Xbox in 2000, will its graphics still reign supreme.......!?

[BenSkywalker]

On what piece of hardware? If it was something like a GF, then, IIRC, to get that performance those lights have to be very simple (eg parallel) which, I agree would be rather dull and boring. As I said, the GF had very good transform capability (at the time) but the lighting power was sorely lacking. Even today Elan's lighting unit would be competitive.

It was a generalization about having the option between the two in terms of hardware. You give developers the option to run 5x as many lights or 5x as many polys, the lights haven't stood a chance. This has remained a constant across all development platforms- PC, Console or Arcarde.

Which are generally rather static. That approach is certainly ok for the non-moving lights and/or for low tessellation regions.

Except it looks extremely poor compared to proper lighting for anything real time. Disjointed shadows work wonders to destroy realism. We are pretty much already at the point where developers are going to move straight from lightmaps to extensive shader effects for lighting.

Do you mean shader effects as in per-pixel lighting? You still have to do the set up for the per-pixel calculations at the vertices which is not insignificant.

Per pixel lighting was nice in 2K when it started showing up regularly in games, but the number of lights utilized has remained low despite the vastly improved performance characteristics of current hardware. What I'm talking about is utilizing various PS/VS effects in tandem with an increased amount of lights. I guess you could say that Dot3 or CubeMaps would fall under that general guideline, but I was thinking more extensive utilization of a combination of shader effects ala Doom3. It seems that all the games looming on the horizon utilizing a decent amount of lights are going to be far more limited by the shader performance then they are by setup calcs(which have a relatively speaking minor impact on VS performance).

Simply using multiple lights for the sake of multiple lights has never caught on with game developers, nor will it likely ever do so. Using additional poly simply for the sake of increased geometry has been constant since the start of 3D and will continue to be until it is no longer relevant in terms of count due to density. The same is not true of lighting. One light with true complete radiosity calculations will look a lot better then six, sixty of six hundred basic lights.

 

[V3]

I know absolutely 0 about Naomi3.

Aww, too bad I guess.

Also, is Elan T&L bandwidth limited ? or can you still double the clock rate and still used the SDRAM without going to DDR.

I wonder why PVR, hasn't release high end card like ATI and NVIDIA or even MATROX. Given the cost of cards are mostly due to expensive memory, PVR can get away with slightly more expensive chip.

Those high end card really leverage the low end card as well as improve company's image

 

[Guest]

The Naomi2 obviously included a reasonable amount of RAM because it was an arcade system. Arcade machines can usually pay for themselves in a month. They are meant to be better than home systems.

Compare the Naomi1 and DC. In terms of CPU and GC, they are identical, but the former has far more memory because they can afford to put more in. In terms of ports, however, what usually happened is that the DC version would use texture compression more agressively (eg 75+% of textures).

Yeah, that was what i am trying to tell PC here.



N2 specs(repost in case anyone missed it)
CPU: Hitachi SH4 200MHz (360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
GPU: 2 x PowerVR2 + Videologic "Elan" T&L chip
APU: ARM7 + Yamaha (64 2D Voices)
Main Memory: 32MB 100MHz 64-bit SDRAM with 0.8 GB/Sec
Video Memory: 2 x 32MB with 1.6 GB/Sec total (0.8 GB/Sec per PowerVR2)
Model Data Memory: 32MB with 0.8 GB/Sec
Sound Memory: 8MB
10 Million Polygons/Sec with 6 Hardware Lights
200 Megapixels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)
200 Megatexels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)

If you're being sarcastic then please ignore this reply, otherwise read on.

N2 uses cheap SDRAM. Reiterating what Simon F. has said, N2 based console also doesn't have to have the same amount of RAM as the arcade variant just as the DC doesn't have the same amount of RAM as N1.

Even still, the ports were identical. How did DC run perfect ports of N1 games? Easy, the arcade version of the game uses 25% compression while the console variant used 75% compression. That cuts down the RAM requirements in half compared to N1. In addition, again reiterating what Simon F. said, the arcade variant can afford to be more expensive so little consideration is put into making it dirt cheap like a console requires. That's why the N2 was so expensive.

