The player may be standing in roughly the same area, but on 360 he's turned about 90 degrees to the left, with the sky in plain view. You can't compare the lighting in these completely different screenshots.
When you say that "the game doesn't look like that on the 360 in any way", you'll really have to prove it by posting a screenshot with a similar point of view. Frankly, I'd be surprised to find that it doesn't look like that.
I'd love to, but I don't have a PC that can run Crysis 2 to make a comparison with the 360 version, so I am depending on fellow PC gamers.
The only good image I found on low settings is that one. Most pics out there feature High settings. Besides that, I am afraid I might lose my current progress in the game by going back and replaying some areas. I will play them on Supersoldier difficulty as I am quite enjoying the game on Veteran already, but not now.
Tip: on high difficulty levels use Armour nanosuit abilities if you want to survive, Cloaking is also great in many situations but it halves your character's life.
Ehh they are basically the same, actually PC lowest should be better using higher HDR precision. Also your comparisions is heavily biased with staged view directions but looking at material lit it looks about the same. Anwyay everything is pointing to consoles not having RT GI. There are proper comparision pics of RT GI on/off vs console shots of same spot, the final config files says it is off. It's a shame but evidence here is of no RT GI is damn strong.
I don't like arguing on the net. I did sometimes but anyways... I feel dehumanized when I do that.
My comparison is not biased, it's just a comparison; PC low settings-360. And they don't look the same to me. The lighting is very flat in that pic compared to what I am used to see in the game after what has been like 7-8 hours playing the game.
I have the game and GI is quite evident to me sometimes. I remember that particular level and trust me that it doesn't look like that on the 360. The entire game in fact looks different than the PC picture posted. Look at the portakabins, those two huts close to the wall, whatever they are. The lighting is very different. It can be many things, like the screen calibration, actual resolution of the screenshot, etc etc, but the rest is up to me to figure things out, and what I see doesn't match exactly what I've played on my 360.
The Cryengine is highly scaleable, and consoles = PC Low Setting is a very simple way of putting it, taking into account that consoles are closed hardware. Crytek probably just need optimize the settings for each console and pump out a code specialized for every system. Low settings on PC aren't entirely the consoles config, judging by the ingame graphics.
Again, it's all in their presentation. You can find info about their GI solution here, among other things.
http://crytek.com/cryengine
More specifically in this one:
http://crytek.com/cryengine/presentations/real-time-diffuse-global-illumination-in-cryengine-3
This presentation might be helpful too:
http://crytek.com/cryengine/cryengi...n-volumes-for-real-time-indirect-illumination
I tried to explain it as I understood their work. Maybe I am wrong but they clearly say that they are using GI on consoles, so I assume they are telling the truth. I dunno if it's prebaked or not sometimes but it's implemented.
Crytek aren't liars, they say pretty clearly that they are using Cascaded LPV.
Anyway, paraphrasing their preceding presentation....
Our method has been integrated into the CryENGINE R 3: a multi-
platform (DirectX 9 and 10 on PC, Sony PS3 R and Microsoft Xbox
360 R ) real-time rendering engine. Due to the performance require-
ments the implementation uses only 2 SH-bands (4 coefficients) per
color channel for the LPV. The cascade consists of 3 grids, each
stored as three RGBA 16-bit floating point textures of size 323
(QUVW8 format, i.e. 8-bit signed integer per component, on con-
soles). The geometry volume is of the same format and resolution
as the LPV (but with only one texture and no spectral data), and the
surfels are created from the depth and normal buffers of the camera
view and RSMs. High-resolution buffers, e.g. the camera view, are
down-sampled prior to the surfel injection.
The RSMs store a depth buffer (32-bit float), and normals and flux
(RGBA 8-bit each) of size 2562 (1282 for consoles). This amounts
to 216 , or 214 , VPLs per primary light source. The VPLs are injected
into the LPV cascade using point rendering. This requires either
vertex texture fetches (used for DirectX 9/10, and Xbox 360), or
rendering to vertex buffer (faster on the PS3).
It clearly demonstrates it's working on consoles, with numbers, and also they say this:
Detailed timings for the Crytek Sponza scene (see teaser)
in milliseconds for the individual stages (for one 323 LPV grid and
8 iterations). The three timings for the propagation step refer to:
no occlusion, fuzzy occlusion, fuzzy occlusion and multiple bounces.
Note that only the cost of the RSM rendering depends on the scene
complexity. All measurements at 1280x720 resolution (no MSAA),
and RSM size of 256 squared (=number of injected VPLs) for NVIDIA
GTX285 and 128 squared for consoles.
Reflective Shadow Maps (RSM) have twice the size on PCs compared to consoles, but they exist on consoles too.
Some more info.
We demonstrate that our method produces plausible results even when
running on current game console hardware with a budget of only a
few milliseconds for performing all computation steps for indirect
lighting. We evaluate our technique and show it in combination with
a variety of popular real-time rendering techniques.
CR Categories:
I.3.3 [Computer Graphics]: Picture/Image
Generation—Display Algorithms; I.3.7 [Computer Graphics]:
Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism—Shading
Keywords: global illumination, real-time tendering.
pong render targets) is 323 × (2 × 4) × 3 × (#cascades + 2) =
3.75MB for the LPV and 323 ×(2×4)×#cascades = 0.75MB for
the GV (for the consoles the memory is halved due to the QUVW8
format). Note that storing spectral reflectivity would triple the GV
memory and bandwidth; in our examples with multiple bounces we
used monochromatic reflection for further bounces only. Table 1
shows detailed timings.
They seem to use photon mapping as examples in order to compare their method with other posible solutions.
Top left: rendering the Crytek Sponza (untextured for
comparison) with LPVs, 3 cascades each 323 , at 60fps. Top right:
ground-truth solution rendered with photon mapping and PBRT
(single-bounce indirect light only, 200000 photons, 1024 final gather
samples, approx. 45 minutes). Bottom left: difference image of the
LPV rendering and the ground-truth solution; green regions are too
bright with LPVs, red regions too dark. Bottom right: rendering
with Imperfect Shadow Maps [Ritschel et al. 2008] at 15.6fps with
256 VPLs.
There is no need to refute Crytek's presentations, as if they were worthless. If developers say they implemented GI on consoles it's because they just did. As I said I am pretty sure Crytek aren't lying. The lighting of the game is really good and for such a long game, taking 5.1 GB of disk space doesn't seem much, and it says most of the lighting isn't prebaked.
Bare in mind Crysis have already stated that PC Low is pretty much the same as console settings aside from platform specific features like texture formats. Doesn't really hold with the theory that PC low lacks GI while consoles do not.
As I said the game looks different to me on the 360 compared to PC low settings. There is a pic in this presentation....
http://crytek.com/assets/Crysis-2-Key-Rendering-Features.pdf
.... which shows an area of the game featuring both GI OFF and GI ON.
It might be a very good place to start a proper comparison and take a pic to discern the differences while playing on my 360, because the stage where they took the screenshot it's not that far in the game. I would have to use another account on my console not to lose my current progress and I will probably set the game's difficulty to the easier level of difficulty, too.
Looking at the GI on screenshot, I don't recall the game looking like that on my 360 when I played that particular level but we shall see.
I feel kind of dense lately to do a good comparison but I will try.