• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PS3 games list & SPE usages

DarkUSS said:
If I recall correctly DICE started Mirror's Edge development on PS3 first, yet I believe the 360 version was better from a technical perspective.

I agree that PS3 ports aren't as bad as they used to be anymore. But still reading all these articles about the phenomenal power of Cell and on the other hand having some not-so-lazy developers struggle is a bit contradictory imho.


Multi console games are not a nice way to measure power and it never will,compare exclusive vs exclusive,since those are the tittle that for the most parts push the hardware the most.

After Killzone 2 was release i don't think that graphics arguments should be alive,not until something on 360 clearly beat Killzone 2,multi console games look better on 360,but the best looking games are on PS3,that about settle it.
 
drakesfortune said:
And the quincunx (or whatever) aa is fucking awful. It's almost worse than no aa. Personally, I'd rather have lower res textures, lower geometry count etc, and msaa x2 or x4 any day. I think that aa is critical to making a game look good. I'm not sure how they worked all that magic in Killzone 2, but that is truly a technical feat like nothing else. That game looks amazing from start to finish, and I still can't think of anything that touches it on a console.

The funny thing is, Killzone 2 uses Quincunx MSAA:

720p with Quincunx MSAA

http://www.guerrilla-games.com/publications/dr_kz2_rsx_dev07.pdf

Page 18.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
It's nice to have confirmed the improvements made with Fury. As soon as I started playing I knew some stuff had been bumped up.
 
Tormentoso said:
Multi console games are not a nice way to measure power and it never will,compare exclusive vs exclusive,since those are the tittle that for the most parts push the hardware the most.

After Killzone 2 was release i don't think that graphics arguments should be alive,not until something on 360 clearly beat Killzone 2,multi console games look better on 360,but the best looking games are on PS3,that about settle it.

In my opinion, Killzone 2 has already been surpassed by Uncharted 2. The art direction alone is fucking amazing and helps a lot, though I understand that its my subjective judgment. Your point still stands though.
 
iamcool388 said:
In my opinion, Killzone 2 has already been surpassed by Uncharted 2. The art direction alone is fucking amazing and helps a lot, though I understand that its my subjective judgment. Your point still stands though.

Uncharted 2 does look freaking sick, but let's wait until it comes out to make the finale judgment. :D
 
Lagpsike_exe said:
Uncharted 2 does look freaking sick, but let's wait until it comes out to make the finale judgment. :D

Haha true... but I played the beta, and it was HAWT! It melted my eyes. Ask other beta testers... I dont think you will find many people disagreeing with that. :lol

Seriously, I dont know what they feed these Sony first party developers...
 
iamcool388 said:
Haha true... but I played the beta, and it was HAWT! It melted my eyes. Ask other beta testers... I dont think you will find many people disagreeing with that. :lol

Seriously, I dont know what they feed these Sony first party developers...

No need to ask, I played it. :D
The game looks glorious already, but the reason I said I wanted to wait until the gold version hits the shelves is because I'm sure that ND has some insane stuff that's not being shown to press that will certainly melt our eyes and senses. :D
 

Doubledex

Banned
iamcool388 said:
In my opinion, Killzone 2 has already been surpassed by Uncharted 2. The art direction alone is fucking amazing and helps a lot, though I understand that its my subjective judgment. Your point still stands though.
Yeah, but KZ2 isn't even out yet!

But yes, I think Uncharted 2 will be the next graphic-king!
This game will be amazing
 
iamcool388 said:
In my opinion, Killzone 2 has already been surpassed by Uncharted 2. The art direction alone is fucking amazing and helps a lot, though I understand that its my subjective judgment. Your point still stands though.
They're both amazing technical achievements, but it's tough to compare directly in my opinion. Art direction-wise they're both going for totally different things.
 

Erebus

Member
Tormentoso said:
Multi console games are not a nice way to measure power and it never will,compare exclusive vs exclusive,since those are the tittle that for the most parts push the hardware the most.

After Killzone 2 was release i don't think that graphics arguments should be alive,not until something on 360 clearly beat Killzone 2,multi console games look better on 360,but the best looking games are on PS3,that about settle it.
This is right to some extent. However, one could argue that since NaughtyDog and Guerrilla, which are responsible for two of the best-looking games for PS3, haven't got their hands on X360 development you can't be sure that they couldn't possibly pull off the same (if not better) graphics on said platform.

I mean NaughtyDog is a very talented and competent team. Uncharted puts to shame almost all the other games available on PS3. Who can guarantee that they couldn't make Uncharted run on the 360 if they weren't working exclusively for Sony?
 

