what graphics to you expect fo the ps3

[chapback]

errrmm....if you read the full post and the post quoted in the full post, it reads veryyy much like hardware concerns rather than devs choices....hmmm....

 

[London Geezer]

errrmm....if you read the full post and the post quoted in the full post, it reads veryyy much like hardware concerns rather than devs choices....hmmm....

Well, we just explained to you that it isn't, so what's the problem? Don't know who that was, but if his opinion is that it's a hardware issue, he's pretty much wrong...
Easy chappy...

edited. there u go. out of here

 

[chapback]

there is no problem. my point of content is that quoted statement. since faf said it clear so, that be that. i dont see why you are getting on me for? i was just loving the Jade Empire videos..

 

[London Geezer]

there is no problem. my point of content is that quoted statement. since faf said it clear so, that be that. i dont see why you are getting on me for? i was just loving the Jade Empire videos..

I'm not getting at anyone, we're all here to explain things to u... Did i sound "getty"? If i did, i didn't intend to

 

[Fox5]

IMO, games like ZOE2 or MGS2 with lots of emphasis on effects like air, wind, textures, movement and animation reach a point that are far more realistic than I think a platform like Xbox could achieve due to the nature of that platform of pushing better textures and pixel effects

That be why im asking in this topic.

Actually I don't think that remark is all that far off. It's just the reasons aren't so much in hardware but mostly due to nature of development philosophies that are prevalent on different consoles.

It's not unlike then say, load times issue, where by general opinion GC wins most of the time, and people automatically assume it's due to some hardware advantage(the fact that certain... ahem... "journalist" sites, actively promote false information about some hardware aspects isn't helping things).
But in the end of the day it doesn't matter that GC optical drive is slowest when games commonly load as fast or faster then other two.

Similarly PS2 indeed tends to have more games showcasing the aspects that quote talked about then XBox.

Eh, but gamecube games usually load faster in multiplatform games as well, so couldn't it be the lower seek times, the lower latency ram, and I think gamecube can use compressed textures without decompressing them first. I mean, I don't think any of the systems have enough ram to really benefit from higher speeds, so whichever one can access the information first would load fastest.

 

[Fafalada]

Eh, but gamecube games usually load faster in multiplatform games as well, so couldn't it be the lower seek times, the lower latency ram

Average & minimum seek times are virtually the same on all 3. Worst case is slower for PS2 and XBox, but having a lot of those means the loading scheme sucks to begin with.
Furthermore a good loader will keep seek penalty to 5-10% or less, meaning transfer speed should account for the other 90% of the time.
Memory accesses are around 1000x faster then disc and are hence all the more irellevant.

On the OTHER hand, the ratio between a bad loading scheme and a good loading scheme is virtually unlimited.
The first CD loader I tried on PS2, was over 120 times slower then the one in Korean version of Axel Impact(~10minutes vs 5-6seconds).

I mean, I don't think any of the systems have enough ram to really benefit from higher speeds

Current loader we use is close to optimal and reaches 90% of raw disk data reading speed. Obviously it has quite a bit of headroom left for nearly linear scaling with drive speed.

and I think gamecube can use compressed textures without decompressing them first.

So does XBox. But yes - there is a difference in amount of data loaded, GC has the least memory to fill, which can noticeably improve speed with efficient load schemes.

 

[London Geezer]

On the OTHER hand, the ratio between a bad loading scheme and a good loading scheme is virtually unlimited.
The first CD loader I tried on PS2, was over 120 times slower then the one in Korean version of Axel Impact(~10minutes vs 5-6seconds).

HOLY MARY!!!!!!! that's a lot!!!!!!!!!!!

How can it be!!??? Reminds me of Quake 3 Arena for PS2.. now those were long loading times....

 

[Squeak]

Regarding Gamecube load time: The fast loading could be due the fact that the disc has a smaller diameter, and therefore has less mass to accelerate?

Regarding PS2 load time: If mpeg2 compression was used for all maps and 2d stuff (except of course 8 bit CLUT), and then uncompressed when in memory, loadtime could theoretically be down to one or two seconds (outer track of DVD is IIRC. 3-4 Mb/ps and mpeg2 has about 30 times compression in high quality).

 

[Fafalada]

How can it be!!???

Combination of bad library functions, poor file organization, far too much seeking, loading not happening paralel to the code...etc.
But yeah the difference is quite striking - and ironically the actual quantity of data loaded in the new version is around two times more(similar size on disc but the old stuff didn't have compression that is used now).

Squeak,
the drive can be kept spinning constantly though - so that only really matters the first time you put the disc in
As for compression, while MPEG2 would offer most compression for textures(albeit quality of paletted stuff which is most commonly used would suffer), it's more common to use one of the well known non-lossy algorythms.
They do a pretty good job on textures, work on all other data too, and most of them decompress very fast.

 

[Megadrive1988]

So does XBox. But yes - there is a difference in amount of data loaded, GC has the least memory to fill, which can noticeably improve speed with efficient load schemes.

