• 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)

V

viveks86

Member
Sword Of Doom said:
Limbo IMO is one of the most visually striking and atmospheric games ever made. Reminds me of a Fritz Lang film
Click to expand...

Then I'm sure you will enjoy this one. Coming to your PS4 in March 2014! :)

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/445804219/monochroma


nib95 said:
It's just a low quality implementation of Ambient Occlusion.
Click to expand...

Really??? Wow! How can it be "ambient" if it completely disregards ambient light? It's like the shadow has been hard coded underneath the car! There are points where the sun is almost behind the car and yet the shadow remains behind the wheels!


NBtoaster said:
Nothing particularly low quality about it. Dark ambient blobs appear under cars in real life!
Click to expand...

They can happen if they are completely under the car. This shadow is actually permanently behind the wheels. How does an AO shadow happen at that angle? There are points where the Sun is almost behind the car, yet the AO shadow remains stuck behind the wheels without any change in intensity. How is that? Shadow facing the sun?
 
Y

ypo

Member
B

Biker19

Banned
Salex_ said:
What's wrong with indie games? Even if you take them out and only include F2P/retail games it's still far more than the Xbone.
Click to expand...

RoboPlato said:
A lot of people don't count them as "real" games in order to make it seem like the PS4's line up is weak.
Click to expand...

Averon said:
Where did this notion come form that indie games are "lesser" and "doesn't count"? What's the difference between indie games and boxed games other than ad budget and team size?
Click to expand...

I agree. People that are automatically dismissing indie games don't even know if they're good. Heck, they could be better than some AAA titles.
 
S

spatenfloot

Member
SpinTheBluCircle said:
That is stunning.

A shrunken version just for effect:

KVX6jb4l.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what's the resolution on those charts? They both look fine to me.
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
Entrecôte;88527020 said:
Top is PS4.
Click to expand...
Nope. But don't feel discouraged about your observational skills, because...

HawksWinStanley said:
You're right, in this example just looking at a fraction of a screenshot, I can't tell the difference. They both look equally blurry and bad which still doesn't help the PS4 version's case.
Click to expand...
...actually, the One shot is unaffected and the PS4 shot is adjusted to match it. So to begin with, your previous insistence that One looked as good or better than PC was clearly mistaken. Second, you're wrong that this doesn't help the PS4's case. Because though to your eyes they're "equally blurry," in fact there's more detail preserved in the PS4 version. Open them in your favorite editing program and look at the histogram for proof.

So here you have proof of two more things: the PS4 version can be made to look indistinguishable from the One version just by adjusting sharpness and contrast; and no matter how "blurry" your personal subjective opinion, objectively the PS4 version retains more information, even when visually matched.
 
E

eddfromtheriver

Banned
Liabe Brave said:
Nope. But don't feel discouraged about your observational skills, because...


...actually, the One shot is unaffected and the PS4 shot is adjusted to match it. So to begin with, your previous insistence that One looked as good or better than PC was clearly mistaken. Second, you're wrong that this doesn't help the PS4's case. Because though to your eyes they're "equally blurry," in fact there's more detail preserved in the PS4 version. Open them in your favorite editing program and look at the histogram for proof.

So here you have proof of two more things: the PS4 version can be made to look indistinguishable from the One version just by adjusting sharpness and contrast; and no matter how "blurry" your personal subjective opinion, objectively the PS4 version retains more information, even when visually matched.
Click to expand...

T'was a trap!!!
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
NBtoaster said:
Neat, this video shows some dynamic shadows being cast by the environment. Obvious shadow cascades at the start and they are cast on the car.
Click to expand...
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:
816631_full.jpg

forza5_bathurst_03_wm-jpg.10682


viveks86 said:
They can happen if they are completely under the car. This shadow is actually permanently behind the wheels. How does an AO shadow happen at that angle? There are points where the Sun is almost behind the car, yet the AO shadow remains stuck behind the wheels without any change in intensity. How is that? Shadow facing the sun?
Click to expand...
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.
 
N

nib95

Banned
Liabe Brave said:
Nope. But don't feel discouraged about your observational skills, because...


...actually, the One shot is unaffected and the PS4 shot is adjusted to match it. So to begin with, your previous insistence that One looked as good or better than PC was clearly mistaken. Second, you're wrong that this doesn't help the PS4's case. Because though to your eyes they're "equally blurry," in fact there's more detail preserved in the PS4 version. Open them in your favorite editing program and look at the histogram for proof.