SamBa

Banned
Infamous interview

In terms of programming the PS3's Cell SPUs, what kinds of special bells, whistles, or features did they allow the team to create?

The Cell SPUs are ridiculously powerful. The phrase I use often is that they are a limitless abyss of computing power. Whenever we had real problems with the performance of our game, we’d pick a subsystem, move it to the SPUs, and the SPUs would complete the job so quickly it would effectively disappear from our performance traces. To give a concrete example, when players are playing the game, we are often decompressing 50+ MP3 audio files simultaneously. A handful are for music, but in addition each part of each sound effect is MP3 encoded too – and the SPUs are so powerful that this was not only possible, but didn’t impact all the other things we were doing on the SPUs already (visibility, particle systems, animation, mesh processing, etc). They’re incredible.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12491-Dal...am-behind-inFAMOUSs-success-new-industry-risk
 
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.
 

mr_nothin

Banned
H_Prestige said:
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.
But there are no games on any system that touch those games....30fps or 60fps.

Name a 60 fps game that looks as good as KZ2. To make it easier for you...name a game that runs at 30fps and looks as good as KZ2 =]
 
mr_nothin said:
But there are no games on any system that touch those games....30fps or 60fps.

Name a 60 fps game that looks as good as KZ2. To make it easier for you...name a game that runs at 30fps and looks as good as KZ2 =]

I'm not comparing CELL to whatever is inside the 360 or Wii. I was thinking about how Intel quads can run Crysis at 1080p, a game with far more advanced graphics than Uncharted and KZ2, at 60fps. Yet CELL is supposed to be one of the fastest processors around. I admit, I don't know much about how this stuff works, but I assume fps depends on how fast the processor is.
 
H_Prestige said:
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.

Because Cell isn't some wonderchip with limitless power. There's a quite a few things it can do but there are other bottlenecks in the system.

All these SPE usage comments seem to imply that you can speed up anything "if you just move it to the SPUs" and that's not the case.

Not to mention the developers have to specifically target a 60fps framerate in their design and cut corners accordingly to hit it. I get the impression most of them are happy with 30fps (if they wanted to hit 60, they'd go for it).
 

-viper-

Banned
H_Prestige said:
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.
What? Those games stay fixed at 30FPS.

Unless you play 32p KZ2 online.
 

inner-G

Banned
uh... do you know what kind of GPU(s) it takes to run Crysis @ 1920 x 1080 60fps?

The PS3's RSX is, if I remember correctly, like a souped up GeForce 8600.

Games like KZ2 and Uncharted 2 are testaments to the power of the CPU.
 

mr_nothin

Banned
H_Prestige said:
I'm not comparing CELL to whatever is inside the 360 or Wii. I was thinking about how Intel quads can run Crysis at 1080p, a game with far more advanced graphics than Uncharted and KZ2, at 60fps. Yet CELL is supposed to be one of the fastest processors around. I admit, I don't know much about how this stuff works, but I assume fps depends on how fast the processor is.
Computers can be upgraded overtime. Quads/Crysis werent around when the ps3 1st came out. CELL isnt the only thing that is in the PS3. It has 256 RAM holding it back....and a far slower graphics card. You cant compare 2007/2008's technologies to 2005's and expect to get a close comparison.

ALSO, CPUs in computers dont really handle the graphics. The GPU's do...
 

Pimpbaa

Member
H_Prestige said:
I'm not comparing CELL to whatever is inside the 360 or Wii. I was thinking about how Intel quads can run Crysis at 1080p, a game with far more advanced graphics than Uncharted and KZ2, at 60fps. Yet CELL is supposed to be one of the fastest processors around. I admit, I don't know much about how this stuff works, but I assume fps depends on how fast the processor is.

An intel quad core won't run Crysis at 1080p if the same computer has a shitty graphics card. Framerate is more dependent on the graphics chip of a computer or console than it's cpu.
 
Pimpbaa said:
An intel quad core won't run Crysis at 1080p if the same computer has a shitty graphics card. Framerate is more dependent on the graphics chip of a computer or console than it's cpu.

Ok, thanks. I thought it was just a CPU thing.
 

Dragon

Banned
H_Prestige said:
I'm not comparing CELL to whatever is inside the 360 or Wii. I was thinking about how Intel quads can run Crysis at 1080p, a game with far more advanced graphics than Uncharted and KZ2, at 60fps. Yet CELL is supposed to be one of the fastest processors around. I admit, I don't know much about how this stuff works, but I assume fps depends on how fast the processor is.

