Lol, what happened to gameplay first?
Well aside from having much higher resolution, better lighting effects, better textures and more particles, BF4 also runs at a consistently higher frame rate on the PS4.
So, uh, yea...
-
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.
Xboxone Resolutiongate (Eurogamer)
- Thread starter madmackem
- Start date
Well aside from having much higher resolution, better lighting effects, better textures and more particles, BF4 also runs at a consistently higher frame rate on the PS4.
So, uh, yea...
phosphor112
Banned
Shadows are definitely cast on the track and cars, we've seen that before. The problem is that they're low quality, and not truly being thrown by the trackside detail. They're just approximations, as you can see from the below screenshots:
It's because this isn't AO, not even a low-quality version. It is instead a simulation of AO, using a black shadow cast directly downward onto the track, no matter where the lighting comes from. Forza has used this technique in previous games.
Yep. It's weird crashing into a 3 foot high wall and somehow having the shadow from it cast on top of your 5+ foot car.
Did that really happen? I saw one of the demos and it seemed like the reflections on the top and sides of the car were not quite right. Like it was reflecting stuff that was too low on the horizon that shouldn't have been bouncing off the hood as a reflection...
Just think how silly PC gamers are feeling right now with their foolish 1600p monitors. To think that AMD and Nvidia were showing games running at 4k! lol, What idiots. At least people don't have to worry about the price of the R9-290x or GTX780Ti anymore, their current cards should manage 720p just fine.
cheezcake
Member
Rather than handle a texture as one gigantic file and dump it all into video memory at once, what happens is the texture is broken up into a number of smaller pieces (called Tiles).
In cases where the entire texture isn't visible, only the visible tiles are loaded into memory. Or if the texture is far away lower quality versions of the tile are loaded into memory, all of this means you end up being able to make use of really huge textures without needing a comparatively huge chunk of memory to store them.
Seriously though, if 720 is really that big of a deal breaker for Call of Duty?
I believe the implication of being 720P more than anything is worrying people. Although since most people buy 720P TV's from bestbuy, even if the majority of next-gen games run at 720P, it should be OK.
phosphor112
Banned
I'm not sure about FM1 and 2, but for sure 3 and 4 (both games I've played extensively) have that problem. The shadow maps are slapped on the map top down, not projected as if it were casting shadows from the sun.
EDIT: And unless they changed something very recently, 5 does it as well.
That's why you can see the shadow from the fence on the left magically showing up on the top of the car.
the rail on the left has three levels. since this is only a static pic, have you ever considered the possibility that the rail that is casting the shadow on the car is not the second rail (as in the one that casts shadow on the road, right next to left side tires)
but it shadow from the third rail?
you can see the shadow of the third (top rail) continuing right of the exhaust.
I mean, you've been pulling this specific photo, since the very first day forza 5 was announced. (with red lines and everything)
isnt it better to wait until game is finished and delivered before judging it?
or even, can you find this thing you claim in all three direct feed videos they recently published?
this pic is day 1 announcement from before e3.
"shadow maps are slapped top down"... really?
if they are "slapped top down" and that shadow is the second rail as you claim, please show me the slapped-down shadow of the third (top) rail. by what you say, it should be further up on top of the car. right?
(eventhough this is a fucking ANCIENT pic you are drawing conclusions from)
but it shadow from the third rail?
you can see the shadow of the third (top rail) continuing right of the exhaust.
I mean, you've been pulling this specific photo, since the very first day forza 5 was announced. (with red lines and everything)
isnt it better to wait until game is finished and delivered before judging it?
or even, can you find this thing you claim in all three direct feed videos they recently published?
this pic is day 1 announcement from before e3.
"shadow maps are slapped top down"... really?
if they are "slapped top down" and that shadow is the second rail as you claim, please show me the slapped-down shadow of the third (top) rail. by what you say, it should be further up on top of the car. right?
(eventhough this is a fucking ANCIENT pic you are drawing conclusions from)
phosphor112
Banned
Lol. Want to calm down? Anyway, look at where the second rail casts its shadow on the track. Now look at where it is on the car. Now look at the third shadow on the track, and now look at where it is on the car (look at the spoiler closer to the right) neither of those shadow should be there on the car.
Anyway, I would use newer footage but it's hard to find pictures or video that show those weird shadows that somehow show up on top of the car.