So here you have proof of two more things: the PS4 version can be made to look indistinguishable from the One version just by adjusting sharpness and contrast; and no matter how "blurry" your personal subjective opinion, objectively the PS4 version retains more information, even when visually matched.
Click to expand...

Hook, line and sinker.
 
Wishmaster92

Wishmaster92

Member
BrainZEROX said:
If I understood correctly, tiling is a work around made necessary because of the small amount of ESRAM on Xbox. It is not needed on PS4 because it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist on Sony's console. No ESRAM, no need to tile.

With that said, if you make use of virtual texturing, you can "tile" on PS4, It would probably even be more efficient than on XB1 because you wouldn't have to stream your data constantly from DDR3 to ESRAM.
Click to expand...


NullPointer said:
I don't think it needs to, since the whole expanse of that fast memory is directly available on the PS4, without jumping through hoops. You only have to tile your image when you're forced to break it down into small enough chunks to fit into the Xbox's wee tiny but super fast memory.

If I have that right.
Click to expand...

What i don't get is why is the esRAM a favorite choice for framebuffer? Why doesn't let's say Dice/IW (just an example) use the main memory (ddr3) for the framebuffer? And leave the 32mb esRAM for tiled resources? 32mb=6gb worth of tiled textures, why don't developers do that?
 
H

HTupolev

Member
Liabe Brave said:
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:
Click to expand...
That's bizarre. Considering how high-frequency those shadow maps are, I'm surprised they're not lined up properly.

It's making me wonder if they were baked for a build that used a different layout of trees, or something. I don't know. Weird.

It's because this isn't AO, not even a low-quality version. It is instead a simulation of AO
Click to expand...
Well, even a rough approximation/simulation/whatever of AO could still be called "AO". It's not like any of the AO that gets used in games is perfectly accurate; if it was, we probably wouldn't even bother distinguishing shadowing and AO.

The crazy thing is that if it is an attempt at approximating AO, it's interesting that people aren't even sure what it's supposed to be representing. A questionable approximation, I guess...
 
B

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
Liabe Brave said:
Nope. But don't feel discouraged about your observational skills, because...


...actually, the One shot is unaffected and the PS4 shot is adjusted to match it. So to begin with, your previous insistence that One looked as good or better than PC was clearly mistaken. Second, you're wrong that this doesn't help the PS4's case. Because though to your eyes they're "equally blurry," in fact there's more detail preserved in the PS4 version. Open them in your favorite editing program and look at the histogram for proof.

So here you have proof of two more things: the PS4 version can be made to look indistinguishable from the One version just by adjusting sharpness and contrast; and no matter how "blurry" your personal subjective opinion, objectively the PS4 version retains more information, even when visually matched.
Click to expand...

ocNPyzt.gif
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
HTupolev said:
That's bizarre. Considering how high-frequency those shadow maps are, I'm surprised they're not lined up properly.

It's making me wonder if they were baked for a build that used a different layout of trees, or something. I don't know. Weird.
Click to expand...
Except these shadows aren't baked into the track texture, as they do cast on the cars as they drive by. You're right it's strange. Despite a few jaggies they're high-quality enough that they could be prebaked...but they're not. And yet they don't seem to be thrown by real geometry either! I have no idea what this means.

HTupolev said:
Well, even a rough approximation/simulation/whatever of AO could still be called "AO". It's not like any of the AO that gets used in games is perfectly accurate; if it was, we probably wouldn't even bother distinguishing shadowing and AO.
Click to expand...
Yeah, though this is such a rough approximation that it's getting into the realm of "kludge" or "stopgap". :) Whatever you call it, I'm not saying it's an invalid approach; it's certainly better than nothing! It's so imprecise that even untutored viewers can notice, though.
 
B

Brad Grenz

Member
Wishmaster92 said:
What i don't get is why is the esRAM a favorite choice for framebuffer? Why doesn't let's say Dice/IW (just an example) use the main memory (ddr3) for the framebuffer? And leave the 32mb esRAM for tiled resources? 32mb=6gb worth of tiled textures, why don't developers do that?
Click to expand...