Well I think the thing you forget is the PS3's GPU is not very good compared to the current PC situation.

Edit: Beaten :/
 

Nizz

Member
H_Prestige said:
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.
With Killzone 2, are you talking about multiplayer? Or the game in general? To me Killzone 2 ran pretty smoothly. It had some dips when there was heavy stuff going on, like multiple explosions or heavy amounts of characters on screen in single player.

But for the most part it ran pretty damn smooth. Multiplayer, I'll agree that the dips can get annoying. Not on every map, I think online games run beautifully on maps like Salamun Market and Phyruss Rise, but on maps like Radec Academy or Blood Gracht, sometimes it's like it's more than the console can handle.

But to be fair, what game out there that's pushing graphics on consoles stays at a rock solid framerate 99% of the time? All games have slight dips at one point or another...
 
mr_nothin said:
I thought it was closer to a 7600 gt in terms of actual performance..

It does have the 128bit memory interface and 8 ROPs which is exactly the same like 7600, but it has 24 pixel shader units and 8 vertex pipelines, which is like 7800.
 

SamBa

Banned
H_Prestige said:
I'm not comparing CELL to whatever is inside the 360 or Wii. I was thinking about how Intel quads can run Crysis at 1080p, a game with far more advanced graphics than Uncharted and KZ2, at 60fps. Yet CELL is supposed to be one of the fastest processors around. I admit, I don't know much about how this stuff works, but I assume fps depends on how fast the processor is.

That has more to do with GPUs. The PS3 GPU is similar to the 360 GPU with regard to screen refresh. The Cell can take workload off the GPU and make it operate more optimised. In Killzone 2 they used the Cell to add a lot of cinematic effects and it runs perfectly smooth with motion blur. It only stutters with checkpoint saving. It's a great looking game, much better looking than Crysis in many ways. The same for Uncharted.

The Cell allows to draw more on screen at once, apply more post/pre processing effects, perform more complicated things at a time, etc. Fillrate is for the most part is dependent on the GPU.
 

RavenFox

Banned
DarkUSS said:
This is right to some extent. However, one could argue that since NaughtyDog and Guerrilla, which are responsible for two of the best-looking games for PS3, haven't got their hands on X360 development you can't be sure that they couldn't possibly pull off the same (if not better) graphics on said platform.

I mean NaughtyDog is a very talented and competent team. Uncharted puts to shame almost all the other games available on PS3. Who can guarantee that they couldn't make Uncharted run on the 360 if they weren't working exclusively for Sony?
I repsect your post Dark and good one it is but, 360 does not have the extra headroom the PS3 has. You have a processor that is capable of a lot more thus this thread. You have ram and bandwidth that is much faster and a HDD that is not optional in all machines. Xenos has the edge in areas but the not the complete package of its rival. Just recently the Supercar Challenge devs just went exclusive on PS3 because the wanted to push their engine. They mentioned the rain effects they have in the game are only possible on cell.
 

mr_nothin

Banned
Lagpsike_exe said:
It does have the 128bit memory interface and 8 ROPs which is exactly the same like 7600, but it has 24 pixel shader units and 8 vertex pipelines, which is like 7800.
Oh ok...yea that's what it was.
 
RavenFox said:
I repsect your post Dark and good one it is but, 360 does not have the extra headroom the PS3 has. You have a processor that is capable of a lot more thus this thread. You have ram and bandwidth that is much faster and a HDD that is not optional in all machines. Xenos has the edge in areas but the not the complete package of its rival. Just recently the Supercar Challenge devs just went exclusive on PS3 because the wanted to push their engine. They mentioned the rain effects they have in the game are only possible on cell.

I just think that's total crap.

How can someone say the 360 doesn't have as much headroom as the ps3? Where are the facts?
 

SamBa

Banned
About framerates:

'Modern theatrical film runs at 24 frames a second. This is the case for both physical film and digital cinema systems.

It is important to distinguish between the frame rate and the flicker rate, which are not necessarily the same. In physical film systems, it is necessary to pull down the film frame, and this pulling-down needs to be obscured by a shutter to avoid the appearance of blurring; therefore, there needs to be at least one flicker per frame in film. To reduce the appearance of flicker, virtually all modern projector shutters are designed to add additional flicker periods, typically doubling the flicker rate to 48 Hz (single-bladed shutters make two rotations per frame - double-bladed shutters make one rotation per frame), which is less visible.'

