*spin-off* Battlefield 3 on Consoles

[kagemaru]

So you're saying they build their environments (for BC1&2 at least) for the lowest common denominator (ie RSXs vertex performance)?

No, not really. I guess what I'm saying is I think there are too many factors involved in rendering a game to just look at the performance in this specific area to determine the level of LOD in a game. There are games where the LOD is better on the ps3, even with the differences in GPUs, for example. I consider the systems too close in performance, that the lowest common denominator is more so dependent on what you're trying to accomplish, and not some stats on paper.

I can be totally wrong though, who knows.:smile:

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

The Cell is used for culling and packaging, the RSX still has to render them, at least that's what I remember reading here a while ago. So I'm not so sure Cell can bridge the gap between the two GPUs in this regard.

The following is what I was talking about:

A 6600 has 3 vertex units, RSX/7800s have 8. This is in line with the number thrown earlier in this thread ("2 or 3 SPUs dedicated to geometry processing").

And it's not even a completely fair comparison as vertex shaders don't perform any culling.
In this case is fairly correct to simply expect SPUs to match clock per clock modern vertex shader implementations.

http://74.200.65.90/showpost.php?p=1116934&postcount=388

 

[kagemaru]

The following is what I was talking about:




http://74.200.65.90/showpost.php?p=1116934&postcount=388

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a difference between culling geometry and how much geometry (or polys) can be displayed on screen at once (though they obviously apply to one another). Culling helps the efficiency of how geometry is processed so cycles aren't wasted on polys that are out of the player's view (e.g. the opposite side of a building). I would assume that the efficiency gained from culling could be applied elsewhere that is displayed on the screen, but isn't geometry culled on both systems, thus making any gains from culling on the ps3 moot? I just thought it was more crucial on the ps3 due to the limitations of the GPU. When looking at the difference in games like NG2 or Dead Rising 2, it seems like there is some difference in geometry processing capabilities in specific scenarios. However as I explained to Interference, I'm not so sure that any difference would be a handicap with Battlefield 3 due to the many factors involved in the rendering pipeline.

I could be entirely wrong, I'm still learning a lot myself, which is why I joined here. This is all kinda off topic though and I really don't want my posts to be misinterpreted as a knock against the ps3, I was just trying to apply what I read a while ago here (which I quoted).

The important part of my point in all of this is that if there is any difference in the amount of geometry each system can render, I don't think it would have a negative effect on the LOD in the ps3 version.

Of course if I'm wrong, I hope anyone with more knowledge than myself can chime in and let me know how. I don't wish to be ignorant or oblivious to the intricacies of these things.

 

[patsu]

There are different level of culling depending on how much time you want or can afford to spend on it. e.g., On PS3, BF3 added more custom culling besides the standard Edge triangle culling. You can check their slides. On top of that, they also added occlusion culling. 360 can do it too if they want to, it depends on how DICE budget their runtime resources.

And for rendering geometry, the GPU is used to rasterize to GBuffers ? The SPUs can be used to classify the screen tiles so that the GPU knows where and how to spend its power and memory wisely. In the PhyreEngine slides, the SPUs sample (low res) textures and shadow maps to categorize the screen tiles, or perform post processing work.

While the SPUs are busy with vertex and lighting, the GPU can do something else (e.g., particles, shadow). It depends on how much they want to optimize the entire setup, and whether the parallel processing overheads will become too high. I have no idea what bottlenecks the BF3 team will run into.

 

[kagemaru]

There are different level of culling depending on how much time you can afford to spend on it. e.g., On PS3, BF3 added more custom culling besides the standard Edge triangle culling. You can check their slides. On top of that, they also added occlusion culling. 360 can do it too if they want to, it depends on how DICE budget their runtime resources.

And for rendering geometry, the GPU is used to rasterize to GBuffers ? The SPUs can be used to classify the screen tiles so that the GPU knows where and how to spend its power and memory wisely. In the PhyreEngine slides, the SPUs sample (low res) textures and shadow maps to categorize the screen tiles, or perform post processing work.

While the SPUs are busy with vertex and lighting, the GPU can do something else (e.g., particles, shadow). It depends on how much they want to optimize the entire setup, and whether the parallel processing overheads will become too high. I have no idea what bottlenecks the BF3 team will run into.

Yeah I was aware on different levels of culling, which looking back maybe I shouldn't have talked about culling on both platforms making the benefits on the PS3 moot in such a absolute way. I vaguely recall the BF3 slides you mentioned.

Didn't know some of the stuff about the PhyreEngine, really interesting, thanks!

Again I didn't mean to look negative in regards to the PS3, I was only trying to apply what I read a while ago to that specific earlier comment. If anything, I've been expressing that I don't see the ps3 being the lowest common denominator with BF3, so hopefully my overall point was not misunderstood.

 

[nintenho]

Would be interesting to see how well the 360 cope with a full Deferred Renderer with FP16 HDR and AA. Wonder if they'll get away with it by tiling or simply go the route of 1152 x 720.

Well the PS3 version is apparently at 1280 x 704 (w/mlaa) according to repi so that would be a nearly 10% drop in the number of pixels. Halo Reach looked fine at that res though.