Anyway, I would use newer footage but it's hard to find pictures or video that show those weird shadows that somehow show up on top of the car.
you mean above the right suspension mechanism of the wing?
if this is the case, then still its missing the entire shadow map everywhere except the wing.
and this is a photomode pic (if even) from a version of the game that is well over six months old by now.
can you spot any of these things in the recent ("near final") direct feed gameplay videos? (true question)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maYgydivvSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFEdHskMkq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A4llEFK82k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wylArdU5o
if this is the case, then still its missing the entire shadow map everywhere except the wing.
and this is a photomode pic (if even) from a version of the game that is well over six months old by now.
can you spot any of these things in the recent ("near final") direct feed gameplay videos? (true question)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maYgydivvSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFEdHskMkq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A4llEFK82k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wylArdU5o
I edited and put those links for you. good night and I really look forward to what you find tomorrow
phosphor112
Banned
It's 3am. I'll have to try to find some footage tomorrow.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Yeah that's what I keep saying. Watch the videos not the snapshots
IGN has MP footage of both XB1 and PS4. In that video where they have them side by side, I noticed the MP map of the XB1 version is full of jaggies. Basically every edge on the screen didn't really look smooth or straight. Even though it's next gen graphics, those jaggies just remind me of current gen. And you don't have to stick you face to the tv screen to notice it. I have a 60" TV and I sit close to it so for me it's not gonna look too nice. I have a feeling it'll be aparent in smaller tv's as well. I think because of how clean the next gen games look with thinner and more defined lines, those jaggies just stick out more. For me it's an eye sore
Liabe Brave
Member
Well, Silverstone is overcast and Indy is near noon, so only Spa and Sebring really have shadows on track. And a lot of the running time of these videos is in cockpit or hood cam, where shadows cast on the car body aren't visible. Plus Youtube compression adds ragged color blocking to the mix. All this equates to very few opportunities to look for the kind of shadowing process in question.
That said, I believe you can still spot it. Here are two screenshots from Spa, less than two-tenths of a second apart. The sun is very low on the left and slightly in front of the car, casting long shadows across the track that slope back toward the viewer.
Car shadows are clearly fully dynamic in all Forza 5 footage we've seen, so as expected the left side of the Ferrari is much brighter than the obscured right. Then the car enters the shadow.
What should happen is that the left side of the car and any other surfaces exposed to the slanting sun should become darker, whereas the parts of the car already in shade (by the car itself) should stay the same. But if you look closely, that's not what occurs.
You can see here that even parts of the car previously unreached by sun are nevertheless getting darker: the rim of the sideview pod, the right part of the rear light, and the entire right body wall. You could possibly explain the sideview effect as due to sun originally coming through the cockpit, but that definitely doesn't fly for the other areas. The opposite-side light and panel would be fully occluded, as can be seen from this orthogonal view of the car.
To me, this suggests that possibly track detail shadows are calculated as slanting shapes, but then projected vertically straight down onto the track and cars. This would be akin to the Marathon-style projection HTupolev showed earlier (though much more sophisticated, of course), which makes it technically plausible. More suggestively, it's also like the underbody shadowing Forza itself definitely uses.
wouldnt that right side of the car change luminosity, since anyways it has a bicubic map that before car enters the shadow, the map SHOULD reflect the white wall on the right, while when being under shadow, the wall is not bright white any more?
I havent located the part of the video, but I am looking only at your photos, which are good enough to show what you mean.
if you can tell me at around which seconds of the video your shots are taken, then i will be able to say for sure.
I havent located the part of the video, but I am looking only at your photos, which are good enough to show what you mean.
if you can tell me at around which seconds of the video your shots are taken, then i will be able to say for sure.
hooijdonk17
Member
It could also be an HDR lighting effect, or something similar, automatically dimming the whole screen slightly when the whole vehicle is in the shadow? Have you checked whether the brightness of objects other than the car (objects that are in the light in both frames) changed?
Liabe Brave
Member
The consistently sunlit buildings on the right side of the track are equally bright in both shots.
The shadow that the car enters in the "shade" shot barely reaches and doesn't strongly darken the wall on the right side of the track. I don't think it's a reflection issue. My shots are from about 20 seconds into the video, if you'd like to look more closely.
thanks, I checked it out. (You are the dude that opened the topic about pixel counting, right?)