Now looking at the above information, it's not difficult to see how a N2 based console can be made at a cost that's comparable to PS2 as it would only need half as much memory, cheap SDRAM to be exact. I'm pretty sure $250 would cover the costs of the additional RAM, second PVRDC, and Elan chip. These chips were not huge on silicon area either.

Like I've said before N2 in console form didn't make it to market to battle PS2 because it would cannibalize DC sales. Also SEGA wouldn't be able to eat the $150 cost to make it a mass market item. It's analogous to releasing Xbox II next year...suicidal

However the prospect of a N2 based console being backward compatible with the N1 based DC was very enticing. It would only cannibalize a portion of DC sales instead of total 8)

It would definitely fragment the market though

Sarcastic?
No. Just pointing out that using arcade HW as home console is not too economically viable.

 

[Guest]

Chap-

Features front---i take it as bumpmapping, AA, texture filtering and such?
PS2 GS is undoubtly very basic, but one thing to remember though, GF1, as we know it, might have a cool list of features, is it worth it to do them during gameplay?

What do you mean is it worth it to do them in gameplay? Play Giants or Mafia @640x480, runs quite nicely on GF1 level hardware.

GF1 can run the game w/ full texture detail? At what framerate? How about your other graphics settings?

If you are having problems with the game running on a system with GF1 level hardware drop the resolution to 640x480 and make sure you have enough RAM. The highest quality shadows can be a bit nasty in portions although the texture quality need not be dropped.

I meant, can you keep a stable framerates(30/60) in game, with all the graphic effects turn on(which affects performance more than resolution)?

I do not think there is any GF1 game looking and/or running as good as TTT/Bouncer/TMB/GT3/BGDA/ZOE1...
AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

 

[PC-Engine]

Sarcastic?
No. Just pointing out that using arcade HW as home console is not too economically viable

Nobody said a console would use the exact board as the arcade. The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1 does it? A NAOMI 2 based console would be similar to the NAOMI 1 based DC...VERY easily doable.

 

[zurich]

AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

T&L - Yes
SFX - No
mem bandwidth - system No, framebuffer Yes
fillrate - Yes

zurich[/quote]

 

[V3]

The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1

It should've Looking at some of the NAOMI to DC port, they should give both the same amount of RAM at least.

 

[Guest]

zc

 

[PC-Engine]

The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1

It should've Looking at some of the NAOMI to DC port, they should give both the same amount of RAM at least.

Specifically which ports are you talking about? AFAIK NAOMI 1 to DC ports were 99.9% identical.

 

[Guest]

AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

T&L - Yes
SFX - No
mem bandwidth - system No, framebuffer Yes
fillrate - Yes

zurich

Hehe, my definition of SFX == cinematic and particle effects.
For example, GT3 have all teh cool motion blur, heat haze, dust, environmental reflection, unseen in any GF1 game.

Correct me if i am wrong, PS2 large fillrate more than made up for the lack of 3D features on the GS. Apart from bumpmapping, what other 3D features can a GF1 do better than PS2, practically speaking.

 

[zurich]

Texture filtering, blend modes, and anything on the perpixel level (lighting)

zurich

 

[V3]

Specifically which ports are you talking about?

Most of them. Crazy Taxi, DOA2, F355, etc, Like you said its 99.9%, but that extra 0.1% makes all the difference.

 

[PC-Engine]

Most of them. Crazy Taxi, DOA2, F355, etc, Like you said its 99.9%, but that extra 0.1% makes all the difference.

Sorry, but I just don't see it. BTW I've seem Virtua Tennis in the arcade and it looked different, but not necessarily better. Probably has to do with the monitor that are used in arcade cabinets.

 

[V3]

Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Yet you said its 99.9%. I guess its like how most of my friends don't see the jaggieness on the early PS2 games, until you point it out to them.

Then I guess, majority of people don't really see the difference between VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2. So what's the point of having a slight advantage if majority don't see that advantage ?

