Just so we're on the same page, we're talking about "e_LodRatio" right?
According to NotTarts' post, both the 360 and ps3 version have e_LodRatio=5 in their respective config files.
The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Just so we're on the same page, we're talking about "e_LodRatio" right?
According to NotTarts' post, both the 360 and ps3 version have e_LodRatio=5 in their respective config files.
I am amazed how I could miss that.. I blame it on being tired after training. XD
Fixed now. I'll pour up some strong PWO to give me some energy. XD
I thought Kz2 masked the LOD changes pretty nicely...the objects would fade in and out instead of poping in and out. Beside it didn't had objects and shadows changing LOD 10-15 metres of ahead of you as it is with this game.
Yeah, Crytek aren't very good with LOD objects. The rocks in Crysis didn't even have any; they just appeared suddenly in front of you. Maybe it's an engine limitation?
Maybe they implement the dissolve technique from previous Crysis games where objects fade out by dissolving.
Kameradschaft
Regular
I don't recall any LOD problems in Killzone 2 so I guess it wasn't as bad as Crysis 2 and about the particles in games like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 2 sure they were low-res too but still looked less ugly/distracting than Crysis 2's...also as you already mentioned we're talking about 2008-2009 titles looking better/more polished in some areas than Crytek's first console game powered by CryEngine 3 which is a 2011 title btw.
More like stating the obvious which right now sounds like some here are trying too hard to give the crown to Crysis 2 while in the same time overlooking some serious shortcomings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
If a technique is the best, how can it produce an ugly result? Can you have the best lighting, this gen, and the game be terribly lit? Can you have the best textures, this gen, and they be pixelated? Can you have the best animation, this gen, and characters/objects not move well? Can you have the best LOD implementation, this gen, and have severe pop-in? Can you have the best human character models, this gen, without major facial features (nose, mouth, ears, etc)? If so, please let me know how.
Well, there is more evidence for real time GI and HDR in MLB: The Show (1080p/60fps) than not.
It seems a lot of people don't know the difference between an opinion and an incorrect statement. An opinion is something that can not be proved one way or the other. If it can be proved, one way or the other, it's not an opinion. As you can now see, it is quite tough/impossible to accurately call out an opinion as incorrect.
L. Scofield
Veteran
It's called "programmer art"
Not really. There's no evidence of realtime GI, those slides don't describe how they aquire the lighting information, just how to use it to shade dynamic objects. Even last gen we had shading from indirect lighting on characters (Conker's Live and Reloaded).Well, there is more evidence for real time GI and HDR in MLB: The Show (1080p/60fps) than not.
Their opinion is "KZ2 > C2", that's fine. All the technical jargon they give in justification is wrong. I don't think it's too hard to understand.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Yeah! That explains it all, doesn't it?!It's called "programmer art"
You're trying to say we had HDR and GI last gen?! Interesting... Let's put it this way. We know more information/evidence on MLB:The Show's HDR and GI than C2.
"ALL", huh? Again, interesting...
All these are elements of a game that have to stand up artistically as well as technically. The best engine can be ruined by uninspired, tasteless artists, wheres even something as simple as the original Quake engine can produce amazing visuals in the proper hands.
Whether you're more impressed by feature lists and tech or good looks is a subjective issue...
Animation is absolutely not technical. Animation blending and AI are, but these systems work with animation clips created by animators. If they're not good enough, the results will be bad no matter how clever the tech is.
L. Scofield
Veteran
I thought you were exaggerating. If you actually believe that C2's is lit terrible...Yeah! That explains it all, doesn't it?!
I'm not sure about HDR, but as for GI, yes, we did.
http://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Education/EDAN35/lectures/L10b-gi_in_games-notes.pdf
Not really, as I said, those MLB slides don't say how they aquire the lighting information. Crytek on the other hand has published papers that go into detail as to how how their lighting solution works.Interesting... Let's put it this way. We know more information/evidence on MLB:The Show's HDR and GI than C2.
http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations
Don't worry, one day you'll understand"ALL", huh? Again, interesting...
+1 to Laa-Yosh post.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
So you are saying a game can have the best lighting, this generation, and the game can be terribly lit? You can have a game with the best textures, this gen, and the textures are pixelated? Yes, "better" is subjective. But, "more" and "most" are not subjective. Replace the word "best" with "most" then. Thanks.
