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

vhmulticam2011102200412.png

vhmulticam2011102209274.png


That's some massive difference in visuals there. It's like Xbox to Xbox 360
 
Is Battlefield 3 using FXAA on the PS3? It seems to have nice antialiasing, but with the overall softening of the image FXAA tends to carry.
 
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/risen2darkwaters/interviews.html

Strategy Informer: You've mentioned how the console versions have been made from the ground up, and how you've been greatly improving the graphics across all versions... but the 360 and PS3, they're getting on a bit now. Are you worried that the console versions are going to too inferior due to the ageing hardware?

Daniel Oberlerchner: Well... you know... *laughs* I can tell you that we are going to have the optimum experience across all platforms, and they are going to be different experiences. There IS a technology gap. Some studios say they are going to have the same quality across all platforms, which is to say you take the weakest platform - the Xbox 360 - and you have the same crappy textures for the Playstation 3 and the PC.

It was just a couple of weeks ago there was a PC game that was... *laugh* well, I don't really want to go into details, but our decision is that we want to have a really hi-res experience on the PC. There is no reason why we should create hi-res textures, then just make them blurry for a console version, then put everything back on the PC again - it doesn't make any sense.

We want to make sure everything is maxed out on every platform - for example on the Playstation 3, it is a bit better in terms of Aliasing, but then extra memory is going to be better on the Xbox 360 because the PS3 doesn't have direct memory - so it has to share everything. So it's going to be different, but it's going to be the same game, with the same features.

the ''holy war'' is over :D
 
What an idiot. Especially considering how his game is the perfect example of how boring tiled textures can look, no matter what their resolution is.

But yeah, go on and laugh about id and Rage, it's his reputation that gets the hit...
 
What an idiot. Especially considering how his game is the perfect example of how boring tiled textures can look, no matter what their resolution is.

But yeah, go on and laugh about id and Rage, it's his reputation that gets the hit...
Well I've not read the whole thing but Dice has just demonstrated in the same time the restriction enforced on developer by DVD capacity and the benefit from more storages (an extra dvd)and partial hdd install.
They clearly demonstrated "how to do it right". Well This developer may not have the resources (either enough artists or developers) but he should look at Dice work :)
Still he studio may not be ok with the cost associated with an extra DVD. It's not straightly cut, the guy may not have tried to be exhaustive in his answer or to weight his words this much. Point is assuming the 360 "multi sku nature" speaking of texture quality he might be right.
 
Dice isn't using unique texturing so BF3 isn't a valid example in any comparisions. Rage stands on its own for now, strengths and weaknesses and all.
 
Seeing that finally a new Alan Wake title is coming I'm really curious to see what the new game will look like - there is supposedly the new facial animations and the possible replacement of 4xAA with FXAA.

Really curious to see if the resolution of the game will or even can change...the first screenshot will be shown next Monday. :)
 
Looking at BF3 PC benchmarks, MSAA is a huge performance hit while FXAA is literally almost free even at highest setting (something like 1.3% performance hit). And that's with FXAA being noticably better at edge smoothing in the game http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1320203990wggDqWGb3l_7_3_l.png

Only problem is it seems to me FXAA "dulls" (blurs) the picture quite a lot as in that example. But then again it seems MSAA in deferred rendered BF3 works on few surfaces anyway, so if you like sharpness maybe AA off would be almost as good as 4X MSAA.

All that to say, I hope Alan Wake can raise it's res due to replacing MSAA with FXAA.
 
In that comparison, give me the MSAA every day of the week. But if you have to choose between 60fps and 15fps (to take an extreme example), the decision becomes less obvious ;)

I have a 5570 in my PC and I don't think I'll even try BF3 on it, but crucially, even on that one MLAA for instance is practically free, and a noticeable improvement over not having AA, which for me is basically the only alternative.
 
There's about a GB of space free on the Battlefield 3 single player disk. The reason for the 1.5GB "HD Texture Pack" isn't DVD space it's bandwidth. That'll be the same reason why you can't put the HD texture pack on the 4GB 360's internal flash or a USB drive.

Even if the 360 had a Bluray drive it'd still need the install - perhaps an even bigger one like the PS3.

I wonder how far into development they decided they were going to need an install? Makes comparisons to games that fit the requirement to run off the DVD drive without a stonking great hit to visuals a bit unfair really!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In that comparison, give me the MSAA every day of the week. But if you have to choose between 60fps and 15fps (to take an extreme example), the decision becomes less obvious ;)

True. But, you're choosing between jaggies or apparently blurred textures. And since MSAA seems to work poorly in BF3, if you're after sharpness you might do best to leave AA off altogether. IF MSAA actually worked, maybe it would blur the scene too.

I'd have like to see more comparison pictures though. That one picture may be misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's about a GB of space free on the Battlefield 3 single player disk. The reason for the 1.5GB "HD Texture Pack" isn't DVD space it's bandwidth. That'll be the same reason why you can't put the HD texture pack on the 4GB 360's internal flash or a USB drive.

Even if the 360 had a Bluray drive it'd still need the install - perhaps an even bigger one like the PS3.

I wonder how far into development they decided they were going to need an install? Makes comparisons to games that fit the requirement to run off the DVD drive without a stonking great hit to visuals a bit unfair really!

It's odd because BF3 console WITH the texture pack isn't really better looking than some other console games, and TONS of games without texture packs look way better than BF3 does without the pack installed. It seems to be a false conceit.

If it can really help improve graphics though, I'd like to see other games use it.

The big issue is with Xbox 360 4GB's, especially if for some reason the installs dont work on the flash in the future. It's almost like an end around MS no mandatory install policy. Lesser graphics is probably not something no hard drive 360 users signed up for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's odd because BF3 console WITH the texture pack isn't really better looking than some other console games, and TONS of games without texture packs look way better than BF3 does without the pack installed. It seems to be a false conceit.

If it can really help improve graphics though, I'd like to see other games use it.

It's probably more about texture variety than resolution. With the advent of texture streaming systems now disc space is a primary concern. DICE shrewdly avoided that, but disc space and graphics still don't share any sort of explicit relationship.
 
Back
Top