The Technology of GTA IV/RDR *Rage Engine*
- Thread starter babcat
- Start date
Mintmaster
Veteran
hm...
http://diaryofagraphicsprogrammer.blogspot.com/2008/03/light-pre-pass-renderer.html
And asking about scaling (June 28 2007):
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=453577
It's all so clear (
). or not.
edit: links for my reference when I get home
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=492723&whichpage=1�
http://diaryofagraphicsprogrammer.blogspot.com/2008/03/light-pre-pass-renderer.html
Wolfgang Engel said:
And asking about scaling (June 28 2007):
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=453577
It's all so clear (
). or not. edit: links for my reference when I get home
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=492723&whichpage=1�
I'll re-enter this thread since I spent a gang of time this morning playing with the PS3 version, since my PC at work died
I've been playing the 360 one at home semi regularly, and the frame rate on the PS3 definitely seems lower to me, it seems almost stuttery and more prone to pauses. I "sanity checked" it by asking some other people to come in as asked what they thought, and their comments were similar. I haven't noticed tearing on the 360 version, but I'll assume it is there since people claim it. From what I'm seeing on the frame rates, I would also have to assume that the PS3 version is vsync locked and the 360 version isn't. That would explain the tearing people apparently only see on 360, and it would explain the stuttery frame rate I see on the PS3 version. MazingerDUDE said:
These zoomed in shots are useful if you want to figure out perhaps how something works, or what technique they use. It does not reflect though how you see it on screen though and hence, at least I think, is not a good way to pick a better quality version. I'll sound like a broken record and again suggest people to see both versions back to back first hand, it's the only way.
Mintmaster said:
You asked and answered your own question, thats tops in efficiency
Render states can be a performance issue when dealing with object draw order sorting (for Z benefit), it tends to be game by game basis though. On Baseball, the draw order was incredibly predictable, and the objects in question had similar render states, so we didn't have a z prepass.MazingerDUDE
Regular
Actually I did :smile: I have spent about 10 hours each on both, and I do feel the PS3 version does look better, and I think the reason why is in those shots. I initially thought 360 version looked better, but changed my mind after spending some time on both. Maybe you'd too if you spend just little more time with the PS3 version
BTW, the actual pixel size of any HDTV should easily be bigger than 2 x zoom shots I provided here (I'm playing the game on 46" LCD TV)
It depends on both viewing distance (I'm ~10 feet from my 50 inch plasma) and what your tv does to the signal. Most tv's tend to do their own 'processing' to an incoming image, such as rescaling it to fit the native rez of the tv. Or, some tv's have other effects on the final image depending on the tv tech (dlp,lcd,plasma,crt). So what you see in screen shots is not what makes it to your tv.
Since I just posted it elsewhere, I might just as well post the link here while I still have it under CTRL-V.
It's all explained in this presentation here:http://www.naughtydog.com/corporate/press/GDC 2008/UnchartedTechGDC2008.pdf
Yea I take the recent info as confirmation of the fact - people captured 360 tearing on video/screens, and grandmaster pretty much confirms PS3 is VSynced.joker454 said:
The question this brings up is why - just like the 360 grain, I would think it's intentional. And you and others confirm what I've already seen with my own work before - majority seems to favour VSync-off scenario even in blind tests.
grandmaster
Veteran
My guess is this: R* went for v-lock off on 360 because only the most anal can actually see it. They turned v-lock on for PS3 because the tearing effect would be far more pronounced than the 360 version if it wasn't. The GTA games are inherently fluctuating on frame rate all the time (according to my tests, both versions can run *above* 30fps on average) so it would probably be less noticeable.
They've already compromised on resolution, so why not FPS too?
BTW I'm with joker454 in that the lower frame rate is easily apparent on PS3.
They've already compromised on resolution, so why not FPS too?
BTW I'm with joker454 in that the lower frame rate is easily apparent on PS3.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been thinking about joker454's question as to why the preference for the PS3 version among so many and I think I might have an answer. The full screen effect being used could be said to be simulating a kind of atmospheric perspective not usually addressed by real-time 3D graphics. The 360 version may be sharper, but it's to a degree that highlights the artificiality of what you're seeing. The softening effect at work on PS3 actually makes the game seem less obviously rendered.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157908&postcount=176
Note to thambos & grandmaster: I've moved your scaling posts to the scaling thread.
grandmaster
Veteran
Eurogamer's GTA face-off is now up, complete with the usual galleries (including 1080p), but this time with comparison videos that actually show the difference - one pixel in the vid is one pixel on your display.
The feature has embedded vids at 632x400, but 728x544 versions are also available. All vids were compiled in a totally lossless workflow up until the final h264 encoding (1100kbps at HQ-Insane level using x264 for the larger ones, 900kbps for the smaller ones).
The framerate measurements you've been waiting for are also included
The feature has embedded vids at 632x400, but 728x544 versions are also available. All vids were compiled in a totally lossless workflow up until the final h264 encoding (1100kbps at HQ-Insane level using x264 for the larger ones, 900kbps for the smaller ones).
The framerate measurements you've been waiting for are also included
Last edited by a moderator:
Eurogamer's GTA face-off is now up, complete with the usual galleries (including 1080p), but this time with comparison videos that actually show the difference - one pixel in the vid is one pixel on your display.
The feature has embedded vids at 632x400, but 728x544 versions are also available. All vids were compiled in a totally lossless workflow up until the final h264 encoding (1100kbps at HQ-Insane level using x264 for the larger ones, 900kbps for the smaller ones).
The framerate measurements you've been waiting for are also included
So, 20% less pixels and upto 18% less frames pr second for the PS3 version. And a 360 version that actually could look even better if the dithering wasn´t applied on purpose.
That my friends is pretty bad on paper. Is this just the PS3 being "sucky" or the developers not being able to cope with the PS3?
The amount of money they'd supposedly spent, I'd have a hard time believing they didn't have adequate resources to optimize the PS3. But really, I think this speaks more to the 360 being the lead platform. If this had been a PS3 exclusive, I think the PS3 results would have been much better, not that they're bad as is.
iceberg187
Regular
I'm quite sure that if this were an Xbox 360 exclusive, the technological feats would be even greater as well. That goes both ways.