The Technology of GTA IV/RDR *Rage Engine*

[Philip42]

Do you even know what AF is?


360 has more dithered shadows, but there's no difference in range in any night screenshots.


If you walk up to a texture and see a difference, then PS3 has better textures. If you only see it when you're further away, then it probably the texturing bug that we're discussing in the dithering thread.

1)Yes, of course i know what AF is.

2)Some folks here are guessing the PS3 is using FP16. I'm not saying, by any stretch it is happening , however there is a difference in the night screenshots.

Now you mentioned the 360 having more dithered shadows, which would explain this as well.

3)Now, i can assure you there is better texture quality on the PS3 version..in most areas(but not all) as i have seen this in motion(the same scenes, no movement by Niko on foot or in car, and the same exact TOD).

The 360 does have a cleaner look no doubt, especially in the foreground objects, and i cannot pinpoint why the textures look more detailed, they just are.

I was taking what many said here and going with it(bad mistake?, perhaps), but to my eyes it's only boils down to one thing, better PS3 texture quality.(except for Niko's face, which is more detailed on the 360 version)

(And while i own both consoles, i always prefered the 360 and it's rendering. GTA:IV has changed my mind about how the developers are now taking advantage of the PS3)

One thing is for sure, both engine's are so very different(imho), and for me it feels like the 360 version is using a FPS like engine with the focus on the foreground, while the PS3 version is doing something altogether differently.

 

[Hazuki Ryu]

1)Yes, of course i know what AF is.

2)Some folks here are guessing the PS3 is using FP16. I'm not saying, by any stretch it is happening , however there is a difference in the night screenshots.

Now you mentioned the 360 having more dithered shadows, which would explain this as well.

3)Now, i can assure you there is better texture quality on the PS3 version..in most areas(but not all) as i have seen this in motion(the same scenes, no movement by Niko on foot or in car, and the same exact TOD).

The 360 does have a cleaner look no doubt, especially in the foreground objects, and i cannot pinpoint why the textures look more detailed, they just are.

I was taking what many said here and going with it(bad mistake?, perhaps), but to my eyes it's only boils down to one thing, better PS3 texture quality.(except for Niko's face, which is more detailed on the 360 version)

(And while i own both consoles, i always prefered the 360 and it's rendering. GTA:IV has changed my mind about how the developers are now taking advantage of the PS3)

One thing is for sure, both engine's are so very different(imho), and for me it feels like the 360 version is using a FPS like engine with the focus on the foreground, while the PS3 version is doing something altogether differently.

Yes you're right it was a waste of a post I made here about it anyway I always like to know the true and the place where I always find it is here.

 

[Asher]

Good capture RDK, thanks.

 

[Mize]

beautiful game on both platforms. kudos to R* for doing what others haven't - making the most of both.

 

[MonkeyLicker]

The reason the textures look better on the PS3 is because of the weird dither filter on the 360 version. Look down at the road and sidewalk and you can see it on just about everything. Go and find a rock formation while in a car. Drive up (at night) and shine your light towards the rock to see what I'm talking about. Whatever it is, I hope RS will fix it for those who want to.

 

[Mintmaster]

1)Yes, of course i know what AF is.

Then why did you make that blur statement about the "AF effect"?

AF sharpens textures (i.e. uses a higher res mipmap without the aliasing of LOD bias) on angled surfaces only. That's all it does.

Now you mentioned the 360 having more dithered shadows, which would explain this as well.

Dithered shadows don't explain your "more range at night" statement. There definately is not more range at night, unless the picture is brighter (in which case adjust your TV).

3)Now, i can assure you there is better texture quality on the PS3 version..in most areas(but not all) as i have seen this in motion(the same scenes, no movement by Niko on foot or in car, and the same exact TOD).

Answer my question above. Are the textures higher quality when you're really close to them?

The 360 does have a cleaner look no doubt, especially in the foreground objects

This tells me that closer objects, like those in the foreground, look better on 360. Texture quality only affects the look of things when you're close to them, so your theory is wrong. If PS3 had better textures, foreground objects would look better on it.

Like I said, what you are seeing is the texturing bug that we are talking about in the dithering thread. It looks like Rockstar screwed up the mipmap generation.

(And while i own both consoles, i always prefered the 360 and it's rendering. GTA:IV has changed my mind about how the developers are now taking advantage of the PS3)

I think Rockstar intentionally tried harder on the PS3 version.

They did a colour tweak that most people like, but only put it in the PS3 version. No technological basis for doing so. They use jittered shadow map samples on both versions and enabled hardware PCF on RSX to smoothen it, yet didn't use fetch4 or the other 360 features to match PCF or at least smooth it out (they chose to draw 25% more pixels in the 360 version so performance is no excuse). They have an obvious texturing bug in their 360 code, but didn't bother to fix it.