Than you should wonder why N1 spec is different compare to DC spec.

 

[PC-Engine]

Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Yet you said its 99.9%. I guess its like how most of my friends don't see the jaggieness on the early PS2 games, until you point it out to them.

Then I guess, majority of people don't really see the difference between VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2. So what's the point of having a slight advantage if majority don't see that advantage ?

Than you should wonder why N1 spec is different compare to DC spec.

The 99.9% figure is based off of the fact that compression is used more on the DC version of the game. It's not based on what I have seen. What I've seen says 100% perfect port

VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2 is a BIG difference not 0.1%. The fact that PS2 isn't using N2 technology accounts for that difference.

N1 wasn't designed to show the difference between DC graphics and N1 graphics. It was created as a platform for quick porting to DC with little if any graphics downgrading

The difference between N1 and DC is the arcade experience not graphics.

 

[V3]

VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2 is a BIG difference not 0.1%. The fact that PS2 isn't using N2 technology accounts for that difference.

A big difference if you don't know it, is the same as no different at all, that's the point I am getting at.

N1 wasn't designed to show the difference between DC graphics and N1 graphics. It was created as a platform for quick porting to DC with little if any graphics downgrading

If it were the same spec, wouldn't it be even easier ?

The difference between N1 and DC is the arcade experience not graphics.

Well there are graphics different. Last time I listed them down, in game such as CT by putting the DC and the Arcade version side by side. That was ages ago. I can't be bothered doing it anymore.

 

[PC-Engine]

A big difference if you don't know it, is the same as no different at all, that's the point I am getting at.

But that analogy is flawed because VF4 on PS2 looks obviously downgraded from the N2 version. OTOH DC ports of N1 games don't look downgraded at all.

If it were the same spec, wouldn't it be even easier ?

If DC had twice the memory it would've been easier obviously, but it would've cost more to manufacture which wasn't an option. Again N1 was arcade tech so it could afford to be more expensive.

Well there are graphics different. Last time I listed them down, in game such as CT by putting the DC and the Arcade version side by side. That was ages ago. I can't be bothered doing it anymore.

Assuming there is a visible difference, that's only one game. That's far from most or majority. DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw. Bottom line is, the majority of N1 -> DC ports were 99.9% the same graphically...period.

 

[V3]

But that analogy is flawed because VF4 on PS2 looks obviously downgraded from the N2 version. OTOH DC ports of N1 games don't look downgraded at all.

Some of my friends can't tell a difference between PS2 and Arcade version of VF4. The analogy is only flawed to you because you can't see the different.

Assuming there is a visible difference, that's only one game. That's far from most or majority. DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw. Bottom line is, the majority of N1 -> DC ports were 99.9% the same graphically...period.

No, not just one game, most of the game that get the conversion, showed the typical downgrading.

DOA2 wasn't N1 ? what was it ? Model 3 ? Hikaru ?, System 246 ?, N2 ?
You don't play in the arcade alot from the looks of things.

 

[marconelly!]

DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw

Actually, it was.

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_naomi.html#doa2

 

[PC-Engine]

DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw

Actually, it was.

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_naomi.html#doa2

Still doesn't change the fact that it didn't look any different from the DC port

But thanks for clearing that up.

Some of my friends can't tell a difference between PS2 and Arcade version of VF4. The analogy is only flawed to you because you can't see the different.

Huh?? Read what I posted. I said it's obviously downgraded ESPECIALLY since it's not using the same hardware as N2. N1->DC ports are NOT obviously downgraded IF AT ALL!

BTW bringing your friends into the equation isn't going to support your argument instead it's showing that you don't have a valid one to begin with.

No, not just one game, most of the game that get the conversion, showed the typical downgrading

If that's what you believe then I'll just leave it at that. I think is OBVIOUS that a DC port of a NAOMI 1 game will be a lot closer than a PS2 port of a NAOMI 2 game since DC and N1 is basically the same system and ESPECIALLY when N1 is using 25% texture compression and DC using 75%. VF4 on PS2, however, was blurry and jagged among other things.