On opqaue textures you can shove misc data into the alpha channel.
Range of graphics effects in console games *spawn
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
On opqaue textures you can shove misc data into the alpha channel.
I don't follow. They claimed their textures are "4 times better." What data would they put in the alpha channel?
Looking at the Halo shot in this thread, of the Halo guy in the red armour, you can see a lot of very fine detail. On almost every protruding line on the armour, there are little spots where the red paint is chipping away to reveal bare gray metal. I don't think that would be possible without a fairly high resolution texture. A lot of the lines are also very thin. The text on the helmet is very sharp too. Seriously, look closely at all the spots where the paint is meant to look as if it's worn away, and you'll see how much detail there really is. Check out all of the minute detail on the left forearm.
You can chop up the bits and use them in more creative ways if you need them. Like say use 2 bits of the alpha channel for alpha, and the rest for other stuff.
Oh I missed the 4x talk, is that about KZ3? PR talk can be very tricky and creative. They are a deferred renderer so even if their textures are the same resolution they could claim 4x better because they are accumulating more effects on each given pixel of a texture this time around. Or maybe they are using twice as many textures this time over the course of the game and twice as many effects per pixel applied to them compared to KZ2, hence 4x. Who knows, maybe last game all textures were on 512x512 sheets and this time they combined them onto 2048x2048 sheets, same texture just grouped differently. It's a slipperly slope really, which is why I stopped believing any pr talk after "Blast processing". We'll probably never know what they mean by 4x if they did indeed say that.
Yeah, Lucid_Dreamer asked if people were implying GG lied about having "4x better textures," but it's basically a question that's impossible to answer. I also can't remember the source to know if they actually said that or how it was worded.
I'm curious to know what you're talking about with chopping bits and stuffing data into alpha channels. Sounds a lot like murder.
I'm curious to know what you're talking about with chopping bits and stuffing data into alpha channels. Sounds a lot like murder.
Hehe... "blast processing". SEGA <=> SONY!
Use your imagination and remove the textile pattern layer in your mind. Good, well done. Now as you can see you got lowres textures, so lowres you can see lowres pixelation. For example under his hood.
4x what? Everything, detail layers, base textures, level textures, character textures only, mix and match?
So KZ3 is a worse game than KZ2 (91) and several other games?
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/killzone-3
I have popped in Reach and loaded up K3 to see by first hand their approach to the character textures. Images usually hide a portion of the "big picture"
I checked the details on the enemy models under shadow where the "textile pattern" (had no idea thats what its called) isnt as apparent and I have to admit that at least on the enemy characters not all textures are low res. Some are looking very very good, almost up to Reach standards. Some are kind of blurry. Some are very low res. But it wasnt as bad as depicted in this image posted
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1705/kz3img010.jpg
Of course I wasnt comparing the same model. I was bored to go up to that point just to check the texture detail on that one
In some cases the texture detail appears to be as good as other FPS I have played. Add the normal maps or textile pattern or whatever you want to call it and the end result is outstanding.
Reach has a more consistent texture quality but I still cant help it but find the models "flatter" and with less detail variety than in K3's. I dont know if thats due to polygon/geometry differences or lighting differences
I checked the details on the enemy models under shadow where the "textile pattern" (had no idea thats what its called) isnt as apparent and I have to admit that at least on the enemy characters not all textures are low res. Some are looking very very good, almost up to Reach standards. Some are kind of blurry. Some are very low res. But it wasnt as bad as depicted in this image posted
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1705/kz3img010.jpg
Of course I wasnt comparing the same model. I was bored to go up to that point just to check the texture detail on that one
In some cases the texture detail appears to be as good as other FPS I have played. Add the normal maps or textile pattern or whatever you want to call it and the end result is outstanding.
Reach has a more consistent texture quality but I still cant help it but find the models "flatter" and with less detail variety than in K3's. I dont know if thats due to polygon/geometry differences or lighting differences
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Oh, kind of like seeing the engine by looking through the hood?
These are probably the questions you should have asked in the KZ3 thread instead of just saying "PR trick" (followed by "256x256 to 512x512 = 4x" type post). Maybe that was just a knee-jerk response?
All things being equal, yes. The first problem with that being the reviewers are most likely different people. That tends to go a long way in changing the scores.
I didn't realize Halo: Reach was a 1080p game. The purple part of the armor still looks like it's a much lower rez than the orange part, to me.
More like lifting the semi-transparent stickers and decals to see the chassis color and it's surface texture.
256x256 to 512x512 is for example is 4x texture res. I was right. Funny though some where talking about generational texture detail leap...
Ahh so exactly the same as people on the internet then be it individuals or masses or even 'hives'.
Yeah, you'd be surprised how close you can get and see the detail textures they blend with the rest of the applied textures, particularly, the covenant-themed environment aboard the ship in Long Night of Solace.
If you have nothing to contribute, stop posting. This is just a waste of time in the tech forums.
Completely irrelevent to the tech discussion on texture work.
Folks, this shouldn't be hard to try to stay technical and without these stealth attempts to derail discussion
I just think there's a lot of detail you can't see when you're playing because it's low contrast, the game is fast, the areas are open so you aren't up close all of the time, motion blur etc.
So just because you don't notice it, the work that goes into it is irrelevant? This isn't about what may or may not find impressive. We're trying to have a discussion of the work they do.
You found IQ poor?I thought Bungie made quite a job with that...sure its a touch sub HD but texture work,AF and even their AA seemed to work like a charm.I found it to look much cleaner than alot of 720p native games.Only thing i didn't like in Reach(and Halo 3) are interiors,lighting seemed "flat".
