jimmyjames123
Regular
Why would the PS 3.0 pics be so much more detailed than the PS 2.0 pics shown for Far Cry? Any ideas?
Why would PS 3.0 pics be so much more detailed than PS 2.0?
- Thread starter jimmyjames123
- Start date
well, ps3.o uses a new technique that makes the textures pop out at you, although in reality, its just nice n flat
also, it looks damn better than the before picture because they ran the before pix on a fx 5950, which from what i hear sucks at running farcry (and on low detail, no less)
the water in the before shot does NOT look like what i get on a 9800 xt, at all
also, it looks damn better than the before picture because they ran the before pix on a fx 5950, which from what i hear sucks at running farcry (and on low detail, no less)
the water in the before shot does NOT look like what i get on a 9800 xt, at all
jimmyjames123
Regular
I figured that the other pic was based on NV3x settings.
How does the detail level on your pics compare to the PS 3.0 pics?
How does the detail level on your pics compare to the PS 3.0 pics?
Alright, here we go
http://www.azuretwilight.org/gallery/2004_04/FarCry0015
bump mapping in action, i didnt get any water pics tho, i'd have to play thru the level again ^_^ if you really would like to see them, i can get some tho
http://www.azuretwilight.org/gallery/2004_04/FarCry0015
bump mapping in action, i didnt get any water pics tho, i'd have to play thru the level again ^_^ if you really would like to see them, i can get some tho
Okay someone said earlier that the SM3.0 pictures of farcry have vertex displacement maps applied.
Now SM2.0 I'm pretty sure requires SOME hardward acceleration of vertex displacement maps but ati and nv pretty didn't put any support in for it. SM3.0 has vertex texture maps so basicly they can either use that method and it has to be fully hardware accelerated.
On the matrox chip that came out this time last year they showed off their displacement map support but since ati and nv put little support in their wasn't much uptake.
So yes it prolly could be done on SM2.0 but the hardware is slower.
Next for HL2.0 they made a decision not to have any multipass shaders and also stuck to the PS2.0 profile. Now many of the PS2.0 shaders are split into multiple copies with feature check such as with or without bump mapping using microsoft FX thing compiler. Atleast one case not all the shader effect options are aviable together some you can only include certain combination this is because of the shader instruction limit and the heavy plenty for multipassing. Now if they used ps3.0 then the penalty for having some more instruction would be much less then multipass and the developers most likely would have allowed the artist to use any combination of the effects.
Now SM2.0 I'm pretty sure requires SOME hardward acceleration of vertex displacement maps but ati and nv pretty didn't put any support in for it. SM3.0 has vertex texture maps so basicly they can either use that method and it has to be fully hardware accelerated.
On the matrox chip that came out this time last year they showed off their displacement map support but since ati and nv put little support in their wasn't much uptake.
So yes it prolly could be done on SM2.0 but the hardware is slower.
Next for HL2.0 they made a decision not to have any multipass shaders and also stuck to the PS2.0 profile. Now many of the PS2.0 shaders are split into multiple copies with feature check such as with or without bump mapping using microsoft FX thing compiler. Atleast one case not all the shader effect options are aviable together some you can only include certain combination this is because of the shader instruction limit and the heavy plenty for multipassing. Now if they used ps3.0 then the penalty for having some more instruction would be much less then multipass and the developers most likely would have allowed the artist to use any combination of the effects.
Re: Why would PS 3.0 pics be so much more detailed than PS 2
Edit: Here's my post. The consensus is that the first shots aren't SM2.0. The pairings are misleading, IMO, but I don't know who presented them to PCPer.
Which pics are you talking about? The PC Perspective ones? I haven't followed up on the thread I posted them in, but I find it almost impossible to believe the first shots used any shaders at all, let alone SM2.0.jimmyjames123 said:
Edit: Here's my post. The consensus is that the first shots aren't SM2.0. The pairings are misleading, IMO, but I don't know who presented them to PCPer.
caboosemoose
Regular
Re: Why would PS 3.0 pics be so much more detailed than PS 2
Agreed, those pictures are total bullshit. I've run the HL2 leak on a geforce 4ti and seen water which looks pretty much the same as in the so-called PS3.0 picture. The pictures on the left look like they have no shadig at all - no doubt they were provided nVidia, it's rather pathetic.
Any way, the effects in the PS3.0 pics are all achievable with PS2.0, I doubt Far Cry with PS3.0 will look any better at all.
Pete said:
Agreed, those pictures are total bullshit. I've run the HL2 leak on a geforce 4ti and seen water which looks pretty much the same as in the so-called PS3.0 picture. The pictures on the left look like they have no shadig at all - no doubt they were provided nVidia, it's rather pathetic.
Any way, the effects in the PS3.0 pics are all achievable with PS2.0, I doubt Far Cry with PS3.0 will look any better at all.
heres a nice bit of water, run on a 9800xt, in farcry
http://www.azuretwilight.org/gallery/2004_04/FarCry0017
further proof that nvidia is a bunch of scalliwags
http://www.azuretwilight.org/gallery/2004_04/FarCry0017
further proof that nvidia is a bunch of scalliwags
Similar threads
