The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*

If you mean why would eidos help It would be cause square-enix bought out eidos a while back. So that means the number of staff members increased.

their development arms are most likely separate from each other. different engines means different tools and good luck trying to use some proprietary tools in a foreign language, why do you think unreal is non existent among japanese developers. (yes im aware there a few studios that are using unreal but they are the exception not the rule, but the point was that its difficult to cross communicate technologies when there is a language barrier) (the small handful of games that use unreal asura's wrath, lollipop chainsaw, Magnacarta 2 (kr), shadows of the damned, lost odyssey, last remnant which had severe technical problems and was even canceled on the ps3 as a result)

that quote about ff13-2 is essentially based on what mainstream perceive b3d/df will see the difference quite easily, and her mentioning the dithered hair also makes it obvious that they haven't really done anything to improve the resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
their development arms are most likely separate from each other. different engines means different tools and good luck trying to use some proprietary tools in a foreign language, why do you think unreal is non existent among japanese developers.

Unreal engine is used in Japan, but not as much as in the west.
 
Well... nobody said that^^

With Last Remnant, the texture streaming issues were EXTREMELY bad. And I played on a PC with moderately good hardware and 6GB of RAM. It was very problematic for this game, as it featured very fast camera pans and flights through the environment. But I did love that it had the japanese VOs included on disc as well as the english ones. More ghames should do that... and Blu Ray could easily do that, yet nobody does it, sadly. On PC, this can easily be handled with installable extra content via downloads... even consoles could do so. I hated to have to play Dead Space (German version) in German... it only has french or german VOs, not the original english ones.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6yvW72A8q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LyTl2LRhqM
Rage ps3 & 360 version I don't know if it's the right place for those... untouchable 360 version (imho) but ps3 seems to have more notable problems of pop in texture streaming (maybe the video shows 360 version install in the HDD? Because I remember Carmak has said partial install on the ps3 is better of dvd streaming of the 360 version but worse than the full install) .It seem pretty clear why Carmak has to avoid the double resolution of mega texture, I can't to imagine what a mess could be on the bluray disc player...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6yvW72A8q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LyTl2LRhqM
Rage ps3 & 360 version I don't know if it's the right place for those... untouchable 360 version (imho) but ps3 seems to have more notable problems of pop in texture streaming (maybe the video shows 360 version install in the HDD? Because I remember Carmak has said partial install on the ps3 is better of dvd streaming of the 360 version but worse than the full install) .It seem pretty clear why Carmak has to avoid the double resolution of mega texture, I can't to imagine what a mess could be on the bluray disc player...
Carmack said RSX doesn't support higher resolution textures than 4k by 4k so textures weren't meant to be higher res than these anyway. PS3 has more pop in, but seems to me that once textures load, its generally smooth sailing.
 
Carmack said RSX doesn't support higher resolution textures than 4k by 4k so textures weren't meant to be higher res than these anyway. PS3 has more pop in, but seems to me that once textures load, its generally smooth sailing.

RSX wat? :???: Excuse me but where he has said exactly those word? From what I have understood Carmak has simply explained ps3 can't read more than 4kx4k texture because the bluray player is too much slow to read the double of the res properly (& here the reason because he has reconsidered the bluray disc how worse compared to dvd streaming); so, following the logic, even on 360 too could be a problem without a full mandatory installation, because I don't think dvd streaming can become magically more faster than bluray+mandatory install especially with the double of res. I think here RSX was the last of the problems imho.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RSX wat? :???: Excuse me but where he has said exactly those word? From what I have understood Carmak has simply explained ps3 can't read more than 4kx4k texture because the bluray player is too much slow to read the double of the res properly (& here the reason because he has reconsidered the bluray disc how worse compared to dvd streaming); so, following the logic, even on 360 too could be a problem without a full mandatory installation, because I don't think dvd streaming can become magically more faster than bluray+mandatory install especially with the double of res. I think here RSX was the last of the problems imho.
IIRC Carmack said RSX doesn't support higher resolution textures than 4k by 4k, 360 does, up to 8k by 8k, but he also said they would have to rework alot of stuff to fit that. Thats what he said in quakecon keynote
 
IIRC Carmack said RSX doesn't support higher resolution textures than 4k by 4k, 360 does, up to 8k by 8k, but he also said they would have to rework alot of stuff to fit that. Thats what he said in quakecon keynote

Again can you post the exactly source with those exactly words? Because what do you said not have logic to me, I don't understood why RSX can't support those res... you mean for the less RAM? or lack of EDRAM? Anyway megatexture is a streaming technologies from what I have understood, I don't think GPU performance has to do so much with this...
 