'In drawn animation, moving characters are often shot "on twos", that is to say, one drawing is shown for every two frames of film (which usually runs at 24 frames per second), meaning there are only 12 drawings per second. Even though the image update rate is low, the fluidity is satisfactory for most subjects. However, when a character is required to perform a quick movement, it is usually necessary to revert to animating "on ones", as "twos" are too slow to convey the motion adequately. A blend of the two techniques keeps the eye fooled without unnecessary production cost.'

So there are two different issues. Screen flickering (Hz), a 100 Hz TV will strain the eye less than a 50 Hz TV using the same technology (less flickering). This is more dependent on the display than the game system.

Frame rate is about smooth motion perception. Films at 24 FPS and motion blur look perfectly smooth to humans, the same usually for cinematic games.

GPU manufacturers have no intention to educate consumers. They want you to believe you get something extra when a game runs at 100 FPS instead of 50 FPS while 25 FPS can already look perfectly smooth to the human eye.
 

MultiCore

Member
SamBa said:

In reality, there is a large difference between games running at your suggested 25fps, and 60+ fps, and you certainly won't find me telling developers that it's ok if they make games that run at less than 30fps (On consoles).
 

carlosp

Banned
SamBa said:
About framerates:

'Modern theatrical film runs at 24 frames a second. This is the case for both physical film and digital cinema systems.

It is important to distinguish between the frame rate and the flicker rate, which are not necessarily the same. In physical film systems, it is necessary to pull down the film frame, and this pulling-down needs to be obscured by a shutter to avoid the appearance of blurring; therefore, there needs to be at least one flicker per frame in film. To reduce the appearance of flicker, virtually all modern projector shutters are designed to add additional flicker periods, typically doubling the flicker rate to 48 Hz (single-bladed shutters make two rotations per frame - double-bladed shutters make one rotation per frame), which is less visible.'

'In drawn animation, moving characters are often shot "on twos", that is to say, one drawing is shown for every two frames of film (which usually runs at 24 frames per second), meaning there are only 12 drawings per second. Even though the image update rate is low, the fluidity is satisfactory for most subjects. However, when a character is required to perform a quick movement, it is usually necessary to revert to animating "on ones", as "twos" are too slow to convey the motion adequately. A blend of the two techniques keeps the eye fooled without unnecessary production cost.'

So there are two different issues. Screen flickering (Hz), a 100 Hz TV will strain the eye less than a 50 Hz TV using the same technology (less flickering). This is more dependent on the display than the game system.

Frame rate is about smooth motion perception. Films at 24 FPS and motion blur look perfectly smooth to humans, the same usually for cinematic games.

GPU manufacturers have no intention to educate consumers. They want you to believe you get something extra when a game runs at 100 FPS instead of 50 FPS while 25 FPS can already look perfectly smooth to the human eye.


yeah but you are missing a point. The graphics rendered by a GPU are different the movies recorded with a camera. The movment and eveything else in movies is always perfect, every movment, every single object showed on the display is takes from the reality. For that reason it does not have to be recreated and everything feels real. But an animation in a game is recreated and will never be perfect. For that reason games must run much faster to create the feeling of reality. Movies and games are like apples and pies. They cannot be comapred to each other.
 
Lagpsike_exe said:
It does have the 128bit memory interface and 8 ROPs which is exactly the same like 7600, but it has 24 pixel shader units and 8 vertex pipelines, which is like 7800.

Also RSX is clocked higher than a 7800. Xenos has a 128bit interface and 8 ROPs too.
 

SamBa

Banned
Uncharted 2:

"I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on XBox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 percent sure of this."

"First of all, we fill the Blu-ray 100 percent, we have no room left on this one. We have 25GB of data; we're using every single bit of it."

"The fact that every PS3 has a hard drive is huge for us." He went on to describe how the game takes advantage of Sony's offerings. "It's the combination of Blu-ray and hard drive. You can play the entire game without loading. We don't require an install. We're doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can't do that on the Xbox."

"The ability to use the RSX [the PS3's graphics processor] to draw your pixels on the screen, then you use the Cell to do gameplay and animations—we kind of took the step of using the Cell process to help the RSX . All those things are done on the Cell processor," he explained. "It really helps us getting that quality of lighting per pixel; the amount of computation is pretty crazy."

Naughty Dog also used the SPUs to add physics to the sound so things occlude properly. That means that if you're behind a door, the sound will reflect that. Effects will sound different depending on where your character is in relation to the source. "All that math is done on SPUs to immerse players into the environment," he said. If you have a surround-sound setup for your PS3, this could very well be your new showcase title.