Why would they do this? My guess is what joker454 said:

There is a reality going on today that people won't like, but here goes anyways. It's better to leave 360 performance unused, and have both 360/PS3 versions run at parity. It just makes good business sense. Why? There's many reasons, but in the end having a deficient PS3 version gives bad press, and reflects badly on the studio. On the other hand, putting out two versions that are identical reflects very nicely on the studio and yields lots of good press. Whether or not technical boundaries of a given platform are maxed out turns out to be irrelevant. Making a good looking game is important, but making it run the same on both machines is becoming even more important. If that means leaving performance/memory unused, then so be it. Is this happening today? Yes. Does it suck? Perhaps. Does it really matter? I don't think so. In the end, the consumer doesn't really know whats going on, they are just happy that their version is running nice. 360 owners still get a good looking game and are happy. PS3 owners get a version that runs the same as the 360 version, and they are happy. Everyones happy, which is good for business.

They had to give PS3 some advantages to make up for the necessary resolution reduction, or else there would be backlash from the PS3 crowd. The texturing bug probably originated as an honest bug, but it's disturbing that they didn't fix it.

 

[Pete]

They did a colour tweak that most people like, but only put it in the PS3 version. No technological basis for doing so.

Is it assumed the color (oops, lost a 'u' ) tweak is happening in the same post-processing step as the "blur" filter? Could it be that the 360 version doesn't have a post-processing step, or that Cell somehow makes it possible for much less cost on the PS3?


As far as FP16 vs. FX8, I guess the only way to tell the difference (assuming both'd end up in an FX8 framebuffer) is banding (thinking back to the purple-and-green Quake3 [and what was that other FPS, started with an S, I think it had body-part-specific damage--Soldier of Fortune?] 8-/16-bit days)? What do the colored light reflections on the ceiling in the top right of the 360 and PS3 shots you linked tell us, if anything? I'm seeing some circular (emanating from the light source) banding in the PS3 version and perceiving (could be my CRT? :?) some horizontal banding across the whole ceiling (orthogonal to the light sources) in the 360, but the 360 shot is a lot brighter, so I don't know if that's an artifact of the console itself.

As for the AF, it's hard to argue one version has more or less than the other based on the pair of bowling alley shots linked (way) previously (one of them being the PS3 shot you just linked from imgshk, Mint, but I can't find the companion 360 link right now [I'm looking at the two on my HD, albeit renamed]).

Edit: Hmm, I dunno how OT this AF tangent is, so fair warning in case these last few posts get moved to another of the GTA4 tech threads.

 

[AlNom]

Edit: Hmm, I dunno how OT this AF tangent is, so fair warning in case these last few posts get moved to another of the GTA4 tech threads.

It's probably best in the GTA Tech here. It's kind of a [strike]blur[/strike] thin line, but there is certainly some [strike]dithe-[/strike] [strike]overlapping nois- [/strike] overlap between the [strike]multithrea-[/strike] two threads.

*cough*

 

[Mintmaster]

Is it assumed the color (oops, lost a 'u' ) tweak is happening in the same post-processing step as the "blur" filter? Could it be that the 360 version doesn't have a post-processing step, or that Cell somehow makes it possible for much less cost on the PS3?

360 does have post-processing, or else there wouldn't be any bloom or depth of field. A colour transformation is 3 dot products per pixel. Not only would it be hidden by texture accesses (which dominate post processing), but even if it wasn't we'd be looking at a 0.3% hit.

As far as FP16 vs. FX8, I guess the only way to tell the difference (assuming both'd end up in an FX8 framebuffer) is banding?

That's a good idea, but it tough to be sure because you're creating the image by sampling and filtering 8 bit per channel textures. If you don't find banding, you might not be looking hard enough. If you do, it could be due to the source textures or post-processing the 8-bit version. Can't really draw conclusions one way or the other.

 

[Pete]

Thanks, Mint, and , Al.

 

[liolio]

Was clearly wrong about viewing distance.
My bad should have waited for others opinions before jumping on conclusion...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS3 version:
shot from my TV

Thanks for that. To Asher et al, you see what we were getting at? You need a comparable shot. This grab shows the same detail that was missing in the lower-altitude image. Seeing as the whole gaming world like to run with anything posted on B3D as fact, no matter who says it!, we need to be extra particular so we aren't the unfortunate source of misinformation

 

[patsu]

PS3 version:

shot from my TV

cca some altitude and i see the draw distance on PS3 is even better ...