I think its because of what I said, the environment bicubic map on the right side of the car gets darker as the reflected white wall goes into shadow too.
to be sure, please check this for me: just a few seconds later, 28-31 sec the car takes a right turn and the sun is now opposite.
so you have to look at the left side.
you can clearly see that while the left side darkens in places, the reflection of the red & yellow curb clearly illuminates/reflects parts of that left side of the car, and the luminosity lowers as the car moves towards the center and does not reflect the yellows any more.
ps. and by the way, these videos are shitty compressed, but did you find a surface part that is good enough for some pixel counting?
if your middle arrow is correct, wouldnt that mean that as soon as the car moves away from the rail shadow, it will have no shadow at all?
I put up all the latest direct feed footage right above, which supposedly is "near final" build.
its gameplay, not photomode like above pic, not even replay.
better to focus on those videos to find whats good and whats bad in this game's graphics.
I put up all the latest direct feed footage right above, which supposedly is "near final" build.
its gameplay, not photomode like above pic, not even replay.
better to focus on those videos to find whats good and whats bad in this game's graphics.
Liabe Brave
Member
I see what you mean, but the change in luminosity there is not as high as in my prior example. Plus, look at how close the car had to be for the rumble strip to reflect: right on top, basically, but in my comparison the white wall is a good 30 or 40 feet away. And finally, while looking back over my shots I noticed that, in fact, you can see the wall reflection quite clearly! It's the bright white line that runs across both cars:
It doesn't change luminosity between the shots, and it wouldn't be the source of the dimming area even if it did. None of that is to say I'm definitely right; I could easily be wrong about how Forza is doing shadows. I just think there's no definite verdict yet.
I haven't tried due to the low bitrate (though I bet there might be some countable stuff in the open cockpit view of the Atom video). I don't really think it's necessary, though; I did count the Bernese Alps video that was just a little older, and found it to be full HD. I have no doubt whatsoever that Forza has always been 1080p and will launch that way.
given that I am not a very patient man when looking at badly compressed images for details, I'll take your educated guess
It doesn't change luminosity between the shots, and it wouldn't be the source of the dimming area even if it did. None of that is to say I'm definitely right; I could easily be wrong about how Forza is doing shadows. I just think there's no definite verdict yet.
the reflected wall seems unaffected by the shadows in its reflection, yet there is something changing the side's luminosity.
how some things de facto are, i guess we will know after we fool around with the final game for a couple of hours.
one thing I know is that these new videos seem a lot ..tidier in gfx, than what they showed 3 weeks ago.
phosphor112
Banned
Here is a gif I made of the new KTM XBOW footage.
The shadow in question has a large dark area and a softer gradient area on the left. You can see the gradient end of the shadow on the left of the center of the vehicle, which is where he drives over it. But if the shadow is being cast from the left to the right, you should see more evidence of the car being occluded by the shadow on the left side.
The shadow in question has a large dark area and a softer gradient area on the left. You can see the gradient end of the shadow on the left of the center of the vehicle, which is where he drives over it. But if the shadow is being cast from the left to the right, you should see more evidence of the car being occluded by the shadow on the left side.
Yeah, though this is such a rough approximation that it's getting into the realm of "kludge" or "stopgap".
Hey! You just took a shot at me didn't you? That's ok. Apology accepted!
This is the second time I'm seeing this guy getting banned. Does Bish find his comments too... spicy?
Here is a gif I made of the new KTM XBOW footage.
The shadow in question has a large dark area and a softer gradient area on the left. You can see the gradient end of the shadow on the left of the center of the vehicle, which is where he drives over it. But if the shadow is being cast from the left to the right, you should see more evidence of the car being occluded by the shadow on the left side.
thats very strange, I had to go look at the video like 3 times.
if its the turn at ~1:00 (I am sure it is), this "shadow" i cant understand from what it is casted, but it looks like there is actually NO SHADOW where the car passes, but only towards the right side of the road.
if you go just 2 seconds before what you picked, there is another shadow (trees shadow?), which we can see is casted all the way from the left to the right, and when car passes the shadows are perfect..
its hard to understand everything without a free cam, but maybe the one you picked is a shadow of an object ..hanging somewhere above? or a very thin and tall trunk, with the actual bushy part high up so that it doesnt cast shadows right in the middle of the track, but only in the right edge? what do you think?
here;s is the shadow i see as correct, and immediately after is the ..strange shadow in your gif.
>>>> http://youtu.be/SFEdHskMkq4?t=56s
what do you think about this?
also, did you observe stuff like this many times, or this is the single case?
phosphor112
Banned
Honestly that shadow is very weird. It looks like they're from trees. Which is why that blob shadow exists, but you can kind of see it gradient out to the left of that blob, and then you see several "lines" shooting out far left to the trees. Those lines don't look thick enough to be trunks, but it could be some approximated soft shadows. The gradient appears very briefly as a soft shadow on the "left" side of the car, but that massive blob on the right should also have been occluding the car on the left side.