The other improvements from getting closer to the metal with PS3 development will be more easily seen by even those without high-end audio systems: better performance, and better AI. "We had a pretty good AI system on Uncharted, but we wanted to have more [non-player characters], we wanted to have also more enemies on the screen."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/uncharted-2-makes-ps3-shine-couldnt-happen-on-360.ars
 

SamBa

Banned
RiverBed said:
CELL is a beast. RSX isn't.

Crytek views the RSX as low spec GPU compared to modern GPUs but the PS3 as a high spec system. It is sometimes said the RSX was designed to not overlap too much with the Cell. Things the Cell is more suited for handling. The Cell has trades of a GPU but is more flexible.
 

jmdajr

Member
SamBa said:
Crytek views the RSX as low spec GPU compared to modern GPUs but the PS3 as a high spec system. It is sometimes said the RSX was designed to not overlap too much with the Cell. Things the Cell is more suited for handling. The Cell has trades of a GPU but is more flexible.

Sounds to me like a budget issue.

Same thing with xbox, they had to go with a cpu (in-order execution vs out-of-order) that wasn't what they wanted but could afford to balance with the better graphics chip.

Overall I'm pretty damn impressed with what naughty dog has done. Uncharted is for sure top 5 of this generation for me, no doubt. Cant' wait for the sequel!
 

SamBa

Banned
jmdajr said:
Sounds to me like a budget issue.

Same thing with xbox, they had to go with a cpu (in-order execution vs out-of-order) that wasn't what they wanted but could afford to balance with the better graphics chip.

Overall I'm pretty damn impressed with what naughty dog has done. Uncharted is for sure top 5 of this generation for me, no doubt. Cant' wait for the sequel!

Of course, pricing is a consideration. Top GPU cards usually cost more than the entire PS3 with very fast CPU, Blu-Ray drive, harddrive, etc. The PS3 already costs more to make than its being sold for. GPU makers can't do that because they don't earn royalties from software sales to recoup such expenses.
 

Erebus

Member
RavenFox said:
I repsect your post Dark and good one it is but, 360 does not have the extra headroom the PS3 has. You have a processor that is capable of a lot more thus this thread. You have ram and bandwidth that is much faster and a HDD that is not optional in all machines. Xenos has the edge in areas but the not the complete package of its rival. Just recently the Supercar Challenge devs just went exclusive on PS3 because the wanted to push their engine. They mentioned the rain effects they have in the game are only possible on cell.
Sure. Although, there are some developers that prefer to develop for 360 because according to them it's easier and more efficient. So who should I believe?
And that leads us back to my original notion, why bother with all the number-crunching super abilities of Cell when in reality most developers can't take advantage of them due to the bottlenecks of the GPU, RAM, etc or/and quirky programming language?
 

jaypah

Member
DarkUSS said:
And that leads us back to my original notion, why bother with all the number-crunching super abilities of Cell when in reality most developers can't take advantage of them due to the bottlenecks of the GPU, RAM, etc or/and quirky programming language?

because ND can take advantage? PD too. i mean certainly i take the words of developers who make exclusives with a grain of salt. "impossible on 360" PR speak means fuck all to me if you never intend to program for the 360 in the first place, they know where their bread is buttered. but looking at U2 i think the proof is in the pudding. it may not be leaps and bounds above what's on 360 but the difference is there.
 

SamBa

Banned
Crytek PS3 developer commentary (GameCon) about their game engine they intend to license to companies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oAtTu0e02s

Already looks more playable than on my PC. I think the environments look good but character model animations don't yet compared to Killzone 2. Maybe epic will start to feel the heat to up their efforts on the PS3 due to competition.

Looks impressive for their first efforts on the platform.
 
DarkUSS said:
Sure. Although, there are some developers that prefer to develop for 360 because according to them it's easier and more efficient. So who should I believe?
And that leads us back to my original notion, why bother with all the number-crunching super abilities of Cell when in reality most developers can't take advantage of them due to the bottlenecks of the GPU, RAM, etc or/and quirky programming language?

Well if you use the cell properly RSX no longer becomes your bottleneck. Again if you optimise your code well enough, the RAM limitations become a non-issue.

Also, since the beginning of this generation Sony has worked hard at sharing it's internal tech and making cell programming much easier. They developed the Phyre Engine, which comes free with the devkit, amongst many other dev tools that will and currently are helping 3rd party devs out a whole lot. Plus they have a whole dev team devoted to improving these tools as the generation goes on.