I thought GC has 43+ MB, while PS2 has only 38 MB (or 40MB),

Unless you are discounting the GC's A-RAM in which case that would knock 16 MB of GC's total.

 

[Squeak]

Squeak,
the drive can be kept spinning constantly though - so that only really matters the first time you put the disc in

But wouldn’t having the drive running at top speed all the time wear a lot on the hub? On PC and on to a lesser extent on PS2, you can hear the drive speeding up and slowing down when data is being loaded, and then running at low speed all the other time for music streaming.
I would imagine it is similar on GC just that it can accelerate the disc faster?

As for compression, while MPEG2 would offer most compression for textures(albeit quality of paletted stuff which is most commonly used would suffer), it's more common to use one of the well known non-lossy algorythms.
They do a pretty good job on textures, work on all other data too, and most of them decompress very fast.

But loss less compression doesn’t have very high compression ratio.
The most you can achieve, if you want fast decompression is something like 4x, right?
Okay, so maybe it isn’t very good on 4 bit CLUT textures, but 16 bit textures would be more useful if they took up less memory, and they do increase the fillrate quite a lot compared to 4 bit CLUT.

 

[Phil]

london-boy:

It might be true that PS2 is "good" at particles and physics, but the truth is still that ZOE2 and MGS2 properly programmed for Xbox would probably end up looking better... and with full 5.1DD too, which is cool...

Now, if a "demo" were to properly show how many particles PS2 can push, at FULL specs (which BTW is not going to happen), then maybe then the xbox might start having problems...

I'd be actually very interested to know how you conclude that a game like ZOE2 or MGS2 would look better on Xbox?
In fact, I'd be also quite interested to know how you define the difference between a demo showcasting particles compared to ZOE2 which is probably the game with an emphasis on those effects more than any other? Please elaborate.

Better can mean so many things. Konami used a distinct art direction in both games which emphasize heavily on PS2 strengths, naturally, a Xbox counterpart coded to that platforms strength would make it look completely different. The ultimate question then would be, which would look better? As said, I would expect an Xbox version to likely emphasize on its strength to do pixeleffects such as bump mapping, very detailed textures - yet ultimately lower on particles. It's like comparing PDO to ZOE2 I guess. Considering that, I find your remark about a Xbox version to look better rather quite confusing as it would make it quite subjective in the end. If the Xbox were to imitate the PS2's look however, I'm not quite sure it be very successful and fail (i.e. MGS2:Substance?).


Since the quote chap brought up is from my post, let me restate a typo:

IMO, games like ZOE2 or MGS2 with lots of emphasis on effects like air, wind, textures, movement and animation reach a point that are far more realistic than I think a platform like Xbox could achieve due to the nature of that platform of pushing better textures and pixel effects

Of course textures shouldn't have been mentioned, I'm still not quite sure how that slipped in there. Considering I was speaking of ZOE2 and MGS2 should clear that up rather quick though, since those games obviously aren't beauties when it comes to textures (in a technical sense).

 

[Super Grafx]

What I am afraid of is, and this cannot be avoided, developers will push next gen hardware so hard, in order to extract the best graphics they can, they will once again kill framerates. to me, motion is more important than graphics. yes, framerate is important. I'm not really into PC gaming though. I dont obsess over 2 fps more. you dont need 100-300 fps, all you need is 60fps. John Carmack realizes this, as doom3 is said to be locked down at 60fps, provided your card can handle it. Anyway what I am trying to say is, next gen graphics on consoles i think would be better, if the framerates can be kept at 60fps with no dips. i think games and game-graphics should be built around 60fps no matter what. whatever can be done at 60fps, developers work with that. instead of building the best possible graphics and then trying to optimize for a playable framerate. I am wondering if this is how 3D arcade games of the 90s (and today) were done, if that was in developers minds. of course i am speaking mainly of Sega and Namco. basicly what i am saying is, framerate/motion is more important than prettier visuals.

 

[London Geezer]

Edited the message as per our private discussion, Phil. Take care.
Oh by the way, no, i'm not english, if that had anything to do with the issue.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I completely agree with Super Grafx about the importance of constant, smooth framerate.

It seems, that as a console has been on market for two years, the games start to have more detailed graphics, but the framerate gets worse.

The games do look better on screenshots, but often the game does not feel as good to play as some early 60 fps titles.

Anything below 60(50 in pal-land) should not be allowed to go through quality control next gen.
Stuttering frame-rate would not be allowed in movies today, why should it be in nextgen games.

Quality animation, believable physics and world effects displayed in smooth framerate make the future games, more so than any 'shiney shine'

 

[Legion]

Looking at those pics, next gen consoles should be able to top it, because I am pretty sure the high end PC GPU can get pretty darn close to those pic.

in game? You have to be kidding me. I don't even think my Radeon 9800 PRO could render multiple entities of that quality.