Xenos and its special features: Educated expectations needed READ: post #126!
- Thread starter liolio
- Start date
i must clarified something here, when i said that the RSX whipped the Xenos ass i did not imply by itself the RSX is better than Xenos in a practical situation, what i really meant to say was that the RSX +CEll in practice is a better combination than the Xenos +Xenon combination, and i think there is no denying the fact that RSX by itself is like a clawless cat but when it combined with Cell, it is a fearless tiger.
sorry about the awful analogy.
dantruon said:
Rofl.
What your saying doesn't make any sense.
First you make up some crazed GPU theory, and now your just drawing straws because you got to much negative rep.
When you said that the RSX whipped the Xenos ass, you did imply that the RSX>Xenos in a practical situation, there is no way in hell you meant something else, you mentioned specific PS3\X360 parts.
Basically, what your trying to say now, that in practice you think the PS3 is more powerful than the X360.
Its also fun, that you say "in a practical situation", because frankly, in practice, RIGHT now, the X360 is at least as good as the PS3 graphically (Gears anyone?)
Now, im not saying the X360 is better, but saying in practice, would imply the results we see right now in games...
Now, i believe that in theory, the PS3 is more powerful, and that eventually we will see results of this (aspecially in physics, not so much in graphics), right now, in practice, there isn't really anything that would imply one is better than the other.
I also believe, that Xenos combined with the Cell, would be a better design choice, altho it would mean the console would be even harder to work with
This is kind of ironic in light of the new demo. No free 4x AA for now I guess.
scooby_dooby
Legend
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
Well, that basically relates to the same thing that rounin quoted. It's free at the GPU in theory, with only the minor cost of having to re-process a small percentage of the triangles. The problem with the "free AA" statement is that it leaves software out of the equation. If the CPU has to shuffle data (which is something that is never a raw power issue), it can't be free anyway. If you've got the time to spare, it'll probably *look* free of course, but that's a case-by-case basis -- nothing you can say as being a general rule.
What makes me wonder is that you mentioned having gotten that impression from several boards including B3D. And I'm not sure what threads you were looking at where anybody said that the RSX+Cell combination "whips Xenos ass" let alone whipping it painfully. That too, whatever the combo of RSX+Cell does, you can theoretically do a lot of the same on Xenon, but it remains to be seen what sort of benefit that will really have on the 360 since you aren't quite as limited. I don't see backface culling in software on Xenon being that big a deal. Software skinning could be, not just because you move less data, but because you have a little more freedom to do more interesting things when you do it in software. Interesting things on the GPU don't come cheap.
The Forza 2 demo looks to not have any AA in actual gameplay. There is a lot of aliasing around. When the race is over the framerate seems to drop by about 30-50% (guessing) and there is some AA.
One thing I've noticed is that there is no AF. And, if you wander off the road, I've seen some horribly unfiltered mip map levels right in my face, right off the bumper. Even my non-techie friends noticed this and said it looked really bad.
One thing I've noticed is that there is no AF. And, if you wander off the road, I've seen some horribly unfiltered mip map levels right in my face, right off the bumper. Even my non-techie friends noticed this and said it looked really bad.
Mefisutoferesu
Regular
Are you sure? Xboxyde had a video for forza and it was pretty apparent that there was AF...
I think Scooby pointed out to me that the AF is on the road and not off, which is where I spend my time.
There's AF in forza 2, both gameplay and replay. In gameplay, the MSAA is dynamic, scaling between 0x, 2x and 4x to preserve the 60fps.
In replay, the framerate drops to 30fps and it gains motion blur and 4x MSAA.
che stated as of 2 weeks ago it was a flat 2xAA in game 4x in replay... perhaps they are still cheating occasionally though with the AA
Che has lied so many times about the graphics that he really shouldn't be considered a useful source of information.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya, I get the feeling he doesn't really know what he's talking about half the time.
Well, when you wander off the road, it looks like they decided that even bilinear mip map filtering was unnecessary! I mean, the filtering is so icky that the worst tricks in PC history pale in comparison. 
