*spin-off* RE: Crysis 2

assurdum

Veteran
Anyway I have a question, how 1024x1024p cost compared 1024x720p? I know RSX it's pretty 'efficient' in 1024x768p & 1024x1024p... too much?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know... I continue to notice a terrible brigthness/foggish effect... I continue to criticize the 1024x720p choice; is really too low, even in the youtube video ps3 seem bad captured compared to 360 videos , but at this point it's pretty evident how drastically impacted the IQ the 1024 in the horizontal line... too poor imho.
Well it should be a bit softer,plus like all ps3 games its little brighter.It will still look great on your TV,no doubt.360 version looks great,I wouldn't guess it was 1152x720 if I didn't know it.

EDIT.
Well they said they saved 14 megs and 4 ms of RSX time dropping it from native(i guess) resolution.Every GPU is more "efficient" on lower resolutions,less pixels to render :)
 
Well it should be a bit softer,plus like all ps3 games its little brighter.It will still look great on your TV,no doubt.360 version looks great,I wouldn't guess it was 1152x720 if I didn't know it.

Indeed, I'm pretty sensible to the subhd... I noticed that in everygame coming out :cry: definitely I hate the subhd...
 
Well it should be a bit softer,plus like all ps3 games its little brighter.It will still look great on your TV,no doubt.360 version looks great,I wouldn't guess it was 1152x720 if I didn't know it.

EDIT.
Well they said they saved 14 megs and 4 ms of RSX time dropping it from native(i guess) resolution.Every GPU is more "efficient" on lower resolutions,less pixels to render :)

Is it so necessary 14 MB & 4 ms on the RSX? In what exactly?
 
Indeed, I'm pretty sensible to the subhd... I noticed that in everygame coming out :cry: definitely I hate the subhd...
Well yea,who does not:smile: I mean...I understand them,there is alot of stuff happening in this game,its anything but corridor shooter and there had to be lowered resolution.Lots of effects,lots of shadows are real time(every shadow?),quite "unpredictable" game in comparison to most shooters.
I think if 360 didn't have eDRAM it would go lower than this so its kind of blessing and a curse.
 
I understood, but I'm pretty curious what would changed without that.... how features we would sacrified?
Hard to say...dropping some features from GPU might give you ms in return but what with memory?I guess they pretty much use every byte of it...
 
isn't VF5 running in 1024*1024 on both consoles?
coupled with msaa4x looks very good, one of the cleanest looking games out there
1024x1024 seems like a fine resolution to me. What it lacks horizontally it compensates for it vertically. I remember Quaz51 saying that a drop in the vertical resolution -typical 720p- is more noticeable than the same thing in the case of the horizontal resolution.
 
1024x1024 seems like a fine resolution to me. What it lacks horizontally it compensates for it vertically. I remember Quaz51 saying that a drop in the vertical resolution -typical 720p- is more noticeable than the same thing in the case of the horizontal resolution.

Simply put, vertical objects gain more from horizontal resolution (i.e. characters, trees etc). Horizontal objects gain more from vertical resolution (i.e. ground, cars etc).
 
1024x1024 would be almost like an anamorphic squeeze with a pixel aspect of 1.875.
I believe this kind of uneven resolution can lead to some anti-aliasing issues? When rendering non-realtime CG, we always go for a square pixel aspect, then adjust in post if necessary.
 
True, I mean you do want to avoid the upscale.

On a side note, I've been wondering how many "720p" games on PS3 are actually 1280x704 for alignment (there's something about RSX working on tiles with a 64-pixel dimension). Of course, that'd need a fairly large check of steps/pixels, but in the grand scheme, it's not like 16 pixels will be missed by the majority of users due to overscan on TV. The reason I bring that up here is because the leaked SDK document did mention setting the PS3 version to 704 height in one of the earlier builds. 1024 is more recent.

Is it so necessary 14 MB & 4 ms on the RSX? In what exactly?

It's a curious result. It's hard to say if they're comparing the change from 1152 or 1280 (probably the former). At any rate, just from the deferred lighting setup and the Light Propagation Volumes, there are a large number of buffers implied. Then there's the extra storage for the frame reprojection & other post-process effects...
 
I have this from retail ps3.cfg

"//officially approved, saves 14 mb and 4 ms rsx
r_ConsoleBackbufferWidth = 1024"

Can cca 200 pixels save so much time and memory?
 
I have this from retail ps3.cfg

"//officially approved, saves 14 mb and 4 ms rsx
r_ConsoleBackbufferWidth = 1024"

Can cca 200 pixels save so much time and memory?
Well multiply by 720… yes, its around 20% pixels off.
 
I asked this in the crysis comparison thread, but maybe it's more appropriate here.

What's the difference between software occlusion culling and just occlusion culling?

I read in the crysis 2 thread they may be using software occlusion culling which is why I ask.
 
Back
Top