The grey line that is angled is the angle the shadow of the building is being cast.
On the left is how things normally should be occluded (red indicating something that is occluded by a shadow), on the right appears to be the technique Turn 10 is using (and has been using) for Forza.
I'm not sure what shadow you're referencing to. Anyway, like I said, Forza has been using this technique for years now.
phosphor112
Banned
Tread lightly, this is a tech thread not "fun" or "enjoyment" thread. We've seen souls lost because of the same mistake you're almost going to make.
They had a XBone at the walmart I hit up last night. Forza was running.
While I didn't play it, I watched the demo for a little bit. Gotta say, did not look very impressive. Aliasing galore.
Worse still, I think the Xbone was overheating. Framerate kept hitching all over the place.
While I didn't play it, I watched the demo for a little bit. Gotta say, did not look very impressive. Aliasing galore.
Worse still, I think the Xbone was overheating. Framerate kept hitching all over the place.
phosphor112
Banned
I need to check my local shops to see if they have one. I'll play a couple laps to see how it's improved, but I want to do donuts and such to test out tire smoke and lighting, etc.
Yeah, I'll test it out next time I have the chance. Assuming it's still running lol.
It probably wasn't, but hope that is old code floating around.
The aliasing in the (better compressed) videos really was very noticeable. It is looking like they don't have enough horsepower to apply it though.
freenudemacusers
Member
those monsters
IHaveCandy
Banned
I did some quick photoshopping to see the difference between 1080p native and 720p upscaled. All I did was take a 1080p picture of Killzone: SF, resize it down to 720p and saved it, then resized that saved 720p file back up to 1080p. This is the difference it made. How indicative is it of real results?
Not very because you produced a supersampled 720p image. Games at 720p aren't going to be supersampled, but hopefully will have some sort of AA.
I think the gif you picked is of a case that is more like this:
and the video I put, it simply starts IMMEDIATELY before the proper shadow I talk about, and the next second it passes over your gif-shadow,
what I see as a tall tree casting shadows towards the right edge of the track, or the shadow of an object held high, like a sign or something.
therefore its correct
very easy to see, just click, and watch from 0:56 that starts, 58sec it passes over normal shadow, up to 1:01 it passes the "elevated" one, where your gif also ends
http://youtu.be/SFEdHskMkq4?t=56s
also, I ask again, did you find anything else other than the one you posted?
It's not. Taking a 1080p and downsampling gives free high quality AA.
Basically a 720p native image won't be as soft as that, but will also have more aliasing. Basically loss of detail and lower IQ.
phosphor112
Banned
Entrecôte;88591082 said:
They'd have to do it post process, which would take up buffer space.
Considering they are using a forward rendered game at 1080p, they'll be using roughly 31.6mb, leaving .4mb left for... well, they can't really do any AA with that.
I think FXAA can be done without any of that, but as a result, you get a nice blur that covers everything (see BF4 for PS4).
boot a pc game at 720p, grab a screen
boot the same game at 1080p, grab a screen
.
.
profit
Not that good, since you downsampled the shot to 720p instead of rendering it at 720p. That means that the geometry and AA and everything is calculated from a lot more pixels, so much more clear, then reduced to fewer pixels, then blown up again. That makes it blurrier, but it also took out the aliasing on the OWL in the process, for example.
If you have an image rendered using fewer pixels and then blown up, everything would be more jagged and more pixelated instead of simply blurred.
Err, I mean
Such 720p
Much awesome
So amaze
Outputting much 1080p
etc, etc
Green Yoshi
Member
Interesting interview with Mark Rubin:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/spo...-next-gen-call-of-dutys-resolution-disparity/
http://www.edge-online.com/news/spo...-next-gen-call-of-dutys-resolution-disparity/
phosphor112
Banned
My little painting was to just show that it appears that where the shadows land don't really matter how much is occluded, it just happens to occlude everything in the vertical frame.I think the gif you picked is of a case that is more like this:
and the video I put, it simply starts IMMEDIATELY before the proper shadow I talk about, and the next second it passes over your gif-shadow,
what I see as a tall tree casting shadows towards the right edge of the track, or the shadow of an object held high, like a sign or something.
therefore its correct
very easy to see, just click, and watch from 0:56 that starts, 58sec it passes over normal shadow, up to 1:01 it passes the "elevated" one, where your gif also ends
http://youtu.be/SFEdHskMkq4?t=56s
It's kind of hard to find examples. FM5 seems to have difficulty in shadows or something. Look at the beginning of the video where the XBOW is driving along the shadow with it going down the middle of the car, yet the lighting of the car isn't changed at all. So it's hard to find these things.