Because the DDR3 is too slow for framebuffer effects, and moving texture tiles from DDR3 to ERSAM takes three times as much bandwidth as simply reading them from DDR3. 32MB isn't worth 6GB of textures. That's a complete misunderstanding of how PRT works.
 
H

HTupolev

Member
Liabe Brave said:
Except these shadows aren't baked into the track texture, as they do cast on the cars as they drive by. You're right it's strange. Despite a few jaggies they're high-quality enough that they could be prebaked...but they're not. And yet they don't seem to be thrown by real geometry either! I have no idea what this means.
Click to expand...
When I said "baked", I didn't necessarily mean baked into the track texture itself. I meant it looked like they may have precomputed some shadow maps.

I'm not saying it's an invalid approach; it's certainly better than nothing!
Click to expand...
If it's noticeably artifacting, I'm not sure how it's "certainly" better than nothing. Seems like a reasonable topic of debate, really.
 
statham

statham

Member
Angelus Errare said:
Here ya go, open them in tabs. All I did was change the contrast to match the XBO version, and added a slight sharpen (also a good example to as to why not to use sharpening). Now PC version has magic hairs!

iM3JQzPRjOq6d.jpg

ibl50ZXL7l78ft.jpg


Original PC shot for comparison.

http://i.minus.com/iUCuOpg7jtYNj.jpg
Lack of high quality aniso-filtering.
Click to expand...
don't know what your trying to say, but playing this, you wouldn't notice any difference, I can barely notice differences in still shots.
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
HTupolev said:
When I said "baked", I didn't necessarily mean baked into the track texture itself. I meant it looked like they may have precomputed some shadow maps.
Click to expand...
Okay, I see. We're getting out of my (very shallow) depth here technically. Do games often do this, pre-compute casting shadows and incorporate them into the level setup as a separate thing from the geometry? I don't recall ever seeing such mismatch before, just wholly prebaked shadows that don't cast (but I could just have missed them).

HTupolev said:
If it's noticeably artifacting, I'm not sure how it's "certainly" better than nothing. Seems like a reasonable topic of debate, really.
Click to expand...
Yes, I should've said it's better than nothing to my eyes. The few times I've seen shots with no AO or this approach, cars look like they're hovering in the air just above the track. I find it very distracting. But others' preferences may differ.
 
M

Maximilian E.

AKA MS-Evangelist
Brad Grenz said:
Because the DDR3 is too slow for framebuffer effects, and moving texture tiles from DDR3 to ERSAM takes three times as much bandwidth as simply reading them from DDR3. 32MB isn't worth 6GB of textures. That's a complete misunderstanding of how PRT works.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. How fast is the minimum in order to handle frame buffer effects?

Have we ever had frame buffer effects in previous generations?
 
H

HTupolev

Member
Liabe Brave said:
Okay, I see. We're getting out of my (very shallow) depth here technically. Do games often do this, pre-compute casting shadows and incorporate them into the level setup as a separate thing from the geometry? I don't recall ever seeing such mismatch before, just wholly prebaked shadows that don't cast (but I could just have missed them).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about prebaking projectable shadow textures, but games absolutely bake various sorts of lightmaps beyond diffuse textures, all the time.

That's nothing new, either.

Here's Marathon, from 1994 (okay, it's the Aleph One emulator, whatever):

OsAQhMq.png
Click to expand...

The lighting isn't projected perfectly accurately (it occupies vertical volumes and doesn't have an associated direction), but it'll absolutely light+shadow enemies walking around, and that sort of thing. Doom uses a similar system. :)
 
C

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
ascii42 said:
Yes, but historically, consoles have had dedicated VRAM. The PS2 had 4MB of DRAM with a frame buffer bandwidth of 38.4GB/s for example.
Click to expand...

Really stupid question. People are using the ESRAM for Frame Buffers on the XB1. Is that information just on the PS4's GDDR5 RAM for those? Before you know it Frame Buffers are going to be inexplicably linked to ESRAM.
 
N

Night Angel

Member
ChiliManiac said:
Lol, what happened to gameplay first? o_O
Click to expand...
Oh ffs. Enough of this shit.

The gameplay of this game will be the same in both consoles. The graphics well be better on one of them (not the 'Bone).

Gameplay first literally has no meaning whatsoever in this thread. (Judging by your other recent posts, you have too much sodium in your diet.)
 
