Sorry but why? I'd guess just the opposite because I don't see a technical reason why could be sub hd on the ps3...
Last edited by a moderator:
The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Those are the areas of the config files where there is some common info about both consoles versions. I can't say what those values mean anyways.Sorry but why? I'd guess just the opposite because I don't see a technical reason why could be sub hd on the ps3...
360-specific optimisations (x360.cfg):
r_multithreaded=2
r_TexturesStreamPoolSize = 90
r_VSync = 2
g_breakage_mem_limit = 5000
PS3-specific optimisations:
r_multithreaded = 1
r_texturesstreampoolsize=60
r_VSync = 1
g_breakage_mem_limit = 2000
I can't help but follow this closely, because I'm really curious to see how both versions will look when they come out.
I still don't really trust the developers of the game right now, though, so I'm already bracing myself in case the comments once again degenerate into a clusterfuck of comparison-trolling (which they probably will, to be honest).
One thing which I can tell (looking at the config) is that the PS3 ver will be V-synced completely and the 360 ver isn't. For the rest we need someone who has spent a lot of time with Cry Engine, particularly speaking an interstellar cloud of dust and gases...Nebula 
That's a pretty bold statement. Is that true? I didn't know that Global Illumination had never been used on consoles or games before.
Kind of sucks but I dont mind, still the best looking game imo, however, does this mean all Cryengine 3 games will use this resolution???
Credit to Mazingerdude, and his comments
There are some videos on Youtube explaining it --what GI is and another explaining their own method:
A couple of pics.
Global Illumination OFF:
Global Illumination ON:
One thing which I can tell (looking at the config) is that the PS3 ver will be V-synced completely and the 360 ver isn't. For the rest we need someone who has spent a lot of time with Cry Engine, particularly speaking an interstellar cloud of dust and gases...Nebula
I commented the most relevant parts. Compare to the full console config list to see complete differences (done). All these PS3/360 values are override settings so it overrides the base config and if not present in 360/PS3 override config file then it isn't overriden.
PS3 override config said:
360 override config said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Anisotropic filtering on consoles? If we are lucky, CE3 will have full unoptimized trilinear filtering on all surfaces. Most existing AAA games/engines use combination of bilinear (far away objects) and optimized trilinear (near objects). Full anisotropic filtering everywhere (like seen in PC games) is just way too demanding for current generation consoles.Wow man...If its sub hd and no AA or AF they are sooo gonna flop with CE3 it ain't even funny
According to the white papers Crytek have released, their reprojection based temporal AA is very fast on Xbox 360. It most likely uses the same reprojection steps/buffers as their reprojection SSAO, so it shouldn't cost that much extra. I would be really surprised if they didn't use this AA method, as they have spend so much development time in it, and released articles stating that it's really good fit for their engine infrastructure and works really fast on current generation consoles.
1152x720 is a really good alternative to 1280x720, since it fits better in the EDRAM. A very slight (unnoticeable) drop in rendering resolution is a really good compromise if it drops your vertex processing cost by 33%. You can use that extra processing time for something else that improves the image quality much more than a couple of extra horizontal pixel rows.
Has Crytek disclosed their G-buffer layout yet?
If they have three g-buffers + depth and use 1152x720 resolution, the g-buffers layout has to be basically this:
- 32 bit depth (D24S8)
- 2 x 64 bit color buffers (likely 4x16F)
- 1 x 32 bit color buffer (likely 4x8, 3x10+2 or 2x16F)
= 192 bits per pixel = 24 bytes per pixel
24*1152*720 = 19906560 bytes (= 2 EDRAM tiles).
But having eight 16 bit channels in the g-buffer seems like a huge waste. Encoded normal takes 2 channels and HDR color takes 3 channels, but I don't see a reason for having 3 extra 16 bit float channels just for material properties (that would look exactly the same with just 8 bits). Something doesn't add up.
By using 1152x720 resolution they could also have two 4x8 (or 3x10+2) g-buffers + depth buffer. This fits the EDRAM perfectly, no tiling required at all. However this layout is extra tight, there's no room for extra material properties (just specularity and glossiness). The surface colors are 8 bit per channel and the two channel normal would be likely stored as 10 bits per channel (as 2x8 bit normal quality is not that good). If they have gone this route, they likely have also stored some extra material/lighting parameter in the stencil bits.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Difference may not be huge. Nebula also speculated in the other thread that X360 overriding the value with a value of 1 may indicate that the engine may be turning off the default software tesselation in favor of leveraging the hardware tesselation unit in the X360.
Regards,
SB
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Well, they did have to sacrifice the quality of almost ALL those techniques to fit them in. AA is almost non-existent. The particle effects are almost PS2 level. The same goes for the animations. There are very poor facial details on the characters. The draw distance is pretty low. The audio effects are very simplistic. There is plenty of pop-in. Plus, you mentioned no AF.
That should be a lot of extra processing power to play with for things like 24/7 day-night cycles, HDR lighting, and 1 bounce GI at full 720p. It seems Crytech gave up quality, in most cases, for quantity.