IIRC Carmack said RSX doesn't support higher resolution textures than 4k by 4k, 360 does, up to 8k by 8k, but he also said they would have to rework alot of stuff to fit that. Thats what he said in quakecon keynote

This is true (the supported max resolution sizes), but it has little to do with the final resolution of the textures in-game, which is limited by streaming. If they had a magical fast stream, they would have used several 4x4 atlases to stream into.
 
This is true (the supported max resolution sizes), but it has little to do with the final resolution of the textures in-game, which is limited by streaming. If they had a magical fast stream, they would have used several 4x4 atlases to stream into.

Ah now it's clear, thanks. Well I don't knew the part of RSX limits, a surprise for me, but at the end the main problem remains the streaming how I guess.
 
If you want to see a quote, watch the QuakeCon 2011 keynote.
It wasn't the only problem of a proper quote (which was legitimate imho), it's the matter of discussion which I have contested, completely misrepresented for the most of the people who seen the keynote when we talking of multiplatform choice of megatexture res IMHO. Said RSX can't support higher res of 4kx4k not means automatically cause = effect because the RSX can't done a lot of things possible on the ps3...
 
heres something interesting i just realized about rage on the 360 which has to do with its dynamic resolution scaling. before lets establish that the maximum resolution of for no tiling is 1152x720 with no AA.

this means that rage must use tiling to do 1280x720, but whenever the engine needs to drop to 1152x720 since it most likely drops tiling there's most likely a significant boost in performance. which means the engine is likely to drop to 1152x720 but not much lower. since its performance curve is skewed because of edram, the ps3 on the other hand has a more predictable performance curve so its resolution scaling is alot more impacted and has less image consistency.

so i wonder does the 360 version even go lower than 1152x720 or will 99% of the time this small drop is enough.
 
heres something interesting i just realized about rage on the 360 which has to do with its dynamic resolution scaling. before lets establish that the maximum resolution of for no tiling is 1152x720 with no AA.

this means that rage must use tiling to do 1280x720, but whenever the engine needs to drop to 1152x720 since it most likely drops tiling there's most likely a significant boost in performance. which means the engine is likely to drop to 1152x720 but not much lower. since its performance curve is skewed because of edram, the ps3 on the other hand has a more predictable performance curve so its resolution scaling is alot more impacted and has less image consistency.

so i wonder does the 360 version even go lower than 1152x720 or will 99% of the time this small drop is enough.

Considering DF didn't say anything about dropping into lower than 1152 my guess will be that this is the lowest point the resolutions drops to maintain performance.

Also it will be interesting if Al can tell us how much of the time the 360 version runs at sub-HD, the PS3 version supposedly runs at 640*720 a lot of the time so I'm curious to also know how often the 360 version runs at 1152*720 res. :)
 
Unfortunately, you'd have to saddle me with analysing 10,000 frames to get an accurate idea of just how often and when they drop. :p

All I know is that the PS3 seems to drop in resolution more significantly in similar scenes for what images I have looked at.
 
Considering DF didn't say anything about dropping into lower than 1152 my guess will be that this is the lowest point the resolutions drops to maintain performance.

Also it will be interesting if Al can tell us how much of the time the 360 version runs at sub-HD, the PS3 version supposedly runs at 640*720 a lot of the time so I'm curious to also know how often the 360 version runs at 1152*720 res. :)

They did:

The top shot is just a cut-scene showing your new buggy inside the Hagar settlement garage. It seems to be running at 640x720 on PS3 while Xbox 360 is in the region of 896x720.
 
Back
Top