Wishmaster92

Wishmaster92

Member
Brad Grenz said:
Because the DDR3 is too slow for framebuffer effects, and moving texture tiles from DDR3 to ERSAM takes three times as much bandwidth as simply reading them from DDR3. 32MB isn't worth 6GB of textures. That's a complete misunderstanding of how PRT works.
Click to expand...

Thanks, i have another question, how did ps3 overcome this? It never had any cache.
PS3 Cell XDR bandwidth: 16.8 GBps – 24.9GBps (in practice)
PS3 RSX GDDR3 bandwidth: 10.6 GBps – 15.5 GBps (in practice)
Click to expand...
I don't understand Tiled Resources:
"Tiled Resources" allows for significant enhancement of in-game textures by making it possible to simultaneously access GPU and traditional RAM memory and create a single large buffer where large textures can be stored. This technique was demonstrated with a model of Mars which displayed a 3 GB texture using just 16 MB of GPU memory and in Graphine’s Granite Flight Simulator that showed "a remarkably detailed island with gliders constructed out of 64 megapixels."
Click to expand...
 
C

ChiliManiac

Banned
Night Angel said:
Oh ffs. Enough of this shit.

The gameplay of this game will be the same in both consoles. The graphics well be better on one of them (not the 'Bone).

Gameplay first literally has no meaning whatsoever in this thread. (Judging by your other recent posts, you have too much sodium in your diet.)
Click to expand...

Scare me further please with how my recent posts show your higher level of intellect. I'm waiting.

Nurse-Joker-the-joker-9202408-554-458.jpg
 
E

Espada

Member
ChiliManiac said:
Seriously though, if 720 is really that big of a deal breaker for Call of Duty?
Click to expand...

The real question is why would you pay $560 (console + game) to play Call of Duty at the same resolution as the games on your current console? No one is buying CoD because it's a graphical showcase.
 
H

HTupolev

Member
Wishmaster92 said:
Thanks, i have another question, how did ps3 overcome this? It never had any cache.
Click to expand...
The PS3's GDDR3 is fast enough that you can sort of get away with using it for render targets, but there's a reason that games on that platform often have meh transparencies. The eDRAM on the 360 wasn't an unmitigated success by any means, but it did have advantages.
 
C

ChiliManiac

Banned
Espada said:
The real question is why would you pay $560 (console + game) to play Call of Duty at the same resolution as the games on your current console? No one is buying CoD because it's a graphical showcase, so the next gen version certainly isn't hooking people with its visuals.
Click to expand...

Seriously...I'm looking forward to Ryse, I don't care if it's in 900p. It looks glorious and Dead Rising 3 looks fun as heck esp with the new footage that we've seen.
 
B

BigDug13

Member
ChiliManiac said:
Lol, what happened to gameplay first? o_O
Click to expand...

There seems to be this misplaced idea that if the PS4 does 1080p and XBO does 720p, then that means the 1080p game may somehow play worse than the 720p game That's totally true that it's "possible", but it also comes from the incorrect paradigm that the PS4's 1080p resolution is somehow going to result in a worse playing game.

Maybe that will happen, but I'm not sure how that can be true. The game is designed to play the same across all platforms. THE SAME. So now the only thing left to compare is the resolution, the framerate, the glitches, etc. Both controllers are basically fantastic so that's a wash. People want to cling to offset of symmetrical analog but the truth is that it doesn't matter as long as the controller is well designed. That seems to be the case this time with both systems.

So now you have a game that plays the same on both consoles, controls well with great controllers, and has dedicated servers across all platforms. So what's left? Resolution and framerate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hi-Fi Rush PS5 Review + Xbox Multi-Platform Releases - The Story So Far
2 3
112
8K
MisterXDTV replied
Microsoft teases ultrapowerful next-gen Xbox — and maybe a handheld
News 3 4 5 6 7
308
23K
MarkMe2525 replied
Windows Central - Sarah Bond has set up a new team dedicated to game preservation and forward compatibility
2 3 4 5
242
9K
DaGwaphics replied
Phil Spencer’s Microsoft memo on ‘Xbox everywhere’ — The Verge
News 2
83
5K
KungFucius replied
Next-gen Xbox is on track for 2026; features two SKUs including a Switch-like handheld, it's claimed
4 5 6 7 8
393
23K
tusharngf replied
Top Bottom