I certainly would not go that far because we have yet to see what console SP looks like,and some people reported that single player on consoles looked considerably better than multi player one.I would expect it to look much better,more polished,especially in animation and facial details department with better designed map(Skyline is possibly the worst map they could pick).I think that Crysis 2 will be pretty hard to compare between MP and SP since different teams,with huge quality discrepancies between the two of them are working on it.Not to say that even when the same teams are working on SP and MP,single player version is one that clearly is ahead in visual department(see UC2,Gears 2 etc.).
I myself wouldn't judge Cysis 2 yet,who knows what they have in mind and what will final version look like.
I myself wouldn't judge Cysis 2 yet,who knows what they have in mind and what will final version look like.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I'm not not even speaking in terms of SP. I'm just comparing it to other MP games. Hell, they only have 6 vs 6 in MP. Unless they don't have around 11 enemies on screen, should there be THAT big of a difference in Crysis 2 SP? They would have to add AI to the enemies as well, right? Help me understand why Crysis 2's SP should be a lot better than their MP. In what areas should these improvements be seen?
Well I don't know if they are going to "up" something up but from my experience SP maps were always much better designed.Thats a big part...I think that,with pop ins and IQ,biggest part in somewhat "worrisome" graphics is map that is designed quite bad.Very small,aggressive LOD,buildings in background are 3D but look like textured boxes,they get in the eye and not in the good way.Purely looking at Pier 17 map the thing gets better...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SDBiUjbZ4M
And you have to keep in mind that SP was designed with more care than mp,more predictable and thus easier to "control" performance.Not to say that two different teams are working on both.MP maps in my experience always look emptier and uglier than SP(look at Gears 2 or UC2)...I assume character models,animations(ai),face expressions and their details will be better,better term,more polished in SP.There will probably be much more decals like burning buildings,burning cars,smoke from them,fog,water dripping etc.Thats what I expect based on what I have seen from single player,much more interesting environments.I think that changes a lot and if final build shows some improvement in IQ department I don't think I will be disappointed.
Well the difference was rather huge in case of Crysis and Warhead, so if we can consider that then it isn't really that hard to expect a leap in quality in single player.
Crysis 2 SP should benefit from scripted set pieces and choreography to improve visuals but that goes for any other games. If we're solely judging on the MP by itself, it's good but not really outstanding. Like some have suggested the tradeoff is too strong thus the graphics are unbalanced. ATM the game just seems like a check list to attract people rather than a focused approach in quality.
More on the artistic side though as in TODs. The tech factor used in multiplayer was same as in singleplayer and LODs etc about same. Though for Crysis Wars some maps dont use colorgrading and also for both Crysis multiplayer the particle effects complexity is toned down. But that is PC. Also remember that if graphics looks much worse etc can be a result of server settings/servers graphic settings. I play with v.h in Crysis Wars but been to servers which had LODs set to what would be medium and thus that what I got while other servers have pure v.h and others are running DX9 v.h but keep most 'high setting' LODs and worse shading quality thus worse visuals. SSAO, LODs, lighting strength, water effects and more effects max quality/intensity is strictly controlled by server.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been meaning to ask about that, so I'm right in thinking that the global config is for both consoles, but the optimization files for each console can override what is in the global config. Correct?
Also, not sure where the error is, but in the config info that NotTarts posted, the LoD Ratio for the ps3 equaled 5, not 4 as we see in your quote.
Seems like that to me. Same as for PC where besides base config you can drop in an override config file to set your own override settings. On PC though it is called autoexec.cfg for all Crytek games.
Same setting for PS3 and 360.. XD
Correct my fault (fixed). This will mean less agressive LOD changes the further out an object regarding PS3 version.
Heres the difference in Crysis between LOD4 and LOD5 (default Crysis v.h settings is 6). The difference is quite clear except for at distance where lower LODs are already choosen.
Close distance (first pic LOD4 second LOD5). I intentionally left debuinfo on to show in Crysis polygon amount difference.
Medium distance.
Long distance.
Heres the difference in Crysis between LOD4 and LOD5 (default Crysis v.h settings is 6). The difference is quite clear except for at distance where lower LODs are already choosen.
Close distance (first pic LOD4 second LOD5). I intentionally left debuinfo on to show in Crysis polygon amount difference.
Medium distance.
Long distance.
Regarding "e_GsmLodsNum" this control shadow LOD amount where a lower number means less LODs used thus lower draw distance for shadows. From config 360 has 4 LODs and PS3 3 LODs so furthest out LOD is not present. In Crysis max default number is 5.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but I think your other post is still incorrect. You now have the 360 version has 4 for the LOD when both versions are 5.
So the higher the number the further out the shadows will be present, making the shadow fade-in less noticeable?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but I think your other post is still incorrect. You now have the 360 version has 4 for the LOD when both versions are 5.
The global config has a LOD value of 4 and 360 override config has no offset for this cvar thus it would end up being 4 but PS3 config has offset value of 5. Seems right. :smile:
Yes. It's like circles each circle having larger radius. The 4th ring is not present for PS3 going by config.
Similar threads
