*spin-off* Dynamic GI on Consoles

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Thanks for the clarification. Also surprised not a single video of the GI in MLB has been shown. You ought to think they or others would showcase it and be proud...

Huh? You mean you can't find plenty of videos on Youtube? Even Patsu posted a video or two of MLB: The Show, when the GI subject came up a month or two ago.

 

[AlNom]

Huh? You mean you can't find plenty of videos on Youtube? Even Patsu posted a video or two of MLB: The Show, when the GI subject came up a month or two ago.

One presumes the individual most familiar with the argument would provide the evidence to further discussion instead of wasting our time (with petty empty question rebuttals) putting the onus on the person asking for said evidence.

 

[Refreshment]

Didn´t notice there was a thread debating lighting aspects of the game, so might aswell post this request here. Hey Neb!, you seem active in this thread

So i was checking the Cvars config posted, was interested in the ones pertinent to Crytek´s new GI and SSGI implementations:

e_GIGlossyReflections=1 //Enable/disable reflective mode for global illumination. Default: 0 - disabled.
//e_GsmCastFromTerrain=1 //Cast shadows from terrain.
e_GIIterations=32 //Max amount of GI iterations for best GI quality.
e_GISecondaryOcclusion=1 //Secondary GI ray bounce for better GI quality/precision.
//e_GICache=0 //Per frame GI. Higher perfomance impact vs IQ.

Does tinkering with these settings actually work and is there any tangible difference in comparison to what the highest configuration the ingame menu allows? Would like to see some screens , if possible, of the same area with the tweaks noted above and with what you get using max settings on PC.

More or less related. A friend was showing me the XBOX360 version, a part that takes place in a roof top garden. There are some "Gazebos" (don´t know English name for it, sorry) with colored ceilings. At first glance it looks like the area is bathed with the light colored to match the glass tone. Shoot out all the glass and turns out the color ambience is pre adjusted to the glass color. It looks like there are some instances with fixed lighting. The same is visible in the highest settings (allowed by ingame menu) of the PC version.

 

[Neb]

Didn´t notice there was a thread debating lighting aspects of the game, so might aswell post this request here. Hey Neb!, you seem active in this thread

So i was checking the Cvars config posted, was interested in the ones pertinent to Crytek´s new GI and SSGI implementations:

e_GIGlossyReflections=1 //Enable/disable reflective mode for global illumination. Default: 0 - disabled.
//e_GsmCastFromTerrain=1 //Cast shadows from terrain.
e_GIIterations=32 //Max amount of GI iterations for best GI quality.
e_GISecondaryOcclusion=1 //Secondary GI ray bounce for better GI quality/precision.
//e_GICache=0 //Per frame GI. Higher perfomance impact vs IQ.

Does tinkering with these settings actually work? Are there any tangible differences with the highest configuration the ingame menu allows? Would like to see some screens , if possible, of the same area with the tweaks noted above and with what you get using extreme/max settings Whatever the name is for the pc max settings.

Yes.

e_GIGlossyReflections=1 dont know if this one works or works correctly.

e_GsmCastFromTerrain=1 barely has any visible differences since most of the terrain is flat but otherwise it makes terrain cast self shadows.

e_GIIterations=32 makes for smoother and bigger area of effect for GI.

e_GISecondaryOcclusion=1 makes for better looking GI making it look more natural.

//e_GICache=0 just handles if it GI is updated each frame or per n frames. It's a perfomance vs noticable GI update delay.

 

[L. Scofield]

If you comprehended my earlier post, quote the part where I said it was "fully dynamic". Then, couple that with the last sentence (particularly, the first two words) of that very same post.

You obviously had the idea it was fully dynamic since you took issue with my statements declaring the opposite (which are based on the information provided). Apparently, the idea of the game having dynamic TOD is what got you to think it's fully dynamic. You've expressed that idea in a previous post of yours.

Your "attack the messenger" antics got old already.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

One presumes the individual most familiar with the argument would provide the evidence to further discussion instead of wasting our time (with petty empty question rebuttals) putting the onus on the person asking for said evidence.

I don't know why you quoted me. I didn't even start this crap. And, I certainly didn't claim "fully dynamic" GI for any title (despite the new spin off thread title). Also, I only asked one question so far. No, it wasn't a rebuttal. It would be nice to get a response to it, if possible. You seem pretty knowledgeable. Would you mine answering it for MJP? If you need a more detailed question, I would be happy to provide it.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

You obviously had the idea it was fully dynamic since you took issue with my statements declaring the opposite (which are based on the information provided). Apparently, the idea of the game having dynamic TOD is what got you to think it's fully dynamic. You've expressed that idea in a previous post of yours.

Your "attack the messenger" antics got old already.

No, it was your "closed case" statement declaring the complete opposite. That was based on even less evidence. And, you're just allowed to do this as you see fit. Declarations should always be backed up with lots of evidence. That's why the burden of proof should, rightfully, be on you.

 

[Graham]

No, it was your "closed case" statement declaring the complete opposite. That was based on even less evidence. And, you're just allowed to do this as you see fit. Declarations should always be backed up with lots of evidence. That's why the burden of proof should, rightfully, be on you.

Incorrect.

The way the image explains it, there's no hint of dynamic objects affecting the lighting at all, so it's not truly a dynamic GI solution.

Sure, he didn't present his opinion explicitly as being an opinion, but it was clearly not an absolute statement of fact.
Now, can you please stop this arguing for the sake of arguing. It's tiresome.


For the record I'd completely agree with his assessment.