So is the general conclusion that the PS3 version doesn't have AF or FP16? I'm seeing lots of sites around the web saying "Beyond3D says the PS3 version has 8x AF and FP16" because of the driveby post above, but no real conversation on it.
From the screenies/videos I've seen, I don't see any more "dynamic range" nor any AF in the PS3 shots, but I'm curious to see what some of the more experienced devs here think.
Yeah, they're probably wrong.
No evidence of FP16. I'd say there's more to suggest RGBA8, because in shots like
this you have more bloom on medium tones (his hand, the sidewalk), suggesting a lack of range for overbright values.
AF looks the same, but I'm having a hard time finding screenshots that would give us an idea of AF. The aforementioned screenshot doesn't look like 2xAF, nor does it show filtering differences between the two.
This 360 shot is definately more than 2xAF, there is no more carpet detail in
this PS3 shot, and
this PS3 shot doesn't quite look like 8xAF (but it's hard to tell). From these three shots, both version seem to show the onset of horizontal blurring at similar angles to the ground.
Although heavily compressed and low res,
this video really doesn't suggest any difference in AF levels, especially in all the driving clips starting at 1:39. If anything, it appears like the PS3 has lower AF, but it's probably an illusion from the 640p+blur vs. 720p. My best guess is 4xAF for both versions, but some textures look like they have less (e.g. yellow road lines).
It's pretty funny how that "drive-by post" by makaveli87 has so much influence.
There is a texturing problem on 360, though, and we're discussing it in the dithering thread. My current theory is that they generated the mipmap chain incorrectly, so things only look proper when their textures don't undergo minification. The shadows are speckly too.