Do the shadows on the water surface pop-in on the PS3 version like the 360 one ?

I think Rockstar intentionally tried harder on the PS3 version.

Well, we all know they have to try hard on the PS3 anyway because of the architecture and tools.

They had to give PS3 some advantages to make up for the necessary resolution reduction, or else there would be backlash from the PS3 crowd. The texturing bug probably originated as an honest bug, but it's disturbing that they didn't fix it.

It's speculative. Looking at the freezing problems on both platforms, it may not be too far from the truth to say that they are swarmed with work on both. Remember MS paid a large sum for the project, they may very well get more resources to work on the (combined) larger scope too.

I suspect GTA4 can be better visually on both platforms. They have a cityworth of assets to protect. Even if the devs learn a faster/better/cheaper techniques to optimize for PS3/360 along the way, they may not be able to apply them if it meant redoing/changing the assets even in minor ways. In particular, PS3 optimization is about data management and optimization. In this area, it may lose out the most.

(Staring at that picture, I can't help but start to imagine the helicopter being replaced by a dragon, and playing Lair's soothing night assault music. That game should not have attempted 1080p. It has RemotePlay too !)

 

[Jesus2006]

Was this one already posted?

PS3 Day
http://static.pici.se/pictures/vULqsDVmu.jpg

PS3 Night
http://static.pici.se/pictures/rpsQFGnkU.jpg


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11020439&postcount=1062

It shows how strong the difference between day and night is in the PS3 version in regards to sharpness. During daytime (mostly) a heavy bloom or blur filter lies over the image which is totally gone at night.
Guess that's what R* called 'the looks' of the PS3 version.

 

[patsu]

Not only night time... as long as the scene is not viewed against a bright background I think.

 

[Mintmaster]

Philip42, one more thing:

One more thing, when at night or in the shadows, the PS3 really shows off a better range of lighting and/or color.

2)Some folks here are guessing the PS3 is using FP16. I'm not saying, by any stretch it is happening , however there is a difference in the night screenshots.

Where's the "better range of lighting and/or color" here?

Nighttime is the same (aside from the usual differences).

 

[-tkf-]

Dunno if this was posted, and since the original thread was locked.. here we go:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3821838.ece

It's like making a theatre production, a few movies and an album all to fit into one package,” he says. He hasn't a clue how much GTA IV has cost to make but hazards a guess at $100m. About 1,000 people have had a hand in developing it. The perfectionism Houser and Benzies demand of their teams is astonishing.

 

[Pete]

Jesus, I don't know if the bloom or blur (two different things, I suspect) are heavier during the day, but the blur doesn't seem to be gone at night (see Mint's post of grandmaster's shots). It might not be as heavy, or maybe it seems that way b/c it doesn't have the (same) yellow cast. At least, I think I see some blurring on the car's wheels and the bottom of its rear glass.

That's a crazy good set of comparison shots that grandmaster linked. I can't believe they're aligned to the pixel. I wonder if the PS3 one looks dimmer b/c of the blur filter or b/c the ambient lighting was lower at that moment. You can clearly see the dithering or whatever it's called on the sign to the left of the ladder, and at the left base of the ladder and to the left and right of the horizontal yellow-black stripe to the left of the ladder. Looking at the horizontal yellow-black stripe on the right, you can see a little dithering toward the front of the left, receding side, and it seems to be in the PS3 shot as well, just smoothed out by the blur filter.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

Maybe you guys haven't discovered this but try turning the flicker filter off on the ps3 version. It seems to take away most of that "blur" effect you speak of. Also a friend of mine has this game on the 360 and i've noticed shadow maps flicker a lot more than the ps3 version and tend to be at a lower resolution. Plus the particle system seems more robust on the ps3 versions, particularly with explosions.

 

[joker454]

Wow, this thread is very eye opening. I'm amazed that after doing a/b comparisons on their own tv's that people prefer the look of the PS3 version. I always felt that resolution was overrated for this generation in reference to 1080p. But with threads like this, I can't help but wonder if even 720p is needed at all. Clearly, resolution and sharpness are totally moot given how many prefer the look of the PS3 version.

So, are we wasting our time with 1280x720? Maybe we should just render at 960x540 and upscale with numerous post processing passes? For the devs and artists at our shop, the 360 was easily the better looking one when we did a/b comparisons. The results here on this forum though are almost the opposite of that. Since you guys are the ones buying the games, maybe we need to start taking that into account. Perhaps much lower resolution with more post processing is the way to go? It would sure make my life optimizing much easier. Right now our PS3 title is at 1280x720, but it looks like I need to start experimenting with lower resolutions.