If the game engine is already outputting the game at 720p, why do we continue to see so many low-res textures in games? I'm seeing them in a lot of 360 launch games, and even in top-tier PS3 games (MGS4 environment textures). Does this have more to do with the time to create such detailed textures and assets or is there some technical hurdle that I'm missing? The only performance issue I could think of is RAM space, but these games surely aren't using all 512MBs of RAM....
What is stopping Next-Gen developers from using High-Res textures?
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
!eVo!-X Ant UK
Banned
Hardknock said:
MGS4 trailer was using MGS3's texture's, if you look at some of the wall texture's you'll notice they also appear in MGS3.
It seems Project Offset can, on a 7800 level PC.fireshot said:
consoles are always limited by memory. usualy, when a console is launched, it has about the same amout of memory total that high end PC graphics cards have by themselves. low texture quality is even more noticable on progressive scan and high def displays. that, compounded by the fact that HD framebuffers eat more memory than SD framebuffers (obviously), memory will continue to be the limiting factor for the new generation.
the first video was good.
the second not so...
here you see a hires screen with same hdr bloom. no 'faked' cgi lighting.
http://projectoffset.com/poster_hires.html
it is interesting to know how much memory is going to KenOS and dual hdmi display.
the second not so...
here you see a hires screen with same hdr bloom. no 'faked' cgi lighting.
http://projectoffset.com/poster_hires.html
it is interesting to know how much memory is going to KenOS and dual hdmi display.
I'm really, really disappointed with next-gen lighting engines so far. Doom 3, Riddick, and Splinter Cell just whetted my appetite for bigger, better, and badder realtime lighting engines. I remember when Carmack unveiled the Doom 3 engine, he said he realized that what makes and object register with our eye as "real" is almost entirely its interaction with light. Having seen the results, I buy into that philosophy 100%. HDR is nice. High res textures are nice. Lots of geometry is nice. Good-looking smoke is nice. But if the light doesn't play across surfaces correctly, and if shadows aren't cast at correct angles with proper projection, shape, and definition, or if characters cast shadows that look completely different from those in the rest of the environment (I detest sharp-edged shadow volumes combined with soft, fuzzy environmental shadow maps), it just doesn't jump out as "next-gen" to me. Instead, it makes me feel like there's still a lot of life in the ol' Wavebird/S/Dual Shock yet. I want Unreal Engine 3 and updates of the Doom 3 engine, not Renderware Plus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hardknock said:
Texture resolution is related directly to the amount of RAM. Given all the compression tech in Xenos, it may be just a matter of devs getting used to or taking the time to use the tech to get higher res textures within the fixed amount of RAM. Usually, texture source art assets are created at a ridiculously high resolution and down-sized to fit within RAM. For demos or even launch titles, it is likely a matter of time.
There are also other things taking up space besides the base texture such as the specular and diffuse maps.
cloudscapes
Regular
Hardknock said:
It *is* the RAM. If you take a game with relitavelly high-res textures for PC, like FEAR or even HL2, they require at least 512 megs of ram, as well as at least a 128mb viddy card to view the textures in acceptable detail (medium quality and above). If you want high-quality, you need a gig and above for the system RAM and VRAM combined. Add to that the fact that PCs have a HD they can swap to. It's not perfect, but it exists.
Next-gen consoles only have 512 megs, total. That's RAM and VRAM combined, and there isn't even a HD to swap to, meaning they can afford even less detail than, say, a PC with the same RAM. They can stream from the disc, but it's nowhere near as fast and versatile as a HD.
RAM-wise, next-gen consoles are the equivalent of a 3-4 year-old top-notch PC. Look at the texture resolution for top games from back then.
You have your answer.
EDIT: another thing, new-gen games are putting more and more details in environments. more junk lying around, more diverse characters, more kinds of dirt and debris. more veriety = more ram usage = lower the texture resolution to fit it all in
Last edited by a moderator:
Confidence-Man
Newcomer
Rare's games have incredibly sharp textures, some of the best I've seen anywhere.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Condemned as well, very nice hi-res textures.
cloudscapes - I don't see how you can compare PC ram to Console ram. Look what xbox did with just 64mb. What PC w/ 64mb(combined!) could ever run gfx like FarCry or Splinter Cell 3? Hell, SC: 3 has really nice fairly hi-res textures and it's on a 64mb console.
