and the fact that this 'effect' came from a 1st party developer of one IHV who proclaim certain resolution standars, and who expect 3rd parties to adhere.
heck, i've always been among the few to say 'screw HD'. neither did i ever care about PGR3 - the first time i saw it and noticed the framebuffer downsizing i did not think 'har har, incompetent bizzare', i thought 'wait a minute - how can this pass ms' QA?'. of course at that time the 360 had not launched yet and i did not know there would be other 'exceptions' from the touted standards. but that's not important, what's interesting is that while 1st parties could go convinient resolutions, others non-1st parties did not enjoy such conveniencies.
How would one notice such a thing?