 

[MJP]

Transferring gbuffer+z and 3 mrt from rsx pool to main mem takes 1.3 ms if i remember well. How much time does it take to transfer frame buffer back and forth for mlaa? I thought i read somewhere in another thread that gpu fxaa takes about 1 ms+. Isn't the transfer time defeating the purpose of doing AA on the spu if doing fxaa on the gpu takes shorter than the transfer time? (Don t flame me i have no idea how much data takes the frme buffer comparatively to gbuffer...)

You don't *have* to transfer from local to system memory, you could just have the last step of your post processing render into system memory and then work off that. DICE didn't go that route because they found it was quicker to render the 3 G-Buffers + Z Buffer into local and then transfer it, but that's a different scenario then rendering 1 color buffer without Z.

 

[(((interference)))]

No, not really. I guess what I'm saying is I think there are too many factors involved in rendering a game to just look at the performance in this specific area to determine the level of LOD in a game. There are games where the LOD is better on the ps3, even with the differences in GPUs, for example. I consider the systems too close in performance, that the lowest common denominator is more so dependent on what you're trying to accomplish, and not some stats on paper.

I can be totally wrong though, who knows.:smile:

Well, in this thread I was asking whether the PS3 had an advantage in geometry due to games like Uncharted, GOW3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=59426&page=12

And got told it was mostly down to art/design choices and that the 360 had the edge in geometry rendering as seen in games like NG2's coloseum scene. (vs the same scene on PS3).

So you're saying the two systems can push similar levels of geometry all other things being equal? Is this due to SPU culling - which might have no cost effective equivalent on 360 and so negates its 2x triangle setup advantage?

 

[assurdum]

Well, in this thread I was asking whether the PS3 had an advantage in geometry due to games like Uncharted, GOW3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=59426&page=12

And got told it was mostly down to art/design choices and that the 360 had the edge in geometry rendering as seen in games like NG2's coloseum scene. (vs the same scene on PS3).

So you're saying the two systems can push similar levels of geometry all other things being equal? Is this due to SPU culling - which might have no cost effective equivalent on 360 and so negates its 2x triangle setup advantage?

It required a complicated answer imho & hardly we can leave a clear response (it's a tough argument which easily can cause console war just watching the quote above...) talking only of gpu vs gpu 360 clearly has the major advantages (unified shader) but there are others variables how framebuffer vs tiling to consider when the ps3 not have this 'problem' at maybe the same resolution... probably at the end 360 sure will push more poly but with some sacrifice of native rendering where maybe at the increase of resolution even with less poly ps3 can do more... but if think there isn't a clear response here, it's just depend of the engine. OT I continue to smile when we talking of tech on the ps3 it's ever mentioned good arts good arts is used a lot on 360 too to mask other things, never understood this kind of approach when we talking of sony first parties job.

 

[kagemaru]

Well, in this thread I was asking whether the PS3 had an advantage in geometry due to games like Uncharted, GOW3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=59426&page=12

And got told it was mostly down to art/design choices and that the 360 had the edge in geometry rendering as seen in games like NG2's coloseum scene. (vs the same scene on PS3).

So you're saying the two systems can push similar levels of geometry all other things being equal? Is this due to SPU culling - which might have no cost effective equivalent on 360 and so negates its 2x triangle setup advantage?

No I'm not saying the two systems can push similar levels of geometry, I'm saying that is too broad of a question to answer in a generic way. I think it depends on what the engine does and what the developers try to accomplish, among many other things to consider.

If you want to make a pointless tech demo, sure you'll probably be able to push more polys or geometry on the 360, but I believe there are factors involved to how many polys/geometry you can push on either system, again based on what you're trying to accomplish with the engine/game.

There are games like NG2, which show a clear edge on the 360 in terms of geometry, but then there have been some games where the LOD is better on the PS3.

Basically, like anything else with game development, there isn't a one size fits all answer to this.

OT I continue to smile when we talking of tech on the ps3 it's ever mentioned good arts good arts is used a lot on 360 too to mask other things, never understood this kind of approach when we talking of sony first parties job.

I believe this is due to many 1st party PS3 titles receiving attention for their graphics, where in many cases it comes down to great art that compliments the tech involved instead of the games looking so good just because of the tech. So if there were more people were making a big deal over the graphics in 360 exclusives, I'm sure we would be hearing the same thing for those as well. :smile:

 

[patsu]

I believe this is due to many 1st party PS3 titles receiving attention for their graphics, where in many cases it comes down to great art that compliments the tech involved instead of the games looking so good just because of the tech. So if there were more people were making a big deal over the graphics in 360 exclusives, I'm sure we would be hearing the same thing for those as well. :smile:

It's both tech and art. ^_^

The simplest example is MLAA, which caused a wave of attention and follow up implementations on GPU. The movable Titian level also changes the user experience in GoW3. Personally I am not a big fan of GoW3's art direction.

The added post processing power from SPU enabled the unique look of KZ2.

This year, the first parties seem to focus on stereoscopic showcases. We'll find out what they do next year.