Even in the 600mb direct feed file that Turn 10 release a while back of the Alps, you don't see any shadowing AT ALL.
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_forza_motorsport_5_direct_feed_gameplay_alps-30878_en.html
So this shit is hard to find. The games lighting engine seems to be in works still because the thing is really a hit or miss.
Not that good, since you downsampled the shot to 720p instead of rendering it at 720p. That means that the geometry and AA and everything is calculated from a lot more pixels, so much more clear, then reduced to fewer pixels, then blown up again. That makes it blurrier, but it also took out the aliasing on the OWL in the process, for example.
If you have an image rendered using fewer pixels and then blown up, everything would be more jagged and more pixelated instead of simply blurred.
Err, I mean
Such 720p
Much awesome
So amaze
Outputting much 1080p
etc, etc
Yep, if people want to use 1 source image, they need to scale down to 720p then scale back up using "Nearest Neighbor" NOT bicubic sampling.
no, alps footage is old. cant use it for shit!!!
they showed this when the internet was RAGING with rumors about forza not being fullHD, run on pc's etc etc.
so, in the newer footage, all 4 vids I put above, not much really wrong, right?
where is this "difficulty"?
and your gif, I think it works exactly like I painted.
if you cant see it, maybe some other guys can chirp in too?
I would not really like to spend >30 mins to turn this into a gif..
I think its very obvious. video show it very well.
phosphor112
Banned
I wouldn't say that Alps footage is "old as shit" since it's only a month old, though the lighting of it isn't representative.
Anyway, I don't see how it's drawing shadows correctly, and yeah, more opinions would be nice.
Anyway, I don't see how it's drawing shadows correctly, and yeah, more opinions would be nice.
come on now phosphor, you are better than this.. first you use a pic from before e3,
and now the alps video which is not even near final build.
and even the above vids, they are not *final*, like case closed.
admit the game looks sweet
also admit there are no eye-popping gfx flaws. or find them
IHaveCandy
Banned
I just did this with Crysis 2, and I got the same kind of results. Everything in the upscaled 720p picture is fuzzier and more blurred in the same way the Killzone picture was. I didn't see an increase in aliasing. Is this because the screenshots are already a preset map of pixels that just soften when stretched?
phosphor112
Banned
come on now phosphor, you are better than this.. first you use a pic from before e3,
and now the alps video which is not even near final build.
and even the above vids, they are not *final*, like case closed.
admit the game looks sweet
also admit there are no eye-popping gfx flaws. or find them
I already said that the lighting in the Alps footage was broken and can't be used for a comparison. >_>...
Also, I think the lighting method itself has significantly changed since that initial reveal, just the performance aspect of things. Hell, we KNOW the game is a forward rendered game, simply because it CAN fit in that 32mb eSRAM.
I do think the game looks great. When the Spa footage was finally shown, I thought it looked fantastic. I also love the reflections even if it does show the z-buffered UI elements. It's clean, it's accurate. I'm just simply pointing out the flaws that I see in the lighting engine.
let me give you a clear example that you can see for yourself exactly what is lost 1080->720 in 10 seconds..
you got BF3? boot that in 1080p. wait for the mp closeup where the guy who shot you is shown really close to the screen.
notice the fine texturework on his uniform.
quit, reboot 720, replicate the above, win
now, I dont know how good microsoft's scaler is or is not. I dont know what new techniques might be devised for better AA as time passes.
what I know is this: screen resolution is like car engines: there's no replacement for displacement.
very cool 8)
IHaveCandy
Banned
Not that good, since you downsampled the shot to 720p instead of rendering it at 720p. That means that the geometry and AA and everything is calculated from a lot more pixels, so much more clear, then reduced to fewer pixels, then blown up again. That makes it blurrier, but it also took out the aliasing on the OWL in the process, for example.
If you have an image rendered using fewer pixels and then blown up, everything would be more jagged and more pixelated instead of simply blurred.
Err, I mean
Such 720p
Much awesome
So amaze
Outputting much 1080p
etc, etc
Ok this time I took a 1080 screenshot of Crysis 2 and a 720p screenshot of Crysis 2 and stretched it to 1080 size. Sorry for the window border. Only way I could get print screen to work.