If they can do this with 64mb:
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/613/613045/new-chaos-theory-levels-revealed-20050512000738631.jpg
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/592/592847/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-chaos-theory-20050302044530766.jpg
I expect extremely nice looking textures with 512, PC comparisons notwithstanding.
cloudscapes - I don't see how you can compare PC ram to Console ram. Look what xbox did with just 64mb. What PC w/ 64mb(combined!) could ever run gfx like FarCry or Splinter Cell 3? Hell, SC: 3 has really nice fairly hi-res textures and it's on a 64mb console.
If they can do this with 64mb:
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/613/613045/new-chaos-theory-levels-revealed-20050512000738631.jpg
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/592/592847/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-chaos-theory-20050302044530766.jpg
I expect extremely nice looking textures with 512, PC comparisons notwithstanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
fearsomepirate said:
I mostly agree. I would probably more fully agree if I had more to base my "next-gen" observations on, however. I couldn't agree with Carmack and you more (what fine company you keep! :smile
. It is about the light. However, I would add that fluid motion and HDR will really help. Now that we are at a point of transition, seeing lots of lighting effects without a truly unified lighting system, I really notice these little flaws and they keep the games from "popping". We sit and count framerates for benchmarks, but how often do we stop to think about how many FPS the animations are running at? What's so great about 100+ FPS if the animations are stuck at 20?
I also feel that HDR will really help to bring out life in objects that otherwise tend to translate poorly to computer gaming. To behave convincingly you need a high degree of precision in the lighting. You absolutely cannot have noticeable banding because it will immediately create a cartoon cut-out effect and destroy the suspension of disbelief (But it's really the game, the story that should create this. The graphics just shouldn't hinder it from happening.) Furthermore, the washed out effect of tectures when realistic lighting is employed creates negatives that almost offset all the positives. This becomes more noticeable when you have dynamic lights and you have moments where it "oopses" (as in, "that shouldn't happen there...but hopefully nobody will notice"). Now, more than ever, we need more complex and fluid animations and HDR. Without these compoenents I think everything will tend to the cartoony and I mean that in a bad way.
I think Metal Gear Solid 3 is a really good example. Some of the cutscenes have these moments when the characters almost look alive. At some points you can tell the hardware is struggling and the "reality" hesitates with it. At other moments you feel it cut loose and suddenly... "POP!"... it's alive. Wonderful stuff. However, even with the skillfully applied bloom, you can imagine the refinement that better applied lighting would bring. The lighting feels two dimensional and needs more depth.
Of course, high resolution textures and more geometry never hurts either
(I really think we need a beast of a rendering system to make it all fall into place. Lots and lots of memory. This will hopefully happen on the PC before the next wave of consoles.)cloudscapes said:RAM-wise, next-gen consoles are the equivalent of a 3-4 year-old top-notch PC. Look at the texture resolution for top games from back then.
You have your answer.
Next gen memory capacity may be the equivalent of a 3 year old high end PC, but its performance and more importantly its usage isnt an equivalent at all. Development on an open system like a PC vs. the closed system of a console isnt very analogous at all. You're always going to get much more effecient usage of resources on a console, and that certainly includes memory.
"Nerve-Damage"
Regular
I think Gears Of War & UT2007 has some of the nicest looking hi-resolution textures (bump mapping, normal mapping, defuse mapping, ECT…) seen in a console game.
RAM will always be the culprit here, and unless the developers find a new way to magically compress textures even more without decreasing the quality, which can't be done on PCs, then PCs will always have the upper hand. Cause even if they do find a new compression system, it will be used on PCs too (first in fact), so it's back to square one. It's just the way it is i'm afraid.
Painkiller still has the best use of detail texturing i can remember, and it doesn't need enormous amounts of RAM. It's all about approaching the issue from a different point of view i guess. Lots of small very detailed detail textures applied to low res textures worked wonders for Painkiller, i'm not sure why not many other devs used the same approach or the same level of detail in the detail textures themselves. Most other games have detail textures, but they're not detailed at all!! :smile:
Painkiller still has the best use of detail texturing i can remember, and it doesn't need enormous amounts of RAM. It's all about approaching the issue from a different point of view i guess. Lots of small very detailed detail textures applied to low res textures worked wonders for Painkiller, i'm not sure why not many other devs used the same approach or the same level of detail in the detail textures themselves. Most other games have detail textures, but they're not detailed at all!! :smile:
fireshot said:
You mean plastic-y looking? That's just the result of normal Phong lighting which is still used in most games with per-pixel lighting and is the easiest and fastest for real-time applications.
Things will get better. Hopefully...
Similar threads