Unless you yourself are a developer who has worked on PS360 in the last 12 months, to say programming on the PS3 is harder or less efficient is simply pure garbage because you're simply not qualified to make such a claim.

Recently, devs (like Crytek and Id) have been making positive comments about PS3 coding, albeit agreed that they still admit that it does take longer to get the system up to par with the 360 versions of a multiplat game.

I'd agree that the 360 is most probably an easier programming environment for the majority of devs. But things have vastly improved on the PS3 side, sadly I don't really see Sony shaking this current negative image their console has amongst devs this gen.

On the other hand, as dev costs have exploded, for many publishers it's pretty much a given for them to support the PS3 platform (23.7m strong userbase to 360's 30m WW... hence PS3 has a 44% HD console marketshare WW and therefore isn't something a publisher can ignore). So since their forced to support Sony, many devs have taken the time to solidly get to grips with the hardware.

From many devs I know's experience, coding on PS3 just helps you improve your personal dev coding practices in general, and so will help you on what ever platform you go on to code for. Recent comments from Crytek have sort of echoed this sentiment.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
H_Prestige said:
If CELL is such a limitless power, then why aren't there more ps3 games at 60fps? As it is, even Uncharted and Killzone 2 struggle to stay at 30.

I didn't realize CELL rasterized the graphics.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
SamBa said:
About framerates:

'Modern theatrical film runs at 24 frames a second. This is the case for both physical film and digital cinema systems.

It is important to distinguish between the frame rate and the flicker rate, which are not necessarily the same. In physical film systems, it is necessary to pull down the film frame, and this pulling-down needs to be obscured by a shutter to avoid the appearance of blurring; therefore, there needs to be at least one flicker per frame in film. To reduce the appearance of flicker, virtually all modern projector shutters are designed to add additional flicker periods, typically doubling the flicker rate to 48 Hz (single-bladed shutters make two rotations per frame - double-bladed shutters make one rotation per frame), which is less visible.'

'In drawn animation, moving characters are often shot "on twos", that is to say, one drawing is shown for every two frames of film (which usually runs at 24 frames per second), meaning there are only 12 drawings per second. Even though the image update rate is low, the fluidity is satisfactory for most subjects. However, when a character is required to perform a quick movement, it is usually necessary to revert to animating "on ones", as "twos" are too slow to convey the motion adequately. A blend of the two techniques keeps the eye fooled without unnecessary production cost.'

So there are two different issues. Screen flickering (Hz), a 100 Hz TV will strain the eye less than a 50 Hz TV using the same technology (less flickering). This is more dependent on the display than the game system.

Frame rate is about smooth motion perception. Films at 24 FPS and motion blur look perfectly smooth to humans, the same usually for cinematic games.

GPU manufacturers have no intention to educate consumers. They want you to believe you get something extra when a game runs at 100 FPS instead of 50 FPS while 25 FPS can already look perfectly smooth to the human eye.

This post is mixing a lot of things unrelated to gaming, or even movies in the home.

Regardless, one of the standouts the needs to be addressed is:
Frame rate is about smooth motion perception. Films at 24 FPS and motion blur look perfectly smooth to humans, the same usually for cinematic games.

GPU manufacturers have no intention to educate consumers. They want you to believe you get something extra when a game runs at 100 FPS instead of 50 FPS while 25 FPS can already look perfectly smooth to the human eye

There's a difference between looking 'smooth' ... and temporal resolution. Yes, with significant blur you can do a decent job of masking a lower framerate, but at the cost of apparent resolution. Going with a higherframe rate improves the temporal resolution.

Also, it should be noted that 24Hz, even with motion blur, cannot create 'perfectly smooth' motion ... at least not at all movement/camera speeds. If you don't see judder in movies, then god bless you. You're lucky in many ways.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
DarkUSS said:
Sure. Although, there are some developers that prefer to develop for 360 because according to them it's easier and more efficient. So who should I believe?
And that leads us back to my original notion, why bother with all the number-crunching super abilities of Cell when in reality most developers can't take advantage of them due to the bottlenecks of the GPU, RAM, etc or/and quirky programming language?

Actually, I'm quite sure many devs could take advantage of it ... the issue is budget. When making a multiplatform title, you need to keep the engines as similar as possible. Because of that, most devs aren't going to be doing crazy things like using CELL to do post-processing, etc. On exclusive titles though, that's where they have the freedom to take advantage of such things.

I'm just happy we're starting to get to the point of parity for multiplatform titles.
 
Top Bottom