You can tell there is AA after the race, because the mountains in the background have a nice anti aliased edge. During play, that same edge is definitely aliased. Perhaps the TV is causing aliasing (a 50" 720p plasma)? It doesn't look quite like 2X AA to me.
FYI, I'm not trying to say the game looks bad. It looks great for the most part, IMO. I do wish they'd had the constant 4X AA and better filtering. 360 was purported to be able to handle 4X AA at 95% performance, remember?
You can tell there is AA after the race, because the mountains in the background have a nice anti aliased edge. During play, that same edge is definitely aliased. Perhaps the TV is causing aliasing (a 50" 720p plasma)? It doesn't look quite like 2X AA to me.
FYI, I'm not trying to say the game looks bad. It looks great for the most part, IMO. I do wish they'd had the constant 4X AA and better filtering. 360 was purported to be able to handle 4X AA at 95% performance, remember?
Last edited by a moderator:
Internet: Is that in-game graphics?
been mistaken occasionally, most likely
Che: Yes, I just paused and panned the camera around.
Translation: No, it's photo-mode.
Interpretation: Lie.
Always-on 4xAA, bub.
"Building it from the inside out, gameplay first, graphics later", bub, to damage-control the disgust of the press when presented with the graphics, while in reality they have been working exclusively on the fuckin' photo-mode and the gameplay graphics did not improve one iota.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Wow, and there goes every ounce of your credibility out the window. DISGUST? Have you played Forza?? Ya, it has some jaggies but the game still looks really nice. Talk about spreading a load of bullshit
If you're going to make completely untrue statements like that, you need to take a look in the mirror.#1. The final game has not even been released. So, what the hell are you basing this statement on?
#2. And the differences in replay-mode and ingame are very small, if you play the demo for yourself you'll see this. It has a little extra AA, some motion blur, and some depth of field. That's it. It makes for a subtly nicer looking scene, but certainly not a large difference by any stretch.
*Posting history and behavior can give great insight for interpriting a member's viewpoint in any given post/topic.*
My limited time with the demo I'd say the graphics aren't the best I've seen, but it is 60fps which is important for a racing game and it is simulating a ton so when taken into consideration, I'd say the graphics hold their own.
Regarding the texture filtering when off road, I honestly did not see a problem with the grass/dirt texture at all and thought it looked great. The 3d grass blends in well at high speed and looks ten times better than a simple screenshot would imply. The car models look good enough but the lighting is a mixed bag. At times it looks perfect, at other times (within the same race) it looks horrible. The trackside graphics looked much better in motion than the screens would lead one to believe.
Overall, I'd say for anyone that was/is interested in the race simulator genre, the game is great. Certainly worth a free download to check out for yourself.
My limited time with the demo I'd say the graphics aren't the best I've seen, but it is 60fps which is important for a racing game and it is simulating a ton so when taken into consideration, I'd say the graphics hold their own.
Regarding the texture filtering when off road, I honestly did not see a problem with the grass/dirt texture at all and thought it looked great. The 3d grass blends in well at high speed and looks ten times better than a simple screenshot would imply. The car models look good enough but the lighting is a mixed bag. At times it looks perfect, at other times (within the same race) it looks horrible. The trackside graphics looked much better in motion than the screens would lead one to believe.
Overall, I'd say for anyone that was/is interested in the race simulator genre, the game is great. Certainly worth a free download to check out for yourself.
*Posting history and behavior can give great insight for interpriting a member's viewpoint in any given post/topic.*
My limited time with the demo I'd say the graphics aren't the best I've seen, but it is 60fps which is important for a racing game and it is simulating a ton so when taken into consideration, I'd say the graphics hold their own.
Regarding the texture filtering when off road, I honestly did not see a problem with the grass/dirt texture at all and thought it looked great. The 3d grass blends in well at high speed and looks ten times better than a simple screenshot would imply. The car models look good enough but the lighting is a mixed bag. At times it looks perfect, at other times (within the same race) it looks horrible. The trackside graphics looked much better in motion than the screens would lead one to believe.
Overall, I'd say for anyone that was/is interested in the race simulator genre, the game is great. Certainly worth a free download to check out for yourself.
have you played the GTHD demo? if so, would you be able to compare them and suggest which one is overall better?