 

[kagemaru]

It's both tech and art. ^_^

Never said otherwise. :smile:

Though I personally think much of the industry has caught up with Sony's studios in the tech department.

 

[patsu]

Never said otherwise. :smile:

Though I personally think much of the industry has caught up with Sony's studios in the tech department.

The tech sharing and libraries are meant exactly to bring all PS3 developers up to speed with PS3 development. Sony will not be successful if only the first parties know how to use the SPUs effectively.

If you look at Battlefield 3 and Sony's PhyreEngine, they are built on top of the Edge library (culling, animation/skinning, post processing, etc.). At the end of the day, they also learn from each other's independent work.

I doubt many third parties will try to pull a stereoscopic 3D game at this point. So in that aspect, I suspect it would largely be a Sony-driven effort. Sony's latest round of tech sharing may not be as impactful for other developers, compared to their earlier work.

I am more keen to see what else they can work on beyond stereoscopic 3D.

 

[kagemaru]

The tech sharing and libraries are meant exactly to bring all PS3 developers up to speed with PS3 development. Sony will not be successful if only the first parties know how to use the SPUs effectively.

If you look at Battlefield 3 and Sony's PhyreEngine, they are built on top of the Edge library (culling, animation/skinning, post processing, etc.). At the end of the day, they also learn from each other.

I doubt many third parties will try to pull a stereoscopic 3D game at this point. So in that aspect, I suspect it would largely be a Sony-driven effort. Their latest round of tech sharing may not be as impactful for other developers, and compared to their earlier work.

I am more keen to see what else they can work on beyond stereoscopic 3D.

Well I was just speaking in general, on both consoles, not just the ps3.

Also wasn't counting 3D, for some reason that really doesn't seem that appealing on the grander scale. I see why Sony is pushing it so hard, they have vested interest in selling 3D with their TVs.

 

[patsu]

Well I was just speaking in general, on both consoles, not just the ps3.

Well... 360 launched one year earlier, why is it catching up given the easier development model, and more stable SDK ? It should be on its own/independent development path. There are still room for growth in both consoles.

Also wasn't counting 3D, for some reason that really doesn't seem that appealing on the grander scale. I see why Sony is pushing it so hard, they have vested interest in selling 3D with their TVs.

It's a long haul thing. They are using their resources to develop the market. There will be ups and downs in that segment. Sony will benefit not just from 3DTV sales. That's probably a smaller piece for them compared to Vizio and Samsung. They will benefit more from the professional market, plus all 3D devices.

 

[kagemaru]

Well... 360 launched one year earlier, why is it catching up given the easier development model, and more stable SDK ? It should be on its own/independent development path. There are still room for growth in both consoles.

I'm not talking about development paths or anything, I'm just talking about the type of tech being used and such.

We're seeing more and more games across both platforms use deferred rendering, GI, plus other effects that are becoming more and more standard like motion blur, SSAO, etc.

Effects that used to be used on only a few games are being used more broadly now.

 

[Kasersky]

It's a long haul thing. They are using their resources to develop the market. There will be ups and downs in that segment. Sony will benefit not just from 3DTV sales. That's probably a smaller piece for them compared to Vizio and Samsung. They will benefit more from the professional market, plus all 3D devices.

dont forget sony also gets royalties from blu-rays since most 3d content is only on that medium. its smart that they're trying to synergize their businesses but overall you're right it hasnt been working very well their consumer electronics division had very poor operating income.

 

[patsu]

I'm not talking about development paths or anything, I'm just talking about the type of tech being used and such.

We're seeing more and more games across both platforms use deferred rendering, GI, plus other effects that are becoming more and more standard like motion blur, SSAO, etc.

Effects that used to be used on only a few games are being used more broadly now.

Ah, but I don't think that's any different from before. Analytical AA was done in other games before GoW's MLAA. GI, SSAO, volumetric lighting, etc. were all done before. But more and more games are implementing them because they are more familiar with the h/w and tools now.

We also hear complains about early PS3 games being too linear and not "open world" enough, etc. And recently, we have more open games from Sony first parties (inFamous 2, Starhawk, Twisted Metal). OTOH, LA Noire follow up from Heavy Rain, but has a different tech twist. Different studios focus on different elements.

The only real difference is how well the developers implement them. That means art direction, quality of tech implementation, how well everything is packaged together, etc. Sony first parties just did it differently using the SPUs and then share the knowhow in the SDK.

 

[kagemaru]

Either I'm wrong, or you're not getting my point, so never mind. =p

 

[patsu]

I meant that the other developers have been focusing on their own bag of tricks. Don't think they are playing catch up with Sony first parties.

The cross platform developers need to bring their 360 centric environment to be more PS3 friendly. It's a completely different ball game.

Perhaps 360 exclusive developers were still struggling with 360 specific challenges in the early days. Once they nailed those issues, they will implement more cool stuff regardless of what Sony devs are doing.

Similarly, Sony first parties went ahead to do stereoscopic 3D regardless of what the above 2 groups of people are doing. It's still a relatively new field. No one's catching up there yet. Everyone is experimenting.

Everyone is busy with their own soup.