Hmmm, animation, in games, would be the header that all things concerning animation would fall under. If animation blending is technical, animation is technical. I don't see how there can be a way around that fact.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
It was an example. It was meant to show you that "more" lighting means the game is "more" lit. "More" tech doesn't produce "ugly" results in that area. Now, you have confirmed that point. Thanks!I thought you were exaggerating. If you actually believe that C2's is lit terrible...
Then, GI, in a game, is far less impressive than some of you let on. That makes the statement, about C2 being the first game GI was used in, even "more" incorrect.
That could just be for the PC version. They mentioned S3D as well. We all should know that their 3D on consoles isn't truly stereoscopic. Then, again, maybe you didn't know that. Don't worry, one day you'll understand.Not really, as I said, those MLB slides don't say how they aquire the lighting information. Crytek on the other hand has published papers that go into detail as to how how their lighting solution works.
http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations
Don't worry, one day you'll understand
L. Scofield
Veteran
Nobody said it was the first game to use GI. It's just that instead of precalculating the lighting, is doing it all in realtime. It's quite a large step forward in realtime rendering.Then, GI, in a game, is far less impressive than some of you let on. That makes the statement, about C2 being the first game GI was used in, even "more" incorrect.
Their 3D is stereoscopic, their just doing a more clever, performance friendly approach than brute force. Both PC and consoles use the same rendering methods. Get your info rightThat could just be for the PC version. They mentioned S3D as well. We all should know that their 3D on consoles isn't truly stereoscopic. Then, again, maybe you didn't know that. Don't worry, one day you'll understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, why couldn't that be the case? Movie productions have used lighters for almost a hundred years, even in full daylight, and noone questions their importance. Even a 100% physically correct global illumination engine would need artists to place lights and set their attributes.
That is bullshit.
Animation blending works by combining walk cycles, runs, jumps, and so on. All those clips are created by artists, even if the source data is from motion capture. If the clips are bad, no technical wizardry can help the results.
Why do you think that more than half of almost any A+ game production's staff belongs to the art team? If it wasn't important, there wouldn't be a need for them...
You're trying to say we had HDR and GI last gen?! Interesting... Let's put it this way. We know more information/evidence on MLB:The Show's HDR and GI than C2.
I mean platform warriors and all that but how on earth could you discuss technical things and yet not have seen all the free documents available at Crytek site for all to see their tech (includes HDR , GI etc), implementations and solutions (videos to) while MLB:The Show barely has any info out on their solution. Also if their GI was as advanced and dynamic then it why isn't similar/same tech present in other games consider game is 1080p at 60fps (only 16.6ms rendertime).
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont get this when KZ2/KZ3 has what could be classed as same and it is very present in many occassions and those particles are classed as great. Lack of zfeather for several effects, low amount of particles to form effect , 640x360 res particle buffer etc. Just to look at all those hundreds of screenshots from that Playmag site to see the effects look similar to Crysis 2 console edition. Neither one really "smokes" the other based on shown material.
Like I've mentioned many times before, the particles in Killzone 2 are amazing to look at in motion simply cause they animate so well and there's so much of it on screen (and they are very persistent, as in stay on screen for very long duration). The way people always mention Killzone 2's particles even though it has quarter res buffer just goes on to show that GG did a good job in masking the pixelation and making it as close to being unnoticeable while playing as possible. It also has a lot to do with the animated sprites during explosion, you can have full res particles but if the sprite itself looks poor and out of place then the explosion will look poor regardless of being full res.
I'm very much in favour of comparisons like yours. They remind me of my PC days.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
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.
The difference between the LODs are quite hard to tell. Oddly enough, it's more clearly visible in the Close distance pic, although it's basically the hut. I don't see any other appreciable differences in that pic.
The medium distance pics are like to like, pretty identical, except for a lone palm tree by the left side of the image.
The long distance photos are again so similar it's very tough to discern the subtle differences, but there are. Mainly in the shape of the rocks at the beach.
There does seem to have been a surge in trolling recently, and I am all for anything that puts a stop to that or at least cuts down on it.
But this place is safe, I think.
Similar threads
